Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Functional Neurons Created From Adult Somatic Cells

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the this-sounds-important dept.

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."

31 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. Adult Stem Cells FTW ! by Orne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:Adult Stem Cells FTW ! by bradbury · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  2. Science will find a way... by TheKidWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure a century ago "neurologists" would have stated that the study of these diseases would have been impossible without cutting up a few people and performing experiments on them...

    1. Re:Science will find a way... by omris · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  3. Electronically? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Informative

    They've created the first electronically active neurons from induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells.

    I know it's a direct quote from TFA, but, dear God, I hope they mean "electrically active". Unless UCLA is now working for Cyberdyne...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  4. Nerve stapling ahoy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The prisoners were not permanently* damaged."

    *See Patriot Act.

    1. Re:Nerve stapling ahoy! by macraig · · Score: 2, Funny

      Somebody's been playing too much Alpha Centauri. Will you quit droning on about it now already?

  5. How long was I in there? by COMON$ · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why aren't we Funding this?!

    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.

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    1. Re:How long was I in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Current science is only about pissing matches with ideologists especially those that are majority Christian. Or at least that is how you get attention in current science. Recently something snapped and the goal of learning about the universe was pushed back behind the goal of proving religion wrong.

    2. Re:How long was I in there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pro tip: Scientific research also occurs outside of 'MERICA.

    3. Re:How long was I in there? by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why aren't we Funding this?!

      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.

      We ARE funding this. This is the type of research that was funded under our previous president. The only thing that was not funded was embryonic stem cell research from NEW lines. Stem cell research from then existing lines of embryonic stem cells was funded.

      Unfortunately, your are not the only one who is not aware of this. Since it was so popular to bash Bush, the common thought was that Bush banned all stem cell research. This is absolutely NOT true. Bush banned nothing! What Bush did by executive order dealt with federal funding only, and even then the only restriction was that it not fund research based on NEW stem cell lines from "discarded" embryos.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:How long was I in there? by COMON$ · · Score: 2, Funny
      It was a quote from family guy...relax ;)

      http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/peter-on-family.html

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    5. Re:How long was I in there? by dammy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:How long was I in there? by COMON$ · · Score: 2, Funny

      Problem is, many scientists stopped being Agnostic and converted to Athiesm, which inherently skews their view. Be wary of the non-agnostic scientist, they have an agenda.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    7. Re:How long was I in there? by thedonger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have missed the point entirely. The Point, not just a point. The zealots, as you call them, have just as much right as anyone to voice an opinion, and the average man on the street has the same right to believe it. Idealists from both ends of the spectrum exist, and while the overwhelming majority of Americans do not fall directly in line behind those of any ilk, we have all allowed the vocal minority to take over the conversation.

      Today's secret phrase is Rational Discourse. Now we just have to figure out where Speaker Pelosi has hidden it...

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    8. Re:How long was I in there? by homesnatch · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Did anyone read the article or even summary? These are from adult cells, not embryonic stem cells. There is no controversy about this type of research.

      The only problems with this type of research is the retards that don't understand the difference and just jump at the words "stem cells" (on both sides of the issue)

    9. Re:How long was I in there? by PortHaven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Retraction....misread your post.

      Yes, science has somehow lost the beauty of discovery and become ideological and political.

      Atheism != Science

      Science is distinct from both Atheism and Religion. It is a tool, both may use...or both may ignore. And both do a lot of both!

    10. Re:How long was I in there? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Funny

      ROI on their investment

      Return On Investment... on their investment. Brilliant!

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    11. Re:How long was I in there? by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    12. Re:How long was I in there? by Jawn98685 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe scientists need to stop being so arrogant and err on the side of caution and sanctity of life.

      Especially, if there is no real reason present necessitating doing otherwise.

      Why is caution indicated?
      Warning - that's a trick question, designed to bait the unwitting into citing some religious principle as an authoritative source of what may or may not be the best approach to a given problem. You weren't really going to fall into that trap, were you?

      Also, your assertion that there is "no real reason" for (I assume that we're still talking about) stem cell research is flawed at it's base. There are innumerable reasons to pursue this and many other avenues of medical research.

    13. Re:How long was I in there? by COMON$ · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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).

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    14. Re:How long was I in there? by COMON$ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Outside of a theology degree, a CS degree, leading several bible studies, married to a woman with her MS in Genetics, about to get her PharmD, 3 of my closest friends are MDiv.... I know nothing of science and theology. What I do know is that in science you should start agnostic to get a good feel for the experiment. If you hypothesize and expect certain results that is one thing, but to say "I WILL get these results" is an entirely different scenario. Just because you are an academic in religious studies in no way makes you right or an expert, nor does a theology degree make me an expert. I personally favor Christianity, so does my wife. When doing scientific experiments she set aside her religious beliefs and accepted what happened rather than what priests/pastors tell her should happen. Oddly enough, for her the two never conflicted. Unfortunately for atheists, if all the evidence points to a set of aliens being our God or that we live in a space time bubble created by His noodliness then they will refuse and try different experiments, or they would not be atheists because they are willing to accept the idea that there is a god. There is NO WAY logically in any philosophical debate that you can disprove or prove God, it is impossible, therefore atheism is just as much a religion and based on faith as any deity based belief.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    15. Re:How long was I in there? by Repossessed · · Score: 2, Informative

      The existing lines that Bush approved were all contaminated, and thus mostly useless.

