Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Grow Blood Vessels Using Skin Cells
rubberbando writes "The new york times is running a story about how scientists have discovered a way to grow new blood vessels using skin cells. Since the blood vessels are grown using the patient's own skin cells, there isn't any chance for rejection. This looks to be quite a boon for people who have several damaged blood vessels from diseases such as diabetes. Perhaps one day they will be able to apply this technology/technique to creating other parts of the body and rid us of the whole stem cell controversy. Only time will tell."
Blood Vessels Grown From Skin
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 16, 2005
DALLAS, Nov. 15 (AP) - Two kidney dialysis patients from Argentina have received the world's first blood vessels grown in a laboratory dish from snippets of their own skin, a technique that doctors hope will someday offer a new source of arteries and veins for diabetics and other patients.
Scientists from Cytograft Tissue Engineering Inc., a small biotechnology company in Novato, Calif., reported the tissue-engineering advance on Tuesday at the annual conference of the American Heart Association here.
Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, which has spent $2.5 million to finance the company's work, called the new method "extraordinarily promising."
Because it uses the patient's own tissue, the technique steers clears of the political and ethical debate surrounding embryonic stem cells.
Think about your breathing. Inhale. Exhale.
Like many patients in dialysis, the two Argentines, a 56-year-old woman and a 61-year-old man, were faced with the prospect of running out of healthy blood vessels. To grow new ones, doctors took a small piece of skin and a vein from the back of the hand, and nurtured them in a laboratory dish with growth enhancers to help produce substances like collagen and elastin, which give tissues their shape and texture.
The process produced two types of tissue: one that forms the tough structure or backbone of the vessel and one that lines it and helps it to function.
The feel of the new tissue "was very similar to the other vessels" that were present from birth, said Dr. Sergio Garrido, the surgeon who implanted it in the two patients.
The woman's new vessel has withstood needle punctures three times a week for six months and the man's for almost three months.
In the future, doctors hope the homegrown vessels will prevent amputations in diabetics who suffer from poor circulation, and give heart-bypass patients new veins or arteries to detour around blocked vessels. The method may also hold promise for children born with defective blood vessels
It really is amazing what scientists are doing for us. The speed that technology is developed is unbelievable really. I just want to ask: what are you all doing to make the world a better place?
Disclaimer: I'm not doing a hell of a lot myself...
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
I doubt that it'll rid us of the controversy... because by the time that becomes possible, cloning or genetic modification of some other sort will also have also become possible, and that'll just pick up where the stem cell controversy left off, probably with many of the same arguments on both sides.
Just some researchers trying to make radical improvements in medical treatments and a bunch of religious whackjobs
We can't get rid of something that's projected onto the situation by people who are nervous/scared about what the bio-sciences say about their world view. The stem cell worriers aren't really worried about stem cells or their source, they're worried about how close we're getting to a comfortable understanding of cellular mechanics. That takes the mystery out of a lot things, and devalues mystical explanations (and those social institutions that rely upon them for clout).
Growing new body parts out of other body parts will still freak out a certain number of people, no matter what. If it's not the stem cell faux-controversy, it will be the "only rich people can afford this treatment, so it's evil" crowd or their various other counterparts.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
there are surgeons who specialize (at least partly) in bloodless surgeries, as some folks have religious beliefs that deny them blood donated from others...
wonder how this tech gets interpreted by the religious leaders... permissible or no....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Maybe we can grow steak this way too .. in large vats. Get rid of the animal rights issues that way.
Yumm.
This is the way to progress. Labs such as my own Lab For Fluoresence Dynamics which work on these protein transports and dynamics and growth harmonics need students and funding. Let's all get busy.
My sister died for trying to better the medical world
The stem cell worriers aren't really worried about stem cells or their source, they're worried about how close we're getting to a comfortable understanding of cellular mechanics. That takes the mystery out of a lot things, and devalues mystical explanations (and those social institutions that rely upon them for clout).
I can't speak for everyone, but I have a problem with using fetuses for stem cell research, and none whatsoever with this. Medical science can do wonderful things for people (I look forward to when they sythesize blood and eliminate shortages); I just don't want other people to be trampled on in the process.
