Grow Your Own Heart Valves

jcr writes "Medical researchers in Britain have succeeded in growing a heart valve from adult stem cells taken from bone marrow. The research is being reported in the journal of the Royal Society today. Growing a heart value from your own cells means that tissue rejection isn't an issue."

Comments

Whole heart next?

[crow]

So how far does this leave us from growing a whole heart? Or other organs?

At some point, transplants from donors will be for emergencies only, and the shortages and wait lists will be a thing of the past.

Re:Whole heart next?

[devC]

It is amazing that they did this with adult stem cells and not embryonic stem cells. I wonder why the big push for embryonic stem cells?

Re:Whole heart next?

[jimstapleton]

embryonic are omni-potential, instead of just pluripotential.

Until the last two or three years (if I remember correctly, the time frame may be off), with adult stem cells, they can grow a limited set of tissues only. Even now it takes work to make adult stem cells able to differentiate into any other cells. Embryonic stemm cells however can change into anything, without any modification. They are much easier to work with, and as of a couple of years ago they were the only option.

I can't remember if they can now make adult stem cells omni-potential, or just increase their potential to add just a few more cell types.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Dausha]

"Embryonic stemm (sic) cells however can change into anything, without any modification. They are much easier to work with, and as of a couple of years ago they were the only option."

However, left to his own devices in his native environment, a human embryo will develop into an autonomous human. You are taking a life and converting it into property without giving that life a chance to decide.How does harvesting an embryo not equate to slavery? We Americans fought a war over this 150 years ago, and I find it amazing that, by changing the perception of "when life begins," some Americans think it's okay. I would have less problem with embryonic stem cells _if_ the embryo were not destroyed.

The promise of adult stem cells has yet to be fully explored, and I'm glad research is bearing fruit and receiving media attention. As you say, embryonic cells are potentially easier to deal with. Managing slaves is easier than working with a union; but which is more moral?

Re:Whole heart next?

[crow]

If you want to save your child's stem cells for their own use later, don't you preserve the umbilical cord?

Yup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbilical_cord (warning: some not-so-pretty pictures)

Check out the section on cord blood.

Re:Whole heart next?

[plague3106]

However, left to his own devices in his native environment, a human embryo will develop into an autonomous human.

No, there could be a miscarrage.

You are taking a life and converting it into property without giving that life a chance to decide.

We do the same thing to other living things all the time. We kill catapillers before they become butterflys.

How does harvesting an embryo not equate to slavery?

Because its a mass of cells, and not a human being? There's no brain, arms, legs, heart, anything. It cannot survive on its own either.

We Americans fought a war over this 150 years ago, and I find it amazing that, by changing the perception of "when life begins," some Americans think it's okay. I would have less problem with embryonic stem cells _if_ the embryo were not destroyed.

More than that; these embros live inside another human being, which has rights too. Unlike an embryo, that person can reason and decide what they want to do (or not do) with their own body, including whether or not another living being may survive in it.

I'm also suprised how many Americans think they can involve themselves into the personal affairs of others. Does it really affect YOU specifically in any way? I don't see how it could.

The promise of adult stem cells has yet to be fully explored, and I'm glad research is bearing fruit and receiving media attention. As you say, embryonic cells are potentially easier to deal with. Managing slaves is easier than working with a union; but which is more moral?

Don't equate a few human cells with slavery. You just look foolish.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Dausha]

"It's flamebait because it's written in an angry tone and is 'baiting' people to start a flame war."

It wasn't meant in an angry tone. This is exactly a question, raised 1.5 years ago in my law school Health Law class, somebody else posed to a PhD Bio-ethicist. He avoided answering the question, and I thought somebody here could pose an answer. Whenever somebody's right of autonomy is stripped and the person reduced to property status, we call it slavery. (Voluntary renunciation of autonomy would be indentured servitude.) Arguably, the embryo is a person (or would be left to his one devices). Destroying the embryo to create stem cells is not voluntary, and it reduces the embryo to mere property. Thus, how is it not slavery?

The great question is "when does life begin?" The bio-ethicist argued after 21 days, and he based his argument on our decision point for when somebody is dead (e.g. brain activity, not "mostly dead/all dead"). My question to him was "what happens if we harvested all embryos before day 21?" (An obvious ad absurdium argument, but it underscores the distinction between establishing "life at 21" verse "death at no-brain function.) He ended up conceding that the 21 days was arbitrary.

