Skin Cells Turned Embryonic

anik315 writes "Nature is reporting a major breakthrough in embryonic stem cell research. A straightforward procedure using mouse fibroblasts harvested from the skin can be used to produce pluripotent stem cells that can potentially become any other cell in the body. Not only can Yamanaka's method use the most basic cells, it can be accomplished with simple lab techniques. Possible applications of this breakthrough are to check molecular changes in cells as certain conditions develop. Stem cells produced using this procedure, however, can not be used safely to make genetically matched cells for transplant."

Comments

Next step: Embryos

[Anonymous Coward]

A straightforward procedure using mouse fibroblasts harvested from the skin can be used to produce pluripotent stem cells...

Just a few more years and it should be possible to cause fibroblasts to grow into embryos. IRC, it's more or less possible now but it involves mixing and matching parts of different cells (the nucleus from the fibroblast and the cytoplasm from a fertilized egg cell.

Anyway, that should throw the anti-abortion crowd for a loop: "Oh no, he's cut his skin. He's killing babies!" After all, the usual argument is that if something can develop into a human then it should be considered to be a human even before it develops into a human.

Re:Next step: Embryos

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh no, he's cut his skin. He's killing babies!"

and yet another demographic will hate emo kids.

Re:Next step: Embryos

[JeanPaulBob]

After all, the usual argument is that if something can develop into a human then it should be considered to be a human even before it develops into a human.

Ah, no.

The argument is that it can develop into a baby, and that it already is a human.

I.e., an oak acorn is not a tree, but it is an oak. An blastocyst/embryo is not a baby, but it is a human. A baby is not a toddler, but it is a human. A toddler is not a teenager, but it is a human. A teenager is not an adult, but it is a human (though barely, in come cases ^_^).

Re:Next step: Embryos

[ChromeAeonium]

Well, no. Stem cells don't develop into babies if they're just out there. Stem cells forming an embryo can turn into a baby. If what you said were true, then amphibians that can regenerate limbs would be able to reproduce asexually, by cuttings. Anyway, that should throw the troll crowd for a loop.

Re:Next step: Embryos

[buswolley]

Thank you. Indeed, I do see the strengths of pro-abortion supporters, however the pro-life argument is not as weak as it is made out to be.

Besides, a moderate approach would be to acknowledge that the issue is unclear, or unsolvable, and that it is probably best to error on the side of caution. Even better would be to fund the research of technologies and legislation which can make these issues less relevant.

For example, let's develop several pre-conception birth control methods which are highly effective. Then require their use in-order to have the privilege of having an abortion. --Like insurance for your car. Responsibility allows the privilege. Plus make this freely available and highly accessible to people of child baring age.

Advantages:

1. Reduces unwanted pregnancies.

2. Reduces abortions.

3. Re-frames the debate into a more moderate direction, so as to divide our country less.

4. Makes the whole issue less pressing.

Thank you for your feedback

Re:Next step: Embryos

[Anonymous Coward]

Like insurance for your car.

heh, more like insurance for the garage.

Re:Next step: Embryos

[eli pabst]

A person's skin DNA is the same as the rest of their DNA

Technically it's not. Once a stem cell starts to differentiate, you see different patterns of epigenetic changes that alter which genes are actively expressed and which are silent. It's part of the reason why you don't have eyeball proteins expressed by your feet. In general, we've found that once you start initiating a cascade where a stem cell starts differentiating into something else, it's difficult to go backwards and "undo" the changes.

Re:I knew it..

[CaptainPatent]

Actually it is. We have already been using skin grafts to cure minor cosmetic flaws from burns or scars with no moral repercussions. I don't see why it would suddenly become immoral to expand that to much more life-threatening diseases and ailments.

