Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Biologists Find Stem-Cell-Like Functions In Ordinary Cells

Posted by Soulskill on from the anything-you-can-do-i-can-do-better dept.

mattrandy123 writes with news that scientists from NYU and Utrecht University have discovered ordinary plant cells can fulfill some of the same regenerative functions previously attributed to stem cells. Quoting: "In the study, the researchers cut off the plant's root tip, thereby excising the stem cell niche, and examined the return of cell identities by measuring all gene activity. The results suggested that stem cells returned quite late in regeneration after other cells were already replaced. The researchers then used mutant plants in which the stem cell niche no longer functions to confirm their initial observations. Despite the absence of the stem cell niche, the plant's ordinary cells worked to regenerate all the major tissues constituting the root tip — a process that began hours after it had been removed. However, researchers found that plants without functional stem cell niches could not resume normal growth, showing that other cells did not replace all functions of stem cells."

35 comments

  1. Well DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Anybody who's seen Invasion of the Body Snatchers already knew this...

  2. Here we go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Attack of the killer tomatoes can't be far behind. To the stew pot!

  3. Rawr! by supersloshy · · Score: 1

    Dangit, Gundam 00! You said Louise couldn't have her hand regenerated because her stem cells in her hand were destroyed! I actually felt sorry for her and now I know better, you insensitive clods!

    --
    "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
  4. Animal by mixmatch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How much of this research transfers over to the animal kingdom?

    1. Re:Animal by sam_handelman · · Score: 5, Informative

      None, zero and zilch.

        Plants and animals have a distinct origin of multicellularity. Many of the genes used to control patterning are homologous between the two clades, but that's as far as it goes.

        Now, something similar may very well happen in some animals, where somatic tissue cells resume dividing in response to injury. But these experiments tell you nothing about that, one way or another.

      --
      The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
    2. Re:Animal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on how much more funding they can get by making it seem like it may possibly provide some insight into concepts that could perchance be applied to animals...

    3. Re:Animal by VennData · · Score: 0, Troll

      No coincidence they waited until Obama was inaugurated to announce this one, Bush would have made killing plants illegal.

  5. plants are easy by F�an�ro · · Score: 3, Informative

    I thought getting a new plants from a few cells was something possible for a long time, and quite easy?

    Often simply putting a piece into soil has a gopod chance of success, and with the right chemical treatment, anything is possible?

    This would imply the existence of these stem-cell like cells, but it does not translate that well to animals.

    1. Re:plants are easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This is fairly true for many plant cells. They form many of their different cell types much later in their life cycle and are not "born" with these cell types already present. Therefore, of course they need some sort of stem-cell-like capability for normal development.

      So this is really not news.

    2. Re:plants are easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, are talking about a topic from my Grade 9 science course, known as "Asexual Reproduction".
      (Although I think sexual reproduction is far more interesting and fun...;-))

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

      Try to pay more attention in those early grades...;-)

    3. Re:plants are easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and if you've been around a greenhouse or garden long enough, you should also know plenty well of the use of rooting compounds for growing plants from cuttings. Plenty handy for hybrid plant strains that don't produce seeds or separable bulbs.

      Now if they were triggering the phenomena in animals, I'd be a bit more amazed. I guess if there's anything unique going on, perhaps it's in how it's being triggered.

  6. They should look in sperm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdotters could provide them with endless samples, esp. now that youporn.com exists.

  7. Dr. Reginald Bushroot by soupforare · · Score: 4, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new plant-duck mutant hybrid masters.

    --
    --- Do you believe in the day?
    1. Re:Dr. Reginald Bushroot by Electron · · Score: 1

      I, for one, will NEVER welcome plant-duck mutant hybrid masters!

      Plant-duck mutant hybrid overlords, on the other hand...

  8. No medical need to cannibalize human babies by Iowan41 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    And every single cure found to date has come from adult stem cells. Not a one from butchered babies. There has never been a medical or scientific need to create a slave race of babies to cannibalize and experiment on.

  9. Pre-emptive troll-bait thread here... by gillbates · · Score: 1, Troll

    Okay, we all know where this is going, so might as well collect all the trolls under one thread. Here goes:

    Bush banned stem cell research, holding back cures that would have been available during the Obama administration.

    Good, now that *that* little piece of misinformation is out of the way, I'd like to add just one thing more. It appears to me that while this discovery is promising, it will do nothing to mollify the supporters of embryonic stem cell research (ECS). It's not that ECS proponents really believe cures are around the corner, but that they believe science can do no wrong. The "miracle cures" are just a distraction (adult stem cells are already being used to cure) to what really amounts to a bigger issue: the role and authority of science in the public debate.

