Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Baby Teeth Are A Source Of Stem Cells 53

Posted by timothy from the tasty-crunchy-and-useful dept.
Makarand writes "A pediatric dentist at the National Institutes of Health has found that baby teeth can be a rich source of stem cells. Just like the stem cells found in embryos from which all organs arise, the stem cells in baby teeth could be encouraged to grow into nerve cells, fat cells and the precursors to tooth cells. This alternative approach to harvesting stem cells from baby teeth could help researchers to bypass the moral debate over using embryonic stem cells for research."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Baby Teeth Are A Source Of Stem Cells More

Baby Teeth Are A Source Of Stem Cells

Comments Filter:

  • The world today.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by pnjman ( 640553 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @06:02PM (#5784831)
    Time to replace the tooth fairy with the multi-billion dollar medical companies.

  • Use teeth instead of blood from the umbilical cord (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For anyone who has recently had a baby, you're probably aware of the expensive procedure where the blood from your baby's umbilical cord is saved in case they ever need it.

    Would using the baby teeth be a cheap alternative to this for parents who can't afford the procedure to save the umbilical blood?
    • Maybe! More research is needed to see how versatile the stem cells found in baby teeth are. So far the researchers found the cells from baby teeth can make several types of differentiated cells, but these cells may not be able to make all kinds of other cells (medical jargon: they may not be pluripotent) like embryonic stem cells.
      • Doubt anyone will read it this late, but I'll amend my answer to make it more correct.... it is actually only the very earliest cells in a zygote that are able to make ALL other cell types, which is called "totipotent", whereas later embryonic /fetal cells are "pluripotent" meaning they have flexibility in their development, but probably not unlimited flexibility. It is believed that umbilical cord cells, and the stem cells isolated so far from adult tissue, are only "multipotent", meaning they can make s
  • "Just like the stem cells found in embryos from which all organs arise, the stem cells in baby teeth could be encouraged to grow into...fat cells..."

    So is that the genetic engineering term equivalent to chewing the fat?

  • Baby parts are good for all kinds of things (Score:4, Funny)

    by L. VeGas ( 580015 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @06:15PM (#5784940) Homepage Journal
    ...and baby eyeballs taste delicious sauteed in butter and garlic.

    ----------
    Oprah

  • So will parents be selling babyteeth now? Heck, some heath programs should allow them to save one tooth in a cell bank from where later it could be used to grow spare body parts.

    I wonder why its not possible to turn two stem cells into an egg and a sperm, fertilize and continue the cycle for a limitless supply. I understand if its split into an egg and sperm, there will be genetic variations from the original, not to mention it will be like marrying your identical twin, with bad results.. but maybe the

  • No (Score:3, Insightful)

    by falsification ( 644190 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @06:42PM (#5785185) Journal
    This alternative approach to harvesting stem cells from baby teeth could help researchers to bypass the moral debate over using embryonic stem cells for research.

    Not quite. If this turns out to be the case, it will mean that those of us against embryonic stem cell research, where the embryonic stem cells come from a fetus destroyed for this purpose, will have a new, even more devatstating argument.

    • Re:No (Score:2, Insightful)

      by rothic ( 596907 )
      This alternative approach to harvesting stem cells from baby teeth could help researchers to bypass the moral debate over using embryonic stem cells for research.
      Not quite. If this turns out to be the case, it will mean that those of us against embryonic stem cell research, where the embryonic stem cells come from a fetus destroyed for this purpose, will have a new, even more devatstating argument.
      Devastating argument against what? The original post was regarding the ability of scientific researchers
    • Moderated down again for stating an unpopular opinion.

      This Slashdot is a hellhole.

      • Well, am not moderating, but if I were, I might have moderated your post as "-1 unintelligible" I still have no idea what exactly you mean, or what you are opposed to or not. I realize clarity is not necessarily a virtue on /. but I think people ought to try.

    • Re:No (Score:3, Informative)

      by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 )
      Not quite. If this turns out to be the case, it will mean that those of us against embryonic stem cell research, where the embryonic stem cells come from a fetus destroyed for this purpose, will have a new, even more devatstating argument.

      Your use of even in that sentence implies that you previously had a moderately "devastating" argument in the first place, and you do not. Maybe this will give you an argument that rises above nonsensical (and you sure could use one of those), but to say it's devastating
      • Embryonic stem cells don't come from a fetus, they're harvested from an embryo.

        Of course that's right. I was using the term fetus in its less usual sense of the unborn human in all its stages from fertilized egg to full-term fetus.

        the embryo in question is not "destroyed for this purpose".

