Slashdot Mirror


Stem Cell "Master Gene" Found

nexex writes "From the Washington Post, 'Scientists yesterday said they have discovered a long-sought "master gene" in embryonic stem cells that is largely responsible for giving those cells their unique regenerative and therapeutic potential.' The report summarizes an article in the newest issue of the scientific journal, Cell."

54 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. Potential by Limburgher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since they've now apparently isolated this gene, isn't it kind of like having "root" access to stem cells? Hopefully this kills off any remaining debate over cloning/killing babies and paves the way for real, theraputic research.

    --

    You are not the customer.

    1. Re:Potential by Turing+Machine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They still need to learn how to turn it on.

      As I understand it (and I'm not even an amateur in this field, so take this for what it's worth) that's one of the major problems facing genetic scientists. There are many, many cases where they know which gene is responsible for something, but they don't yet know how how that gene is switched on (or off).

      I guess it's like knowing the root password, but not having a shell or any other way of making use of it. :-)

    2. Re:Potential by Pinguu · · Score: 3, Funny

      isn't it kind of like having "root" access to stem cells?
      What's the stem cells IP? I'm gonna hax0r it ^^

      --
      --
    3. Re:Potential by pe1rxq · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, more like knowing the account is named 'root' but not having the password.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    4. Re:Potential by stoborrobots · · Score: 4, Informative
      One opportunity to kill off this debate is listed in this New Scientist article someone else posted...

      He says a more immediate use of the key gene would be to enable the medical profession to grow "millions and billions" of ESCs from existing samples. These could then more safely be used in humans, as they would not have been exposed to the "cocktail" of chemicals currently needed.

    5. Re:Potential by s88 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I guess it's like knowing the root password, but not having a shell or any other way of making use of it. :-) "

      Isn't it more like knowing that root is the account you want, but not knowing the password?

      Scott

    6. Re:Potential by BWJones · · Score: 4, Informative

      Since they've now apparently isolated this gene, isn't it kind of like having "root" access to stem cells?

      Not quite. Because you know which gene is responsible does not mean you know how to 1) activate it, 2) turn it off, 3) modulate it's activity. All three of these possibilities will be different in various tissues that may have differing rates of turnover. Take for instance lung tissue versus neural tissue. Lung tissue turns over quite a bit from stem cell populations, whereas neural tissue does not (well mostly does not).

      The whole genomics world is just the beginning in that there will be a whole post-genomics world where scientists need to figure out how all of the code works. We just now are getting to the point where we know what the code is and its general order, but we do not know how all of it works. It's like reverse engineering a system where we are not certain of all of the rules by which the system is constructed. With computer code at least, one can know the general order of code, its structure and execution. Bioscience is more......slippery. :-)

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    7. Re:Potential by moz711 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why bother figuring out how it's turned on? Just engineer a transgene, with the gene and a promoter sequence that you do know how to control (there are many different types, and some can be manipulated by external chemical control). Then insert the transgene into a test cell and use the added promoter sequence to turn it on at will.

    8. Re:Potential by nounderscores · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good idea. And you could put in an antisense version with a promoter to turn off the natural copy at will.

    9. Re:Potential by the+uNF+cola · · Score: 2, Funny

      One gene to rule them all, and in darkness bind them? /frodo

      --

      --
      "I'm not bright. Big words confuse me. But Wanda loves me and that should be enough for you." - Cosmo

    10. Re:Potential by Cipster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem with that is that you would have to continuously control the gene externally (essentially try and baby sit it). It would be much more easy to figure out how to turn an upstream switch on since:
      -You get to take advantage of cellular signal amplification so you will only need a small initial signal to turn on the cascade.
      -You can take advantage of the regulatory system apready in place so the newly activated cells don't turn into a tumor or worse.

  2. Is this patentable? by dtolton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Something you have to wonder is if they are going to patent this
    information? I would hope that since this is being done at a
    University that won't happen. Although with all the recent patent
    craziness, I wouldn't be completely suprised if they granted a patent
    on it.

    It still concerns and dismays me greatly that there is any discussion
    of patenting things like the human genome. As many have said, they
    are a discovery rather than an invention. Let's hope this research
    follows that philosophy.

    Sadly, the fact that stem cells have great potential application to
    ease human suffering is seen by many people as a great way to make a
    buck. It's even worse that most of this research is funded by our
    tax dollars, then we have to turn right back around and pay a high
    per item cost to help defray research costs. ::sigh::

    --

    Doug Tolton

    "The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't." -John Galt
    1. Re:Is this patentable? by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      The human genome has already been patented. Patent number 00000001 is owned by God, and was issued a few million years ago. But, I don't think he's capable of enforcing it as there are no lawyers in heaven.

