New Discovery May End Transplant Rejection 201
mmmscience writes with this excerpt from the Examiner:
"Big news in the medical world: scientists in Australia have found a way to stop the body from attacking organ transplants, greatly decreasing the possibility of organ rejection. ... When a new tissue is introduced, one's immune system kicks into overdrive, sending out cells known as killer T cells to attack and destroy the unknown tissue. ... Professor Jonathan Sprent and Dr. Kylie Webster from Sydney's Garvan Institute of Medical Research focused on a different type of T cells — known as regulatory T cells (Treg) — in this study. Tregs are capable of quieting the immune system, stopping the killer T cells from seeking out and attacking foreign objects."
So they're doing another type of immunosupression? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, what does that do for fighting off infection then?
It's not like there's a magical component to this that identifies the transplanted material as "good" and infectious agents as "bad".
Re:So they're doing another type of immunosupressi (Score:5, Informative)
But it only is needed for 2-3 weeks, according to the article. Just long enough for the body to accept the new cells, after that they let things go back to normal, which would allow the body to attach infectious agents.
Re:So they're doing another type of immunosupressi (Score:5, Interesting)
Hopefully they will be able to run positive clinical trials in the future. So far this is only effective on mice on relatively simple procedures (skin grafts, and pancreatic transfers). Kidneys, hearts, lungs are huge deals. I'm assuming if this hurdle is passed the doner would only need to have a blood-type match? That would be awesome and would make the waiting list that much simpler.
Re:So they're doing another type of immunosupressi (Score:4, Insightful)
And in those 2-3 weeks they keep the person in a steril room devoid of any potential bacteria/virus' that could harm the person.
Depending on the transplant, you're probably not going to want to do anything other than lie in a bed during that time anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but a complete isolation environment is MUCH more expensive than a normal ICU which is MUCH more expensive than a recovery room which is MUCH more expensive than outpatient followup visits.
... but is still preferable in some cases than not getting a transplant and dying. More expensive, yes...
Re: (Score:2)
My thought is that, sure, it's more expensive, and it's pretty expensive right now, but if this treatment gains hold, would the costs of maintaining a sterile environment drop? I'd tend to think that a relatively large area could be set up for not much more than a small one. Go full bore with positive pressure and UV sterilization for incoming air, wash sheets/clothing with the nasty chemicals, etc...
Re:So they're doing another type of immunosupressi (Score:4, Informative)
I'm guessing the problem isn't that sterilizing a place is so expensive. There would be the increased cost of doing buisness in a sterile place (autoclaving absolutely everything, scrubbing and suiting up if you're entering), but the two biggest costs by far I would assume to be verifying the cleanliness and (even bigger) liability and insurance for failure to maintain sterility.
I worked at a large phamecutical plant on a microbiology team ensuring that their clean room facilities were actually clean. Extremely boring work, but the worst part was that if and when you messed up (even in a trivial way like not using fresh batteries on the fans to sample the air for bacterial growth every single time) there was a mountain of paperwork to be filled out, explaining why you failed, how you're going to ensure you don't fail again, and assesing whether or not it was going to compromise anything important. An absurd amount of red tape. The actual monitoring of the sterility was extremely easy.
So that's a gigantic cost right there. I know nothing about the liability side to it other than I'm sure there are thousands of lawyers who would salivate at the thought of a patient dying after a transplant because of an infection during the 2 week sterile cycle.
And keep in mind that hospitals charge you about 10 dollars for an asprin...
Re: (Score:2)
But you have to balance that against a lifetime of outrageously expensive immunosuppressant drugs and additional medical care due to the toxic side effects. On top of that, the primary effect will make the patient more vulnerable to getting sick and each such illness will require aggressive medical care while a person not on immunosuppressants just needs to sit at home for a day or two.
All of that added up with a reduced life expectancy on top will way exceed the six figure cost of spending 2 weeks in isola
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty sure in life-threatening situations, the patients main concern is hardly the costs involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you do realize that most peopel die still waiting for a suitable transplant don't you?
my father is on the transplant list for a heart and has been in the second highest risk category for about a year now.
he's been called in twice.
there is more to it than just matching some blood types.
and for certain other types of transplant, like the bone marrow transplant a friends 13 year old son is going through, they already have to put them into basically a clean room environment now. because they have to KILL OFF th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite sure where you got the notion that a hospital is a sterile environment. Far from it. Sure, tools and things can be sterilized. Most hospitals can be, at best, "clean" environments.
