Child Receives Trachea Grown From Own Stem Cells 103
kkleiner writes "Doctors at the Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) along with colleagues at the University College London, the Royal Free Hospital, and Careggi University Hospital in Florence have successfully transplanted a trachea into a 10 year old boy using his own stem cells. A donor trachea was taken, stripped of its cells into a collagen-like scaffold, and then infused with the boy's stem cells. The trachea was surgically placed into the boy and allowed to develop in place. Because his own cells were used, there was little to no risk of rejection. This was the first time a child had received such a stem cell augmented transplant and the first time that a complete trachea had been used."
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Cancer? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's always some people who need surgery NOW and whether they get cancer in 2-5-10-20 years or not it's still a win. I'm all for medical testing and not rushing out unsafe procedures, but the reactions I see are mostly knee-jerk "it's STEM cells, omg you can't" not based on real research. In fact, they don't want the research done in the first place. Of course it's highly experimental medically, so was heart transplants. The first guy survived two weeks, but today we average 15 years. Research can prove or disprove (ok, don't get all philosophical on me) whether it helps medically, but it won't matter because most of the resistance is due to the fanatic anti-abortion crowd which equate embryonic stem cells with unborn babies. And if it's not embryonic, they'll pretend there's no difference because only blind rage will do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They came from his cord blood. I'm pretty sure that can be considered embryonic, but I'm not a doctor or scientist. Just a happy parent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We used Cord Blood Registry at www.cordblood.com
It's $125/yr renewal but there are referral incentives.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Read ANY of the focus on the family rants back when the whole thing started. You'll notice that they always mention "stem cell" and never qualify it with "embryonic"
Ok, let’s let Google settle the matter. site:focusonthefamily.com "stem cell" yielded this in the first page of results:
Re: (Score:1)
Anti-abortion advocates are fanatic because factions of that same establishment enact genocide and eugenics programs against mothers and their spawn, even going so far as pushing potential mothers for late-term abortions(whic
Re: (Score:2)
Probably fairly low, especially compared to the risks of a lifetime of anti-rejection meds (which carry a cancer risk of their own) and having a metal stent damage his aorta again.
In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the recent advances are done using stem cells from the patient's own body... this was always legal, but too many people got caught up in fighting for embryonic stem. Maybe the restrictions against using embryonic stem cells advanced medical technology by pushing researchers and doctors to use the patient's own stem cells instead.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also a much higher risk of rejection if stem cells from an embryo are used. If a person's own cells are used there's no risk of rejection.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So if the parent comment is true, then we are better off due to the anti-abortion crowd. You see, if it wasn't for that there might not have been as much research into adult stem cells. Because embryonic ones are "good enough". Who cares if the patient has to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of his life, that is just more money the pharma companies get.
Re: (Score:1)
So if the parent comment is true, then we are better off due to the anti-abortion crowd.
No. There is nothing to suggest that the work on adult stem cells would not have ended with the same discoveries that we are seeing now. The work on adult cells continued unabated during the embryonic stem cell debate, because the use of a patient's own stem cells will always be given a high priority as it reduces a lot of complications.
Also consider that this research took place outside the US where stem cell research wasn't so restricted. With that in mind, it would seem that the anti-abortion crowd had n
Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the recent advances are done using stem cells from the patient's own body... this was always legal, but too many people got caught up in fighting for embryonic stem. Maybe the restrictions against using embryonic stem cells advanced medical technology by pushing researchers and doctors to use the patient's own stem cells instead.
Not at all. This was a natural evolution, especially due to the rejection issues. If anything, we would have had this technology sooner as more scientists would have gotten involved earlier, and we would be much further ahead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm ...
His original statement is most certainly fact, more scientists where forced into doing things like this with stem cells because they couldn't use the embryonic cells they would have liked to use. This isn't something debatable, its history, its what happened.
You can say it may have happened faster some other way, but you can't say that more people would have been working on it since the rules forced that didn't want to use this method to use it. No one that wanted to use this method stopped complet
Re: (Score:2)
All of the recent advances are done using stem cells from the patient's own body
FTFY. And yes, it’s perfectly legal. Nobody protests adult stem cell therapy.
Maybe the restrictions against using embryonic stem cells advanced medical technology by pushing researchers and doctors to use the patient's own stem cells instead.