    Science has typically enjoyed support among the urban elites - typically liberals who believe in abortion and stem cell research. They aren't keen on having any authority tell them what to do with their bodies - God, government, or otherwise. They believe in science, _except_ in certain circumstances. That circumstance is the subject of embryonic development. At the time Roe v Wade was decided, it was not commonly known that a person's physical characteristics were uniquely determined at conception. The problem with science - from the perspective of the urban elite - is that it confirmed that, indeed, a person is fully human from the point of conception onward. Thus, for the first time, there existed a scientific basis for the opposition of abortion. This represents a *very real* problem for a demographic which, in their zeal to eliminate God's influence from public policy decisions, replaced Him with science. Now, it seems, science is the enemy of social progress.

    And this is why the issue of embryonic stem cell research is so salient to the Left. It has nothing to do with finding miracle cures, and everything to do with discrediting the scientific notion that a person's life begins at conception. The science is undeniable - but the conclusion that a fertilized egg is a person - need not be, at least not in public policy. The Left is rightly concerned, for if a court finds that indeed a fertilized egg is a person from a legal standpoint, then abortion is sure to be next. If the Left allows embryonic stem cell research to be scuttled under the premise of being unethical - that is, that we are experimenting on live human beings without their consent - then they pave the way for the repeal of abortion in the US. And *that* is what the ECS debate is really about.

    It has nothing to do with finding cures, and everything to do with the influence of science vs. theology in politics.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:Pre-emptive troll-bait thread here... by repapetilto · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If you ever have an argument to make, and it involved dividing people up into liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans, anything like that... Just keep it to yourself because its probably stupid. Also only other people who like "us vs them" arguments will bother addressing your points and, as a result, noone will understand the issue any better in the end but will be angrier than when they started.

    2. Re:Pre-emptive troll-bait thread here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ah! I see you are new to the intartubez. Despite what popular children's storybooks might have you believe, "trolls" are not cute, green hominids that live under bridges, devour unicorns, and provoke outbursts of simple, charming songs from smiling youngsters. On the contrary: trolls are annoying, bored regular-old-humans that live on forums, devour conversations, and provoke outbursts of useless, redundant replies from inexperienced users---like yourself! ;)

    3. Re:Pre-emptive troll-bait thread here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm probably just feeding the trolls: it's hard to imagine that anyone actually believes this; but here goes.

      At the time Roe v Wade was decided, it was not commonly known that a person's physical characteristics were uniquely determined at conception.

      A person's physical characteristics depend on much more than genetics (e.g. nutrition and exercise) but, anyway, classical genetics has been around for over a hundred years. Certainly, there has been progress in the fields of development and genetics since Roe v. Wade but I'm not aware of any fundamental paradigm shifts.

      The other point here is that "conception" is actually a fairly complex process. A broad point is that there can actually be quite a few days between when a couple has sex and when the early stage embryo implants in the uterus. That is, pregnancy doesn't happen instantaneously after sex.

      A more subtle point is that the egg is actually arrested in metaphase of meiosis II prior to fertilization. That means that, immediately after entry of the sperm, the egg is triploid (three homologous versions of each chromosome). After entry of the sperm, meiosis II completes: the cell division of meiosis II is unequal with one of the two daughter cells, the "polar body", containing mostly just the extra set of chromosomes and the the other daughter cell containing pretty much everything else (including the chromosomes from the sperm). The point of all this being that even fertilization is a messy complex process.

      The problem with science - ... - is that it confirmed that, indeed, a person is fully human from the point of conception onward.

      If a diploid chromosome number is what determines "fully human" then pretty much all the cells in the human body are "fully human". In fact, even the unfertilized egg is "fully human" (it is after all, diploid - not yet having completed the second cell division of meiosis II). Pretty much only sperm cells are not "fully human".

      ... the scientific notion that a person's life begins at conception.

      The notion that life begins at conception is absolutely and positively not scientific.

      There is not a scientific consensus as to what life is. In fact, there is not even a scientific consensus that life is a binary distinction. Life may be like color: some things are more colorful and some things are less colorful. Some things are "very alive" and some things are "not alive at all" but then some things are also "sort of alive".