Do a bit of research on nosocomial infection [wikipedia.org].
Re:So they're doing another type of immunosupressi (Score:5, Informative)
The idea (as I understand it) is this:
1) Immunosuppressants not only lower your defenses but are also toxic (as with many drugs).
2) I assume the treatment is either non-toxic, or at least not as bad for you.
3) Not sure about this: I think that people need to take immunosuppressants for a LONG time after the transplant, thus pumping in toxins AND keeping the defenses low, where as this idea is a one time thing you do before the transplant and are then done with.
The wording also makes it sound like the rejection rate is lower than usual, I am unsure if this is true or not.
So yes, you still have the lowered defenses, but with out the toxins, and possibly for a shorter time.
Re:So they're doing another type of immunosupressi (Score:4, Informative)
"3) Not sure about this: I think that people need to take immunosuppressants for a LONG time after the transplant"
AFAIK ('tho there're bound to be exceptions maybe?) - you take them for as long as you don't want your immune system to attack the new organ, which'll basically be, for the rest of your life.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not true, immunotherapies have historically not required permanent treatment. This isn't that much different from allergy shots or immunizations.
Eventually the body adapts to having the pathogens there and realizes they aren't harmful. The big concern with rejection is that the body will kill off the cells before that happens.
It depends upon the technique, but for many of the therapies it only takes 3-5 years, which even at double that is greatly superior to how we handle it now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
2.) Also correct.
Immunosuppressant drugs, besides increasing the risk of infection and cancer, also screw with the kidneys, liver, and pancreas. So besides the fun 1-2 punch of increased risk of infection post-surgery and having a weaker immune system to fight it with, you can also have a delightful bouquet of metabolic issues to go with it. This treatment seems to take the "traffic control" route, instead of mass-nuking the entire T-cell population.
3.) If the rejection is hyperacute (immedia
Re:So they're doing another type of immunosupressi (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
3) Not sure about this: I think that people need to take immunosuppressants for a LONG time after the transplant, thus pumping in toxins AND keeping the defenses low, where as this idea is a one time thing you do before the transplant and are then done with.
My father had a lung transplant about 5 years ago. You have to take the immunosuppressants forever with any inner body transplant (like heart, kidney, lung, etc). The immunosuppressants are quite good, but their side effects are significant and effect the life of a person. My father had to take significant amounts of pills daily at very specific times for everything to work properly. The pills also place quite a strain on the kidneys.
Bizarrely enough, that's what eventually killed him. The doctors (who, BTW
Re: (Score:2)
As somebody who had a kidney transplant a little more than 12 years ago, I can to pretty much everything that you've said. The point of the cost of the drugs is definitely one of the larger factors - my main two immunosuppressant drugs cost me $80 for a month's supply. That doesn't include other medications that offset what the immunosuppressants are doing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
$80/month is less than what I spend on gas to get to work. Heck, annualize my computer purchases and I'd likely spend more on computer stuff than that. My telephone/internet costs more (cell phone, landline+DSL).
I assume you're talking about your copays?
That's the thing about insurance - when you're looking at costs to society, you need to include the whole cost, not just deductibles/copays. You generally end up paying the money eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAMD, but I'm fairly sure the immunosuppressants are needed for the rest of the recipient's life.
Re:So they're doing another type of immunosupressi (Score:5, Informative)
I got a kidney transplant in 1995, and I will be on anti-rejection drugs until either 1) I die, 2) something better comes along that doesn't require anti-rejection meds anymore (<crosses fingers>), 3) or I reject the kidney and it is removed.
Re:So they're doing another type of immunosupressi (Score:5, Funny)
If only there was a linked article that addressed these questions!
Organlegging (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This will make organlegging possible. If you can just grab any kidney off the street and use it to replace a failing one, people will.
Or it might make xenografts (transplanting animal organs into humans) possible, I couldn't tell from the article. Which I guess PETA and other nutjobs would argue is still organlegging...
