Slashdot Mirror


Breakthrough In Stem Cell Culturing

Science Daily reports that for the first time, human embryonic stem cells have been cultured under chemically controlled conditions without the use of animal substances, which is essential for future clinical uses. "Now, for the first time, we can produce large quantities of human embryonic stem cells in an environment that is completely chemically defined," says professor Karl Tryggvason, who led the study at Sweden's Karolinska Institutet. "This opens up new opportunities for developing different types of cells which can then be tested for the treatment of disease."

57 comments

  1. Bah humbug by Xtense · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pah! Finally, those uncultured stem cells will learn the finer arts of high society!

    --
    "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams [...]."
    1. Re:Bah humbug by Mantrid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Whoops had to comment to remove the accidental -ve modifying (mouse wheeling the dialog instead of the page)

  2. Advances by sonicmerlin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Along with the recent news of the creation of an artificial cell, it seems like biotechnology is the truly "hot" field these days.

    1. Re:Advances by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 0, Troll

      That is true. As a bonus, we get instant gratification from being able to play god, constructing life forms as if we were playing with Legos.

      Space travel sounded fun when we were young, but it's just not that exciting. So we get a couple rovers on Mars -- but for what? To look at dust and rocks all day long? *Yawn*

      Additionally, let's all give Stonelion the glad hand. I am a professional troll, Stoneyboy, but I like you. Hell, you and Pudge can come over to my house and fuck my sister!

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

      Very... lively, too. A very fertile area, and will probably turn very fruitful with time. /I'll show myself out now.

    3. Re:Advances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. The various parts of cells can be seen information-carriers and information processing machines. When a new effective information technology emerges on the market there is always a boom in the economy.

      The next 40 years are going to be one hell of a ride for those who know about biotech. I sometimes wish I had taken bio engineering instead of electronic engineering when I had the chance.

    4. Re:Advances by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      While out field of IT and supercomputers is becoming duller every day :-/

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  3. Now just hopefully... by Barrinmw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They can find the cure for alzheimer's before I really have to worry about it.

    1. Re:Now just hopefully... by Zeros · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dont worry you will forget all your problems soon enogh.

    2. Re:Now just hopefully... by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's funny until you've seen it happen. The person with Alzheimer's will certainyl forget but those around them certainly won't. Eventually Alzheimer's gets to the point where they forget *everyone* and everything. They often have depression from the times that they realize what is going on and not knowing who anyone is around them. Alzheimer's fractures the mind to the point where it has effectively combined aspects from their childhood, teenage years, adulthood and older years all wrapped up in the same person. They lose the ability to speak, walk and in the end even move. As bad as it is for them, it is fucking terrible for their family to watch that unfold when you know that there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. Stem cell research has the potential to significantly curb the effects of Alzheimer's but alas it will not be in time for my own grandmother who is in the final stages of Alzheimer's.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    3. Re:Now just hopefully... by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Situations like those you specified always made me curious; at what point is life no longer worth living? I live and die by my mind. The thought of a disease stealing it away from me, a little at a time, is my version of hell. I know I would prefer to be put out of my misery long before the disease takes me. I can't be alone in this.

      Not only would I be spared months/years of hell, but so would my family. That last point alone would be worth it to me.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    4. Re:Now just hopefully... by Barrinmw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, my grandpa has it and it is pretty awful. The crazy thing is, he has that body of an ox and he is 94 now? If it wasn't for Alzheimer's he would prolly be doing fine and live for another 10 years easily. At least the medicine he is on now has significantly slowed the progress and he sort of still remembers who his kids and wife is, but barely that.

    5. Re:Now just hopefully... by SplicerNYC · · Score: 1

      Yes, indeed. I saw it happen to my mother in the year before she passed. She was an M.D. in life and it was tragic to witness her decline. I certainly hope that scientists will be aggressive in coming up with treatments if such treatments are possible.

