Slashdot Mirror
New Stem Cell Source - Your Bone Marrow
BoogieChile writes "ABC News is reporting that a team of researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre in Los Angeles, lead by Dr John Yu, are aiming to extract renewable stem cells from bone marrow - extracted from the patient him/herself - for a source of neural stem cells for treatment of brain cancers, Alzheimers and other neurological disorders.
Problem solved! Yipee!
New spinal column, anyone?" 'Course the story has no details - post anything else you can find below.
Would this be able to replace getting stem cells from Fetuses?
Finally found something that people won't(hopefully) bitch at em about.
There goes my business plan for foetal farming. I guess I'll have to abort the whole crop.
More info here
and
here
SealBeater
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
I've heard about something like this with Leukemia patients. Basically, they can get you in remission, extract some stem cells from you, then use those stem cells for a bone marrow transplant for you later on. Someone elaborate on this if you know more, as I'm not a doctor and could be speaking out of my ass on this one.
It doesn't focus much on the technology used, but the point that adults have stem cells within them, and scientist can now obtain them without going the politically icky embryo route.
.. from my cold, dead hands!
Trolling is a art,
At MIT Tech Review
Enjoy.
I understood that this had been known to be an option for some time now. The issue at hand as I understand it is that these cells are potentially not as useful as embryonic stem cells. I assume beacuse they have already differentiated to a certain degree.
Not to say that this research is not of value but I don't know that it's safe to say that it solves the whole embryonic stem cell issue.
Am I remembering incorrectly?
I know that it was meant to reference the stem cell debate, but what are the journalistics ethis of posting a article, admitting that it contains no details, and then asking for the readers to find more info for you? Seems a bit irresponsible to me.
Lasers Controlled Games!
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0006850 F-381C-1CDC-B4A8809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catI D=2
The existence of adult stem cells, while highly promising if they exist and are as functional as embryonic ones, is still in doubt.
Unfortunately, the article goes into very little details such as:
Is extracting stem cells for bone marrow just as good as from fetuses? Can it be taken for a living patient? I have a big ethical problem with taking stem cells from an unborn baby, simply because a baby does not have the ability to consent to such a procedure.
I will be one of the first in line to donate bone marrow but will probably get rejected. Unfortunately, since I've lived in two countries no bloodbank will take my donation, even though I have no health problems. Hopefully, the law will be changed one day.
The only thing I am confused about is why this article is on /. now, when this isn't breaking news, by any measure.
Karma: Shagadelic (mostly affected by those tight knickers - yeah baby, yeah!)
Essentially, the embryonic stem cells have failed to produce very promising results because of rejection or tumor formation (in many cases). Adult stem cells, which are pluripotential (not totipotential), have no rejection problems because they are autologously donated. Searching Google on "bone marrow stem cells" produces a variety of results, like this plea for funding from a Russian biologist: Why cloning? or this from Science Daily or Bone Marrow Stem Cells can become almost anything.
Timely. I got to work today and my back gave out right at the 9:00 morning meeting. A coworker rushed me to the chiropractor and I was told to go home and spend the day lying down. I've had back problems for years now and I'm only 23. This sucks. Sure, I get a day off work, but I'm in so much pain I'd rather be bored there than bored here. At least I have a powerbook. Otherwise I don't know what I'd do....
I really hope this kind of technology can fix this someday soon. It just hurts so bad...
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
Cedars-Sinai is pretty involved in stem cell research on a variety of levels. Do a search for stem cells on their site and you'll come up with tons of stuff.
They offer Stem Cell/Bone Marrow Transplantation as a part of their other transplantation services. Here is their FAQ about the process. http://www.csmc.edu/bloodmarrow/859.asp
Not exactly what the article is talking about though.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
G*d took the rib from Adam.
I think the same scenario can be applied to the tech world - if you stifle research, you stifle innovation. You stop someone from investigating digital security (DMCA) and you prevent security from progressing.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Fetal umbillical cord blood is rich in stem cells. If you're having a child it's worth looking into( Cord Blood Registry is a good source of information). One interesting thing to note is that stem cells harvested from cord blood can not only be used in the baby that produced them, but sometimes can be used in parents and siblings as well. This may be the case with other stem cells too, but I'm not sure.