Anyway, you're right to point out that every new technology has benefits but also downsides. However, keep in mind that now if you wake up in a bath of ice and a note saying "thanks for your kidneys," all you'll have to do is steal someone else's, you won't have to steal it back from the person who stole it from you.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, there are other very serious reasons why I wouldn't allow such an organ into me. Even if you ignore that and the obvious moral problems, there's still a good chance of getting HIV or hepatitis in that fashion, not to mention whatever else might be in their organ.
And to top it all off the quality of the organ is likely to suffer greatly since it probably hasn't been handled in an appropriate fashion to maximize viability.
Re: (Score:2)
Or "The Brain That Wouldn't Die"!!
Next thing you know, some doctor's going to cut off his girlfriend's head and keep it alive in a pan while he goes to strip clubs. Meanwhile, his assistant will get his arms pulled off by a telepathically controlled monster in the closet.
Once again science fiction flawlessly predicts science fact!
Re: (Score:2)
1. Buy 2 lb. of ice and a scalpel.
2. Abduct a hobo.
3. ?
4. Profit!
Re:Organlegging (Score:4, Informative)
You missed the GP poster who was referring to the act of people effectively abducting humans for the sole purpose of harvesting their organs. In the case of kidneys they could take 1, leave the remaining one be, and send the poor sod on their way, but more likely the person would simply be killed and their organs sold to the highest bidder.
The only reason that doesn't happen so much now (except potentially in China, to an extent) is due to the whole organ rejection thing. No good putting 'Type X' kidneys on the market if all your prospective clients within a reasonable distance need 'Type Y'.. and short of getting medical records on everybody, you can't see on the outside what type organ the person has.
With that out of the way, let the random killings and organ harvests begin.
( 'Organlegging'.. *sigh* Niven. )
Re:Organlegging (Score:4, Funny)
The only reason that doesn't happen so much now (except potentially in China, to an extent) is due to the whole organ rejection thing. No good putting 'Type X' kidneys on the market if all your prospective clients within a reasonable distance need 'Type Y'.. and short of getting medical records on everybody, you can't see on the outside what type organ the person has.
Shows how much you know. Just like with any other product, you need to create demand. For example, show how your "Type X" kidney is better compared to the inferior "Type Y" kidney in a consumer taste test. Focus on viral marketing and product placement in movies. Leak that Tupac used "Type X" kidneys because he was from the street and keepin' it real. Have a cross marketing campaign with Nike for some "TypeX-treme" shoes at $250 a pair. Have Disney create a new loveable kidney based character in their new movies. Link "Type Y" kidneys to George Bush.
If all else fails, try to get a piece of the latest economic meltdown. Bundle any excess inventory into "Type X Kidney Security Derivatives" and apply for TARP funds. Get some lobbyists.
If they don't give you any money, corner the market by making them a loss-leader. Pick up the delta by bumping the price on the anti-rejection drugs.
It's time to think outside the box people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Probably, we'll soon be able to grow artificial organs from IPSC (Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells). So the whole question might become moot very fast.
As it happened in Niven's Universe :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, that's not true. With kidneys and a few other organs, no typing is necessary before hand. The immunosuppressants are so good these days that a completely non-matching kidney is just fine.
There's some other tissues that for various reasons still requires a close match
Re: (Score:2)
I'll get right on solving this problem for you!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for wire heads. Perfect fodder for organleggers.
About to donate... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A failed donation can make you feel like crap
So can a successful one. [wikia.com]
Great News! (Score:4, Funny)
Now i can just keep smoking knowing my new lungs will fit in no problem! /s
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Autoimmune Diseases (Score:2, Interesting)
...if... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes this could be a big deal, someday, if the finding holds up for other mammals (a big one), if it works for different kinds of transplants, if it's repeatable, if there are no other major consequences, if human trials are successful, if if if.
Failure to include the "if"s is misleading at best and irresponsible at worst, for giving possibly false hope to those dealing with transplant rejection.
Re:...if... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the article includes most of those.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot:
"If the rules of physics are constant and don't just change completely every couple hundred billion years, being the next change tomorrow at 17:00."
This (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
is just a different method of immunosuppression.
Yes, but with one *vital* difference: when the immune system comes back online, it doesn't attack the transplanted tissue. Last I checked, cyclosporin didn't work that way. So this is more than just a little "better" than your average immunosuppressant. It could be a potential revolution in the area of tissue transplantation.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed a couple things:
- It only shuts down one PART of the immune system - the part that kills and eats large stuff.