Papers

[Anonymous Coward]

Actual papers for those interested (it was published simultaneously by three groups): (Nature probably requires subscriptions, the first one is free access)

Nimet Maherali, Rupa Sridharan, Wei Xie, Jochen Utikal, Sarah Eminli, Katrin Arnold, Matthias Stadtfeld, Robin Yachechko, Jason Tchieu, Rudolf Jaenisch, Kathrin Plath, and Konrad Hochedlinger
http://www.cellstemcell.com/content/article/fullte xt?uid=PIIS1934590907000203

Keisuke Okita, Tomoko Ichisaka & Shinya Yamanaka
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent /full/nature05934.html

Marius Wernig, Alexander Meissner, Ruth Foreman, Tobias Brambrink, Manching Ku, Konrad Hochedlinger, Bradley E. Bernstein & Rudolf Jaenisch
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent /full/nature05944.html

Re:Ok, but

[Rob T Firefly]

Is there a word for biological vaporware ?

DeoxyriboNukemForever?

Re:I knew it..

[buswolley]

Seriously, this is not a scientific question, but a moral/ philosophical question. There IS room for debate. However, as a promising source of embryonic stem cells, this discovery may reduce the importance of the debate. I think that the abortion debate in general should be solved in this way. Make the debate less important by solving the problem of unwanted pregnancies directly with good birth control.

Re:With so many unquestionably moral methods

[TheMeuge]

what is the justification for using public money for research that tens of millions of people consider murder

Frankly, I think we should do it just out of spite... for people who would spout the kind of self-important ignorant garbage that just evacuated itself from the barren environment of your skull.

Re:Why didn't they START with human cells?

[tyler_larson]

Why are they running these experiments on mouse cells? Why aren't they starting with human skin cells and developing their techniques there? It would avoid the secondary step of having to transfer the technique from mouse tissue to human tissue.

Simplicity. Protocol. Reproducibility.

Labs that experiment on mice use specific inbred genetic lines that are widely available with limited genetic diversity. This limits the amount of experimental error that can be attributed to the variations in the traits of the animals. It also means that other labs attempting to reproduce the same results will have a greater chance of success because they'll be starting with an organism that genetically is nearly identical to the ones used elsewhere.

See Model Organism.

Re:I knew it..

[xaositects]

the most vocal, and therefore the most influential anti-choice proponents claim that birth control for women is tantamount to abortion as most prevent the egg from adhering to the wall of the uterus, or prevent it from traveling down the fallopian tubes, where it can grow further. Condoms, therefore, can be the only one they can support, but those same supporters tend to be the ones who want to preach abstinence because their head seems firmly implanted in the sand, doomed to pretend people from kids to grandparents do not have sex or sexual urges (This mindset seems to be the biggest barriers against sexual education in youth.)

This is why the argument does not go far. The only ones who speak loudly enough to argue, tend to be the very evangelical of the crowd. That comes from firsthand experience at protests. Those very vocal people are quick to judge. Even at clinics where women who have gone through a non-induced miscarriage that was no fault of their own go to seek treatment afterwards, pro-life people stand and hurl insults at them, not knowing even a part of the story.

I support embryonic stem cell research, as I have Type 1 diabetes and stand to gain from this research. Most of the eggs used were discarded and would never have come to fruition as a human anyway.

Re:With so many unquestionably moral methods

[EMeta]

Without mod points, I must resort to replying to a highly ranked troll. Sigh.

First, if you would RTFS, much less article, much less paper, you would know that one of the fascinating things about this procedure is that it uses skin cells, not embryonic cells as a base. Very few people who believe in any invasive medicine have a problem with this. This is a breakthrough in part because it fixes problems like embryonic harvesting or even The Island-esqe people harvesting because a given sick person could use it on him or herself.

Secondly, a work force that lives productively into their 80's would be a lovely thing for any society's economies. A government should certainly be concerned about its nation's economy, yes?

Thirdly, medical research=good for people. Democratic government=group that uses pooled funds for betterness of group. Are there spending issues? Duh. But still better than most systems. I want to put my money in a pool that can fund science. Hooray that there is an automatic way that this happens for me. I don't even need said science to produce economic results for me to be happy about it. But if it's going to, I won't turn that down.

And for the record, a considerable majority of Americans do want stem cell research, even from embryos. Google news reports around last Nov's Missouri senate elections, & there were several stories about how while most Americans support it, it's a non-issue in the polls.

Re:With so many unquestionably moral methods

[tfoss]

I can't believe this hogwash was moderated 'insightful.' Ignorant pseudo-libertarian ranting apparently fulfills some slashdot community need.