      If you were to ask a cell biologist about life, they might even mention that the scientific consensus is that all cells of all living organisms on the planet are descended via cell division from a common ancestral cell. Basically, if life did have a beginning, then it was almost four bilion years ago.

      And *that* is what the ECS debate is really about.

      It has nothing to do with finding cures, and everything to do with the influence of science vs. theology in politics.

      On that, I would almost agree. If it was just about finding cures then ECS research would certainly be allowed and highly funded. The reason that ECS is a debate at all is because of a certain type of theological objections.

      Just as an aside, I look at the world and I see a world where, fundamentally, most people thinks it's OK to kill even living babies as long as you have a sufficiently good reason. In the Iraq war, for example, the USA killed lots of babies but that was OK because "spreading democracy" is a sufficiently good reason for killing babies. Now you'll say "but it wasn't intentional" meaning that killing babies was not the objective of the USA (that if the USA could have spread democracy without killing babies that it would have done so) - but that's exactly my point: it's OK to kill babies if you have a sufficiently good reason (e.g. "spreading democracy").

      So, anyway, IMHO this whole debate about what is "alive" and what is "human" is kind of silly because we live in a world where it's perfectly OK to kill living humans (as long as you have a sufficiently good reason).

    4. Re:Pre-emptive troll-bait thread here... by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      i needed to see what would happen just once

    5. Re:Pre-emptive troll-bait thread here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is an awesome rebuttal, however I think there is one subtle point you did not address.

      People see a distinct difference between the "other" and their tribe. They expect the tribe to guarentee them certain things unconditionally while they do not expect the same of others.

      At the rational level, killing babies in one country is no different than killing babies in our country - except that they are our babies. This may seem like complete hypocracy, but there is a subtle distinction. Once the contract is broken, it becomes acceptable to justify further acts by precedence. Social mechanisms are insipidly corrupted in this way.

        I'm not saying that I think that abortion is bad ( mostly for reasons of utility and the ones you cite above - ie. I don't think that a ball of cells deserves the social contract that is person hood).

            However, for governments and sophists, they may focus exclusively on the utility portion, and extrapolate the argument to things that everyone currently agrees has person hood. Their argument would be that of forced congruence with past happenstance, and would say X has properties A and B. Y has property A, therefore it has property B.

    6. Re:Pre-emptive troll-bait thread here... by Lordnerdzrool · · Score: 0, Troll

      If a diploid chromosome number is what determines "fully human" then pretty much all the cells in the human body are "fully human". In fact, even the unfertilized egg is "fully human" (it is after all, diploid - not yet having completed the second cell division of meiosis II). Pretty much only sperm cells are not "fully human".

      More reasonable people oppose abortion not on the grounds that they are a fully living human, rather, that they are different fully living human. Even if you consider my spit or some other cells I produce to be "human" that's alright, and furthermore, if you determine them to be alive that's alright too. Once it obtains DNA other than that of my own, I have no right to destroy it, without their permission. A female can take a pill and destroy the egg without harm as it is part of her body. Once it obtains a unique DNA signature of its own, it is no longer her body, it is another human's body and a new set of rules should be applied, notably, you can't kill another human-being unless it is in self-defense (hence why, in some medical situations, abortion is acceptable).

      Just as an aside, I look at the world and I see a world where, fundamentally, most people thinks it's OK to kill even living babies as long as you have a sufficiently good reason. In the Iraq war, for example, the USA killed lots of babies but that was OK because "spreading democracy" is a sufficiently good reason for killing babies. Now you'll say "but it wasn't intentional" meaning that killing babies was not the objective of the USA (that if the USA could have spread democracy without killing babies that it would have done so) - but that's exactly my point: it's OK to kill babies if you have a sufficiently good reason (e.g. "spreading democracy"). So, anyway, IMHO this whole debate about what is "alive" and what is "human" is kind of silly because we live in a world where it's perfectly OK to kill living humans (as long as you have a sufficiently good reason).

      Um. No. See, you can't just wave a wand and change the world's opinion of the Iraq war from "we don't like how you guys killed the babies in Iraq" to "thank goodness you guys killed the babies in Iraq". The fact that most people disagree with the Iraq war because of the collateral damage, under your logic, is more than enough reason to assume that people disagree with the notion that it is "Ok to kill babies if you have sufficiently good reason".

      I should also then mention that self-defense can be considered a "sufficiently good reason" and in this sense, we do live on a world where it is perfectly OK to kill living humans, as long as you have sufficiently good reason. Regardless though, that still doesn't make this debate "silly" because if we don't define what a living human is, there is nothing really stopping me from killing you for no particular reason and just telling your family "Oh, but he wasn't a human, so it's all cool!"