- It only shuts it down for a couple weeks - actually, teaches it that anything present during those two weeks is "friendly" - after which it turns back on again (including its memory of all the OTHER enemies it's seen before and is ready to pounce on that AREN'T present right now).
Good news for my work (Score:5, Funny)
Allergies? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not the same type of cell (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAD but I believe allergies involve a different immune response mechanism involving mast cells and histamines. But you do raise a good point, would this approach be useful in treating other autoimmune diseases like lupus or MS?
Nobel? (Score:2)
The irony of the Nobel Prize (Score:2)
Is that, if it wasn't for the big pile of explosives money they put on the table, nobody would give a shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Tissue Rejection (Score:2, Interesting)
Is caused by the immune system not recognizing a foreign invader, the organ being transplanted.
No?
Then this guy wants to turn off that ability in the body?
Yes?
Historically speaking, whenever doctors have taken that approach it results in massive infection, and usually heart and lung problems.
You would think after so many complications from transplants, they would stop pursuing that direction.
Adult stem cell research seems to be the best approach to me. Same tissue so no rejection, and they do not have all
Re: (Score:2)
We are a long way off from full organ replacement in the form of Adult Stem Cells. In the meantime, we have to make due with transplants. Understanding how our immune system works (and can be controlled) is still important research.
It isn't just tissue rejection. Lots of issues are caused by over-reaction by the immune system. Allergies are a good example. In fact, the gauze I have wrapped on my hand right now indicates that I would love a bit of reduction in my immune systems response.
But, there are m
Tell me about it (Score:2)
Fetal stem cells have a nasty habit of becoming tumors.
I'm on my second kid and already I'm losing my hair and feel tired all the time. Unfortunately every time I ask my wife for some adult stem cell action, she turns me down.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is caused by the immune system not recognizing a foreign invader, the organ being transplanted.
No?
No. Rejection is the appropriate response by the body. With immunsuppresion, we modulate that response.
Then this guy wants to turn off that ability in the body?
Yes?
No, not quite. Their proposal is to stimulate the immune system, but to add this "complex" that says "It's ok...don't attack"
Historically speaking, whenever doctors have taken that approach it results in massive infection, and usually heart and lung problems.
Well, if that were the case, most of the transplant pt's would be dead. Obviously you have taken this a little to far (reduce ad absurdum). First, keep in mind there are two major (humoral aka antibody mediated and c-mediated) and several minor arms to the immunesystem. The
Re: (Score:2)
You would think after so many complications from transplants, they would stop pursuing that direction... Adult stem cell research seems to be the best approach to me... Not that doctors understand any of this process, but why they continue to invest so much money in transplant research is baffling.
What's baffling to me is that people advocate abandoning everything other than adult stem cells when no technology currently is capable of delivering what we want. Until adult stem cells actually do all the things we want them to and reveal themselves to be completely perfect, it would be foolish to give up on everything else. From my perspective, adult stem cells are less impressive than induced pluripotent stem cells. Adult stem cells produce fewer tumors, but getting them to make the cell type you wan
Re: (Score:2)
Historically speaking, whenever doctors have taken that approach it results in massive infection, and usually heart and lung problems.
That's why this would be revolutionary if successful. It would briefly knock the immune system down and then cause it to accept the transplanted tissue as native while operating normally. That, in turn, would eliminate the problem of massive infection and the complications from rejection.
Yes, adult stem cells might be even better one day, but we don't know how to make that work yet. We may or may not know how a decade from now. Meanwhile, THIS method can make life better (and possible) for many people.
Horrible Article (Score:5, Informative)
For starters "killer T-cells" are usually referred to as NK-cells and they are NOT thought to be part of the normal rejection process (they do not require activation and thus would no be stopped by immunosuppresion). There are three types of rejection hyperacute (pre-formed antibodies attack the organ in minutes - the organ literally dies as soon as it is transplanted - this is avoided by the "matching" process), acute (where T-cells [not NK-cells] attack the organ since it is not "self" and therefore "bad" - this is where immunosuppresion helps) and chronic (the body slowly rejects by allowing fibrosis of the vessels leading to the organ).
Actual survival statics for all kidney allografts exceeds 95% today. 80% is quite a drop!
