Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Human Blood Cells Grown 78

Posted by michael from the vampires-rejoice dept.
exceed writes: "MSNBC has an interesting article on researchers that have developed the first human blood cells by growing embryonic stem cells in a culture containing mouse tissue which encouraged development of blood cells. The result, they report, was cell colonies that 'appear identical to those produced from human bone marrow cells.' Similar work has been done like this with mice, but this is the first time human blood cells have been developed from embryonic stem cells."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Human Blood Cells Grown More

Human Blood Cells Grown

Comments Filter:

  • I can see the paranoid rallying cry now (Score:5, Funny)

    by rknop ( 240417 ) on Tuesday September 04, 2001 @07:24AM (#2250898) Homepage

    Evil Stem Cell Researchers Work to Stop Red Cross Blood Drives!!

    ...followed by a long set of statistics about how many lives blood drives have saved and about how awful it will be if they stop happening, or even become less common.

    -Rob

    • Heh....have seen some similar rantings today following Hawking's recent remarks [nandotimes.com].

      Why is there always so much FUD when scientists mention genetics and the like? I personally have a hereditory skin disorder (psoriasis) - so I am very much looking forward to the day when my genes can be modified to get rid of it!
      • Will you look forward to the day when the gov't can modify your child's genes so she/he doesn't have any "tendencies to oppose the status quo" or "tendencies to favor independent thought over what gov't/business knows is 'best' for us"?

        This technology CAN be abused, and that would be a VERY BAD thing. Genetics can be used for great evils - imagine if Adolf Hitler had this kind of knowlege!
    • Hi Rob ;-)

      On the plus side, some day there may no longer be the need to collect blood from those dirty, disease-infested human animals, who are always so stingy that there are always shortages.

      -Craig

      Ban DHMO! [dhmo.org] -- it's a major component of that synthetic blood!
  • i hope that it's remembered that all measurements are +- something

  • Gene crossover ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by purduephotog ( 218304 ) <hirsch&inorbit,com> on Tuesday September 04, 2001 @07:30AM (#2250913) Homepage Journal
    I hope there is at least some study done on whether or not there has been any gene contamination from the mouse cells. There is concern that several of the strains of 'allowed' stem cell lines are already contaminated with mouse DNA and not viable for placement into humans...

    Perhaps a Genome project again?

    • Re:Gene crossover ? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by GreyPoopon ( 411036 )
      Yeah, imagine Mom's surprise when Junior grows a tail several weeks after a blood transfusion.


      Seriously though, do you think they can reliably search for contamination -- given that they can't even agree on the "normal" genome mapping? If the contamination is really difficult to find, would it really matter much?

    • No no. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tim ( 686 ) <timrNO@SPAMalumni.washington.edu> on Tuesday September 04, 2001 @02:51PM (#2252604) Homepage
      Our cells will not exchange DNA between themselves, or with cells of other types. Not naturally, anyway.

      The concern is that mouse cell lines may be contaminated with viruses that could infect human cell lines. Just like several new strains of flu seem to come out of China every year due to pig/people interactions, this type of contamination could have serious public health implications.

    • Having read a couple of responses from researchers in this field, I think that this is nothing more than proof of concept. The researcher himself, professor Kaufmann says practical use is several years away.

  • "appear identical" (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is the sort of thing political pressure is going to push this straight through the FDA, FTC, etc. and it's NOT going to be a merry occasion when we find out just why the researchers involved were so particular about their word usage.

  • Good research... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MeanSolutions ( 218078 ) on Tuesday September 04, 2001 @07:37AM (#2250926)
    Very good work by the scientists, but this by no means mean that there is going to be help tomorrow for people with bonemarrow cancer or other problems where bloodcells are of use. The scientists face years of work before they can have a method available that would allow large scale manufacturing of bloodcells of any possible type. And that is if they are allowed to continue their work that is.

    That flip-side of the coin is of course if this is just research that will lead on to something darker, more sinister. Personally I would much prefer if cloning of full beings, human or not, was prevented until it can be proven that the human race is capable of coping with all aspects of the philosophy and mindset around cloning. Unfortunately I can see this already being ruined by corporate greed and to be used as a tool by the rich to get richer and to "keep the masses at bay"...

    Cynic - who, me?

    • "And the devil flew from the dead mans mouth in the form of a butterfly..."
    • How exactly would you prove that the human race is ready for cloning, short of actually cloning someone and finding out? Do we run simulations, tagging a set of identical twins as "clones" and then see if the neo-luddites show up with torches?

