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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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].
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...)
Nah, People will still complain about it but not as many. This will probably at least get the big organizations such as the catholic churches and political parties off their backs. So there will only be smaller organazations that will complain about it somehow.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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();
Ever had back problems fuck head? No? Go to hell. You have no idea what its like.
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
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.
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...
I can't believe you could be so callous and un-feeling. Why does nobody think of the poor, unborn red blood cells that bone marrow could have become? I think we should all write the government and have them withdraw funding for what is essentially murder.
</sarcasm>
END OF LINE.
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...
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!"
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
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.
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.
It absolutely does.
(Not that it's relevant to the argument at hand.)
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?
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.
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