Grafts are not assumed to "take" after 100 days allowing us to stop immunosuppresion! Immunosuppression is currently LIFELONG. There are a few instances where people have tolerated a non-identical twin transplant without medications, but this is _very_ rare. There is active research into finding the key to allow "tolerance" whereby we can drop the medications, but this is still early.
IL-2 suppression is the _mainstay_ of current immunosuppressants both blocking its production via calcineurin ihibitors (cyclosporin and tacrolimus), inhibiting the response (sirolimus/rapamune), or by blocking the receptor with antibodies (basiliximab/daclizumab). (Please understand this is only about half of the therapies that are in use for immunosuppresion, I'm just focusing on the Il-2 aspect).
Just followed the second link and it is _much better_. Still, I strongly disagree with their assertions of 100 days, just doesn't happen in humans. Apparently this study is using IL-2 STIMULATION with a complex that attempts to increase the regulatory T-cells...To me this means that this treatment will not co-exist with the current immunopupression dogma... this means that they will have to have a "complete" replacement for immunosuppresion they won't be able to add this to the current regiment and that means this treatment protocol will be quite sometime in the pipeline. And (fortunately) the authors acknowledge that they are optimistic, but aren't rushing off to collect their Nobel yet:
I am also aware that effective approaches in mice do not necessarily give good results in humans because of subtle differences in the immune systems of mouse and man.
Re: (Score:2)
Actual survival statics for all kidney allografts exceeds 95% today. 80% is quite a drop!
Presumably, in practice if the new method fails, the current treatment is the fallback. That is, 80% face no rejection issues and need no meds once the treatment is complete and 95% of the remaining 20% survive through current immunosuppresion therapy. That is certainly an improvement if it pans out.
Still, I strongly disagree with their assertions of 100 days
The 100 day criterion only applies in a non-immunosuppressed subject. That is, it only comes up in research. No actual patient would be transplanted without immunosuppresion. Hypothetically, if a patient was tra
Eyes? (Score:2)
What about auto-immune diseases (Score:2)
Finally... (Score:2, Funny)
we can stop having unkempt slobs in dark alleys offering us x-ray eyes when in reality they are the two better z-ray eyes. No more will we be be indecisive about replacing our lungs with gills so we can more easily breathe underwater.
All we need do is lie on the table and let the nice nurse with big hands hold us down while we feel a small pain.
Re: (Score:2)
we can stop having unkempt slobs in dark alleys offering us x-ray eyes when in reality they are the two better z-ray eyes. No more will we be be indecisive about replacing our lungs with gills so we can more easily breathe underwater.
A few things wrong with your post
1. Where would they get the x-ray eyes
2. Same thing about human gills
3. If you REPLACE your lungs with gills, you're not going to breathe underwater BETTER, you're ONLY going to breathe underwater.
Sounds like some Niven books. (Score:2)
This reminds me of several Niven books. He did a pretty good job of exploring were society would go if we developed this tech. Basically you'd have the criminal element murdering folks to extend others lives. That's actually not the bad part. We've got existing laws dealing with kidnapping and murder.
What's the really bad news? Having about a hundred years or so of just about every crime having the death penalty so those that need/want organs can get them from criminals. Worse case, you get caught by those
Autoimmune Disorders (Score:5, Informative)
This is better news than they even let on. A means to control rejection is the same as a means to control autoimmune disorders. Recent evidence supporting this is at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19199937 [nih.gov] There's a partial list of such disorders at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmune_disease [wikipedia.org]
Knowing the mechanism for increasing Treg leads to understanding the mechanism for controlling, thus including suppressing Treg. That would boost the body's immune response. It could control (though not cure) AIDS, and lead to treatments of such as hepatitis B or C without requiring the very side effect laden pegylated alfa interferon 2 + ribavirin treatment. Inducing autoimmnune disease has already been suggested as a cancer treatment http://www.pnas.org/content/96/10/5340.full [pnas.org]
As explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_system [wikipedia.org] an immune system is a very complex system with many components that interact. The more of these we can manipulate the closer we get to the kind of treatments suggested above.
allergies (Score:2)
Could this be used to teach one's body to stop with the allergies already?
Useful for autoimmune diseases? (Score:2)
I would dearly love to know if this technique would be suitable for helping people with autoimmune diseases. I have close friends with lupus, scleroderma, myasthenia gravis, and bipolar disorder. This could potentially be a godsend to them.