As for taking the mystery out of things, I think it's just the opposite. The more you understand the universe, the more wonderful it seems. I don't see how knowing the mechanics of cells creates an argument for atheism, as you seem to imply.
I wonder if they can make new brains? Golly, we might be able to make even the stupidest people Menza candidates yet :P
It's like a blood vessel orgy.
The summary refers to conditions where vessels have been severely compromised, but I wonder if it can go even further. Vascular deterioration, and its role in overall CV ill-health is both part and parcel of modern America, and also contributes to the severity of other conditions. Having some way of replacing damaged vessels that is easier than current methods could find applications across the board.
The article doesn't give much detail, but I would think that generation of blood vessels that won't be rejected, if it could be refined and the costs driven down, could have a huge effect, especially if combined with new, lower-impact, surgical techniques.
Or, we could just stop eating junk.
I want you to overhype this so big, that it'll make the New York Times look like the new york times! Or the new york times look like the New York Times... I forget which one's the good one.
With athletes always looking for a competitive edge, what could this kind of technology do to professional sports? It seems to me, if you can increase the blood flow to your vital muscles (sport dependent), then you would gain an enormous advantage over your opponents.
Will this be the next big sports controversy? And what could be done about it, if it doesn't use drugs, and is grown from the patient itself?
That's wonderful for you... I don't read digg.
Which there are plenty of slowly expiring in vats of frozen nitrogen at fertility clinics around the world.
"if this thing takes off", those blastocysts will be saving people's lives instead of slowly rotting away.
At least, that's what Bill Gates seems to be up to these days.
... and rid us of the whole stem cell controversy.
People are looking at alternatives to stem cell research as a way of bowing out of the controversy. It sounds like the easy way out. Myself, I refuse to run from this controversy. I won't be happy until my medical treatment involves the palliative removal and ceremonial use of a live baby's beating heart.
Fsck this strategy of avoiding controversy. Let's meet it head on and start welding pig parts onto the backs of live infants. I want porn stars with four breasts. I want 25' tall rabbits. I want green-glow-in-the-dark monkeys that we kill to harvest their human implanted organs. Bring on the cows with Kangaroo legs and chicken wings (yum!). Where are my goddamn flying monkeys? People, people, let's not shy away from the freak show.
This has been done before--by cancer.
Just the other day in my cancer seminar (biomedical engineering department at UC Irvine), we were discussing angiogenesis, which ordinarily occurs when tumors have an imbalance between angiogenic growth factors and inhibitors. (Usually arises when tumors become too large to receive their nutrients soley from diffusion through the tissues.) The resulting gradient in these chemical signals recruits endotheial cells (the cells that ordinarily form the walls of blood vessels) to move chemotactically towards the tumor, align themselves, and form a new blood vessel to supply nutrients to the previously hypoxic tumor.
But in some tumors, the tumor cells themselves align and form blood vessels, with no need for endotheial cells. Much like forming blood vessels from skin cells.
The human body is truly an amazing machine. The fascinating part about cancer is that you get to see many of the mechanisms at play, and what happens when they're out of balance. -- Paul
OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
I'm working on it, I'm working on it...
Hey, who knows, it could happen.
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
Dont worry... I modded you up as I understand your frustrations of asshole moderators who cant understand a fucking joke when it stares them in the face! If only moderators who moderate negatively werent anonymous cowards, and had to deposit a reason as to why they thought a comment was either a troll, redundant, or off topic.. it would get rid of all the stiffs that TROLL for mod points
Amazing. I've been advocating slashdot as a source of actual information for at least 8 years; I've come close to first post a few times. This time I thought I'd done it, and with what a post, the death notice of my sister, a brilliant young researcher in brain chemistry, one who treated Montel Williams. What a let down to read stupid jokes. Can't we all over this planet raise the level of discourse? My last words to her were that I wouuld not give the benefit of my brain to them. I am a physicist.
How much longer until we're able to grow human organs in the lab? The implications of that are enormous... no more long waiting lists for transplants because doctors will be able to grow the needed organs for those who can survive long enough for the organs to mature. The waiting lists can then be limited to those who need new organs now.
I am an Army of 1 in 10
Soylent Green is PEOPLE!! They're PEOPLE!!! PEEEEEEOOOOOPLE!!!!!
Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dandy Dental Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice Dentrifice Dentrifice.
