Stem Cells Mend Spinal Injuries

Darkman, Walkin Dude writes "New research shows that rats that had their spinal columns severed were able to regain use of their hind legs through the use of stem cells from embryonic rats." From the Wired article: "Spinal cord injuries can be caused by accidents or infections and affect 250,000 people a year in the United States alone, costing $4 billion annually, according to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders. Whittemore's team took specific cells from rat embryos called glial restricted precursor cells -- a kind of stem cell or master cell that gives rise to nerve cells."

Comments

ok, but it's still a long way from being useful

[FredThompson]

There's far more involved than just regenerating some relatively simple structures like a rat spinal column when the goal is human spinal injury.

I've had a lamenectomy. It's a procedure where tissue has to be removed from between discs in the spine. In my case, I herniated the tissue during heavy squats (word to the wise from a lifetime power lifter, don't do squats, they're too dangerous.) In my case, the tissue was pushed through the fibrous outer sheath that holds the spinal column together. The only possible way to "heal" this would have been to somehow take all the pressure off that part of the body (prevent all muscle movement and stretch the body on a rack), push the tissue back inside then seal the fibrous outer sheath.

Would I pay for such an option? Yes. Is it possible? No. Would some form of simple application of stem cells allow my body to rebuild the missing tissue? Probably not. Not only is a human spinal column far more complex than that of a rat, so are human brains. The human body also lives far longer and the human body is more articulate.

This is nice news but it's just the start of what would have to be a long, long, long process. There's no way to have perfect regeneration of plant tissue yet. Thinking human tissue would be able to regenerate any time soon is silly.

Re:ok, but it's still a long way from being useful

[jeremychoi]

there has been limited success in stem cell therapy in humans (last year in november). korean researchers helped a paralyzed woman recover some motor control of her lower limbs. I'm not sure how well it followed through though. i never followed up with it. http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200411/kt200411261 7575710440.htm>

Re:ok, but it's still a long way from being useful

[FredThompson]

Yeah, I saw that, too. The key phrase is "some motor control" and there really hasn't been much said after that. "Some" could mean "almost none" and one case doesn't really prove causation. Mind you, I'm not trying to dampen the enthusiasm at all, I'm trying to be rational about this. There's a long, long, long way to go before we can heal spinal cords. We can't even make skin regrow after a burn or abrasion without it looking like a mess. Imagine how much more complex the spinal column is than skin...

Re:ok, but it's still a long way from being useful

[cbnewman]

we're talking about two different things here. the OP (who is describing a discectomy, rather than a laminectomy) presumably did not have a spinal cord injury, rather a disease of the vertebral column (i.e. the bony support around the spinal cord and spinal nerve roots). in the case the OP describes, the nucleus pulposis of the intervertebral disc herniates out (either by mechanical stress or simply by aging) and impinges the exiting nerve root of a spinal peripheral nerve. we have been able to repair peripheral nerves for some time now. in the case of the research presented here, we're talking about growth/repair in the central nervous system. this type of repair was not thought to be possible throughout much of the 20th century. turns out we were mostly wrong.

while the cited article in this posting is a little light on details, this research is potentially novel for the reason that these researchers appear to have recovered function in an animal with a complete spinal cord transection. incomplete spinal cord injury (aka "crush") injuries are a different beast. for some time now, some degree of functional rehabilitation has been possible. the hope is that in humans, we will be able to culture the appropriate stem cell, provide the correct growth factors and achieve connection between the motor/sensory cortex and the peripheral nerve(s).

the problem is that until this point, we have not had very much success getting neurons in the central nervous system to grow across scar tissue and make appropriate connections to regain function.

in anticipation of a heated debate in this forum regarding stem cells etc, it's worth noting that the cells used in this study probably fall into the category of "adult stem cells" and not embryonic stem cells (the more contriversial of the two).

stem cells

[jessejesse]

I read today Senator Frist went against Bush and is now supporting stem cell funding and research. I really hope the American public can put enough pressure to get the White House behind saving American lives and repairing damage such as spinal cord injuries

Re:We're not persuing this as fast as we can becau

[natrius]

I think we have a bit of hope though. In a speech in front of the Senate, Bill Frist, the leader of the Senate Republicans, used the "s"-word when discussing this issue. "It isn't just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science." Yeah, I was shocked too. If we're lucky, the bill in question will be passed so we can be done with Bush's inane stem cell research policy.