    2. Re:Is this patentable? by dissy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Something you have to wonder is if they are going to patent this
      > information

      Thats the nice thing about being a University, they dont need to patent, they just publish.
      Why pay for a patent if its suppost to be open? When you publish, you can always prove prior art to any future patents a jerk would try to make to steal the technology. And thats all that needs to be protected if it is to be open and public knowledge.

      I just hope having it open instead of using it to make huge profits is exactly what they have on their minds.

    3. Re:Is this patentable? by the+gnat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would hope that since this is being done at a
      University that won't happen.


      So would I, but bitter experience has proved that this expectation is unreasonable. A number of the existing stem cell lines that have been annointed as available to federally-funded researchers are in fact patented by the University of Wisconsin, if memory serves. However, perhaps the fact that this latest discovery was made in Scotland and Japan will change things.

      It's even worse that most of this research is funded by our tax dollars, then we have to turn right back around and pay a high per item cost to help defray research costs.

      I hear this a lot on Slashdot, but it misses half of the point. The problem is with patents on basic research, which do not represent a marketable product. A gene patent is commercially useless without extensive further research, e.g. traditional drug development. In contrast, many patents held by academic groups are for inventions that have immediate commercial potential. For instance, the automatic DNA sequencer was invented at Caltech, presumably with federal grant money, then patented. It was immediately commercialized, enabling a high-quality product to get to market quickly. (It was also truly revolutionary at the time.) Gene patents, on the other hand, are usually just used to stifle further research by competitors who might actually be capable of realizing its medical and economic potential.

      (This is distinct from junk patents that hardly meet any of the other standards such as novelty and non-obviousness. I've also seen a fair number of those applied for by academic groups. I think this reflects the sad fact that competition has become so much more intense that scientific ethics have increasingly disappeared - this is not limited to patents. Since I'd prefer to keep my job, I can't go into as much details as I'd like.)

    4. Re:Is this patentable? by maxpublic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Patenting existing genes is unconstitutional in any event. As is clearly stated, both patents and copyrights exist to allow *inventors* and *artists* to profit from their work for a brief period of time, before that work must be released into the public domain.

      Discovered natural events, like genes, are not 'invented'. There is no constitutional basis for issuing a patent for a discovery of this nature. You could patent the *invention* used to isolate and manipulate the gene, but patenting the gene itself is bogus, a ridiculous extension of the process that goes well beyond constitutional protections.

      Unless, of course, the people involved in trying to patent the gene suffer from the delusion that they are god.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    5. Re:Is this patentable? by the+gnat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree, but unfortunately it's not really 'unconstitutional" until the Supremes say so (or until Congress passes a law, which wouldn't make it unconstitutional but would have the same effect). What's needed is for a gene patent to stifle medical research on some high-profile illness, particularly an illness that afflicts some group with lots of money and political clout. Only people realize the damage that gene patents can do, there will be considerable motivation to steamroll over the whining of biotechs and patent lawyers and declare them illegal. I'm a little surprised that Myriad's BRCA1 patent hasn't done this here, though Canada and France seem to be slowly getting the message.

      (Again, this is different from, say, AIDS drug patents, which I'd argue are still necessary even though Big Pharma needs to chill the fuck out. People would be far more outraged if a gene patent was used to block the sale of a live-saving drug, though I'm not sure how this is any different from Myriad suing breast-cancer researchers. Call it the difference between greed and spite.)

    6. Re:Is this patentable? by roskakori · · Score: 4, Funny
      The human genome has already been patented. Patent number 00000001 is owned by God
      no, you are mistaken. although patent number 00000001 is owned by god, it refers to "light".
    7. Re:Is this patentable? by skywire · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You have the right idea about patents in general. However, a few years ago Congress decided to let discoverers of genes patent them. This is certainly a legal oddity (conflicting with the core meaning of patents in US law), but they wanted to encourage such discovery, and the patent system was a practical tool for effecting the policy.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  3. LIES ALL LIES!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This GOVERNMENT filth is misinformation!

    Support BABY HARVESTING. It's the only way for a brighter future! Kill cancer, HARVEST BABIES!

  4. Does this mean no more embrionic research? by SpamJunkie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can anyone familiar with the details say if this will end the need to do research on embryos? This seems to be a controversial aspect of stem cell research and eliminating this need may help win public acceptance.

