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."

Comments

Potential

[Limburgher]

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.

Re:Potential

[Turing Machine]

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. :-)

Re:Potential

[pe1rxq]

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

Jeroen

Re:Potential

[stoborrobots]

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.

Re:Potential

[BWJones]

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. :-)

Is this patentable?

[dtolton]

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::

Re:Is this patentable?

[EmagGeek]

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.

Re:Is this patentable?

[the gnat]

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.)

Re:Is this patentable?

[maxpublic]

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

Re:Is this patentable?

[roskakori]

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".

LIES ALL LIES!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This GOVERNMENT filth is misinformation!

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

Does this mean no more embrionic research?

[SpamJunkie]

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.

Re:Does this mean no more embrionic research?

[nfk]

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.

Re:Does this mean no more embrionic research?

[stoborrobots]

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...

Unacceptable research?

[stoborrobots]

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".

can you turn Master gene on/off?

[192939495969798999]

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!

Re:can you turn Master gene on/off?

[Baumi]

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.

This is also on Newscientist.com

[azav]

And was posted on May 30 Link follows: Here

Foreskin restoration!?

[Martin Marvinski]

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

Re:Can we get a libertarian country first?

[dbrutus]

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.

Actually, Heaven does have *one* lawyer (HUMOUR)

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Turn on?

[jabbadabbadoo]

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

Master Gene? No! Mistress Gene!

[screwthemoderators]

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

BBC has more commentary

[stoborrobots]

See this page

How to Turn On A Stem Master Cell

[thedbp]

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.