Slashdot Mirror
Non-Embryonic Stem Cells Developed From Skin Cells
juliangamble writes "Scientists reported Thursday they had developed a technique that can quickly create safe alternatives to human embryonic stem cells, a major advance toward developing a less controversial approach for treating a host of medical problems. The researchers published a series of experiments showing they can use laboratory-made versions of naturally occurring biological signals to quickly convert ordinary skin cells into cells that appear virtually identical to embryonic stem cells. Moreover, the same strategy can then coax those cells to morph into specific tissues that would be a perfect match for transplantation into patients."
No, they are not identical. Several clinical hurdles ahve been passed, and it is clearly in improvement. But no, not identical.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I thought one of the huge advantages of embryonic stem cells was that, once gathered, they could effectively be reproduced or cloned or something indefinitely without the need to gather more. Is that the case with these new cells? Or am I completely off base in the first place?
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
To quote the article:
Here we describe a simple, nonintegrating strategy for reprogramming cell fate based on administration of synthetic mRNA modified to overcome innate antiviral responses. We show that this approach can reprogram multiple human cell types to pluripotency with efficiencies that greatly surpass established protocols.
I repeat, 'GREATLY SURPASS ESTABLISHED PROTOCOLS.'
Better = Better
I get the feeling these guys have been playing waaaay too much Starcraft 2.
Actually, "morph" is a pretty common term when you're talking biology.
Side note: if they said "transform" would they have been watching too much Michael Bay?
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
This new technique isn't a workaround. It's an important step to fulfilling the ultimate potential of stem cell therapy. Something like this skin-cell technique will be necessary for the creation of truly effective stem cell treatments. Stem cells formed from the patient's own tissue will prevent a host of rejection-related problems. Stem cells from an embryo have a different genotype and thus can cause more rejection issues.
Either way, as I am no longer an embryo, these advances seem relevant for therapies using stem cells which may be developed by the time I'm old and need them.
Yes, this. And it never would have happened without all the uproar/dissent over the embryonic stem cells. People were hoping all along that it would be possible to continue this research without creating a market for human offspring, and it seems steps are being taken in that direction.
It's a good day for anyone but the pro-abortion crowd. (And yes, I mean pro-abortion vs merely pro-choice, as in the industry profiting by the practice and its allies.)
I think you're right about the former, but why does that matter now? Here we are with an alternative that's better in an absolute sense (even if not in a time relative sense) than embryonic stem cells. So why not go with that and continue to improve the technology? Do we need to go back to destroying embryos to develop an inferior product?
Also, I'm not wholly convinced that it is just a matter of state-of-the-art improvement where embryonic stem cell research had left off. I think the restriction certainly catapulted this type of research, but there are still over a dozen lines of embryonic stem cells (which can still be infinitely reproduced) that were being worked on, but they did not get to this point.
If we had Embryonic stem cells say from Cord blood or some other conflict free source.
Would the biological signals work the same on them to become muscle, nerve or organ replacement tissue?
Got a pound of flesh? Like it being ripped out?
Citation needed. You really think it will take a pound? Even allowing for hyperbole, it seems unlikely anything more than what's needed to remove a mole would be necessary.
These are not as good as stem cells from embryos.
Citation needed - as well as a definition of "better." There's no simple binary comparision to be made here. Many factors contribute, such as efficacy, cost, and complication rate. I'm sure there are some things embryonic stem cells will be "better" for, but there are likely many things derived stem cells will be better for. They don't have nearly as many issues with tissue rejection, for starters.
The funny thing about all the anti-science religious freaks is no matter what solution you come up with, they'll find something to object about it
Really? Which ones object to this?
I wonder though, if they don't find a way to lengthen the telomere tail on the cell's dna, it's age won't be reset. You can't just take anyone's skin cells and make stem cells from them, if they're older generation cells the telomere tail will be short and the cell culture's lifespan will also be short.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
While, I welcome any and all advances in the field of stem cells, I often wonder if the controversy around embryonic stem cells is mostly a product of language. As I understand it, the names "embryonic" and "adult" refers to where in the life-cycle of the stem cell it is in. It does not describe the source of the cells. Notice that even babies can have adult stem cells.