As for baiting someone into a flamewar: by that definition, half of /. is flamebait. I merely asserted my view that harvesting embryos for stem cells is morally wrong and could be compared to slavery. If whomever modded me down for flamebait agreed with my view and thought it was too heated; then I would be more willing to agree with the assessment. However, as is normally the case, mods are used to censor opposing opinions. As this is normal, I have to assume that was the motive here. I assumed I would be down-modded because somebody wouldn't like my POV; but that doesn't mean I shouldn't express my view.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Hercynium]

Embryonic stem cells however can change into anything, without any modification. They are much easier to work with, ... Just to put in some requisite corrections to some popular (mis) understandings...

The clause, 'without any modification' is flat out wrong, applied to either type of stem cell.

I'm not a stem cell researcher myself, but It's my understanding that adult stem (AS) cells are actually easier to work with. In addition they're clearly more readily available. That being said, this is all the bleeding edge of medical and life science and *nothing* is 'easy'

... and as of a couple of years ago they were the only option. I'm assuming what you mean by this statement is that 'they were the only vector for this type of treatment perceived as plausible'? Because, charitably, that's the most truthful interpretation, but still incorrect. Embryonic stem (ES) cells were known to have the potiential for breakthrough treatments at an earlier date than AS cells, but the difficulties in this research quickly led to the need for multiple vectors by which to proceed. AS cells soon became the most useful vector for developing viable treatments, and to date, viable treatments with AS cells outnumber ES cell treatments by far and continue to be safer and more effective.

I'll concede that ES cells certainly have the most potiential for manipulation, and there are valuable things to be learned about cell development from their study. However, this manipulation is difficult, at best, and from my own research, the resulting treatments are much more difficult to apply to human patients. (Less so where somehow a patient may have his/her own ES cells available, of course, but this is currently a rare occurrence)

God willing, (or science, if you prefer) we will soon have the break-throughs we so desperately desire for the treatment and cure to so many of the diseases you read about in the news. Whether it comes from ES or AS cells, or some other unrelated research doesn't much matter except to those who care more for politics than saving lives.

I will freely disclose that I morally oppose ES cell research when the cells are obtained through IVF, cloning, and abortions, but that is mainly because I morally oppose those procedures. HOWEVER, my beliefs are my own, and I have no problem that other people do not share those beliefs. I only care about the truth and moral and intellectual honesty, both of which tend to be cast aside by ideologues on both sides of this particular issue.

Re:Whole heart next?

[Jhon]

An embryo would NOT become a human on its own, and this is why we do not treat it as a human. On its own, an embryo stops growing and developing, almost immediately.

An infant would NOT become a human on its own, and this is why we do not treat it as a human. On its own, an infant stops growing and devoloping, almost immediately.

Yeah!

[bigattichouse]

As the owner of a slightly defective valve, I feel encouraged that when the time comes, I'll have my own supply of spare parts. (Or will be able to use loaners while mine are being grown.) Good work, folks!

Preventing Rejection

[pscottdv]

Growing a heart value from your own cells means that tissue rejection isn't an issue

What slashdotters need is a way to grow a girlfriend from their own cells.

Re:Preventing Rejection

[Applekid]

If you have sex with your own clone, is that still incest? Masturbation perhaps?

Re:Preventing Rejection

[jcgf]

Don't you mean a rib?

Re:Won't be legal in the US

[jimstapleton]

Quite incorrect. The fundies only dislike fetal stem cells and full-organism cloning. This shouldn't cause an issue with them.

Tissue Rejection Not an Issue

[slughead]

Tissue rejection isn't an issue with heart valves (one of the few tissues where it's not a problem).

The problem with heart valves is that if you replace one with, say, a pig valve, it won't grow. For adults, this is not a problem, but for kids, it means they'll have to have a replacement in a few years as their heart literally grows out of the valve(s).

This new grow-your-own approach would probably be best for children. For adults, however, heart valve replacement is actually fairly routine and requires no anti-rejection drugs afterwards.

Re:Tissue Rejection Not an Issue

[ambulatorybird]

I've had a valve replacement myself, and I believe there are two problems: (1) pig valve: those are basically like leather, and they wear out after 5 years, requiring replacement even in adults. And open heart surgery isn't normally something one wants to have on a regular basis. (2) artificial valve: blood clots form on them, requiring the patient to take anticoagulant drugs for the rest of his life.