Let's just encourage a taste for blood vessels. "Who ordered the aorta on rye?"
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
"C - The programming language programmers' programming language."
Not to flame, but Lisp is the programmable programming language. It can be written in itself. http://paulgraham.com/chameleon.html
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
So, how long until we're growing whole organs?
I have a somewhat deficient heart... the doctors tell me that we'll keep an eye on it for now, but I'll probably need some surgery in a couple of decades.
I can't get too upset about this - at the pace that medical technology is progressing. They'll probably be able to grow me a new heart by the time I need one. As long as I can afford it, that is.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
*sigh* this is why medical people fall out of touch with everyone: They make no attempt to see that half the words they're using are a waste of letters. If the intent is to explain something, then explain it using the simplest language necessary.
Why not just say:
The other day in a cancer seminar I heard about a situation where cancers draw in cells that form blood vessels to produce blood vessels to feed the cancer (which was running out of nutrients).
In other tumors the tumors themselves act as blood vessels.
Isn't that saying essentially the same thing, just not trying to be so wanky? Anyone with a reasonable proficiency in a field can drop terms that will make reading what they say difficult for no reason.
DON'T LOOK AT ME!
I'm sorry to disappoint a lot of diabetics. But the major problem in diabetes is the micro vascular damage. One cannot grow and transplant 10.000 micro vessels in a foot that is about to fall of.
The major gain is in the larger vessels, where no venous graft is available/possible. Now one needs a Gore-Tex graft, but they fail (close) too often too soon.
It will be a long time before i trust this technique to replace my future abdominal aneurysm. The forces there are the true challenge.
Why are other peoples sig's always more witty ???
rubberbando speculated: "Since the blood vessels are grown using the patient's own skin cells, there isn't any chance for rejection."
Wasn't in TFA, because it isn't true. Rejection is a possiblity even with patient's own cells. And these aren't even the patient's own, they are GROWN from the patient's cells.
Be heard || Be herd
The controversy 'stems' from the fact that human embryos are used to acquire (embryonic) stem cells. However, Catherine Verfaillie, a researcher at our university (www.kuleuven.be), has recently discovered that bone marrow contains stem cells with similar traits as embryonic stem cells. There's an article on that in the WP: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A553 69-2005Feb1.html.
"."
You are absolutely right. But farmers in developing countries carry massive political influence. Rather than provinding a an environment for industries and other employment opportunities, governments are afraid of losing te votes of farmers and people (well intentioned) who think the farmers will go out of business and the farmers/country will starve. They don't understand food can be made available cheaper to everyone and that the farmers can find other better jobs. The politicians don't understand this either, let alone have the ability to sell it to the people. People are afraid that privatization means job losses and reduced services in te name of efficiency. They have somehow been sold this myth. It's easy to believe so they'll cling to it. Even worse, some of te developing countries are enacting "privatization" while not removing the evil monopoly status of the enterprise ..which makes capilalism look even worse. An example, when there is a state owned power company there's a law preventing anyone from getting into the power sale business .. if you are a local villager .. you cant buy a generator and sell power to other local villagers .. regardless of whether the state power company reaches or even plans to reach that village (not to mention te local industries would boost employment). Power companies don't want to reach those villages because there is a law that says they must provide electricity for free and/or at a big loss to the village. So there is no incentive, nor is there any opportunity for the village to build it's economy. Electricity would provide a boost to quality of life and help improve farming efficiency. This monopolistic tactic is the same with state owned phone companies which block more efficient cellular or landline phone companies from springing up.
.. without realizing that rich people's money in banks provide the capital that enables banks to give out low interest loans that help start new businesses or build ouses for poeple.I come from a developing country, and we have never had any leaders able to sell the concept of privatization efficiently. They always ccome across as pandering to the wealthy rather than the poor. They offer no hope to the poor or middle class, so they don't even feel empowered with their own destiny. What's needed is powerful leadership that pushes the virtues of getting rid of state owned monopolies and allow businesses to thrive. That way, developing countries can become industrialize and empowered similar to South Korea (contrast with North), Japan, China etc.