Wait! What good is it if an industry killing unborn babies cannot be enlarged and justified?
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
Personally, it looks to me like there are 2 very different sides of the story to this.
On one hand you have the "Pro-Life" advocates saying that you can't justify the research since it might play a part in the death of an unborn embryo. You can read a few of those types of articles here and here to get a feel for that side of the story.
On the flip side the AAAS has a very compelling document here in PDF format. Also CAMR has a nice little diddy about their stance here.
Bush and the Senate seem to have made their stance on the matter known as well...so enjoy!
There is alot of discussion, and alot remains to be seen, but I thought I'd toss out some links to help everyone form their own opinion on the matter.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=stem+cell+marr ow&btnG=Search+News
2 30 4-2447r
E M. html?ex=1040706000&en=9beb56832bf1fbe1&ei=5062&par tner=GOOGLE
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2590279.stm
A little more info.. Goes over some uses.. Also the hope to eleviate the christians ignorance^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H moral problems.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021219-12
another article.. but doesn't really say anything new.. they just piped it through rev a couple of times, sort and uniq.. and added a few quotation marks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/11/business/11ST
This one was posted on Dec 16th.. and appears to be the original article that set these off. Has more info on who is doing it, why, etc.
No thanks, I don't need one... if that's all right with you.
Everything I've read indicates that every source of adult stem cells are at least partially differentiated. This means that they could be useful for a subset of the tissues within the body. Think of it in terms of a tree (in the computational sense). Embryonic stem cells are the root of the tree. They are pleuripotent, meaning that any cell type can be generated from them. At successively lower levels of the tree, more differentiation has taken place.
So, these adult stem cells from marrow could be useful for generating a subset of tissues. Most likely these are bone and marrow related. As an earlier poster pointed out, this could be VERY beneficial for leukemia. But the differentiation process does not appear to be reversible. At least yet!
-Todd
There is already a replacement to the embryonic stem cells: stem cells from the blood in Umbilical (Sp?) cords. If the goverment or a group of hospitals came together and saved the blood from the umbilical cords of all babies born, there wouldn't be a need form embryonic stem cell research. There are a couple of companies already storing cord blood, one of them is cryo-cell
Do you mean unborn baby?
m ages/
n im ages/aborted01-24.jpg
Such as these ones
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortioni
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortio
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltex t/93521889/FILE?TPL=ftx_start
If you want some technical info.
post anything else you can find below.
I'm pretty sure you don't want me to post what I found under my bed yesterday when I was cleaning...
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
There was an article in the Mpls Star Tribune 2 weeks ago about the University of Minnesota licensing the rights to technology for creating stem cells from human bone marrow to a biotech firm called Athersys. The U of M researchers published a paper about this procedure in the July 4th issue of Nature. Here is a link to an article (not abstract) [nature.com].
What the fuck is wrong with you stupid slashdotters ? Every single story is full of just "bitchbitchbitch" comments.
Get a fucking life and some fucking holiday fucking spirit
The new spines are reserved for politicians that are unable to do the right thing when faced with large sums of cash.
This has been known for a LONG time. The problem is the cells are no where near as effective as fetal cells because of their inability to diferentiate as well (meaning they can't become as many 'body parts' and when they can, they are normally inferior because of the way in which stem cells in the body are retained during aging).
Also, other countries are already advancing with fetal stem cells. Take a look at annoucements from all over the world - countries that we're decades behind us are already passing us because of the religiously based rules imposed upon science by the 'Moral' politicians/lobbying groups. The cloning issues are progressing the same way. China and India are already advancing past us - and some of the most valuable scientists in the field are LEAVING the Unites States because of the limits that are being put on their research.