In cloud physics, there is a concept of a embryonic cloud drop. It is merely a label for a cloud droplet at the beginning of its life cycle, before it grows or evaporates.
So, are many people having problems with embryonic stem cells because they believe that it comes from an embryo instead of a zygote? Would public opinion be different if people understood this distinction? Would they care?
Yeah why not, and the best part is they have the same DNA as I do so it would be highly unlikely that my body would reject them.
Do we need to go back to destroying embryos to develop an inferior product?
Why keep repeating the myth that embryos are "destroyed"? Most of the embryos are frozen zygotes created by artificial insemination. They are frozen in case they are needed by a couple having trouble conceiving, then donated because they are no longer needed for whatever reason. No one is walking into a research center and saying "take this baby out of me and use it for science". The word "destroy" is used by anti-abortion types to falsely imply that people are aborting their children so some mad scientist can do experiments with mutant monkeys or whatever.
There is no evidence that fewer babies are born because of the use of embryonic stem cells. The cells would have been discarded without any purpose, so isn't that worse than putting them to some good use?
This isn't new, except for the part that says quickly.
Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPS cells) have been around for at least 4 years now
These guys are short-cutting the process of DNA makes RNA makes Protein, by directly providing the required mRNA, rather than inserting new required genes into adult somatic cells and then waiting for them to make the RNA and transform, as was done before.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
I'm pro science. I think everyone should be doing nuclear experiments in their basement like the http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html"> Nuclear Boy Scout. After all, everyone trying to prevent him from experimenting is just plain anti science.
Or is it that all science needs boundaries and you just disagree with where that boundary has been set?
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are "anti science". Though throwing the whole "Anti" tag on things seems like common way to be dismissive without actually making any soft of point. Which makes you as bad as the Christian Fundies. Maybe worse, because at least they don't pretend to be logical.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Unless I'm mistaken (and I could very well be, if I am please correct me) there may be tissue rejection issues with embryonic stem cells, but if it's your own cells that are used, that is no longer a problem.
One thing I'm not mistaken about -- embryonic stem cells don't come from fetuses. They come from embryos.
Since it requires that the skin cells themselves be fresh and alive, the patient much undergo some pain while the cells are extracted.
You've never heard of local anesthetics?
I'm worried that these policies will become stricter come November when the Tea Party looks likely to make significant inroads in Congress.
Somehow I doubt they will.
Free Martian Whores!
And I would still have an immune reaction to them.
Face it, all the great things about embryonic stem cells are greatly hampered by the fact that the patient is probably going to have to take anti-rejection drugs. Adult stem cells from the patient won't have this problem.
Even if embryonic stem cells had been kept at state of the art, we would still have this problem, and this problem has been examined since transplants began.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
History likewise shows numerous examples of people dieing. This doesn't mean that tacos often kill.
That's a non sequitur.
Otherwise, we're just bandying about our opinions, aren't we?
Except embryo's are not human offspring and the majority never could be.
There are far more in cold storage than could ever possibly be brought to term. They are just collections of human genetic material with the potential for growth into human life IF they are implanted into a womb and are successfully brought to term. Even then once born then what? There are already too many orphans in this ever more crowded world.
If they are human offspring then what of sperm and egg? Where do you draw the line? Because they joined together?
Humans have rights not because of the genetic codes in our cells but because of our individual experience, potential and the investiture of others.
They may become people only under the right conditions and for the vast majority those conditions will never come.
No there isn't. But hey a group of uneducated and ignorant people are telling you what to believe. feel fro to take what they say and swallow it with question.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Humans have rights not because of the genetic codes in our cells but because of our individual experience, potential and the investiture of others.
I see where you're going, logically, but legally speaking you're not correct. Intercourse with a human corpse is one example. Cannibalism is another. Abortion is yet a third, though to an agreeably less distinct sense.
Material from humans has a greater value than other flesh and bones normally would. That's a simple fact.
Reproductive material that might produce a viable human, even more so - and understandably so.