    6. Re:Now just hopefully... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the GP it's not months and years of hell, it's mild depression. I'm sure that could be handled with anti-depressants. You say that you live and die by your mind, but as soon as pieces of it start failing you will no be you, so you probably won't care anymore. Either way, if it scares you that much you can always buy a gun the day you get diagnosed.

    7. Re:Now just hopefully... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell? The thought of being able to watch my favorite movies over and over "for the fist time" sounds pretty good to me.

    8. Re:Now just hopefully... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "effectively combined aspects from their childhood, teenage years, adulthood and older years all wrapped up in the same person"

      That sounds exactly like a good night of drinking!

      "They lose the ability to speak, walk and in the end even move."

      Are you sure you are not talking about a college frat party?

    9. Re:Now just hopefully... by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      No. You misunderstood me. When I say depression, I mean they grab a knife out of the kitchen silverware drawer and try to stab themselves. (which is exactly what my grandmother tried to do)

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    10. Re:Now just hopefully... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 0

      It is improbable that stem cell research will in any way contribute to a cure for Alzheimer's.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    11. Re:Now just hopefully... by LUH+3418 · · Score: 1

      >> Hell? The thought of being able to watch my favorite movies over and over "for the fist time" sounds pretty good to me.

      Yeah... If you are still capable of even understanding what's going on in the said movies. Alzheimers heavily damages short term memory, as far as I know.

      Here in Canada, it seems like euthanasia will be legalized soon. This could enable people to choose ahead of time to be terminated if things get very bad. Right now, people who suffer the torture of debilitating illnesses don't even have that legal option. They have to suffer it through to the end and bring their family along, whether they want that or not.

      I haven't had to go through this myself, but other people have told me they have seen their great grandparents go through it... To the point where these people became senile, then unable to walk, unable to talk, blind, and eventually starved to death. I think we should allow people to decide whether or not they want to finish their life that way.

    12. Re:Now just hopefully... by Spugglefink · · Score: 1

      I live and die by my mind. The thought of a disease stealing it away from me, a little at a time, is my version of hell. I know I would prefer to be put out of my misery long before the disease takes me. I can't be alone in this.

      Nope. You're not. The closest I ever come to praying is hoping I have enough of my wits about me to know when it's time to end it. I'm not at all suicidal, but given my family history, there is probably going to come a point, a line I do not wish to cross, a fate far worse than death.

    13. Re:Now just hopefully... by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      sounds like a business opportunity... Alzheimer's Insurance. Pay now, painless exit after diagnosis.

    14. Re:Now just hopefully... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "prolly"? ... learn to be an adult...

  4. JaNus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why is this showing up as my newgrounds page?

  5. This is good by Khyber · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We remove some of the ethical concerns that go with stem cell research. This should go a long way in advancing medical science.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:This is good by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't worry, the religious right will invent knew reasons why this research is an abomination. I mean they were the ones that were opposed to stem cell research because it kills embryos, but totally fine with IVF which purposely creates more embryos than are needed and kills the extras.

    2. Re:This is good by MikeB0Lton · · Score: 1

      You speak of the religious right as though it is some unified group, when it is in fact not. Why don't you wait to see what happens before throwing insults?

    3. Re:This is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, the religious right will invent knew reasons why this research is an abomination.

      And if they don't, the godless left will invent new reasons to hate them.

    4. Re:This is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to your hole, caveman religious cockweed.

    5. Re:This is good by williamhb · · Score: 2, Informative

      We remove some of the ethical concerns that go with stem cell research. This should go a long way in advancing medical science.

      I'm pretty sure it's not the vegetarian vote that has been most concerned about stem cell research! (This is still about embryonic stem cells, so it still involves a pre-natal death, which has been the much more vociferous ethical debate.)

    6. Re:This is good by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      And if they don't, the godless left will invent new reasons to hate them.

      How do you feel about Scientologists? Do you want to see them take over the government?

      No?

      Well, now you know how the "godless left" feels about you.