All I know is people are going to have abortions - be it medically or with a coat hanger - whether I, you, the president, god, etc., agree with it. They always have, they always will. We might as well use them towards some good. Unfortunately, some people feel it's better that we say "No, its bad. I won't listen." and let the already doomed fetuses be simply thrown away. At least, until their loved one dies and they realize they could have been saved with methods derived from stem cells.
The fact of the matter is this is the equivalent of saying "Well, we have diamons...but, take a look at this cubic zirconium...we shined it up real nice and it might be as good as a diamond." Except its NOT. Unfortunately, we're not allowed to make 'fake diamonds' (clone/in vitro fertilize) because that would be wrong too.
(And, apologies for spelling errors...I tried to look it over, but I know I must have made a few...maybe...)
No one ever suggested killing a fetus - or pre-fetus as it were (basically, a little round ball of cells that looks almost exactly the same in an inordinate amount of creatures, from vertebrates to invertebrates). When an abortion happened, (guess what they do, and will), the cells would be harvested from there. But, it's better to just destroy them.
Why? Did they put some ass stem cells in your lips?
Hitler killed people that he deemed un-productive or a hinderence to society as well.
The Anti-Blog
From the sciencedaily.com article linked above:
Dr. Yu said other recent related studies at the Institute have shown that neural stem cells are capable of tracking brain tumor cells as they spread. This is an important finding because one of the greatest challenges in treating malignant brain tumors is the fact that tumor cells often separate from the main tumor mass and migrate to form satellites. Malignant tumors also have poorly defined borders that are enmeshed in healthy tissue, making it difficult or impossible for surgeons to remove all of the cancer without damaging normal brain.
"In our research, neural progenitor cells could clearly be seen tracking pockets of tumor cells that were migrating away from the main tumor mass," said Dr. Yu. "This clearly demonstrated the ability of neural progenitor cells to actively follow pockets of tumor cells that disseminate through the brain."
So why don't stem cells in the bones of cancer patients just naturally migrate to the cancerous areas of the body to destroy the tumors?
You must be new here.
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
The ability to extract stem cells from an adult body is old news, but the question is does this new source of cells have the polymorphic qualities of the their fetal bretheren?
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
New spinal column, anyone?
That doesn't even make sense. I guess they mean spinal cord. Christopher Reeve couldn't do shit with a new set of vertebra.
I bet the submitter of this story and the editor who posted it about have an embolism when they hear a computer user call their "tower" a "CPU."
I noticed that, apparently, they are using this technique to treat Parkinson's, which is a result of lack of Dopamine. I wonder if this could not also be used (many years from now) to treat ADHD, which results from a Serotonin Dopamine imbalance. Anyone good with bio want to comment?
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
The lesson here is to not put that much support into these so called scientists that become so emotional and arrogant with matters such as this. Most likely, many of the scientists arguing so fervently for embryonic stem cell research had forgotten the original point of concern and thus debate and regressed into an animalistic pattern of "My team is better than yours and you suck" in which their stubborness restricted them from seeing clearly. Their point of debate should have been about finding a solution that does not harm others (the ethical portion). This could be solved by either A) finding another solution or B) proving to all that there is actually no harm done. Instead, like all liberals they chose to act as enraged monkeys throwing poop and slapping the ground. This can be evidenced by their arrogant statements and obvious content for anyone who dares to question them or the results of their actions. All attrocities happen in this circumstance and they win no real support from anyone who employs logic and reason.
Much like the actual debate of abortion, the real issue is avoided and actually hidden by a wall made of emotional sound bites. Liberals have their chants about "get your laws off my body" and "my body, my choice" yet ignore that their refusal to address the actual issue at hand only shows their own internal reluctance to debate the issue amongst themselves much less satisfactorily come up with a conclusion that debases the issue pressed agains them. The rest is buried in a sea of hypocricy and a very selective and ironic application of who qualifies for that "CHOICE." The ONLY argument here that is valid is: "What defines 'human' during gestation" or worded differently, "When is that growing lifeform a human?"
