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?

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.

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.