    • *LOL* (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CrosseyedPainless ( 27978 )
      I don't think the human race has proven to be capable of coping with all aspects of the philosophy and mindset around, say, agriculture. Or living around other people. Or any number of things we've had around for our whole history as a species.

      You think we're going to do a full ethical analysis on *cloning* before getting into it? It is to laugh!
      • I don't think the human race has proven to be capable of coping with all aspects of the philosophy and mindset around, say, agriculture.

        Or sex itself....

        Maybe we can get rid of THAT and people will stop f*ing themselves up.

        ;-)
    • Well, good old Shrub (little Bush) declared human cloning illegal... I really don't see enough of a value in cloning to imagine a "black market" for clones...
  • quoted from article /because stem cells have the ability to continue reproducing themselves./

    I haven't seen that one before. If that is true can there really be a shortage of available lines? Or is the "shortage" simply exist because the taxpayers don't have to pony up for new ones or corporate intrest (meaning we ain't sharing)

    I like the fact that this guy did not use Federal funds, because it proves to naysayers that research can continue without them, mainly because of the importance of what we may find.

    You don't need government money if the research has such big payoffs at the end, and it only encourages competition to find these solutions.

    • Re:Can there be a shortage if they reproduce? (Score:5, Informative)

      by dragons_flight ( 515217 ) on Tuesday September 04, 2001 @08:41AM (#2251087) Homepage
      Stem cells do have the ability to continue reproducing themselves (for longer than we've ever studied if not indefinitely). The problem is that they don't grow especially fast and they are notoriously fragile. If they don't have the right nutrients, temperature, pH, etc. they will die. If each stem cell line could be coaxed into being a huge vat of cells then we'd have no shortage (except possibly too little genetic diversity amongst lines). More typically it occupies the space equivalent to a few petri dishes.

      Regarding federal funding, no researchers have that yet. Bush opened up the process to allow stem cell research to be considered (subject to his restrictions). It won't be until sometime next year when the requisite government bodies start approving projects and handing out money. The process itself typically takes several months to complete.
  • In our nation's capital this week: Blood donors, at risk of being "outsourced" protested on capital hill by slashing their wrists in an apparent attempt at a mass suicide. One of the protesters was overheard to have said "if there ain't no reason for giving, there ain't no reason for living" and "auuuugh I'm dying -- help!".

  • Good thing... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by manon ( 112081 )
    If they can have a major production of blood, the big bloodsortage in most countries could be solved AND the risk of getting AIDS by getting a transfusion will disappear.
    • Yes
      If it wasn't for the fact that the countries that have a shortage of blood and trouble with AIDS in transfusions are exactly those countries that cannot afford to grown stem cells. Therefore all it does is make life in the US (and europe) cheaper. This will *not* alter the living conditions in poor countries!
      • Therefore all it does is make life in the US (and europe) cheaper. This will *not* alter the living conditions in poor countries!

        I am confused by what you mean here. Do you mean that life in the US will become (less valuable) cheaper, or that the treatment and sustainance of life in the US for those who suffer bone marrow and other blood-replenishment problems will become (less expensive) cheaper?

        WRT the so-called "third world" you are right, if the Western style patent system is allowed to reign supreme over the entire planet then all of these publicly funded areas of research (as well as any privately funded areas of research, of course) will be patented by universities and private corporations and any treatments developed will remain out of reach of most westerners and virtually everyone in the "third world." However, this is a direct result of the inherent flaws of widespread government monopoly entitlements granted to businesses (and in the United States that includes Universities) and the monopoly pricing that ensues. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged flaws in the research itself, or any inherent costs in the methodologies developed.
        • WRT the so-called "third world" you are right, if the Western style patent system is allowed to reign supreme over the entire planet then all of these publicly funded areas of research (as well as any privately funded areas of research, of course) will be patented by universities and private corporations and any treatments developed will remain out of reach of most westerners and virtually everyone in the "third world."

          Two caveats:

          1) Patents have a limited life span - 20 years. Maybe we should reduce that slightly, but the point is that all IT eventually becomes available to all.