Avoiding that issue and pandering to the ID of self important and narcissistic people is the tactic of rapists and murderers (not to mention Tyrants throughout history). I have seen this argument many times by wife/child beaters/molesters, murderers, thieves and other people who instead of internally accepting their own choices instead make excuses and try to alter the perspective of reality to a point that they can live with their choices. There is ALWAYS a reason for the murder, rape, etc.
Hitler killed people that he deemed un-productive or a hinderence to society as well.
Yes he did, of course he wasn't the only one throughout history to do so. You get more reaction by playing "the Hitler card" though.
Trolling is a art,
Abbot: What's the name of the the doctor?
Costello: Yu.
Abbot: Me?
Costello: No, Mei works in Oncology.
Abbot: You do?
Costello: No, no, no. Yu works on stem cells, Mei works in Oncology.
Abbot: Well, you're certainly not in the English department.
Etc...
According to this stem cell transplant from the patient themselves is "standard and contemporary treatment" (in contrast to an "emerging therapy") for multiple myeloma (described here).
I believe this is a more refined form of what used to be called a "bone marrow transplant", but someone else probably can explain that in excurciating detail. :-)
I have friend who had this done and she is well on her way to recovery.
Cheers,
Richard
'Course the story has no details - post anything else you can find below.
Translation: This sounds neat. It might be another hoax, but then we do have a reputation to keep up. I holpe the readers come through and make this an interesting article, cause right now, we got crap...
Actually, this shows the pro-life stance. Namely, that the same effects (getting stem cells) can be done without getting them from the unborn child. That's what the adult part of adult stem cells means.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
Medical scientists have known about adult stem cells for quite some time now. However, they are not the answer to the debate about stem cell research. As I recall, scientists have been able to do certain research with embryonic stem cells that they have not been able to reproduce with adult stem cells.
;).
then again... I'm a web developer, so what they heck do I know about stem cell research. All of my medical knowledge comes from the discovery channel and TLC
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
= Who's there? .............
~ Stem Cell Collectors. May we come in?
= I don't have any stem cells. GO away.
~ Sir. Did you sign an organ donation card?
= Uhh. Yes I did actually.
~ Could you pull that out and take a look at it for me?
= Weell. Alright.
~ On the back of the card there is a list of organs that can be collected and the very last item is Stem Cells.
= Yes Yes Yes. but what does this have to do with me.
~ Oh you haven't heard? Well there is a new process whereby stem cells can be harvested from a patients bones.
= Yes. So what. I am NOT a patient and I am at present using my bones so you cannot have them.
I know dopamine neurons can be regenerated with stem cells to help parkinsons disease, but what about the regeneration/addition of serotonin neurons for people with depression?
You get more reaction by playing "the Hitler card" though.
:), but it really doesn't matter who's doing the killing, killing people because they aren't "productive members of society" is simply wrong. This country was founded on the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. There isn't supposed to be any reason those rights are taking away. Who are we to decide that someone with Down Syndrome is still not productive, as an example I have a good friend who works with autistic children, she has kids that can't communicate but given the correct tools can write stories and paint pictures. Granted autism is a lot different from Down Syndrome but who's to say we won't discover a way to communicate with people have the disease and find that they aren't as incohenrent as we thought?
... so all the people who can't communicate well that includes people that are deaf, mute and blind ... okay lets get rid of anyone born blind or deaf or mute because its obvious they aren't going to be "productive". Okay well then what about people that are partially blind, people that have to wear corrective lenses, that would include a lot of computer people (myself included!). Where does it end?
True, it is for reaction purposes
If we go down that slippery slope we aren't coming back. Who decides who is a productive member of society? The Bush Administration? I don't hate Bush (voted for him in fact) but I don't trust him to make that sort of descision. And then, where does it stop? Do we just kill people who have Down Syndrome? What about people so mentally retarded they can't communicate
Its obvious from your sig that you probably don't believe in a higher power so I won't give the standard "playing God" argument, but I think that even you agree that if we start taking away the right to life from "non-productive people" we then have a precedent to take it away from anyone since "non-productive" is very subjective.