What's needed is someone to come up with a fact backed way of counteracting the great myths that currently infect the developing world. Someone maybe create a list of facts and simple explanations that can effectively combat the myths that statists try to push. It sould emphasize the improved jobs and quality of life that will come about by removing the state monopolies. There is also a "hate the rich" mentality
Embryos, not fetuses.
*rolls eyes* They're the same thing, a unborn child. I think there's a technical description where embryo is used from conception to 8 months and fetus is used for 8 weeks in to birth, but for all practical purposes, it's all the same. It's all a child who hasn't been born yet.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
A "collection of cells" that all of humanity that exists now or has ever existed was once? What praytell is it, if it is not human, a magical womb spirit? Oh wait, it is considered human by any embryologist in the world you are just trying to dehumanize it. We need a nice latin phrase for when people dehumanize something to win an argument. Any Jesuits around?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
So how long is it before we can grow entire humans? I mean a blood vessel is a relatively simple thing (compared to, say, a brain), but if you can grow a blood vessel, why not an entire human eventually?
The advance of science never ceases to amaze me.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I look forward to when they sythesize blood and eliminate shortages
What about the poor people who sustain themselves by selling their blood!?!
These winos/prostitutues/drug addicts/poor college students all need this extra revenue source to make a descent living!
Perhaps one day they will be able to apply this technology/technique to creating other parts of the body and rid us of the whole stem cell controversy.
Are you kidding? Those skin cells could be cloned into god fearing fetuses!
If you think a medical alternative to stemcells that still produces "miracle cures" will not be controversial, you don't understand the "controversy", or the contras who oppose stemcell research. Those contras are the core of the Republican marriage made in hell: fundamentalists and corporations. The corporations are the pharmacos, which anticipate profits from drugs which assist the stemcell research and therapies. But stemcell patients already show a faster, more complete recovery than from traditional surgery or even recent pharma therapies. And the critical ingredient is made by people themselves: most people can "autologously" donate stemcells to themselves in the months and weeks prior to the treatment, accumulating them on ice. Stemcell therapies therefore promise to be much less profitable in the long run than synthetic drugs and surgery, so they're not as attractive to pharmacos as leaving people more unwell and more broke. Meanwhile, stemcell "miracles" further undermine the primitive appeal of religion to its now politically powerful high priests. We've got a religious/corporate cabal working every day to nail America to its 20th Century status quo, rapidly diminishing us into a new "Middle Ages" as the rest of the world flies by us, largely on innovation produced by America. That's exactly what happened Muslims a thousand years ago, where Muslim society largely is stuck today. Let's see through the hysterical theatrics of the fundamentalist smokescreen to their corporate masters. Let's stand up for American progress, before it's not just illegal, but damnation.
--
make install -not war
Or have you not educated yourself on this matter before reaching your hasty conclusion?
Yes, I used the wrong term. My mistake.
Some believe that sickness is caused by evil spirits, and so doctors should be replaced with exorcists. Do you propose we make exceptions for every religious objection, just to make sure that these people aren't "trampled on" in some real or imaginary way?
I'm not trying to start a debate about abortion here - those are usually flamewars, and we're pretty far offtopic now. But I think it's unjust to compare misgivings about terminating what *may* be a human life with a total ignorance of the existence of germs.
We all agree (I think) that, for example, a one-year-old can't be arbitrarily killed. And I think we all agree that a sperm or an egg needs no moral consideration. We do not all agree where the line is crossed. I think reasonable people can disagree about this without comparing each other to savages who prefer exorcism to immunization.
I also think that any intelligent debate on abortion, stem cell research, etc etc should start with this question: When do we qualify as human, and why?
These are your words: "I just don't want other people to be trampled on in the process."
I interpreted "other people" as people who oppose stem cell research, and I supposed that you were taking the position that we shouldn't do any research without the permission of everyone. Hence my reference to the admittedly extreme instances of opposition to medical science.
What I was trying to get at with my post was related to the topic of the thread. New techniques will not end the controversies of medical science precisely because the sheer diversity of beliefs guarantees that there will always be opposition to medical science in general, and if not to these techniques in particular then to others.
Based on your reply, I now suspect that "other people" most likely refers to the embryos in which stem cells originate. I apologize for responding to the wrong argument, but invite you to consider that many people who oppose embryonic stem cell research have greater qualms than the destruction of embryos.