Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers Claim To Produce Stem Cells From Adult Cells

Posted by Hemos on from the major-major-breakthrough dept.

coljac writes: "An article in The Times on Monday details the claims of British researcher Ilham Abuljadayel who says she can produce stem cells from adult cells (in this case, white blood cells). Stem cells, the main source of which is currently human embryos, are undifferentiated cells which under the right biochemical conditions can grow into any kind of tissue cell. Stem cell research promises breakthroughs in many areas of disease (and even aging) research, but until now has been dogged by controversy because of the use of human embryos. If verified, this is a pretty exciting development."

4 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. New tissue = No tofu by thex23 · · Score: 5
    Beyond being able to rejuvenate existing tissue (which is Very Big, don't get me wrong), this could also mean we can skip over using living beings (ie: animals) as mediums for growing tissue. We could grow replacement organs (skin, bones, muscle, etc.) without using pigs and monkeys to be the host. Just produce them in "vats" that are constantly supplied with the nutrients and drugs required.

    The non-obvious importance is that we can start "growing" meat and other kinds of animal tissue (perhaps vegetable as well?) on an industrial scale...

    It won't be a hundred years before we stop raising cattle, pigs, chickens, etc. and start eating artificial food that can be engineered to spec. I'm sure it would be more efficient from a thermodynamic viewpoint.

    The bad news is that the rich will live forever. The good news is that you won't have to eat tofu.

    1. Re:New tissue = No tofu by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 5

      I'm sorry this isn't correct. The jump going from stem cells (which are already available anyway although there are ethical as well as technical considerations) to growing replacement organs is actually very large.

      In order to do that it is necessary to get the chemical, physical and electrical environment correct for the particular organ that you are trying to grow. You need the recipes. We don't have the recipes yet.

      That's the first problem. Then there's the time problem. How long is it going to take to grow an organ big enough that you can use it?

      As for living forever, that isn't clear at all. For one thing the brain cells aren't designed to reproduce at all, and once enough of them are dead you are too. Adding reproducing brain cells to an adult may well have side effects. But there are signs that it might help in some cases e.g. parkinsons but even then it doesn't seem to be a cure.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  2. Oh really? by Isldeur · · Score: 5



    I've done a "decent" amount of reading in hematology (being a 3rd med) and I can't seem to reconcile some things. Some things just don't stand up.

    In blood, there are (as the article points out) a number of stem cells which, while they retain their ability to differentiate, also give off progeny as needed. These progeny are then directed, by various growth factors in turn directed by the biological needs, to differentiate into the various cells. Theoretically, all blood cells (with the exception of red blood cells or erythrocytes) retain the complete genetic code.

    But I can't see how it can really be reversed. White blood cells aquire a bunch of different organelles within them depending on their decided function. Do they loose these organelles too? Or do they just regain the ability to differentiate?

    What might happen is that certain regulators which prevent certain things from happening in cells may be removed.

    But does anyone really think that "just" the needed things are removed? If the cells in your heart or skin suddenly regained the ability to differentiate into anything, they would still first be respective cells of those parts. My (limited) guess is that they've just removed regulating factors and that probably brings the cells closer to neoplastic (a.k.a. uncontrolled cell growth) and that's about it.

    Also, some of the top hematologists would be reviewing this paper before it was "not accepted" in a number of journals. Don't you think that these journals would be aching to be the ones to publish something so legendary? In the end, I can't see how "forgetting" to add something to the media suddenly would do this. I wish they'd let out more information.

  3. wouldn't reverse or prevent aging by HomerJ · · Score: 5

    With the execption of our teeth and eyes. We are only about 30 days old. All your old cells die, and new ones take their place. The real question on aging is, why do we even age at all? Dispite the fact that we competely replace our cells about one a month, we still age.

    This could go a long way to heal things like heart disease, cancer, etc. Where the problems are they cells can't regenerate like they should. But this won't save you from aging.

    NOTE: this is just what I remember from what biology I've had in the past. Anyone wants to prove me wrong, feel free.