Religious reasons aside that's the problem I have with abortion, it makes society as a whole respect life even less than they already do. It's not really "alive" right? But it is alive, its made up of living tissue and created by other living things! And even if you believe its not, abortion still takes the right to life away from someone who would have had it otherwise.
The Anti-Blog
Oh darn, necro! Don't you realize that zygotes that contain the human genome are inbibed with a SOUL and all other zygotes are simple clusters of carbon/hydrogin based pro teens!?
.005% differenshumation in the heelix that makes all the difference!
It's that extra
We truly are special! God wants you to drive a Lincoln Navigator like he does up there in Heaven! Global warming was thunk up by Satan hisself! (or was it Al Quaieda?) Same differnse.
Sorry, I gotta go. Cheyney needs me to sign somthin'
-George W. Bush
Consider one potential beneficiary of stem cell research - spinal cord injury. There are 11,000 new cases each year in the US. Each CASE has estimated lifetime costs of $2,185,000 mostly funded by insurance and medical schemes.
That makes a potential $2.4 billion a year that could be saved in the US alone. Why aren't insurance companies *pouring* cash into stuff like stem cell research - or if they are why aren't we seeing any results.
Stem cells seem very crude, I think the superior approach is to isolate what proteins are responsible for regeneration and use gene therapy to enable them or inject a protein into the wound. Why pull out specific stem cells when any cell can become one?
This is a new stem cell source because CNN hasn't reported it before? Maybe they'd rather everyone believe you have to have dead babies to further research.
Personally, I think we should bail out the failing Russian portion of the ISS. We need the low-G environment to produce things (such as stem cells) that are much more round than on Earth! That...is true science and worth investing in. Imagine: round stuff. Very nice. No, no, don't spend money on furthering ethical sources of stem cells...we have round stuff to produce and study.
Note: it's one of those days...I take only little responsibility for heading towards the off-topic in a meandering mess. But anyways, we have heard of this bone marrow research long before.
Note... an important difference between human embryonic stem cell extraction methods and the methods used for insulin... dogs != humans.
While I do no advocate unnecessary cruelty to animals, I think instances like this are wholly different from killing children.
Is there a HOWTO how a patient can extract it him/herself?
...extract renewable stem cells from bone marrow...
<Cartman>: This is some quality bone marrow here Dan. Come on Dan. You're breakin' my balls here Dan. Seriously. The balls...broken.
I am a meat popsicle.
This bone marrow extraction technique was published in Nature in June out of the University of Minnesota headed by Dr. CATHERINE M. VERFAILLIE. Nature was very careful to address pros and cons and publish the work along with embryonic stem cell work in order to prevent the appearance of taking sides in the alleged moral debate. They even provided an introductory essay on the topic. See links below: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/n ature/journal/v418/n6893/full/nature00870_fs.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/links/020704/020704-2 .html
http://www.nature.com/nature/stemcells/index.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/stemcells/
Other sources for stem cells include fat rolls, and as somebody else mentioned, umbilical cords.
The immunoresponse against implanted "products" of fetal stem cells is [currently] an enormous challenge which may well be insurmountable.
Why is this problem played-down in the majority of reporting on this issue?
And, why is the promising research and successes on adult stem cells given such short shrift?
As for not being able to make "fake diamonds" that is another matter that too should be debated with the real issues in mind and therefore not done by many who post here (who resort to emotional and very short term/scope views on the issues). Just as some say "No, its bad. I won't listen" you have those that say such to the ethical arguments... or even to the empirically proven results. Get rid of the "sides" of the issue and focus on facts. In the absence of facts do not resort to making any assumptions if you cannot then accept the assumptions of others.
As for people having abortions... well this could actually be compared to the fact that rapes and murders will always happen, sad is it may be. However it is important to remember that if I kill some newborn baby (that is 6 - 8 weeks premature) then dump its body off to be harvested for various goodies... I will hopefully have my balls ripped off slowly and die a very slow and painful death. Yet if we go back a couple of weeks in development (or to many, there is no requirement to go back at all) then it is perfectly acceptable to willingly kill this lifeform and then walk in and out of the body dump with no consequence at all. Deep thoughts? Well to many it is, and those that refuse to look into themselves nor matters such as this do not deserve the right to make any decisions or express their opinions on the matter (at least in a manner that said opinions affect others, like voting and lobbying).
