Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Use Virus To Reprogram Adult Cells In Mice

Posted by timothy on from the now-the-mice-hate-cocaine dept.

n2hightech writes "Harvard University scientists figured out how to activate a trio of dormant genes that commanded non-insulin producing pancreas cells to switch to the Beta type insulin producing cells. The method uses an engineered virus to infect the cells and deliver special proteins that activate the dormant genes. This technology has the potential to make all stem cell based methods obsolete because it does not pose the risk of rejection and cancer associated with stem cells. A simple injection into the area where cells need to be reprogrammed is all that is required." Gospodin adds a link to coverage at the Washington Post.

7 of 36 comments (clear)

  1. Think of the pr0n implications! by syousef · · Score: 3, Funny

    How could you not highlight the most important implication! It may now be possible to inject different body parts and grow genitals on all sorts of different parts of the body! Double penetration!? Try Quadruple! See that man - he's a dickhead. No really, we injected his head and there is now a penis growing out of his scalp! I propose all politicians be injected in the scalp.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  2. Hah ok by Robert1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I did research in this field as far back as '01! Using viruses to induce genetic changes is neither novel or new.

    The biggest challenge isn't engineering the genes you want to inject or getting the virus, or using the virus as a transport for those genes. Instead the hardest part is by far the delivery - which the author so callously disregards as being trivial and why it will replace stem cells.

    Its extremely difficult to achieve targeted delivery of the virus and even more so for a diffuse dissemination of the virus as to coat multiple cells.

    So yea it works, it has worked in animals due to their diminutive size. However, it is difficult, if not impossible to ever implement it in humans - mice yes, humans no.

    If this gets reported on slashdot so should the dozens of similar articles that get published yearly with similar procedures for various other congenital conditions - neurological, muscular etc.

    1. Re:Hah ok by Erioll · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're mis-interpreting the article. This isn't sending viruses to introduce new DNA into species where it never was, this is getting cells to "switch on" dormant genes in that cell type, so that they act like another.

      For example, in your body, different genes are active in nerve cells, than in cardiac cells. That's WHY they're "differentiated" into those cell types, even though the underlying genetic code is identical for every cell in your body. The technique being talked about in this article is to "switch on" the genes they want in a specific place, not introducing new DNA.

      So while you may be right about your points on spreading new DNA, that is not what is occurring here.

  3. Impressive on many levels by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For starters, they didn't use pluripotent cells, but rather adult cells. Next, no viruses were used, but rather relatively safe proteins. Finally, this was in live mice rather than the typical test tubes.

    I think what we'll see in the decades to come is a clear roadmap of the cellular signals that differentiate cells from one another. This is the basis of more practical technologies such as organ replacement and repair, which has a good chance of extending longevity.

    1. Re:Impressive on many levels by philspear · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just to point out, the more informative full article is at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature07314.html

      Don't know if you can get the PDF, I think it needs a subscription, but in the paper, they are in fact using viral delivery.

      Also a technical note, induced pluripotent stem cells, the ones that made headlines last year, can definitely be adult cells. I believe they took fibroblasts from a 60 year old man, transformed them using viruses, and made the pluripotent cells. So it's not correct to say "they didn't use pluripotent cells, but rather adult cells."

  4. Link to the article here by philspear · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature07314.html

    This is absurd, I had to go through three different links to find it.

    In case any of you were wondering, the mysterious three genes they used were the transcription factors "Ngn3 (also known as Neurog3) Pdx1 and Mafa," which are NOT the same as the induced pluripotent stem cell magic transcription factors. In those cases I think it was Oct4, Nanog, and c-myc.

    Anyway, I find it interesting that an Ngn was used, I thought those caused neuronal differentiation.

    1. Re:Link to the article here by philspear · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, also to point out, the differences between this and that is that in the induced pluripotent stem cells, there was a high chance of causing tumors. Two of the virally transfected genes (I think nanog and c-myc) were oncogenes, and the IPS cells caused teratomas. These people found that you didn't have to revert the cells all the way back to something that could produce a teratoma.

      In other words, you probably are far less likely to develop horrible tumors as a result of this treatment than the previous ones.

      It is worth pointing out that viruses tend to deliver genes without reguard for location. There could be some that are targeted and I wouldn't know about it, but from what I've heard, there is still a possibility these viral vectors could plant the genes in the middle of a gene that prevents cancer, destroying it's function, and giving you cancer.

      (The inevitable "I am legend" reference, on the other hand, has no theoretical basis, and is a little like me saying "Terminator!!!" every time someone talks about linux.)