          2) "Third World" countries are free to do their own R&D to develop and patent new drugs, and sell them to the US.
      • Good point. What you are saying is correct.
        I just hope that the West is going to make it for them, cheap. But I guess it's just a dream, isn't it?
        It will be the same problem with the blood like with every other kind of support to poor countries.
        People, we live in a sad world when it comes to hunanity. BE MORE SOCIAL!
      • Oh come on. If blood production could be industrialised, perhaps to the extent that very little stem cells as starting material is needed, and thus be available for cheap, that wouldn't anything for third world countries?

        Charity organisation doing medical work in third world countries are able to buy basic drugs. Imagine the Red Cross being able to buy cheap blood in bulk and bring it in to disaster areas. They are certainly able to use anti-biotics large quantities. Why would cheap blood be any different?

        You are truly underestimating the effect of industrialisation.

        • What we are talking about is *not* basic drugs. For instance: antibiotics can be kept in powder at room temperature for a long time. Blood cells will have to be kept on cold, and have a short life span.

          Did you not read about the AIDS medicines in Africa? If you consider those 'basic drugs' how do you explain Africa is unable to afford them? Pharmaceutical companies are no charity mate.

          What we consider basic lab environments in Europe and the US is usually equipment third world countries cannot afford (a reasonable centrifuge costs about $7000, and that's probably the cheapest instrument you'll need). An uninterupted stable power supply is pretty essential too.
          Your dreams are nice, but unfortunately they are dreams.
          • Neither you nor I now what kind of treatments or drugs can come out of this, so none of us can claim anything about their forthcoming properties. In particular, we do not know what to expect about blood products that we can hope comes out of this research.

            There are big differences with drugs for fighting AIDS. The treatments based on those drugs go on indefinately, so the cost is substantial also for an industrialised country. One single blood transfusion can make a big difference for a person, and could hopefully be affordable by a western world charity.

            There is also not much of competition in the AIDS treatment business. As others have pointed out here, blood donations work pretty well already today, so if/when blood productions become industrialised, it must be made so efficiantly that the cost beats the blood donation system. This means price pressure in a way that we do not find on AIDS drugs.

            Even if a third world country can not afford the drugs or the necessary infrastructure for same drugs, they can still benefit from charities and UN programs. I may have nice dreams on this topic, but they are not unrealistic. You have dreams too, but they are just nightmares. Progress is not benefitting from such pessimism.

            • For your pleasure:
              At the moment there is a very high risk of infection in the third world through the use of dirty needles. Needles are *very* cheap compared to blood (even if it's stemcell freeze-dried multipack discount-of-the-day blood).
              If they can't afford needles, what makes you think they can afford US-made blood?

              Saying that a technology does not work to solve a particular problem is not the same as pessimism. Saying that a technology *does* solve a problem even though it probably won't, not only inhibits further work into this problem area (because the 'solution' is already there) it also gives false hope to the people actually having the problem.
  • If these blood cells, produced from embryonic stem cells, are identical to ones produced from human marrow, why couldn't we just culture these using human marrow? Yes, I realize the marrow extraction process might be a little painful, but it would eliminate any moral issues from the research. (Yes, yes, I know, flame away about being a reactionary conservative for even considering that there might be moral issues here and standing in the way of science. The fact remains, there are indeed some of us out here who worry about it.)
    • First, let me say that I'm a Computer Scientist, not a doctor or bio-anything, so my knowledge and understanding is limited.


      If these blood cells, produced from embryonic stem cells, are identical to ones produced from human marrow, why couldn't we just culture these using human marrow?


      A classic problem. A big part of the issue is a certain "safety feature" built into the cells of your body -- they can only reproduce so many times. This helps to protect you against cancer. In most cases, a mutated cell will only reproduce so many times before dying out. Obviously, malignant cancers have conquered this problem on their own.


      Now, there are stem cells available in adults (including in the marrow) that could probably used for exactly this purpose. However, it has been stated before that adult stem cells are not as "flexible" as the embryonic ones. I'm not sure if that would matter when producing blood cells.


      If anybody has any references to just what the problem is with adult stem cells, I'd appreciate a few links so I can do some reading.

  • Stem Cell News Webliography (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Stem-Cell-Resources
    "Researchers Create Human Blood Cells [chicagotribune.com]" using embryonic stem cells. -By Randolph E. Schmid -ChicagoTribune

    I got the link from:

    http://HavenWorks.com/health/stem-cell/ [havenworks.com]

    It's a webliography of stem - cell news.

