Acid Bath Offers Easy Path To Stem Cells

ananyo writes "In 2006, Japanese researchers reported a technique for creating cells that have the embryonic ability to turn into almost any cell type in the mammalian body — the now-famous induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. In papers published this week in Nature, another Japanese team says that it has come up with a surprisingly simple method — exposure to stress, including a low pH — that can make cells that are even more malleable than iPS cells, and do it faster and more efficiently. The work so far has focused on mouse white blood cells but the group are now trying to make the method work with cells from adult humans. If they're successful, that would dramatically speed up the process of creating stem cells for potential clinical applications."

Comments

Embryonic ability

[bluefoxlucid]

What a loaded phrase. These are pluripotent adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cell treatments have never panned out; yet we have hundreds of adult stem cell treatments. This is extending the adult stem cell treatment into what people--political people--have theorized embryonic stem cells could be used for, but which has never actually worked out well.

The term "embryonic" is often crammed into positive stem cell research in any way possible so that people can have a stronger pro-stem-cell argument base to argue for embryonic stem cell research. The term "adult" is often dropped when that's not possible, so we can just say "stem cells". You'll see research that allows us to create cells "like embryonic stem cells" or make cells "behave like embryonic stem cells" to achieve things we've never honestly achieved from embryonic stem cells not because of lack of research, but because they just don't fucking behave--ESS aren't just pluripotent, but they're essentially seeds that are pre-programmed (metaphor) to grow into whole bodies... or tumors.

If you want to regrow tissue, adult stem cells are the way to go. If you want to regrow a variety of tissue, pluripotent adult stem cells are the way to go (or as close to it as you can get). If you want to regrow organs... that's going to be tough; you need not just pluripotency, but you need to induce the mechanisms executed after embryonic stem cells start to differentiate, but before they become simply pluripotent--you need to not grow a whole body, but grow an arm or a kidney rather than just a sheet of tissue. That's an intermediate state that's going to be hard to trigger from either end.

Re:Embryonic ability

[morgauxo]

I would certainly prefer a treatment made with my own cells, with my own DNA over one made from some embryo.

Re:Embryonic ability

[bluefoxlucid]

No, the problem is most people know they've been told "embryonic stem cells will cure every disease" or "you can make anything out of embryonic stem cells." Most people just know "stem cells" and are unaware that there's a difference; the word "embryonic" is just attached. Whenever non-embryonic stem cells are brought in, the only purpose of attaching "embryonic" is to groom your audience to follow your political opinions.

Then you get the year 2000, with everyone arguing over stem cell bans that don't exist (Clinton banned embryonic stem cell research; Bush lifted the ban, with large restrictions). Big political issue, nobody understands the difference, they don't understand the medical position, the legislative position, or even that they're discussing a subset of a type of research--embryonic stem cell research is research into manipulating stem cells, just as adult stem cell research, but using a different starting point; this makes the issue much smaller than people ever believed.

Then you get a voter base with incomplete knowledge. Then they may select the worst candidate because they believe all the minimally important issues are incredibly important, while all the maximally-important issues are dismissed or simply unknown.

Re:Embryonic ability

[jgtg32a]

One thing that I've noticed is that people who are against embryonic stem cell research are aware that there are "adult" stem cells, and people who are for embryonic stem cell research don't seem to be aware of the existence of "adult" stem cells. I know it is selection bias, but it is amusing and sad that people I wouldn't expect to have that knowledge do and the people I would expect to have it don't.

Re:Embryonic ability

[Megane]

Please point out to me where Bush did anything to stop research on adult stem cells, such as those mentioned in TFA. If anything, he (though for the wrong reasons) stopped work on the less promising form of stem cell research. As someone else has already said in this thread, "I would certainly prefer a treatment made with my own cells, with my own DNA over one made from some embryo."

Re:Embryonic ability

[Zirbert]

Please point out to me where Bush did anything to stop research on adult stem cells,

There's also the not-negligible issue that declining to pay for something (which is what Bush did with embryonic stem cell research) is not remotely the same as banning it. I don't know how poorly informed and/or indoctrinated into statism you'd need to be to fail to recognize the distinction, but it's depressing how many of those folks are out there. Worse, many of them vote.

Re:Embryonic ability

[bluefoxlucid]

My issue with embryonic stem cell research is it's an incredibly bad hack. Essentially you need to jump through all kinds of loopy hoops to make it work, then it tends to run amock (tumors), and even if it did work you have the same rejection issues as organ transplants (fixable by using your own DNA to seed an embryo as a start).

Research into embryonic stem cells has never showed "promise"; it has always been an idealistic on-paper pursuit. There's lots of promise in the Alcubierre warp drive in the same way (all implications). Meanwhile adult stem cell research has consistently produced results, and over time these results have come at an accelerated rate; there is often research into making adult stem cells more multipotent, and in this case pluripotent, which--given the relative ease with which we can apply them to new treatments--just opens the floodgates and allows even more rapid advancement.

To me, embryonic stem cell research at large is a waste of time. It's an academic pursuit, and should be pursued as such; but real research dollars diverted towards real-world applicable medical research should go directly to adult stem cell research. When we research real-world space travel--how are we going to get the next batch of satellites into space?--we research new rocket engines; when we research negative energy and faster-than-light drives, we acknowledge that we're just trying to get the new building blocks to, someday, build new things that we can't possibly do today.

When the decision is made on how much money to send to "fringe research" and how much to send to "applicable research", I don't want to see brainless monkeys sending precious medical research dollars intended to generate miracle cures TOMORROW toward fringe embryonic stem cell research that won't generate anything useful for DECADES. Send your fringe research budget money that way.

Of course, if you hype up embryonic stem cell research enough, that will be where the investors run, where the grants go, and where public opinion (which boosts stock prices) falls. That means you can make a lot of money by luring investors onto your medical venture that's going nowhere, getting grant money for your medical venture that's going nowhere, then taking your company public and holding stock in your medical venture that's going nowhere until it's starting to peak over. That doesn't happen for fringe research; fringe research gets a justifiably smaller budget because it's important next decade, while real research gets a bigger budget because it's important yesterday.

Re:Wait?

[amiga3D]

There was no worldwide ban. Just USA.

Re:Wait?

[Warbothong]

Wait...I thought that the ban on stem-cell-farming from unborn babies was going to stunt US stem-cell research forever?

TFA confirms that hypothesis: both of the techniques mentioned were discovered in Japan ;)

Re:Wait?

[OG]

Exactly. There's always been incentive to use adult stem cells as that means patients could possibly become their own donors for various therapies. Until recently though (possibly, we'll see how this pans out), that was feasible with our knowledge and technology.

It's my understanding that the Japan doesn't have the same strictures on embryonic stem cell research that we have here in the US. I haven't looked over this closely (and frankly don't have the time, I'd love to see someone more knowledgable chime in), but I'm guessing that this current study would not have been possible without prior embryonic stem cell research. There's a possibility that, had the entire world been subject to Bush's edicts, we wouldn't be at this point now. Conjecture, but I don't think unlikely.

Re:Wait?

[Sockatume]

Ignoring the inconvenient fact that demonstrating this technique in humans will require comparison with human embryonic stem cells.

Tumor cell de-differentiation

[Guppy]

Now this is rather interesting. Tumor interiors are often low-pH environments, thanks to poor oxygenation and a reliance on anaerobic metabolism (see: arburg effect).