Bone Marrow Cells Repair Heart

Science Daily is reporting that Toronto researchers have discovered a method to utilize bone marrow cells in the repair of a damaged heart after a heart attack. From the article: "While it has long been known that bone marrow cells have the ability to clear the dead tissue after a heart attack, what has not been known until now is the critically important role of bone marrow adult stem cells in repairing a damaged heart, restoring its function and enhancing the growth of new blood vessels."

Comments

Way to go Canada

[TubeSteak]

3 cheers for Canada, but this is only research involving mice. Let's see how it works for humans before our hopes get to far up.

And not to start a religious flame war, I noticed that despite their research revolving exclusively around adult (stem) cells, they mention "One treatment resulting from this discovery was to inject cells genetically modified to release large amounts of stem cell factor into the region of the heart injured by the heart attack."

Is the whole genetically modified cells (which/what kind of cells?) going to be a problem for the religious types who fret about these things?

Re:Way to go Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the whole genetically modified cells (which/what kind of cells?) going to be a problem for the religious types who fret about these things?

Will it be a problem for the environmentalists who want to ban GMOs?

More Stem Cell Work, PERIOD.

[Rachel Lucid]

Why differentiate between Adult and Fetal Stem Cells except to whip the Fundies into a frenzy?

Call to action

[QuantumFTL]

This kind of breakthrough is exactly why we need decreased regulations on stem cell research in the United States, as that too could aid in areas such like this. We also need increased government funding - people talk about how many lives are lost in Iraq, but few mention how many could be saved with the same resources. Heck, if the US developed a cure for cancer or AIDS and shared it with the world, maybe they would hate us less and stop killing our civilians.

Re:Call to action

[QuantumFTL]

I'm against abortion however I think stem cells from aborted fetuses give that genetic entity (I'll let the reader decide if they are a person or not) a chance to continue on, maybe even saving others lives. I think that is the least we can do for those we deny life.

Re:Call to action

[Dcnjoe60]

As I stated in a previous post, this isn't a religious argument. Religion is only being used as a smoke screen to keep the discussion from focussing on the facts. The facts are, as you alluded to, fetal stem cells aren't working. Even with the limited research in the U.S., the rest of the world is doing research at a far greater pace than we would be doing even without the ban.

The real difference between fetal and adult stem cells in lay terms is that fetal stem cells are undifferentiated (they can turn into anything), adult stem cells are differentiated and depending on where they are from limits what they can turn into. The irony, is that to use fetal stem cells, they first have to become differentiated, so they must be made into the equivelant of adult stem cells (are bodies don't like undifferntiated cells growing in them. we call them cancer). So, for fetal stem cells to work, means that adult stem cells have to work, too.

As for funding issues and loosing funding, I'm not sure you have that correct. In it's simplest form, I guess it is, but in practice, must universities could simply set up a seperate life-sciences foundation to do the stem cell research which wouldn't then jeapordize their other grants. I'm pretty sure that UCLA and other colleges and universities in California are still getting federal grants even though the state is funding fetal stem cell research.

Again, the media and others want the public to think that funding is cut off. However, prior to Bush releasing the limited stem cell lines, there was no federal research allowed. So, in effect, he allowed an increase in funding (I am not a Bush fan, by the way, just trying to set the record straight). With the limited lines he released, you can do any kind of research you want. As it turns out, though the lines aren't as useful as first thought.

There is also no ban on fetal stem cell research with non-human species. Almost every other area of medical research always began with animals. Even adult stem cell research uses animals, first. However, with fetal stem cells, the researchers insist on using stem cells from a human fetus as their first course. One can only assume that since animal fetal stem cells would be less controversial, less costly and more readily available, they would be a no-brainer and yet only a handful of labs in the U.S. use them.

The rest try to convince the public that the religious right or the Catholic Church or some other group is trying to keep cures from the public. When in reality, that is untrue. The Catholic Church, for instance is supportive of adult stem cell research, just not the destruction of the fetus to obtain fetal stem cells (which seems consistent with their stand on abortion, etc.). But why would the researchers and the media as their pawn use such a tactic? Well first, there is big money involved, billions in grant money, even more in the selling of cures. Second, the science shows that it is adult stem cells that hold the potential. By keeping people focussed on the bogus religious argument, they hope people won't realize the shaky science used to support their position (remember, to use fetal stem cells, you first have to differentiate them or make them adult stem cells). Third, it is the religious types, whether fundamentalist or Catholic or whatever that are trying to get some facts out -- if they are portrayed as the villian in all of this, then their arguments will be dismissed.

One last thing, you make the statement that it is no wonder that private funding isn't available. However, there is plenty of private funding available. It's just that the majority of it is going to adult stem cell research because of it's proven track record. Venture capitalists aren't stupid. They don't usually get wrapped up in the emotional and moral side of the argument but look simply at the return on their investment. Which course has the best chance of providing a return on their investment? Adult stem cells.