That’s a fair theory, and it shows that you’re thinking, but if you research the matter it is actually incorrect. There are enough embryonic stem cell lines for researchers and doctors to use to find cures, etc. if they were so inclined. They have, basically of their own accord, chosen to pursue adult stem cell therapies instead, because those were what yielded results, and since they are paid for producing result
Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone's stance on stem cell research should be queried by the DMV and added to your driver's license, just like organ donation. Then when you need a medical procedure that has benefited from stem cell research, you get the version of the procedure that's in line with your beliefs.
I know... but I can dream can't I?
Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know... but I can dream can't I?
Dream? You can't even pay attention. No one has fought against funding for research into cures using adult stem cells. No one has fought against funding for research into cures using your own stem cells. Try to pay attention.
LK
Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (Score:5, Informative)
correction:
Nobody who understands the difference has fought against funding for research into cures using adult stem cells.
There's a massive ignorant crowd of fundies who still consider anything and everything to do with stem cells to be bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I am what most people would probably consider an “ignorant fundie”, and I speak for many more “ignorant fundies” when I say that we most certainly are aware of the difference.
It is the pro-stem cell advocates who blur the difference or ignore it completely. The anti-embryonic stem cell advocates differentiate between embryonic and adult stem cell research and treatment, whereas the people who are pro-embryonic stem cell research will often accuse us, just like you have, of opposing a
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, any adult stem cell breakthrough is hailed as a stem-cell research breakthrough typically with no comment on the fact that it is, in fact, an adult stem cell treatment, and then followed by scores of people claiming that it (the adult stem cell breakthrough) is proof that embryonic research is viable and should be performed more.
I too have had that exact same argument. I pointed out the amount of success they've been having with adult stem cell treatments and the retort was that "experts" say t
No sir (Score:2)
correction:
Nobody who understands the difference has fought against funding for research into cures using adult stem cells.
There's a massive ignorant crowd of fundies who still consider anything and everything to do with stem cells to be bad.
That is wrong, sir. Find me someone that opposes embryonic stem cell work on religious or ethical grounds. Then ask if they're opposed to non-embryonic stem cell work. To a man, you'll find almost no one. Go to any major religious or conservative publication.... National Review, National Catholic Reporter, etc... and find me one of them... just one... that opposes non-embryonic research. Every single one of them, and major political and religious organizations... even the most conservative of churches... su
Re: (Score:2)
Ask those same people, without preamble, if they oppose stem cell work on religious or ethical grounds.
Almost none of them will qualify their answer with a distinction of embryonic vs. non-embryonic.
The people who have truly considered in the issue in light of religion or ethics likely would make that dis
Re: (Score:2)
Ask those same people, without preamble, if they oppose stem cell work on religious or ethical grounds.
Almost none of them will qualify their answer with a distinction of embryonic vs. non-embryonic.
That's an asinine position. The only reason why one would have ethical objections is because of the death of human embryos. Your question presupposes that you're talking about the type that is objectionable.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
and you're assuming than anything more than a tiny minority care enough or are bright enough to have ever thought about it in terms of "ethics".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why wait for “natural” selection? Why not just shoot all the people who disagree, and expedite the matter...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The funny part is that knowledge of the evolution of pathogens hasn’t nearly as much to do with the treatments you get as you seem to think. You appear to think that one has to be an evolutionist in order to contribute anything of value to biology, medicine, etc.
Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (Score:5, Insightful)
We are--- the restrictions on stem-cell funding have always been on embryonic stem cells, not on research involving stem cells derived from post-fetus-stage living humans, as is the case here.
Funding vs. Work (Score:2)
We are--- the restrictions on stem-cell funding have always been on embryonic stem cells, not on research involving stem cells derived from post-fetus-stage living humans, as is the case here.
And you also bring up something important that gets lost here. The restriction was only on federal funding of new stem cell lines. The research itself was never banned in any way, shape, or form. Nothing was stopping private organizations or states or universities from doing their own original embryonic cell work. The federal government just wasn't going to pay for it if it came from outside of existing stem cell lines already in the research pipeline.
Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (Score:5, Informative)
Um, you are. Or at least, you could be. The restrictions on federal funding are on embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are interesting for their pluripotency. Adult stem cells are interesting because they don't trigger rejection. Generally, nobody has any problem with adult-stem research.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When people say they're against "embryonic stem cell research" everyone else just hears "stem cell research" because they're too dumb to know the difference (and that's on both sides!).