        This is wrong. When a fertilized egg is harvested for the purpose of using its stem cells, the entire blastocyst is used. At that point, the blastocyst is entirely composed of stem cells ("embryonic" stem cells). Aga

        • There is a highly significant difference between the purposeful destruction of an embryo for research purposes and the destruction of unwanted embryos in fertility clinics. The difference is the reason for destruction. If an unborn person, which is potential life, is destroyed for research purposes, that is unethical. The end of that potential life is undignified. The potential human cannot possibly give consent for becoming a research subject. The potential life is unethically treated by society as a means
          • OH what nonsense.

            I see you aren't willing to argue the ethical issues in a serious manner.

            "Potential life" is just a ludicrous concept.

            Perhaps you should inform the Supreme Court of the United States of America of that.

            • I see you aren't willing to argue the ethical issues in a serious manner.

              That's because I don't see any here.

              > "Potential life" is just a ludicrous concept.

              Perhaps you should inform the Supreme Court of the United States of America of that.

              The same clowns that decided Bush vs. Gore based on the outcome they wanted. So what court case are you talking about? Do you have a legal reference?
              Your implication, of course, is that Scalia et al are the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not ethical. Ironi
                • Falsification, No matter how many word searches you do on findlaw.com and tourolaw.com, it doesn't prove your point. You are equating dicta with findings. Dicta is just blather about how the Court came to its decision. It can be important, and is of interest, and can be quoted in legal briefs, but it does not work as legal precedent, which is the meat of any decision. Only findings can be the basis of legal precedent. There was no finding of legal meaning for the term "potential life," in either of th
                  • Welcome back to real life. I was making an ethical point, not a legal one. I thought that was obvious, but apparently not to everyone.
                    • You're right, it isn't evident to everyone. Especially people who can read. You were the one who suggested that your terminology was supported by the USSC. I guess you assumed no one would be willing to read the decisions to see if they supported your assertion. Ooops!
                    • Run along, son. I hope you realize that the Supreme Court does not rule on ethical disputes. My point about the Supreme Court was in response to some jerkoff who said that no respectable opinion could hold that there is any such thing as "potential life." To the extent that the Supreme Court talked about it positively, I showed how that statement was in error. Only a jackass such as yourself could find in any way a legal statement made by me in any of this. If you want legal advice, talk to a lawyer. If you
    • Stem cells are not all equivalent. See my writeup here [slashdot.org]
  • First of all, stem cells have been known to be other places than just in the destroyed "embryo" - a cute way of saying aborted baby - for quite some time now. Bone marrow, skin cells, placenta, and even body fat can produce the same stem cells that are found in developing babies in the womb. There is not feasable reason to destroy life in order to save others. Life does begin at conception, and therefore destroying on life for the benefit of another does not make much sense.

    Second, the promise of stem ce
    • One more thing I forgot: my sources.
      I got all of my information from here [family.org].

      My apologies.

    • Re:Stem Cell Uses and Origions (Score:5, Informative)

      by norton_I ( 64015 ) <hobbes@utrek.dhs.org> on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @08:00PM (#5785829)
      Anti-stem cell propoganda point #1 "stem cells come from aborted baby." This is just plain wrong. By the time you know you are pregnent, it is really too late to use the fetus for stem cells. Most (all?) research stem cells have come from fertility clinics where several harvested eggs are fertalized in vitro, then the most viable is re-implanted into the woman and comes to turn, while the others would be incinerated.

      Now, you are free to say that is wrong, or even call it abortion, but firstly it is much different than a "traditional" abortion where the embryo is destroyed and/or removed from a woman's uterus, and secondly, I don't see anyone trying to ban fertility clinics.

      My personal feeling is that the primary instigators of the anti-stem cell movement are actually against stem cell research because they view it as playing God and meddling in affairs we have no right to. I respect that opinion, but to disguise it as protecting the lives of "innocent children" is duplicitous.

      Also, stem cell research has only been going on in a real fashion for a couple of years now, and it is one of the most promising leads in medicine and science, both for it potential to repair people and to understand how life works -- two of the most important things we do as humans. It has shown incredibal potential in laboratory animals, and the fact is it takes time to develop treatments for humans precicely because of the ethical questions in human testing, and the care researchers take to insure they are not placing their test subjects in undue risk. To write it off because it hasn't saved anybody's life yet is short sighted and naive.

      Incedentally, and totally off topic, I actually think life begins well before conception, and that every cell in every creature is alive, and a beautiful mystery of the universe, including gammetes. However, this doesn't stop me from eating meat or vegtables, killing incects, taking antibiotics, using birth control, or supporting the rights of women to have abortions. The question is, when does human life begin, and the only things I am pretty sure of are that it isn't before conception or after birth. I suspect it is not particuarly close to either one of those extremes, though.

