'Bionic' Nerve To Repair Damaged Limbs and Organs

University of Manchester researchers have transformed fat tissue stem cells into nerve cells -- and now plan to develop an artificial nerve that will bring damaged limbs and organs back to life. In a study published in October's Experimental Neurology, Dr Paul Kingham and his team at the UK Centre for Tissue Regeneration (UKCTR) isolated the stem cells from the fat tissue of adult animals and differentiated them into nerve cells to be used for repair and regeneration of injured nerves. They are now about to start a trial extracting stem cells from fat tissue of volunteer adult patients, in order to compare in the laboratory human and animal stem cells.

Comments

To alloplasty before transplants

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting to think that in Larry Niven's "Gil 'The Arm' Hamilton" stories (collected in Flatlander ) and other Known Space books organ transplants were supposed to be the rage, before eventually being supplanted by alloplasty, "gadgets instead of organs", long after. At the rate science is progressing, viable artificial solutions are going to be found for many things before transplantation would be possible.

What I wonder, though, is whether these artificial solutions will be allowed to be so much better than the original human part. If you have to replace someone's arm, why not do it with a space-age fiber that would allow him to lift hundreds of pounds single-handedly?

Re:You would have to do more to lift 100's of poun

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the possibility of enhanced limbs - not so much that they could LIFT hundreds of pounds but perhaps they were more dexterous? Able to move faster or with more precision? Wrists that could literally rotate 360 degrees? Sensors embedded in your fingers to detect certain things.

This is more entering the bionic range and is not really the topic of the article, which I have not read yet but once you open the flood gates to "new" ideas that are not organic in nature, you have a huge world of things to choose from. The downside may be that they are not all that great in the first place. There are millions of ways TO evolve. But not all of them are very good, as Spore should point out.

Other issues: interfacing with the body. A deer's antlers are great at this. Catheters are not. Infection is hard to keep at bay. Rejection / encapsulation. The body DOES NOT LIKE stuff inside it that it doesn't recognize. It will either encapsulate it or attack it. Either way, it causes irritation and could leach out into the body. Not something you really want to have happen.

Also, MRIs will be harder to take.

Another thing that people don't realize is that limbs, while not essential for life do support the body. Bones, aside from producing red blood cells, also excrete hormones, as we are also learning about adipose (fat) tissue as well. So just because a human limb may appear inferior at first glance, we still have a ways to go before we are actually able to replace human limbs with something truly superior.

genetic memory

[n3tcat]

Something that's always intrigued me about stem cell research is the concept of genetic memory. Considering the implications that this theory has on the theory of evolution, I wonder if mixing and matching stem cells, and thereby mixing genetic memories, would fuck the evolutionary process. It's the type of result that we probably wouldn't see for thousands (or tens of thousands) of years.

Eventually though, I would imagine that it would be like the episode of Star Trek Enterprise when they find the race of people who are basically falling apart genetically and they have no idea why.

And then of course the old addage "Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" has many powerful implications in this as well.

Maybe I wouldn't be so scared if we weren't still completely reversing our dietary ideals every 3 years. If we can't even nail down a healthy diet (pyramid points up or down now?!), how the hell can we figure out what the ramifications of stem cell research would be on our evolutionary process?

Re:genetic memory

[jollyreaper]

Something that's always intrigued me about stem cell research is the concept of genetic memory. Considering the implications that this theory has on the theory of evolution, I wonder if mixing and matching stem cells, and thereby mixing genetic memories, would fuck the evolutionary process. It's the type of result that we probably wouldn't see for thousands (or tens of thousands) of years. What I find interesting are the genetic atavisms that you get with certain species. The classic examples are cetaceans born with hind legs or humans with true tails, complete with muscles, bones, and nerves. These are throwbacks to previous points in the evolution of that species.

There was a Trek episode that had a virus do that kind of thing, Worf became a predalien and some humans became bugs. That's a bit silly since bugs aren't in our history. But it makes me wonder, are the genes still there to turn a modern horse into one of those funny-looking mini-horses that were hunted by the giant terror-beak birds? Could you knock a human embryo back 100k years and end up with a modern caveman? It makes me wonder how much information is tied up in the genes. Based on some of the rapid adaptations and speciations shown in the fossil record, it almost seems like there's a physiological playbook in the genes. "In case of this environmental pressure, turn on these genes."

I'm still blown away by the examples of convergent evolution we've seen. Dolphins and ichtyosaurs, pteradons and bats, triceratops and rhinos, etc. It's fascinating how you can take critters whose last common ancestor had to umpty million years ago and they'll develop the same sorts of adaptations, just like the Russians cribbing off America in the Cold War.

Re:ALS/MND

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think this is more along the lines of replacing nerve grafts - as you would use to replace a section of severed nerve so it has a path to regrow.

Its the sound track to our lives but

[crovira]

I'd put up with it if my MS was alleviated. (And don't worry too much about the cost, I'll find a way to pay for it. [I'll be able to work. {Insert rant about insurance companies that will let you die before they pay and gu'mint agencies that won't help you until you're destitute from having to sell off EVERYTHING, (your house, your car, your furniture, your jewelry, your computers, your retirement savings, your grave [I'm not fuckin' kidding!]) ... right here.}])

Re:Embryonic vs. adult stem cells

[ShadowBot]

It's a simple law of averages.

Currently much more work is being done with adult stem cells than with embryonic stem cells. Therefore you will get much more results from the adult cell research than the embryonic one.

It says nohing about the usefulness or morality of the research one way or another.

Actually, your point about rejection and cancer tends to point to the solution of using cloned embryonic stem cells. Which will combine the advantages of both techniques.

The moral issue is exactly that, a moral issue. A Nazi scientist experimenting on a Jew is exactly the same. a moral issue.
Looking for scientific backing for a moral arguement actually weakens it. An immoral act is an immoral act, irrespective of whether it adds to the scietific body of knowledge or not!