I just had a heart transplant (Score:2)
More bad than good. (Score:2)
Hmm... wasn't there this other thing that disabled all T-cells and that wasn't all that good...?
I think it was called... AIDS!
Re:has its drawbacks? (Score:5, Funny)
In the end, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically life is a terminal condition, resulting in death in every verifyable recorded sample.
I guess it's a matter of magnitude. I.e. whether you die now or then.
Re: (Score:2)
Full Disclosure: I am a funded option 2 member of the Cryonics Institute.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, not even close--well over 5% of all people who have ever lived have never died. There's no sound basis on which to claim that life is terminal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically life is a terminal condition, resulting in death in every verifyable recorded sample.
Not mine. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the Treg cells are used to identify the transplant tissue and 'mostly harmless' so that the Killer T's leave off and go harass some other bit 'o flesh.
Re: (Score:2)
So is this basically just shutting the immune system off? Wouldn't that cause serious problems, unless you're a "boy in a bubble"?
You're shutting down one part of the immune system for a couple weeks - and teaching it that anything it currently sees is OK once it's turned back on.
So you have things like increased cancer risk (because a mini-cancer that's currently held at bay by this branch of the immune system becomes "OK" - and ditto with a pre-cancerous lesion which may also be attacked less effectively
Re:w00t!! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, you can, but that would be like having a Core2Duo for just reading emails...
Re:w00t!! (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah... or buying a SUV to get your groceries. Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
... or buying a SUV to get your groceries. Oh, wait...
Well the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards killed the station wagon so the SUV became the smallest vehicle not part of the CAFE average pool available. (They're considered a "truck".)
Ban or restrict SUVs and watch people buy vans and pickups for shopping.
Re:w00t!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No. Your genitalia will still be rejected.
Re:Wait.... (Score:4, Informative)
I assume you were goign to say "we might know how to reverse it".
The answer is fairly simple:
We are giving (and have been for a long time) people something like AIDS, not AIDS itself as that is a condition directly linked to HIV (even though the name makes it sound like it would be any time when you acquire a immune deficiency). It isn't AIDS we need a treatment for, it is HIV.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Being able to put something into a system does not mean you're able to take it out of the system again. A good example would probably be rabbits in Australia.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Can't we do both? You know, eggs and baskets and all that.
Auto-immune disease cure too! (Score:2)
Even for vat-grown tissue you may need immunosuppressants. Examples:
- The organ failed due to auto-immune disease.
- The new organ was needed because a genetic defect made the old one faulty - and the new one must be genetically and (especially) antigenically distinct to function properly.
Etc.
Heck: This therapy looks like it could also become a cure for auto-immune diseases. Two weeks
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the first time this has been tried: in fact, I'm doing it right now. I have MS, and am nearing the end of a 2-year double-blind trial of FTY720 a.k.a. fingolimod [wikipedia.org]. It reportedly acts by inhibiting the movement of T-cells out of the lymph nodes. It was originally tested as a renal anti-rejection therapy, didn't appear to work well enough, but it seems to be doing better in preventing MS relapses. Other applications are in the pipeline.
It's a bit risky, taking an immunosuppressant, and I've been warn
Re: (Score:2)
We should ignore a solution that can be brought about in the relative near term because a different solution, if it is ever proven to work, might eventually turn out to be better?
Tell that to the families of those who die in the mean time while we're figuring out whether a "grow-your-own" approach is even workable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! That's not done currently only because the required anti-rejection treatment is worse than the insulin injections (and certainly much worse than dietary restriction). If that is no longer true, it opens the door to treat a lot more conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope this doesn't work out too soon. Shocked? Let me explain: if the prevention of transplant rejection becomes possible before organ regeneration from stem cells becomes possible then every individual becomes a potential organ donor. Think war zones and third-world children with poor families.
Potential for abuse is a really stupid reason to hope that millions of people won't get the cure they need. This is still an intense procedure, requiring you to be immunosupressed for 2-3 weeks, you're not going to fly to a shady back alley Thai doctor to do this from the black market, since you would die of an infection.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a biological warfare weapon designer's wet dream.
It does? How is this going to allow us to make superflu easier? It sounds more like a dying patient's family's wet dream. Or maybe an alchoholic's wet dream.
Re: (Score:2)