With so many unquestionably moral methods of creating stem cells on the very near horizon

We hope this is so, but have absolutely no way of knowing.

what is the justification for using public money for research that tens of millions of people consider murder?

First off, I'm not sure I buy your proclamation (where are the tens of millions fighting against in-vitro fertilization). Tens of millions also consider eating animals tantamount to murder...let's kill off the USDA. Tens of millions believe in creationism, let's stop geology/archeology/cosmology research. Tens of millions of people believe lots of crazy shit that should not be directing gov't policy, thats the way democracy works.

Additionally, no stem-cell research that I know of is focused on any public health concern such as communicable diseases; rather, it is focused on private health issues such as cancer or Parkinson's disease. Hence, it is debatable whether such research is the domain of government at all.

1. *That* you know of. Even the researchers don't really know how widely stem-cell therapy might or might not be used, that's why you research it. 2. So you are positing that only those lucky enough to have suffered from a communicable disease should be a concern of the gov't? Really? And what defines a public health concern? Cancer from industrial pollution? vCJD from mad-cows...that happens to be similar to parkinson's (and alzheimer's)? So people who had the unfortunate luck to be born with a disease are SOL, yet those with preventable sexually-transmitted diseases are the beneficiaries? What the hell kind of moral system did you pluck that from?

If the government is going to intrude so deeply into the private sphere, should it not do so under only the most benign of manners?

Right, so how about, say, abortion? Or euthanasia? Should the gov't butt out of those 'private spheres'? And if so, you've lost the support of those "tens of millions" who have an issue with stem-cell research.

In contrast, there is no compelling reason for the government to fund stem-cell research at all...and even less so, given its controversy.

Well, public support for gov't funding of research is a pretty damn compelling reason. Again, democracy and all. If you can convince a majority to do away with basic research funding, then we can have a debate about the societal benefit of gov't support of research. Until then, we, as a society, have pretty clearly decided that it is in our interest to support research (of non-communicable diseases as well as stem-cell related technology).

-Ted

Re:There's a third way.

[sumdumass]

There are some deep problems with this proposal. First is that it attempts to vacate the idea that the fetus is an unborn child and acts as if it is a living human intruder. Next, it attempts to treat the body as property in the same way land or a house would be considered property. But it doesn't treat the intent and condition in a relative term. It may be because someone is attempting to justify the action or it maybe because they think a strawman argument rearranged makes more sense.

To keep it in the same terms, lets put it into perspective to keep the comparison real.

A woman has the perfect right to evict any intruder from her property, that is, her own body, at any time, for any reason. (Self-ownership is the first principle of liberty.)

But she doesn't have right to kill the trespasser without giving them enough time to leave. In almost any state, with the exception of Texas maybe, if you find a trespasser/intruder and they pose no direct harm to you or anyone there, you tell them to leave and then kill them because they didn't leave fast enough, you will be going to jail. But pregnancy isn't even a trespasser or intruder, it is a welcomed guest. You have to take certain actions to invite a fetus into your home(body). And in every state, if you invite someone into your house and then kill them, it is murder.

I know this is someone else's rationalizing. But we can often make judgments to justify something that other see as wacked. You cannot run over a kid playing ball in the street because thats where cars drive when you have plenty of time to stop. Saying the kid shouldn't be playing in the road is just an attempt to justify it to yourself but doesn't make it just. Leaving out the fact that the intruder is crippled and will take a certain amount of time to leave the property and killing them before they can do so because you ordered them out makes no sense either. And repeating this nonsense make even less sense.

Your positions don't matter... probably.

[Grendel Drago]

Don't make the mistake of grouping all pro lifers all into the same group. This is probably the biggest reason your confused about who would support something or why they are supporting it.

Yeah, but pro-lifers not in the religious group don't really count in a political sense, which means that whatever your nuanced policy measures are which aren't predicated on punishing women for being dirty sluts, nobody's going to bother responding to them.

Then again, your wailing about "encourag[ing] promiscuity" and how those damned sluts deserve to be punished with unwanted pregnancies because, well, they were asking for it, what with the having sex and all, leads me to believe that your motives may not be that different.