  • This work & the stem cell debate (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hillct ( 230132 ) on Tuesday September 04, 2001 @08:08AM (#2251015) Homepage Journal
    Unfortunately, the findings of this research will take a back seat to this information, on most national news outlets:
    Thomson is a pioneer in the development of embryonic stem cells and his university holds five cell lines that are available for research under federal rules. Kaufman said this particular work was not done using federal funds.
    How namy institutions are able to carry out research of this type given the fact that only a few cell lines exist that are eligable for federal funds. While lack of federal funds clearly don't prevent research (as demonstrated here) the federal government is one of the largest contributors to academic research in the United states. The policy of the currant administration has made this type of research into a closed market, that only the select few may now work in.

    --CTH
  • I understand this is a Godsend for some rare blood types. But to think that this will eliminate the need for blood drives. Think of the formula: to get one pint of blood that can be easily be drawn from a volunteer for the price of a glass of orange juice, begin with stem cells painstakingly harvested from 150 fetuses (or is that feti?).


    Quote from SNL's Weekend Update:

    "Scientists have invented a car that runs on pecans. That sounds like a good idea until you consider that pecans are like $10 a jar. I've got an idea for a car that runs on Fabrige eggs and bald eadle heads."


    Today: UN Racism Conference Moved to FYAD Forum On EZBoards.com
    (http://www.ridiculopathy.com/index.php?display= 20 010904 [ridiculopathy.com])

    • Yes (Score:2)

      by 6EQUJ5 ( 446008 )
      People don't like needles. They hurt. And if you get an incompetent nurse, he or she can kill you with so much as an air bubble accidentally entering your blood. Rarely, a contaminated needle will infect a patient or a health care worker.

      And of course there were thousands of deaths from AIDS infected blood in the 1980s. Who says that some other blood-transmitted disease isn't lurking that we haven't discovered yet?

      I only trust the safety of our blood supply as much as I trust the lab technicians to properly test and handle it. Many of them are highly skilled at cheating their annual drug tests.

      • Re:Yes (Score:2, Informative)

        by jallen02 ( 124384 )
        Coming from my gf, the med school student.

        Yes air in your blood stream can and will kill you. It actually would take some real effort however. First it needs to make it into a main vein. Then it needs too be enough air, not just a small bubble but probably an entire needle full. Its impossible too remove all of the air with shots etc. Most of it yes, all of it no. I don't know the exact amount of air but I do know that it is almost an urban legend since it takes some real sheer stupidity to kill someone like that. The hazard honestly is minimal. While no one has sat down and actually tried it it would most likely take effort to kill someone with air in a syringe.

        Jeremy
    • Think of CJD, the so-called human form of BSE.
      The USA and Canada no longer accept blood donations from people who were in possible BSE infected countries for fear of passing on CJD... so that's just wiped out quite a lot of possible stock, has it not ?
    • I think it is the industrialisation possibilities that fosters the excitement. The cost of a pint of blood is certainly more than a glass of jouice. Consider the work being done collecting the blood and testing it. A lot of manual interaction goes on here. Also, there seems to be a consistent shortage of blood.

      If scientists could get stem cells to grow faster and under a more controlled fashion, it could allow for a large scale industrial fabrication of blood. It would put an end to shortages and also probably lower costs. Instead of screening your pint of blood for HIV, typhus or whatever, a large batch could be checked for quality. This should be a big step forward!

      "Scientists have invented a car that runs on pecans. That sounds like a good idea until you consider that pecans are like $10 a jar."

      Hmm, the didn't say anything about the mileage, did they? :-)

  • NY Times article (Score:2, Informative)

    by Ms.Taken ( 324811 )
    This article [nytimes.com] provides more information on the subject, including potential benefits of this technology: infusing a patient with blood cells from a stem cell line could improve the chances that their body would accept organ transplants from the same source.
  • This is truly fantastic news. No matter where you are in the world, blood is a required substance which is in finite quantities, not to mention the different blood types which mean that you might be lucky and share a common group, or you might be unlucky and... well, not.

    If you don't share a commond blood group (A rhesus negative ? Is that one ? Can't quite remember) then not only could you find yourself in difficulty, once you are out of hospital you will no doubt be bombarded with requests for you to give blood... and often.

    Now toss into the formula the growing number of countries who won't accept blood donations from people who have been in countries around the time of the BSE crisis and you start to realise quite how needed this discovery is.

    One question that does come to mind... does this mean that certain religious groups will no longer have a reason to refuse blood transfusions, blood as in synthetic blood ?
  • Wow, Mr Landsteiner was truly ahead of his time when he named the blood types after their origins.