Re:Tissue Rejection Not an Issue

[cayle clark]

When I was getting ready to have my aortic valve replaced, the surgeon showed me a porcine valve; in appearance it is nothing like leather, but rather an incredibly thin and flexible structure. The aortic valve is not like a flap valve, but more like three little plastic grocery bags hung from the sides of a pipe. When blood flows one way, the leaflets collapse against the wall; when it flows the other way, whap, they fill up and block the tube.

There is no rejection problem with porcine or bovine heart valves because everything except the collagen has been chemically leached out of them; there's no distinctly cow/pig cell material left for the human immune system to react to. Same for a human-tissue replacement valve (harvested from a cadaver). Nevertheless, I think a lot of people opt for the mechanical valve (and a lifetime of coumadin) because of the "ick" factor.

The reliability figures I got from researching medical journals was that my porcine valve should last 15 years (not 5). At the time (2002) I told the doctor, "Great, by the time I need another, they'll be able to grow it from my own cells." I am just delighted this is proving to be true!

p. s. I also predicted that by 2017 they would be installing new valves using minimally-invasive, arthroscopic surgery -- not opening the chest like a book. There has been progress on that front, too...

Silly question, but...

[FlyByPC]

...won't this be a problem if there's a genetic defect in the patient's heart valves? In other words, won't the replacement be following the same DNA blueprint, and have the same problems?

IANanMD, but I would think this would pose problems with usability, wouldn't it?

Re:Silly question, but...

[Stonent1]

Well if the valve failed because a defect in the formation as it grew, you'd be able to see that defect while it was growing in the lab and if it didn't have the defect, it could be implanted.

That's nothing!

[aadvancedGIR]

Real geeks build their own pacemaker.

New Valve?

[Double Entendre]

I'm open to it.

Too soon?

Being reported in theJournal of the Royal Society?

[jimicus]

If it's being reported in a proper journal, do we have a link to the journal itself rather than something from the Daily Hysteria?

The Daily Mail is famous for blowing medical reports out of all proportion - they "cure cancer" an average of 2 or 3 times a year.

Caucauios optimisim

[mavi_yelken]

The procedure is still untested in animal experiments, meaning they don't know if transplanted it will work at all but this is certainly encouraging. Best of luck to Dr. Yacoub and his team.

Also I couldn't find a link to the paper by Dr. Yacoub which should have been here

Yay heart valves

[Anonymous Coward]

As a person born with a bicuspid Aorta valve (In other words, my Aorta valve, the valve that pumps blood to most of the body, has two flaps instead of three) this excites me greatly. Since I was born I've had to live every year with the possibility that I would have to have a mechanical implant if I ever overexerted my heart. I truly, truly hope that this caches on, not just for me but for the 1 in 300 (According to my cardiologist the number is that high) people who have the same or similar conditions to me.

Praise science!

OEM parts

[thejuggler]

I guess this means that we are now using OEM parts instead of third-party knock-offs.

Re:php

[Retric]

So, ignoring the fact that a strong push into embryonic stem cell research would have resulted in zero additional baby deaths you assuming we would be in the same place today? Ethics aside we are probably in a worse place today than we would be without embryonic stem cell research. Over time millions of people may die because we are just a little behind where we could be. However, we will never know what could have been...

Thanks.

PS: The point of research is to find out how to do things. It was unlikely we would ever use embrionic stem cells as "standard" treatment but we could have learned a lot about how cells work much sooner.

Been there, done that

[marol]

I grew my own heart valve once.

Re:php

[Cervantes]

...and should've been aborted while your parents had the chance. Ironically, that may have helped further embryonic stem cell research...

Re:php

[kasparov]

All the productive therapies are coming out of the adult side, not the embryonic side. Had we concentrated our funds on adult stem cell research, we might be even further ahead.

Gee, do you think that the adult side being more productive currently might be because funding has been severely limited on the embryonic side? Of course the option with the most funding has an easier time being developed. Jesus, funding has been concentrated on adult stem cell research! There is almost no federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Not to mention the fact that the embryos that would be used for embryonic stem cell research are just being thrown away! No one is going to outlaw IVF because it would be just about impossible to get a law passed forbidding couples that desperately want to have a child the option of IVF. So the embryos are going to be there no matter what. Why not use them? Forbidding embryonic stem cell research in no way shape or form "saves babies". And you have the nerve to decry people "emotionally manipulating the process" with their tear-jerking testimony? BULLSHIT!