I keep hearing this, and it's not true from my experience. People I talk to... normal, guy on the street neighbors, friends, and co-workers... are aware of the difference and of what the argument is. Quit assuming that everyone around you is dumb on the issue. I know this is Slashdot, where gross generalizations are a tradition, but try actually talking to people about this, and you may be surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it’s mostly muddied by reports of lifesaving stem cell* cures...
* adult stem cells, but they don’t mention that
which of course show how stupid the fundies are who blindly oppose “stem cell** research”, and shows how we need more funding for embryonic stem cell research.
** embryonic stem cells, which the fundies will readily tell you but their opponents don’t mention
Re: (Score:1)
But you can get iPS cells from a non-pluripotent adult somatic cells. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell/ [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
We are... this is a form of adult stem cell use, which was not excluded by the bush ban on embryonic stem cell research. this ban was also recently overturned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Who is "we" in your question? This was done by:
Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) along with colleagues at the University College London, the Royal Free Hospital, and Careggi University Hospital in Florence
2) If you meant the United States, this would be government funded had it been done in that country since it deals with adult stem cells.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
We never stopped funding it. We weren't funding research based on the stem cells from dead human embryos.
I know you weren't interested in the answer, but I wanted to point out your douchebaggery.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
"Minor" correction (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The headline would be correct if we can synthesize the collagen molding and do away with the need for donor organ.
I suppose so but the donor organ in this case would seem to be something in plentiful supply, Its not like a heart which you have to keep alive between the donor and recipient.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not like a heart which you have to keep alive between the donor and recipient.
More to the point, it's not something which needs a stringent donor match as do current transplant techniques. With the relatively vast donor pool, there's no need to develop a synthetic collagen scaffold just to be able to apply this stem cell technique broadly.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, those new 3D solids printers that have been in the /. news lately could probably be tweaked to output collagen-based scaffolds....
Re: (Score:2)
The donor only donated the frame upon which the cells grew, they were still the child's own cells.
let me just say (Score:5, Insightful)
good job, guys.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
It just leaves you speechless, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Good job indeed. Good job at writing the prequel to the new "Repo Man" movie.
Actually... it makes the movie look pretty bad (Score:2)
Good job indeed. Good job at writing the prequel to the new "Repo Man" movie.
Having just seen it, I made the same connection - but I came to a different conclusion. It just makes the movie look more stupid. I mean it already looked pretty poor. The story might have worked if it was made 30-40 years ago, but with medical science where it is - the thing looks pretty anachronistic.
While I was watching it, a number of things jumped out at me as silly. One of them was the cybernetic nature of all the implants - and therefore their ability to be "repo'd" at all. "Replacement organs aren't
Stem Cell Hucksters Spam, Email Servers Crash (Score:2, Funny)
You're never too rich, too thin or too well-hung.
All you really need to know about ESC politics (Score:2)
Combo Breaker (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
HEADSHOT!
Wonderful (Score:1)
3-D printing + Stem Cells (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if those 5-10 micrometer features remain in the scaffolding. Seems possible that the stem cells create new ones, but I'm just guessing.
This stuff is really really cool. I need to go print myself a new meniscus.
Re: (Score:1)
Then covered in caramel, dropped into a friar and served a la mode.
mmmm... trachea.
Best part of this post (Score:2)
The 'gosh' tag.
Thats pretty much exactly what I thought when I read the title. I knew we'd eventually pull this type of stuff off, but still now that its starting to happen ... thats pretty freaking cool.
The near future (Score:2)
The future is looking very bright indeed. Now we just have to work on the organs like the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas etc. And I don't think those are very far off, they've pretty much figured out how to vascularize large organs.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we just have to work on the organs like the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas etc. And I don't think those are very far off, they've pretty much figured out how to vascularize large organs.
Umm.... you might want to look at this [youtube.com]
As immensely cool as this is... (Score:1)
...wake me up when they do this with a larynx. I know a significant subset of the population who'd pay good money for that.
Trachea translated (Score:1)
Would've been nice to include in TFS.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have thought that most literate people know what a trachea is, at least if they've done high-school 1st year biology...
Re: (Score:2)
I had never heard the term "windpipe" used before for that. "Trachea" is a far more common word. Anyway, surely you've watched an episode of House before?
won't someone think of the children! (Score:2)
We need more of this to convince people that it is absolutely worth it to research and use stem cells as much as we can.
Re: (Score:2)
We need more of this to convince people that it is absolutely worth it to research and use stem cells as much as we can.
What kind? This wasn't from embryonic stem cells. This was from the child's own cells. So they were literally "thinking of the children" in this case.
Irony (Score:1)