    7. Re:This is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You speak of the religious right as though it is some unified group, when it is in fact not. Why don't you wait to see what happens before throwing insults?

      How did he insult them? He accurately described what the religious right did do. That's not an insult, at least to them, as they view what they are doing as the right thing.
      As for "religious right" not being a unified group, that's true when dealing with other issues that could fracture this group, but not these issues, by definition. If you're OK with abortion, by definition, you are on the left (on this issue at least). This is not an insult or anything like that, it's just a descriptive label being used correctly, nor is it any sort of unfair generalization, anymore than it's an unfair generalization to say all people who are opposed to the death penalty are all opposed to the death penalty.

    8. Re:This is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      past history shows that most probably the religios nuts will come with something.

      And they ane united in a way that all of them invent things when they don't know the answer. Ask them how the universe started and you will see...

  6. Patents by blackfrancis75 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Best of all; it happened in Europe, so we don't have to worry about some self-serving corporate trying to patent 'Chemically Controlled Stem Cell Culturing' to make $$$ for themselves at the cost of all humanities medical advancement.

    1. Re:Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, I thought you were making a joke then I saw you were modded insightful, though that might be the joke. You know europe isn't a land of free spirited enlightened awesomeness. They just have some different problems than we do.

  7. Great for autoimmune diseases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a diabetic, this is really good news for me! Stem cells could cure a failed pancreas.

    1. Re:Great for autoimmune diseases by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Otherwise it could run a complaints desk.

  8. Of course there's still the big ethical concern by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With stems cells down the road. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, aka therapeutic cloning. (If you thought people had moral problems with using embryonic stem cells man they're going to flip out over that one.)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    1. Re:Of course there's still the big ethical concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...aka therapeutic cloning. (If you thought people had moral problems with using embryonic stem cells man they're going to flip out over that one.)"

      The Bible say that Jesus was a clone, (only 1 parent)

    2. Re:Of course there's still the big ethical concern by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Mentally ill people flip out about things that their leader tells them to flip out about, because it treathens their illness... News at 11.

      The problems start, if you give a rat’s ass about it.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  9. And it's announced just as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we're coming up on third quarter fiscal and corporate taxes are coming due. /Yes, I know I'm jaded.

  10. Background: done in mice by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some important background that this article doesn't specifically mention (another one I read did), in 2008, that same lab had shown this was possible with mouse stem cells. That's not to knock them, just it's important to point out that these things don't just come from out of the blue, nor does biology move as quick as we would like. This group has been working on showing this goes on in human stem cells for at least 2 years, who knows how long it took them to find this out in mice, or narrow down this one specific protein. Those years between when they discovered it in mice and showing it in humans probably also represents a lot of work. Science is hard.

    I would guess that the next step, maybe one they're already working on, is to show that induced pluripotent stem cells can be cultured on this same protein. IPsC are when they take cells from your own body and make them revert back to a similar state to embryonic stem cells, to where they can then be turned into any cell type you want (the advantage there being they're your cells so you wouldn't get tissue rejection like you would with embryonic stem cells.)

    Three big barriers to using IPsC for therapy were/are 1. that they were made using viral transfection of cancer-causing genes, 2. culturing them required feeder cells which the article describes why that's bad, and 3. it's hard to completely differentiate a population of pluripotent cells into one cell type you're trying to get. There have been some breakthroughs on 1, last I heard a group had shown you can just culture with modified proteins to induce pluripotency. This is a breakthrough on 2. Unfortunately 3 might be harder. You want to be sure you've differentiated all the stem cells before you put them into a patient. If you inject stem cells into a patient, they're going to get one of the worst types of tumors: teratomas, so you want to be absolutely sure you've gotten them all. And each different cell type seems to differentiate in different ways. We might figure out how to turn stem cells completely into skin cells, but that may not help us learn how to turn a culture of stem cells into brain cells.

    Nonetheless, this was an important 2 part solution to a barrier to using stem cells to their full potential. Double kudos to them, they've made a real contribution here.