Re:Call to action

[M0b1u5]

Examined scientifically, human life begins when you travel down the birth canal, pop-out, grab your first breath and become conscious for the first time.

Prior to that event (or something similar in a Ceasarian) a human body isn't a human being, and does not deserve the rights of a human being. Here in New Zealand, where we are nothing if not pragmatic, we understand that until a baby is born, it is not a person. It is therefore legal in New Zealand to perform an abortion on a baby which is at 8 months of a 9 month term. Legal - but not practical I must add, no doctor would perform such a surgery, as the risk to the mother would be far greater than delivering the baby.

If you think I'm being overly "abortionistic" (as Dubya might call it) then you need to do some research: much has been done to examine the brain activity of foetuses prior to birth, and there is very strong evidence that human brain waves/thoughts and patterns we recognise as human do not begin until a baby becomes conscious AFTER BEING DELIVERED.

Of course, fundies will crack an absolute shitfit at this suggestion. But recall here - I am only a messenger - I didn't do the research.

Personally, I am not so sure about all this, and I would tend towards defining a feotus only as a baby and a child (human) when a baby could be born and survive without assistance (other than warmth and feeding). I don't know at what general period in a pregnancy that is, but it is relatively late I think.

It concernes me greatly when people start talking about "human life" as it exists when n egg has been fertilised. That is nonsense - pure and simple. A fertilised egg is nothing more than the POTENTIAL for a human life.

You see, a female human body "auto-aborts" about 75% of all fertilised eggs in any normal situation. So, only 25% of pregnancies actually end up with a blastocyte (or is it a zygote at that stage?) emplanting itself in the uterine wall and forming a placenta.

Given that the human body does this - it is simply not logical to attempt to impart upon a collection of cells the attributes (or rights!) of a human being.

Where the line is, I can't say - but it is not in the first 4 months, and it is no tin the last month. It is somewhere in between - and people need to be armed with information before they can make a decision.

Re:Call to action

[Dcnjoe60]

I will try and get back and post some research links. Otherwise try googling about on stem cells. Almost all of the "breakthroughs" are with adult stem cells. Even bone marrow transplants are adult stem cells and have been done for years. The problem is you have to wade through all of the hype about what was called embryonic and now more correctly fetal stem cells vs adult stem cells. To date, though, adult stem cells have been used to successfully treat diabetes, spinal,nerve and brain injuries, parkinsons, heart and kidney disease and a host of other things (83 or so approved or pending treatments last time I checked, probably more by now). To date, fetal stem cells have yet to produce 1.

It seems that the problem with fetal stem cells is getting them to quit differentiating. For instance, turning on the gene to turn them into heart muscle cells works, but a few of them also turn into bone cells. These continue to grow as bone once injected into the damaged heart. As you can imagine, it's not good to have bones growing in one's heart. The other problem is that they tend to grow out of control and produce cancerous tumors. Again, not a desirable feature. Adult stem cells are already differentiated, so the first problem doesn't occur and since they don't have to be stimulated to grow, unlike fetal stem cells, uncontrolled growth is highly unlikely.

Again, the information is available. However, the mainstream media doesn't pick it up. Most is in medical journals, etc. Another source of information that is in plain English, although many would consider "tainted" is from United States Catholic Conference of Bishops. Regardless of what one thinks about the Catholic Church, their info on stem cell research seems pretty up to date and main stream. Even if you dismiss their oppostion to fetal stem cell based on their life begins at conception and abortion fews, their data on adult stem cells is accurate and is prepared by medical professionals and not theologians. A lot of the pro-life groups may have info, too.

I would not use the Catholic Church or pro-life groups as the final answer, but more as a starting point of gathering information. Besides the occasional media article, such as the Canadian one, most of the info will be in medical journals, etc.

ESCs work in mice, too

[Freedom451]

From TFA:

Dr. Li's team used genetically-engineered mice in which bone marrow cells were modified to carry a green fluorescent marker allowing researchers to easily track them.

From AFA (from last year:

Embryonic stem cells from mice can patch up damaged heart muscle in sheep.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8006

Moreover, if you read the original article carefully, you will see that the ASCs are merely signaling the heart to rebuild itself more rapidly, not directly rebuilding the heart. So this therapy might work (if it worked in humans) to help people with basically healthy hearts who had a heart attack (cocaine abusers?), but how much will it help older, sicker, folks who's heart is more worn out?

This is the population where ESCs show more promise, as they appear to actually grow into new heart cells themselves.

There is no scientific reason not to be pursuing ESC work as aggressively as ASC work, just religious ones. In fact, since ESC is more likely to help older people (who are more likely to have heart problems), if treating disease were the priority, ESC makes even more sense, esp. for treating older people who tend to have more heart problems and also tend to have less ability for their own cells to regenerate.