    1. Re:Does this mean no more embrionic research? by stoborrobots · · Score: 3, Informative

      The article suggests that in the near term, this will actually boost the need for research on embryos, to figure out how this "nanog" stuff works...

      However, it does mean that (hopefully) down the track, those things which can now only be cured with embryonic transplants will be curable with alternative techniques...

      Happy to answer any other queries on the subject (have been following the subject *VERY* closely for a few years now... Also working in bioinformatics this month...)

    2. Re:Does this mean no more embrionic research? by nfk · · Score: 5, Informative

      They answer that in the article:

      "THE DISCOVERY of the gene brings scientists closer to a holy grail of biology: the ability to turn ordinary cells into those that possess all the biomedical potency of human embryonic stem cells, eliminating the need to destroy embryos to get them.

      Researchers cautioned that the new work (...) will not bring a quick end to the political controversy over human embryo research."

      They even say that it might intensify research on embryos, for now.

    3. Re:Does this mean no more embrionic research? by stoborrobots · · Score: 4, Informative
      You're right (or at least to my knowledge) from a clinical perspective... There are no clinical-grade or even advanced research-grade treatments available... I didn't stress the "plausible but not proven" sense of the word "can" in my last post. My bad...

      However, I seem to recall some successes in among the spectacular failures... The only thing I can turn up seems to be this rather cryptic link (scan down to point 3) which alludes to the successes I (think I) can remember... It was a while ago though, before I was following this... So my memory may be unclear, or I may be hyping this more than it deserves... I will be back in touch if I find a more concrete reference...

      Also, there has been considerably less research on the embryonic stemcells than the adult variants, because of the moral difficulties, which may partly explain why there are more successes with the latter...

  5. Unacceptable research? by stoborrobots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they have found the controller for the unlimited reproduction abilities of these cells, then we may be well on the way to curing many of these harmful diseases... True cures for Alzheimers and Parkinsons???

    maybe even eliminate costly transplants...

    Who knows, we could even save Michael J Fox's career... =)

    Hopefully the people in charge realise that this is more than an attempt "to transcend embryo research ... [because] it's wrong".

    1. Re:Unacceptable research? by Zanth_ · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who knows, we could even save Michael J Fox's career... =)

      Or even save Michael Jackson's face!

      Er...its pretty far gone, maybe not.

  6. can you turn Master gene on/off? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 4, Funny

    What happens if you turn the Master gene on for a normal cell, or off in the stem cell? Does that automatically make the cell grow into a baby? That would be wild!

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:can you turn Master gene on/off? by Baumi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Stem cells don't automatically grow into babies - if that were the case, this'd be the Easy Route to human cloning.

      An in-depth look into what stem cells are, can be found here.

    2. Re:can you turn Master gene on/off? by diaphanous · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not very knowledgeable about stem cells, but I read the Chambers et al. paper (but not Mitsui et al.), and I think I understand the main points and if I'm wrong hopefully someone more knowledgeable will correct me.

      Mouse embryonic stem cells use a couple of factors- gp130 signalling, Oct4, and Nanog to retain their state as stem cells. Chambers et al. showed that that raising the levels of Nanog allows embryonic stem cells to maintain their "stemness"- their undifferentiated state- in the abscence of gp130 signalling. If you remove nanog, then whether the embryonic cells remained stem cells or became more specialized would probably depend on the levels of gp130 signalling, although it seems that nanog may be the limiting factor.


      ~Phillip

    3. Re:can you turn Master gene on/off? by teslatug · · Score: 2, Funny

      You must make sure you've also set the jumper correctly or you could leave it on CS

  7. This is also on Newscientist.com by azav · · Score: 5, Informative

    And was posted on May 30 Link follows: Here

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  8. Foreskin restoration!? by Martin+Marvinski · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I can finally get my foreskin back after 43 years without it!

    1. Re:Foreskin restoration!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, I have it right here. I kept it in my ice-chest for a while before moving your foreskin to a more secure cryogenic facility. We had been hoping to use your foreskin along with current research into stem cells to engineer a master race of men with foreskin covering their entire bodies.

      And now I click on the Post Anonymously box...

    2. Re:Foreskin restoration!? by LittleGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now I can finally get my foreskin back after 43 years without it!

      Oh great. More spam to look forward to.

      --
      Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
  9. Re:Stack overflow? by dspeyer · · Score: 2

    No, it's just the /. effect taking out a memory-hungry VM. You didn't expect it to hold up, did you?