Should we implement a soylent green policy for dead bodies now?
and the drugs name is "Beer"
I own stock in a company that has been fighting patent and legal issues with this (AASTROM BIOSCIENCES INC [NASDAQ SC : ASTM ]).
There is so much controversy around the stem cell research and the funding of it, that even though the stuff they do doesn't involve "killing off babies" (not how I look at it, but how it is seen by many conservatives that apparently don't read much on cognitive development - or don't trust what they read) - they still run into many stopping blocks.
all that said, I also question how well the company is being run, but apprently I don't quesiton it enough to sell of my shares in it.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
I seem to remember about a year ago, or so, there was some research on stem cells in fat tissue. I'd be happy to donate some of mine for medical research, I imagine you'd have lots of people willing to donate. And isn't liposuction a little easier than taping somone's bone marrow? I know, I don't have the links or the knowledge here.
That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere
There is a certain danger in having too much flexibility. If you stick stem cells into yourself that can replicate indefinitely and transform into anything, then you run the risk of them transforming into everything.
There is a serious quality control problem here: suppose you want to convert totally undifferentiated stem cells into brain tissue to repair an injury. You might mostly succeed, but QA at the cellular level is tricky. Did you differentiate every one of them? Suppose you missed a couple. Being stem cells, those can continue to replicate and morph uncontrollably. You can end up with a messy clump of hair, intestine and toe nail cells growing uncontrollably in your head. We have a name for this problem: it's called cancer.
Adult stem cells have value precisely because they are differentiated. It's safer, because they are easier to control.
"for treatment of brain cancers, Alzheimers and other neurological disorders. Problem solved! Yipee! New spinal column, anyone?"
Yeah, as if the world isn't populated enough already, let cure every fucking disease in the world.
>I've been hearing about this sort of
>result for some time in prolife circles,
>but it seems to be silenced by the
> mainstream media. I still don't know
> how much ideology is involved, though.
OBVIOUSLY yet another a Mainsteam Media conspiracy (NOT!)
Some pro-life fanatics have their own
ideology to promote even it means blatant
lying regarding embryonic stem cell research.
> Essentially, the embryonic stem cells
> have failed to produce very promising
> results because of rejection or tumor
> formation (in many cases). Adult stem
> cells, which are pluripotential (not
> totipotential), have no rejection problems
> because they are autologously donated.
Self-serving nonsense. In fact, quite
the opposite is true. Matching adult stem
cells for transplant (donation) is still
quite an issue and rejection can be a
problem even with good potential matches.
This is not an issue with the use of
embryonic stem cells
(however, the latter are rarely available
in large enough quantity for most donation
purposes).
Adult stem cells also still have limited
medical application - current experiments
to coax adult stem cells to reproduce
as a variety of other human cells is
encouraging but quite tentative and far
from any practical application.
Moore v. Regents of University of California, 51 Cal. 3d 120 (CA Supreme Ct. 1990). (I know, bluebook format not followed)
This involved a guy who had some cells removed. He gave consent, but the doctors did not reveal to him their interest in the cells. Turns out that after research with his cells, they developed products worth millions, IIRC. The CA Supreme found for the university despite the doctors having violated a disclosure law.
"New Stem Cell Source - Your Bone Marrow"
Beats Eating Babies!
Sorry, I have a good friend who was shot 4 times and is paralyzed from the waist down. Good guy too. Wasn't doing anything wrong. And I figure with stem cell treatment he could walk again, but since the administration is so stagnant about ideas like this... Grr... Enough ranting. But with any luck, maybe stem cells from bone marrow will provide enough to rebuild neural tissue, instead of making blood cells.
Regarding the news from Stanford a couple weeks ago, "The chairman of President Bush's bioethics council demanded a public apology from Stanford University, accusing the school of trying to conceal the nature of its stem cell research and mischaracterizing the bioethics council's views."
