Stem-Cell-Like-Cells Made Using Only Blood?

Adair writes "Newscientist.com is reporting that a UK biotech firm, TriStem has developed a technique to 'turn ordinary blood into cells capable of regenerating damaged or diseased tissues.' Their method transforms anyone's white blood cells into 'stem-cell-like-cells' which can then be coaxed into one of a myriad of healthy cells such as heart, nerve, or brain. Having made these claims for years, TriStem has recently provided proof to their claims, which some scientists who witnessed called 'stunning."' They have some more proving to do, but if the initial results pan out, the applications could be fantastic -- and without the stigma of traditional stem-cell research."

Used for cobra bite necrosis?

[Bob Cat - NYMPHS]

There was a guy on Motel William's show yesterday who had been bitten and had a big hole in his abdomen after debriding the killed flesh. He said a frend of his had used white blood cells 'and sumtin' and he healed in 10 days. Anyone know if this is the same process?

Re:Used for cobra bite necrosis?

[Dreadlord]

TriStem claims in the article that the technique can be used to regenerate many kinds of cells, including smooth muscle cells, on the other hand, I wonder if regenerating cells is all what the body needs to recover lost parts, because randomly generating cells isn't going to recreate the same organ after all, so there should be another technique to control how cells are regenerated.

Re:Used for cobra bite necrosis?

[Jesrad]

randomly generating cells isn't going to recreate the same organ after all

IANACellBiologist, but from my knowledge on the subject, replacing randomly the cells of a dying organ DOES replace it efficiently. It'd take a continuous, regular treatment over a few years but it would most probably work. From the article, TriStem managed to cure diabetic and immunodeficient mice with this method, ergo they managed to replace pancreas and bone marrow.

Re:Used for cobra bite necrosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, could they replace a foreskin?

Re:Used for cobra bite necrosis?

[Jesrad]

I'm afraid it wouldn't help with decayed teeth either :/

Awesome!

[bobo the hobo]

So I could like, inject this stuff into my arm and I'd have a super-arm that could like shoot laser beams and pick up mack trucks full of pianos?

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

This is Slashdot, after all.

[Scoria]

I'd have a super-arm

Many of the subscribers already do...

Better Yet!

[Lord Kano]

Everybody is Peter North!

Mods, if you understand this joke you're just as twisted as me.

LK

Something sounds suspicious

[Anonymous Coward]

I would check to see if these TriStem people have recently returned from Antarctica or a husky was doing the presentation.

Wow

[tsa]

If this is true these guys can make insane amounts of money. They patented [tristemcorp.com] their technique in 1996 in the UK and in 2000 [tristemcorp.com] in the US so we are left with a monopoly. Hopefully they won't exploit it too much.

Re:Wow

[Callan]

Only for a bit. Patents don't last forever (just longer than some would like).

Now, if they left it a 'trade secret', then it'd be different ;)

Re:Wow

[Jesrad]

It cannot be kept a trade secret if it is hard to believe technology. There's the same problem with "free energy" devices and antigravity devices, they require repeated reproduced experiments to be taken seriously, which can't happen if they won't tell you how to do it.

Trade Secret != Patent

[dmauer]

Clearly it's not a trade secret. But if it's patented, they're the only ones who are legally allowed to *use* the technology; all others must license the process from them.

Re:Wow

[vidnet]

If you invent something like this, you have every right to exploit it and indeed you should. They've spent a conciderable amount of money, and the patent ensures they can make that money back plus hefty bonuses if the idea is good (which this certainly seems to be).

If there were no patents, you'd either have to keep it hidden from everyone forever (bad for science), or let everyone know and likely undercut you in selling it since they don't have the huge debt of research behind them (bad for innovation).

glass half full

[Sean Clifford]

Hopefully they won't exploit it too much.

They'll want to make their $ back and a handsome profit on top of it; but you're right - companies are not "fair" about it IMHO. A better system to balance that out needs to be tacked on to patent law.

And in 17 years (depending on your country) that technology will become generic and commoditized. Inventors should be compensated for their labour; however, for the next generation the fruits of it should be ubiquitous.

So look at it this way: in a generation, thi

Re:glass half full

[sjames]

This is a perfect example of why patents should last for a length of time that varys with the field. As a medical application, it will likely take 10 years or more just to get it on the market. If it were software it would have come out in 1997 and be obsolete by now.