  11. From what I've seen, it's far from mild depression by CFD339 · · Score: 1

    I watched the decline happen with my father-in-law, and the days when he was totally lucid may have been the worst of all for him, because he could see his situation and understand the terrible things he'd said and felt in his less lucid days. The disease was a daily torture for the man, and I know that under a similar diagnosis and with the current state of medicine as it is, my own choice would be more sudden and immediate.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  12. Bubble bursting. by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 4, Informative

    Patent application title: COMPOSITION AND METHOD FOR ENABLING PROLIFERATION OF PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS
    Authors: Karl Tryggvason, Anna Domogatskaya, Sergey Rodin, a subset of the authors of the paper referenced at the end of TFA. I don't know enough about stem cells to say that the patent application is identical to TFA, but it's on at least highly similar subject matter. Prof. Tryggvason has over 30 patents as per his bio on the Biolamina corporate website, a company he co-founded. As a scientist currently trying to bring some academic research out of the lab and into deployment, I can tell you that this is just how things are done. It isn't perfect, but without the protection of a patent it's hard to see any company willingly expose itself to the massive risk and cost of developing, producing, testing, and marketing Prof. Tryggvason's work without the profit motive that patents protect.

    1. Re:Bubble bursting. by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Wait... you mean there's a actually a mad scientist named Tryggvason?

  13. Not a breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Sorry, but this is not a significant breakthrough. Not going xeno-free has been an issue if convenience, not capability. Invitrogen has been selling a xeno-free matrix for hESC growth for 1-2 years now. I've used it and it works just fine. Replacing all of the animal components in hESC media is costly but conceptually pretty easy. Furthermore, I'd imagine that all of the stem-cell companies (Geron, Advanced Cell, and Novocell) w/ therapies moving towards the clinic already have their own proprietary xeno-free conditions.

  14. "are you a man or a mouse?" by peter303 · · Score: 1

    There goes one of my excuses for running away from fights now :-(

  15. But.. by Sumbius · · Score: 0

    Won't someone think of the children?

  16. 8 Years Too Late by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

    Obama lifted Bush's 2001 ban in 2009. If embryonic stem cell research hadn't been banned by Republicans pandering to theocrats and drug corps for so long, this technique that finally unleashes stem cells for therapies might have been developed 8 years earlier.

    Maybe my paraplegic college buddy who starved himself a year ago instead of continuing life in a wheelchair with chronic pain and steadily failing organs might have at least had real evidence for hope. Bush killed him, and who knows how many other people.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:8 Years Too Late by urusan · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm sorry to hear about your loss, but you can't really know if this really is the case or not. Would it have really led to this advance significantly earlier? or would it have just been slightly earlier? or perhaps there would have been little to no change?

      Anyway, the Bush "ban" was actually initiated by Clinton administration and it only prevented embryonic stem cell research from receiving US federal funding if it involved the destruction of embryos. Adult stem cell research and privately funded research has been perfectly legal the whole time.

      Research isn't like engineering where you can throw tons of money at a problem and make it go much faster. You can cultivate a good environment for research, and in this way the ban may have caused some harm, but throwing more resources at such research doesn't scale in the same way as say going to the moon or developing the atomic bomb, where all the fundamental research was done and all that was needed was a lot of engineering and elbow grease. In other words, 8 years more US federal funding does not translate into advances occurring 8 years earlier.

      Plus, this discovery was made in Europe and not in the US. The US isn't the center of the universe.

      There is a great temptation to blame our woes on the malice or incompetence of others, but one should not give in to this temptation unless there is very good proof for it.

    2. Re:8 Years Too Late by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      US Federal funds were cut off from embryonic stem cell research by Bush in 2001. That was a big change, since US Federal funding is a giant part of global medical research. The US and its Federal funding that's no risk to the private corps that benefit from its results is indeed the center of the medical research universe. In 2001, embryonic stem cells were the most likely kind to produce results. That was slowed a very great deal until the funding was allowed again last year. And now just a year later is this breakthru. Showing just how valuable throwing money at this problem is, compared to denying it money.