      That said, this article is about *adult* stem cell research, which Bush never blocked.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    16. Re:How long was I in there? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did anyone read the article or even summary?

      I don't think I understand the question.

  6. The abstract and link to the paper... by RandCraw · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Directed differentiation of human induced pluripotent stem cells generates active motor neurons"

    S Karumbayaram, BG Novitch, M Patterson, JA Umbach, L Richter, A Lindgren, AE Conway, AT Clark, SA Goldman, K Plath, M Wiedau-Pazos, HI Kornblum, WE Lowry

    "The potential for directed differentiation of human induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells to functional post-mitotic neuronal phenotypes is unknown. Following methods shown to be effective at generating motor neurons from human embryonic stem cells (hESCs), we found that once specified to a neural lineage, human iPS cells could be differentiated to form motor neurons with a similar efficiency as hESCs. Human iPS-derived cells appeared to follow a normal developmental progression associated with motor neuron formation and possessed prototypical electrophysiological properties. This is the first demonstration that human iPS-derived cells are able to generate electrically active motor neurons. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of using iPS-derived motor neuron progenitors and motor neurons in regenerative medicine applications and in vitro modeling of motor neuron diseases."

    Subscription to Wiley Interscience required for more...

            Randy

  7. In preparation for the inevitable comments by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pretty soon the people not in favor of using embryonic stem research will likely join this thread and start talking about how we can just use adult cells and how that means we should never do any research on embryonic stem cells. However, this research, like most research involving adult stem cells, relied on prior work with embryonic stem cells. This sort of research is only doable because of embryonic stem cell research.

    1. Re:In preparation for the inevitable comments by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pretty soon the people not in favor of using embryonic stem research will likely join this thread and start talking about how we can just use adult cells and how that means we should never do any research on embryonic stem cells. However, this research, like most research involving adult stem cells, relied on prior work with embryonic stem cells. This sort of research is only doable because of embryonic stem cell research.

      Then it's a good thing President Bush funded such research. From HERE:

      Federal Policy
      President Bush's Criteria

      On August 9th, 2001, Former President George W. Bush announced that federal funds may be awarded for research using human embryonic stem cells if the following criteria are met:

              * The derivation process (which begins with the destruction of the embryo) was initiated prior to 9:00 P.M. EDT on August 9, 2001.
              * The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes and was no longer needed.
              * Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo and that donation must not have involved financial inducements.

      NIH's Role

      The NIH, as the Federal government's leading biomedical research organization, is implementing Former President Bush's policy. The NIH funds research scientists to conduct research on existing human embryonic stem cells and to explore the enormous promise of these unique cells, including their potential to produce breakthrough therapies and cures.

      Investigators from 14 laboratories in the United States, India, Israel, Singapore, Sweden, and South Korea have derived stem cells from 71 individual, genetically diverse blastocysts. These derivations meet Former President Bush's criteria for use in federally funded human embryonic stem cell research. The NIH has consulted with each of the investigators who have derived these cells. These scientists are working with the NIH and the research community to establish a research infrastructure to ensure the successful handling and the use of these cells in the laboratory.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:In preparation for the inevitable comments by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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..."

    3. Re:In preparation for the inevitable comments by addikt10 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, thereby forcing anyone with federal funding of any sort that wanted to research on lines that weren't already in place by 2001 to create entirely separate laboratories to work with these new lines.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24conv.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

      Gosh, I sure am glad that he supported stem cell research.

  8. Simple Breakdown of Adult and Embryonic Considerat by kid_oliva · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here is a decent link to the differences in use and treatment: http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/pros_cons.html

    --
    I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
  9. Re:Replacing motor neurons ain't so easy... by RandCraw · · Score: 2, Informative

    If it's a pipe dream, then why do so many researchers and physicians regard iPSCs as a holy grail? Probably it's because stem cell therapy has *already* repaired damaged tissue and restored function to a variety of tissues in mammals and humans, including the spinal cord.

    In case your tragic state of perplexity becomes too much to live with:

    Stem Cell
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

    Stem Cell Basics
    http://dels.nas.edu/bls/stemcells/booklet.shtml

    Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_Pluripotent_Stem_Cell

    Video: What Are Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells?
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8370692532177471184&hl=en

    Stem Cell Therapy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_therapy

            Randy