    Type A = Altruist
    Type B = Born with it
    Type O = Official laboratory
    Type AB = Abortion By-product

    And coming soon to a blood bank near you ...

    Type M = Mouse
    Type S = Sheep
    Type G = Monkey
    Type Yin-Yang = Various other animals of the Chinese Zodiac

  • damn... this is the kind of work i was interested in doing after college. At this rate, they'll have constructed every organelle known to man by the time i'm a junior. Time to find a new major...

  • Stem Cell Question? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dragons_flight ( 515217 ) on Tuesday September 04, 2001 @09:09AM (#2251153) Homepage
    The question I am about to ask may be horribly naive, but I am trying to be serious as this would have weight with me when considering the ethical implications of stem cells.

    Is it possible to take stem cells, possibly subject them to some procedure, and then reinsert them into a uterus such that they will function as a new zygote?

    Afterall a zygote (fertilized egg) is a type of cell, albeit a rather special one. Typically stem cells are harvested from relatively early in the embryonic development cycle, and hence are not far removed from the zygote. I know the possibility sounds like something out of Brave New World, but if I understand correctly identical twins do something similar. In the formation of identical twins, cells from the original embryo seperate at an early stage but continue developing to form another whole person, or at least that's what I've been told.

    Maybe it's a bit much to hope for, but maybe one of Slashdot's readers has enough background in stem cell research to comment on the possiblity I raise.

    • Re:Stem Cell Question? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by myc ( 105406 )
      In theory it's possible, but it would be extremely difficult. When sperm fertilizes an oocyte, the position of sperm entry plays a critical role in embryonic development; that is, the position of sperm entry defines the polarity of the embryo.

      Further, the oocyte is, for the most part, transcriptionally inactive. Many genes that function during embryogenesis are expressed maternally; the mRNA is expressed and stored but not translated during oogenesis until the gene products are needed later. To use a computer analogy, these maternal-effect genes are loaded into memory when the oocyte was still not yet an oocyte, and cached for later use after fertilization. A stem cell would lack such "cached" genes.

      This is not to say it couldn't be done, but a developing organism is much more than just dividing stem cells.

  • Hmm, great,... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jandersen ( 462034 )
    - if you have followed the development in this research there's nothing really fantastically incredible in this. A shame that you Americans can only use cultures that are contaminated with mouse cells.



    The real issue here isn't whether one can produce blood in quantities - this is probably never going to be relevant, really. But we are on the brink of discovering how to produce organs on demand, and how to repair brain damages etc. Possibly even from a person's own stem cells - even adults contain stem cells, and apparently some of these are more flexible than previously thought.



    The biggest hindrance right now appears to be 'ethical' scruples - this seems very odd to me, considering the total lack of any kind of ethics and moral that is common amongst politicians and religious leaders (yes, I actually said that). How can anyone blame, say, Jehovah's Witnesses for denying their children blood transfusions in this context?



    The ethics in this is quite simple to figure out, I think. What is most important: the very real benefits that this research will give us, or the concerns about the 'human life' that is destroyed when they extract stem cells from an already aborted fetus? Hell, each time you wipe your behind you discard more human cells than what we're talking about here.

  • Not to diminish the importance of this achievement, but I was wondering how far along we are with the development of mouse blood cells from human tissue?

    Humans have been donating blood for years, but very few mice donate blood because they can't read. I think they'd like to, but they can never tell where the clinics are or what hours they'll be open. It seems reasonable therefore for the focus to be on creating synthetic mouse blood first.

    I'm sure that if they mice out there could read this, they'd agree.
  • Unfortunatley, some of those who will be deciding if technology like this is going to recieve funding would rather bleed to death than consent to its propagation.

    "There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere."
    -Isaac Asimov
  • The research article is actually freely available from Proceedings of the National Academy of Science [pnas.org]. Here is a karma-whoring link: "Hematopoietic colony-forming cells derived from human embryonic stem cells" [pnas.org]

    At least the introduction and some of the discussion is readable for a layman like me. People with paranoid ideas about non-ethical and safety-blind researchers would benefit reading some if this. To quote:

    "The clinical promise of human ES cell-based therapies is great; however, because these therapies will be entirely novel, serious concerns about safety and efficacy will need to be addressed before human clinical trials can be initiated. The malignant transformation of cells that have been cultured for extended periods is a particular concern. "

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing ever becomes real until it is experienced. - John Keats

Close