      In the real world, cutting off stem cell funding in 2001 was an epic setback to the medical research. And in the real world, real people who could benefit suffered without it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:8 Years Too Late by PapayaSF · · Score: 1
      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    4. Re:8 Years Too Late by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The existing embryonic stem cell lines in 2001 were believed to be unusable after contamination by mouse cells.

      The reality is that Bush succeeded in crippling stem cell research until his ban was lifted last year.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:8 Years Too Late by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If embryonic stem cell research hadn't been banned by Republicans pandering to theocrats and drug corps for so long, this technique that finally unleashes stem cells for therapies might have been developed 8 years earlier.

      I'm a cell biologist, a staunch democrat, and was astounded at how stupid Bush's actions were, but that's not exactly fair.

      First and foremost, this is not a startling new discovery, the same group published a paper in 2008 showing that -mouse- embryonic stem cells grew fine on this one protein. The basic discovery didn't take place until just prior to 2008, the federal funding rules didn't affect mouse embryonic stem cell research obviously. It could have been discovered in mouse embryonic stem cells even with the funding rules under Bush, by chance it was not. Had we discovered it in mouse in, say, 2003, and then been unable to show it went for human cells too, that would be another case.

      Second, embryonic stem cells being cultured without feeder layers would not have been much cause for hope, major barriers to treatment still existed and continue to exist outside of how to grow the cells. Research into overcoming those barriers would not have been directly impacted by the ban.

      One barrier was that mbryonic stem cells were never very promising for therapeutic purposes, since you can't get ESC from a non-embryo patient. ESC from anything other than a clone could face tissue rejection issues. Within the last 3 years though, induced pluripotent stem cells were discovered/made, which would overcome those problems. I don't believe the research that went into that was significantly impacted by the ban, since again the mechanism was first identified in mouse. If your friend died last year, that would have already been discovered and is in my mind is the biggest breakthrough on spinal cord injuries we've ever seen. Recently, they've even done it without viral transfection.

      Another barrier, and possibly the biggest one remaining, is that with this method or without, we still aren't 100% capable of taking a plate of stem cells or pluripotent cells and turning them all into neurons to repair the spinal cord. Last I heard, we could get most of them to mature, but not 100% to turn from stem cell to neuron. That's unacceptable for therapy. Any undifferentiated cells injected into your spinal cord would produce tumors, and in one of the worst places to get them. Once we get there, there's still likely to be the barrier of organization, how to get these cells to make a functional cord instead of just disorganized neurons all over the place. This may have been affected somewhat by the ban, but again, mouse studies continued and we're still not there.

      Bush hindered our understanding of stem cell biology with his ignorant hypocritical meddling, but putting the blame on him is misplaced. I'm sorry about your friend, but it wasn't Bush that destroyed his hopes, we biologists failed him on our own.

    6. Re:8 Years Too Late by urusan · · Score: 1

      It should also be pointed out that the initial work that led to this discovery was done with mice stem cells (which had no such funding restrictions) which was only completed in 2008. This breakthrough is simply an extension of the technique to human stem cells. Do you really think that it would have been nearly a decade faster had the scientists been able to get US federal funding to do this with human cells instead of mouse cells? A delay of two years seems more plausible (if they had initially done this with human cells instead), and since it takes years to go from basic research to accepted treatments it is unlikely that your friend would have benefited from this.

      Scientists found workarounds for the ban, like working on embryonic stem cells of animals or working on human adult stem cells or getting funding from other sources or analyzing pre-existing data or working in related fields that are now assisting research etc. This probably wasn't for the best, but it didn't stop the research.

      I'm not saying that the ban was harmless. There will probably be excess deaths as a result. My point is that it is very difficult to measure the effects, and that they are probably far less serious than 8 whole years of lost research.