      Death is a natural part of life (the last part...), and even killing: we kill plants and animals to eat and stay alive, we kill animals and bacteria that try to kill us, we step on countless incects without realizing it, untold numbers of animals die as roadkill because they don't know better and we don't think it is important enough not to build highways, and we kill each other for a variety of reasons. While I am all about keeping killing to a minimum, at the end of the day the only thing I really care about is that the human species doesn't die, and to that end I also think that we should try to stop killing born people before we worry to much about the unborn, or the non-human/non-sentient.
      • First of all, I am not anti-stem cell. Second of all, I do not read propaganda anymore than you do.

        Third, I do not see it as meddling in the afairs of God. This is good research, and if it is viable, is good. So do many others. The place where the "playing God" comes into effect is stuff that is not essentially fesable yet, like genetic manipulations, or cloning. Both raise huge ethical questions that can be reasoned outside of using any theological argument.

        To address the off topic portions: when I s
        • Glad to see someone who thinks rationally about these issues, though I have to say I don't think there is anything wrong with genetic manipulation or cloning either, except that as you say we don't know enough about them yet to do so in a safe manner taking into accound the important ethical issues they raise.

          But I see the process of fertilization as only important in a rather clinical/genetic sense. The fusion of an egg and sperm does produce something genetically distinct from the predecesors, but every
          • My great uncle has said (mostly jokinly, of course) that life doesn't begin with either conception or birth, but only when the parents start refering to their child by its name, rather than "the baby." He says that is the point where they recognize "the baby" as not just a creature to be cared for, but as a person with its own unique personality.

            Someone I know once said he thought that abortion should be allowed up until the child is about age 12. That way, if you get a dud, you can abort it and try agai

    • Life does begin at conception...

      Personally, I have a hard time thinking of something without a brain as a human being. An anencephalic baby, for example, seems like a failed attempt at a human. So, a blastula, whether implanted or not, even in the early stages of differentiation, can't be a person, even if it's composed of human tissue.

      Before the brain is formed (~30 days), I don't really have a problem with abortion. Regrettable, certainly, but it's not murder or anything like that.

      I don't know what

      • In Biology, I learned that one life cannot transform itself into something else. Therefore if a baby comes out after 9 months, then 9 months ago, when those two different cells combined and formed a new, complete, totally different cell, therefore it is human. It is life whether or not it has a brain. The only difference between a blastula and an amoeba is that a blastula is actually a human, and then by definition a person. One cannot say that one person is not a person because he or she is not far enough
        • It is life whether or not it has a brain. The only difference between a blastula and an amoeba is that a blastula is actually a human, and then by definition a person.

          Uh, no. You shed millions of live cells every day. Each one of them has your complete genetic code, and is definitely alive for at least a while. Are each of them human? In theory, they could be used to generate a clone of you - should you live in a vacuum bag and preserve all these potential people?

          You cut off the hand and it is still a h

        • In Economics I learned that resources are limited. Combine that with biology and you get natural selection. Now with natural selection you have more offspring born than can possibly be supported by the limited resources. So, some offspring make it(the strong, atleast in terms of the current state), and some don't(the weak). This is a cruel, but efficient way of ensuring the species survives.

          Now lets apply this to the current topic. Killing unborn fetuses or embryos(it does not matter in this case) is

        • In Biology, I learned that one life cannot transform itself into something else.

          Then your biology teachers were remarkable ignorant. All life is constantly transforming. Organisms grow and die, changing size and shape (sometimes radially - think catepillar to butterfly) along the way.

          On the cellular level, single cells spilt in two. In some organisms two cells merge into one, or two cells swap DNA. Cells differentiate.

          Everything changes. That's why today, life is more than a puddle of primordial uck

    • Life does begin at conception, and therefore destroying on life for the benefit of another does not make much sense.

      Counter-argument 1: "What do you mean by "conception"? At the climax of the mating ritual? When the sperm and egg meet? When the zygote splits for the first time? When the zygote implants in the womb's wall? Where are the funerals, then, for miscarriages & zygotes that just don't catch?"

      Counter-argument 2: "Human life begins when the child enters this world, at the moment of birth.

  • Procurement of children's teeth. (Score:4, Funny)

    by s0l0m0n ( 224000 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @07:24PM (#5785557) Homepage
    Does this mean that it's once again legal to hunt children for thier teeth?

Slashdot Top Deals

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov

Close