  10. Re:Can we get a libertarian country first? by dbrutus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, even a libertarian (as opposed to anarchist) society will have to deal with the question of who or what is a rights bearing being. Artificial intelligences, embryos, the retarded, catatonic, and other border conditions have to be addressed in any society that's as advanced as we are.

  11. Actually, Heaven does have *one* lawyer (HUMOUR) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Following a distinguished legal career, a man arrived at the Gates of heaven, accompanied by the Pope, who had the misfortune to expire on the same day.

    The Pope was greeted first by St. Peter, who escorted him to his quarters. The room was somewhat shabby and small, similar to that found in a low-grade Motel 6-type establishment.

    The lawyer was then taken to his room, which was a palatial suite including a private swimming pool, a garden, and a terrace overlooking the Gates. The attorney was somewhat taken aback, and told St. Peter,

    "I'm really quite surprised at these rooms, seeing as how the Pope was given such small accommodations."

    St. Peter replied, We have over a hundred Popes here, and we're really very bored with them. We've never had a lawyer.

  12. Re:Yes!!! lets get relion fanatics out of medicine by weorthe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Religion does not necesarily equal morality. I'd rather not have Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson have a say in what happens to MY genes.

    --
    cat * >> sig
  13. Turn on? by jabbadabbadoo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can I exploit this knownledge to turn on women, you think?

  14. Welcome by Barkmullz · · Score: 3, Funny

    I, for one, will welcome our new master gene overlords

    --
    Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
  15. Incase anyone's interested... by Andorion · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's a cool song about stem cell research by Dream Theater, called "The Great Debate", off "Six Degrees of Turbulance" - I suggest checking it out =)

    ~Berj

  16. Master Gene? No! Mistress Gene! by screwthemoderators · · Score: 5, Funny

    A gene that tells all others what to do should definitely be feminine-

  17. Re:Can we get a libertarian country first? by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Funny

    That should've been:

    "artificial intelligence, embryos, the retarded, the catatonic, the average slashdot poster..."

    Oh wait - you were trying to avoid redundancy. My bad.

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  18. AHHHH! by Ghoser777 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "AYBABTU," then "In Soviet Russia..."

    When will the lame jokes end?!?! I only hope this valuable research will lead us towards a way to turn off the "lame-joke" gene.

    Matt Fahrenbacher

    --
    James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
  19. Re:Yes!!! lets get relion fanatics out of medicine by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Watch out what you ask for. If you get those religious/moral types too far out of science you end up with Mengele reruns throwing jews into freezing water just to measure how quickly they die. It's good science but morally impermissible.
    GMAFB. Naziism was a religious ideology which directly incorporated the Christianity of the society in which it was formed ("Gott mit uns") and which furthermore inherited the idea that it was okay to kill Jews (defined, of course, by their religion) from centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. I am sick to death of people citing Mengele as a favorite example of "why science needs religion" when a) Mengele was himself a religious man, and b) religion has never shown any special aptitude for morality, in science or anywhere else.

    Can you give give me one single solid example of a time when religious restraint on scientific research has done more good than harm? (I assure you, history is full of examples of the reverse.) A single one? Apparently when religion and morality are invoked, we're all supposed to stroke our chins and nod wisely and say, "Hmmm, well, of course, science requires religious morality to control its excesses." It's bullshit. If I have to choose between superstition and ignorance and morality-by-authority on the one hand, and a longer, happier, healthier life for myself and the people I love on the other, I know which one to pick.
    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  20. Old news by Ambush · · Score: 2, Funny
    I saw Russell Crowe regenerate his cells last night in Virtuosity. Of course, he used glass rather than stem cells, but it was a neat party trick anyway.

    ;-)

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people; those who know ternary, those who don't, and those now hunting for a dictionary.
  21. Convert DNA to Binary... by SharpFang · · Score: 2

    and you'll see in the beginning of the gene:

    int main (int argc, char** argv)
    { ...

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  22. How to Turn On A Stem Master Cell by thedbp · · Score: 4, Funny

    1. Put on some smooth jazz or R&B. Al Green will do nicely.

    2. Light some candles and incense. Sandalwood is perfect, especially if you can get some sandalwood massage oil.

    3. Compliment the Stem Master Cell heavily, even if you don't believe a word of what you're saying.

    4. Offer a deep-fetal-tissue massage.

    5. After a nice 20 minute session, rub the Stem Master Cell's buttocks and thighs, hightening their pleasure with small injections of dopamine.

