Functional Neurons Created From Adult Somatic Cells

mmmscience writes "Researchers at UCLA have accomplished a task that has long vexed stem cell researchers: They've created the first electronically active neurons from induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. This is a great leap forward for stem cell researchers, who can apply these neurons to the study of neurodegenerative diseases."

Comments

Adult Stem Cells FTW !

[Orne]

Thank you Adult Stem Cell Research! You're using your own cells, so you don't run those nasty tumor risks like that other stem cell technology...

Re:Adult Stem Cells FTW !

[bradbury]

Think again "oh so expert one". Tumorogenisis, or in the worst cases teratomas, are *not* a function of whether or not the cells are from "oneself" but are a question of (a) the level of mutation in the genome from which the stem cells are derived; and (b) whether or not the genetic program can properly adapt if it is used in environments which are inherently foreign which are never encountered during "normal" development. Using some pseudo-programming comparisons (a) "How long you would your program work properly if your hard drives were experiencing repeated head crashes in the disk region where the program was stored?"; and (b) "Would your program work very well if it were compiled to run on an x86 architecture and you tried to run it on an IBM System 370 architecture?"

In the typical case, the immune system responds and will eliminate "foreign" cells (including cells derived from foreign derived stem cells) within 1-2 months (based on experiments done at Stanford within the last year). So "foreign" (i.e. embryonic, non-self umbilical, non-self iPSC) cells have a very small chance of surviving for very long w/o immunosuppressive therapy. There may be some "immune system" exempt parts of the body (e.g. spine [which is what Geron is working on] or maybe the brain) but any place which is exposed to the normal immune system (e.g. blood flow) is probably doomed to rejection of non-self cells. Though close MHC type matching which is well defined for bone marrow transplants may eliminate some of this -- but that implies you have ESC or iPSC availability for your MHC types. Currently a low probability.

Now, the hidden dead body under the carpet, which has not explored fully, is the level of DNA microdeletions derived from the misrepair of DNA double strand breaks which may corrupt functional genomes thus leading to a "smorgasborg" of actual genomes in a typical "collection" of cells (some of which may be fine, some of which less fine and some of which may be tumorogenic) if you are working with anything but cells derived from a known, qualified, line of "pristine" stem cells. The bottom line is that the older one is, the less likely one is to be able to (a) create iPSC in the first place [since the genes required for proper differentiation and development have been inactive for 50, 60, 70 years and may have accumulated any number of mutations] -- [it is well known to people working with iPSC that deriving such cells from older individuals is much more difficult than deriving such cells from younger individuals and various researchers, e.g. Derrick Rossi, formerly @ Stanford, currently @ Harvard, have documented the failing capabilities of "aged" stem cells]; and (b) without the complete genomic sequence of each iPSC stem cell line, as may as are necessary (i.e. currently costing ~$100+K/cell line) to prove you have a functional, non-tumorogenic genome) you have no way of knowing whether the cells are "pristine" or "carcinogenic".

There are cells which may be used from most adults to derive either pristine adult stem cells (the simplest route) or used to develop pristine iPSC and subsequently various cell and tissue types (a more complex and more expensive path) but we will not get there for several decades unless people recognize that this can work in the near term future and promote its adoption. I strongly suspect that most people reading /. are not those individuals having the most immediate short term interest in this problem -- though they may have relatives for whom it is an issue bordering on being of critical significance.

Robert Bradbury

Disclosures: I filed a patent in Dec. 2008 for the procedures required to isolate "pristine" stem cells (adult or non-adult) without the requirement of having to sequence an entire genome for each cell line.

Re:How long was I in there?

[dammy]

The only reason why the pro-abortionist are whining about lack of funding for embryonic stem cell funding is the fact industry isn't touching it. Industry isn't touching it because it's a bad investment, not because of ethical questions. Industry knows where the real benefits are for their R&D monies, adult stem cell research. They have to have a ROI on their investment, adult stem cell is most promising. Go look at where the billions they are spending are going to, that tells the tale.

Re:Science will find a way...

[omris]

I work in research with an animal model.

I get really tired of the "animals still matter" argument.

It IS a valid argument. But you have to understand the scope of what you're talking about. In the United States of America, animal research projects are not just started when the researcher wants. The rabbits you talk about: they weren't tested on until the people doing the tested justified both the need to find out if the "soap" hurt bunny's eyes, and why they had to use the bunny to a committee consisting of people who like animals, like science, or who have no opinion on either science or animals, but might represent the general community.

It is not true that they test the same formulation of dish soap in some poor animal's eyes over and over again. That would be pointless. But when they put in a new active ingredient, one that hes never been tested, they need to make sure that it won't kill your stupid kid when he drinks a gallon of it.

Case in point: I was reading an article in a laboratory animal trade magazine where they discussed these sorts of tests. The one they were talking about involved a product that had already been tested (a lotion I think) and found safe, which was getting an additional ingredient which had been tested in other products and worked out fine. The funny thing is, in this case, it turned out that the new formula caused all sorts of problems. The animals developed rashes and skin problems and had to be euthanized. The ethics issue they were considering wasn't whether or not they should have done the test, but whether or not they had looked adequately at the risk to the animals before they had agreed to let the research proceed.

A lot of lay people have a misconception about how this works.

And no matter how good the technology gets, some things simply cannot be researched in vitro. An animal model is sometimes necessary. When the chimps get smart and start breeding us for scientific research for the good of chimpanzees everywhere, I'll be the last to complain.

Re:In preparation for the inevitable comments

[JoshuaZ]

You could just read the abstract: which contains the words "Following methods shown to be effective at generating motor neurons from human embryonic stem cells..."

Re:How long was I in there?

[interkin3tic]

Sorry for the flame, But wow, it turns out you don't need to run the pissing matches with the pro life activists to get things done.

The base knowledge for making the IPS cells, like which genes were necessary, came from... embryonic stem cell research. Had we not done that research, we never would have made IPS cells.

Re:How long was I in there?

[COMON$]

How is stating that someone with an agenda has an agenda a sweeping generalization? If I believe there is a God then my view is skewed that direction, if I say there isn't a god then my view is skewed in that direction. If I am agnostic then I dont care either way.

Its not my problem if the elitist atheists think they are better scientists because of their skewed view --(THAT is a sweeping generalization).