    7. Re:Pre-emptive troll-bait thread here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Once it obtains DNA other than that of my own, I have no right to destroy it, without their permission.

      Apparently you haven't heard of viruses.

      A female can take a pill and destroy the egg without harm as it is part of her body.

      You may have to rethink that position once human cloning becomes available.

      The fact that most people disagree with the Iraq war because of the collateral damage,...

      Many of the people most adamantly opposed to abortion still think the Iraq war was a good thing. But it doesn't matter whether it was the Iraq war or any other war: innocent people always end up getting killed by both sides. Only absolute pacifists can claim to be opposed to all killing of innocent people.

      ...if we don't define what a living human is, there is nothing really stopping me from killing you for no particular reason and just telling your family "Oh, but he wasn't a human, so it's all cool!"

      First, it's not clear that you would want to kill me. That there might be reason enough.

      Second, what if I don't want to be killed. What if my friends and relatives don't want me to be killed. What if even random people on the street don't want me to be killed? Isn't that adequate reason?

      I mean, why is it that you don't take a crap on my family's dinner table? First, because you probably don't want to yourself and, second, because they don't want you to either.

      The problem with abortion is that the embryo doesn't have an opinion, the mother (who actually has to be pregnant) wants the embryo dead and some random strangers want the embryo alive (and the mother to be pregnant). What really causes problems is that some random strangers want the embryo alive even when it consists of just a single cell - most random strangers only start to care when the embryo resembles a baby but a few random strangers take the extreme position of (claiming) to care about a single cell.

      Sure, it would be nice if we could have a nice little absolute rule about never ending human life but the world we live in isn't like that: it's very messy and complicated.

  10. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's great that GWB coerced researchers to find alternate sources of stem cells, otherwise every walk-in clinic in the country would be blending embryos in the back room by now. Tom Dickson would be proud.

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by jbengt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Think of the seedlings!

    2. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's great that GWB coerced researchers to find alternate sources of stem cells, otherwise every walk-in clinic in the country would be blending embryos in the back room by now.

      I have to assume that your comment was sarcasm. But then why did you get an "insightful" mod? Maybe the insightful mod was also sarcasm?

      Anyway, if you or anyone else was taking your comment seriously then they need to learn a bit more about embryonic stem cell research. The general topic is embryonic stem cell research - not treatment.

      First, if successful treatments actually existed that used embryonic stem cells directly then you can bet that a lot of social conservatives would be rethinking their position: would a social conservative die of Alzheimer's in order to save a frozen embryo in a fertility clinic that's likely to eventually get incinerated anyway. I sure don't think so.

      Second, the idea that embryos would be "blended" and used directly for treatment is naive. I'm not saying no one has tried that, just that the versions of the treatments that eventually go into widespread use are unlikely to use embryonic stem cells. Current embryonic stem cell research is focused on the basic questions: what properties do embryonic stem cells have and why.

      One final point is that the social conservatives are taking a big risk on this. If embryonic stem cell research does result in a cure to something big like Alzheimer's, there are going to be a lot of people feeling very angry with the social conservatives for trying to block it.

    3. Re:Anonymous Coward by mpeskett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to assume that your comment was sarcasm. But then why did you get an "insightful" mod? Maybe the insightful mod was also sarcasm?

      Either that or people are intelligent enough to read through the sarcasm, see his actual intended meaning, and moderate accordingly.

  11. On The Other Hand... by mangu · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It's great that GWB coerced researchers to find alternate sources of stem cells, otherwise every walk-in clinic in the country would be blending embryos in the back room by now.

    Of course, if embryonic stem cell research had not faced such resistance, then we might have had more results helping humans instead of plants by now.

    That many plants can be cloned simply by cutting parts of them I have known since I was a small child. Now what we would like to know is how to make parts of human bodies regenerate in a similar way.

  12. Conceptual differences by gillbates · · Score: 1

    Bad puns aside, conception is the point at which the process of a person's growing starts. The natural process for egg and sperm, prior to their union, and without union, is that both die. It is when united that they begin the process which - apart from human intervention or natural death (disease, malformation, etc...) - results in a person. Living in the womb is nothing more than an early stage of human life.

    It isn't a matter of *potential* persons, but of actual members of the human race who have not yet left the womb.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:Conceptual differences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's distinctly your belief, and therefore a bad point of argument.