Re:Anwser to flaimbait. No $$ for abortions...

[MrPerfekt]

Skipping the theological mellodrama..

You might be able to tell me at what speed an object falls to the earth, but can you tell me why it falls? Something as simple as gravity? Science is observing events and trying to predict what will happen. Science does not purport to understand why something happens.

Um, science _does_ attempt to explain to the best of our ability why things happen. Is "gravity" not a perfectly valid answer to your question? If you want to recursively ask "Why?" to every explanation, then I challenge you to explain your faith and allow me to extend the same courtesy. I guarantee you will run out of productive statements long before I will.

The fact that you refeer to soul and "some such shit" in the same sentance leads me to believe you believe you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that you should be the one who decides where my tax dollars are spent.

Blah, blah, blah. Vica versa. Ad nausem.

All that Bush did was listen to his constituents, who said they don't want their tax dollars being spent on embryos that came from abortions.

Woah, Woah! Hold it right there. This is where you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding. Embryos that came from abortions? From the wikipedia...

Embryonic stem cells are stem cells derived from the undifferentiated inner mass cells of a blastocyst, an early stage embryo consisting of 50-150 cells. They are pluripotent, meaning they are able to grow into any of the 200 cell types in the body. Embryonic stem cells can be obtained from a cloned blastocyst, created by fusing a denucleated egg cell with a patient's cell. The blastocyst produced is allowed to grow to the size of a few tens of cells, and stem cells are then extracted. Because they are obtained from a clone, they are genetically compatible with the patient.

200 cells is not a fetus by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is a blastocyst a fetus. These is very much a lab created process and trying to apply your morality via rubber stamp doesn't exactly line up.

Re:To be or not to be...born?

[PsiPsiStar]

We're talking human beings.

No, we're not. This is the thing that "Human-at-conception" camp, which refers to itself as "pro-life" constantly ignores, no matter how many times it's brought up. All human cells do not have rights. Only individuals have rights. Embryonic stem cells are not individuals for a variety of reasons.

Those who want to assert that life begins at conception frequently fall back on logic that flies in the face of longstanding legal precedent. They say embryos are human, for example, because they represent a unique set of human DNA. But if this definition of what is human were true, it would be okay to kill a twin as long as the other twin remained. It's not. A human is more than simply a set of cells with unique DNA. And we've recognized that for thousands of years. The set of cells must also pass a certain stage of development. Otherwise, any stem cell which could potentially be cloned through somatic cell transfer would be human.

While many socieites differed radicially from ours in terms of their legal code, and assigned rights to a patriarch, a family, or a nation, our society assigns rights primarily to individual human beings.

Cells don't have rights until they become individuals. An individual is one person, and one person only. Never two or three or possibly four people. An individual is only one person. An embryonic stem cell is one or two or possibly three people, or none at all if it doesn't attach to the uterine wall.

Likewise, the often repeated canard of 'what if you were aborted doesn't support those who say people are humans at conception unless you also don't believe in contraception, or any other act which would prevent the birth of a person. After all, if my parents had gone to the movies instead of making me, I wouldn't be here either. But what kind of logic is that? This is a case of assuming what you're trying to prove. People who don't believe than individuality starts at conception will never be persuaded by this argument, because they don't believe that they were 'them' at conception. They believe they were still a 'pre-individual.'

Hmmm, yes a "clump of cells" as long as it wasn't the "clump of cells" that turned out to be you. Strange how the "human" dividing line moves so.

Moving? Are you claiming that he's applying one standard to himself, and another standard to other people. If so, I really don't think you understand his argument. But if you're saying that there are a lot of people who disagree with you and hold different moral standards which they apply to all people then yes, you're absolutely right.