    That should do it! Lord knows it works for me.

  23. Re:Yes!!! lets get relion fanatics out of medicine by dbrutus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Naziism, formally called national socialism, was very much not christian which any serious examination of their belief system would bear out. It's an anti-christian libel to view Nazi denial of jewish humanity as different only in degree with christian fury over the christ-killer libel. Christians were angry with jews over what their ancesters did, Nazis believed that inherently the jews were subhuman. And christians, unlike nazis, have doctrines of love and forgiveness that tended to ameliorate anger.

    It was the denial of humanity that allowed all those medical experiments to be done as if jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and the other inmates of the death camps were just animals that could be used as means to nazi ends.

    As for religious restraint doing more good than harm, how do you determine the good and harm of an experiment that was not run? Medical ethics boards don't tend to trumpet to the public the immoral ideas their staff come up with that they shoot down. As an alternative, I'd look at the history of immoral scientific experiments that could have used a bit more moral supervision. I'd suggest a little more restraint on the part of they doctors who refrained from treating those black syphilis patients with more than a placebo just so they could record 'what would happen' would have been a good thing.

  24. Useful to find this gene role in cancer by Muhammar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A lot of tumor cells use signaling pathways which are activated normaly only in embryogenesis - turning the cell signaling off is a new promising way to treat cancer without the typical debilitating chemotherapy side-effects. The ability to switch this master stem-cell gene off could be useful in this respect.

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  25. Religious History by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >Christians were angry with jews over what their >ancesters did

    Allegedly did. One gospel account has the Romans holding Jesus's trial, another account has the Sanhedrin holding the exact same trial.
    So one of the gospels violates a commandment and bears false witness.

    >And christians, unlike nazis, have doctrines of >love and forgiveness that tended to ameliorate >anger.

    Individual Christians may live by such doctrines, but historically and politically pogroms, murder, and severe economic sanctions were commonly used by religiously oriented governments (Christians included) as a form of political control which played on feelings of religious nationalism. The Vatican was openly in support of Hitler, then tried to erase its involvement afterwards. The tremendous support given to Nazism by religious institutions was not an accident.

    It seems that the political usefulness of religion is to help individuals to assert their moral superiority over others, and then use that superiority to justify expansion and or exploitation. Christianity may make its followers well disposed towards other Christians, but it has rarely, from what I have seen, increased the acceptance of various 'outsiders' (whoever those happen to be at the time) by Christians. The Quakers were one possible exception. Our modern emphasis on tolerance is more a novelty than the rule.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  26. Er, I think you're reading dated text by CharlesClarkson · · Score: 3, Funny

    According to: The Gesargenplotzian Gospel

    IV. 1. Lo, in 1962 the Great Gesargenplotz came back, and it saw what He had done. And the Great Gesargenplotz was wroth, and it spoke unto Him saying "Why have you done this? Why have you created these creatures just to torment them?" 2. And He answered, saying "I have done so because it amuses me, Great Gesargenplotz. Of what matter is their pain and disappointment? They are not gods as you and I, they exist only for my amusement." 3. The Great Gesargenplotz, hearing His answer, knew that His heart was hard. The Great Gesargenplotz repented it that it had made Him. 4. The Great Gesargenplotz ate Him and He was no more.

    After being eaten by His creator, I think His patent lapsed.

    --

    Charles K. Clarkson
    Many people truly want to help. Unfortunately, many people truly suck at it.
  27. Re:Yes!!! lets get relion fanatics out of medicine by Cappy+Red · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Dodging the godwin's law sidetrack...

    Science is not merely the realm for scientists to ask questions, they're merely the ones determined, talented, or able enough to put action to them. Everyone else in a society is also allowed to ask questions that the scientists can try to answer and that they must answer to. That society includes the "religious/moral types".

    It might have been prudent to cite one or two examples "of the reverse", when you asked for one of religious restraint in action for good. Nevertheless, I have none for either side. Rather, I say that I've found that history and especially the idle historian better remember the fantastically bad events than the quietly good ones. I myself am also an idle historian.

    And morality... do you scoff at all moral guidence in science or merely that from religion? Especially if it is the former, I hope you are neither a doctor mucking about with my insides nor a scientist mucking about with the Universe. Moral guidence, whether direct by personal belief, or indirect by considering the questions they raise, is what keeps us from destroying ourselves personally, publically, and scientifically.

    *honken quip about karma going up or down*

    --
    This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things