This is a lot less trivial and obvious than the patents most of /. hates as well. It sure took a lot more hard work and insight than one click shopping!

So I don't begrudge them their patent, and hope it helps them to fund further research.

Next step in longevity treatments?

[Smidge204]

Since we have some people looking into how sea urchins are practically immortal [slashdot.org], I'm curious if there will be some way to mix and cross-reference the two veins of research to come up with a longevity treatment...

=Smidge=

If this is true...

[Jesrad]

If this is true then we very well may be the last generation to have to die.

Re:If this is true...

[memco]

Isn't it kind of a societal law, that the longer people live, the later in life they wait to have, and the fewer children they have? Not exactly scientific, but it correlates well.

Re:Luddite opposition

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason God let mankind have intelligence.

So we can use it.

Ever see a Christian go to the doctor? Then your whole point is invalidated. If we were so picky about things "un-natch-er-ull", we would just pray. And die, as a result of being stupid. And then there would be no more Christians.

Maybe you need to start using your God-given intelligence.

Re:Luddite opposition

[A Bugg]

its "pray to God but row away from the rocks"
A Bugg

Re:Luddite opposition

[Daniel Dvorkin]

No, the fanatical Christians' whole point is invalidated; but the grandparent poster's point is right on the money.

Just about major medical advance in history -- dissection of corpses to learn anatomy, sterilization of instruments, immunization, anesthesia, antibiotics, x-rays, blood transfusions -- has met religious opposition when it first came out*. And over time, as the obvious benefits added up, these advances became part of "just the way things are" and almost everyone** stopped complaining about them. But new advances still set off the same alarm bells in the minds of the Luddites, who don't have the grasp of history to see what fools and hypocrites they are.

Plenty of True Believers will happily go to the doctor, take advantage of whatever the latest technology is that's available at that moment to cure what ails them, and then go home and bitch about Those Damn Scientists Interfering With The Will By Meddling With Things Man Was Not Meant To Know. And because of this behavior, unfortunately, there's no selective pressure for that kind of idiocy to die out.

---
* I heartily recommend Jonathan Miller's The Body in Question for an overview of this, as well as other fascinating aspects of medical history.

* With the exception of, e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. They may be fanatics, but at least they're consistent fanatics.

Oops

[Daniel Dvorkin]

That should be "... Interfering With The Will Of God By Meddling ..." above, of course.

Re:Luddite opposition

[memco]

To be fair, not all of us believers feel that any new technology will help disprove God's existence and send the world into apocalypse. With this article I may point to references in the Bible of an era called the millenium where people will live for extended periods of time (almost a thousand years)

Re:Luddite opposition

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Oh, I'm not saying that all religious believers are Luddites, at all. Simply that most of the Luddism, especially w.r.t. biology and medicine, seems to use religious justifications for its absurd claims.

New neurons?

[ihtagik]

Among other things, it would be interesting to see whether they can actually grow new neuron cells.

Re:New neurons?

[Jesrad]

From the article, they claim the cells did change into neural cells (among other types of cells). This could mean the end of Alzheimer syndromes and sclerosis, and a cure for paralysed people.

Re:New neurons?

[ihtagik]

My thoughts exactly, but where will it stop. What's to stop us from "enhancing" ourselves say, to preempt senility? Better still, are we obligated not to? In no time one'll be able to walk into McDnld's and order a stem cell health shake...

Re:New neurons?

[ckaminski]

Hey, if it works, and you also buy a $5 dead-cow burger and fries, that Stem-Cell shake might just be a loss-leader for McD's...

Peer review?

[jdiggans]

Wait until they publish a controlled study in a peer-reviewed journal. Until then, this is all science-by-press-release and not worth the paper on which it's printed.

That said, I hope they're successful and manage to strike a healthy balance between profit and humanity.
-j

Re:Peer review?

[XenonChloride]

Thanks, that was exactly what I missed in the whole thing. So far, their claim to "retrodifferentiate" blood cells to pluripotent stem cells (= similar to embryonal stem cells in the 8-cell-stadium) is questionable. It seems they simply went for profit and propaganda rather than for proof-reading by the scientific community.

One (of many) more serious examples for (embryonal) stem cell research is given by D. Kaufman in PNAS 2001, 98(19), 10716-10721, for an online pdf version see Hematopoietic colony-form [pnas.org]