"Pro-child, pro-family, pro-wrestling."
cpeterso
this is not new news. i heard about this just when the stem cell debate was starting. the bone marrow stem cells are not as versatile as fetal stem cells.
A few years back, there was a small study done that showed a different source of pluripotent stem cells - the nose. It seems that stem cells in the nasal cavity are already adept at becoming nerve cells.
I don't recall hearing of any follow-up to this, though it seemed very promising. I try to follow these things, as they offer a good chance of reversing the damage done to me by (secondary progressive) multiple sclerosis.
I've been hoping that such research might offer a way of reversing the damage done, in time that my skill set as a software engineer (microcontrollers and device drivers) would still be useful as anything but a curiosity, but *sigh* things don't look good. If I'm extremely lucky, it'll be only about 15 years till the technology is there, and by then, who'd want to hire a 60-year-old engineer who's been out of circulation foir the past two decades? Grrrr.
Lemon curry?
I really don't, but...duh! Bone marrow is a great source for stem cells! Did someone finally just now figure this out? Or am I really missing something here?
This has worked in the lab. There seems to be a subpopulation of marrow stem cells that retain differentiation potential.
Kargis Strong, MD
Cell, Vol. 105, 369-377, May 4, 2001
Purification of rare hematopoietic stem cell(s) (HSC) to homogeneity is required to study their self-renewal, differentiation, phenotype, and homing. Long-term repopulation (LTR) of irradiated hosts and serial transplantation to secondary hosts represent the gold standard for demonstrating self-renewal and differentiation, the defining properties of HSC. We show that rare cells that home to bone marrow can LTR primary and secondary recipients. During the homing, CD34 and SCA-1 expression increases uniquely on cells that home to marrow. These adult bone marrow cells have tremendous differentiative capacity as they can also differentiate into epithelial cells of the liver, lung, GI tract, and skin. This finding may contribute to clinical treatment of genetic disease or tissue repair.
My three-year-old has cancer. Last December we did - get this - a stem cell harvest - before she underwent her final chemo treatment. they gave her this $400 per dose medicine that put her bone marrow in super hyper drive to make more than normal then hooked her up to this cool machine that pulled them out. 3 months later we fed them back to her. this is nothing new and replaces the old fashion bone marrow transplants.
http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.
"in the death of others"....
google on "conflict diamond" sometime, shit for brains.
> you do know infanticide != abortion, right?
Agreed. Abortion is more properly termed feticide (spelling?). Just wanted to point out that partial birth abortion blurs the boundaries between the two terms. The procedure is documented here. Often a babies aborted this way can survive (as a premature delivery), and would be called an infants if the abortionist pulled their head out of the birth canal before killing them (the head is the only part of the body kept within the mother before the baby is killed). This does fit the word meaning: infant-i-cide.
Ultimately, all abortion definitely involves killing life that is not the mother's own. And that is evil.
Slashdot isn't journalism, it's a message board.
Stop being such a lazy spectator.
what makes the human animal more important than the dog animal? What makes the dog animal composed of molecules no more or less important than those in dirt special? nothing.
Well this is pretty good, not problem solved, but we're gettin closer. The pro-lifers need to end this madness... We're talking to the same people who drive gas guzzling cars, pollute the air, dump toxic waste on lands, and then cry about stem-cells. I'm Sorry. Get it right.
"He Who Laughs Last, Is Just A Hand In The Bush" - Ozzy Osbourne
My dad also underwent this therapy for Lymphoma.
The difference here is that the stem cells are not drawn from the bone marrow to replace bone marrow after chemotherapy. The stem cells are drawn from bone marrow to produce completely different cells in the nervous system.
Scientists have known for many years that some "primary" cells in the body, during fetal development, morph into different cells simply by their location in the fetus. The cells know what they are supposed to become by their surroundings. This technique exploits this trait of stem cells by manually placing them in other areas of the body, and then having them grow into the appropriate cells.
-ted