Stem Cells Grown From Patient's Arm Used To Replace Retina

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stem Cells Grown From Patient's Arm Used To Replace Retina

Posted by Soulskill on Friday October 24, 2014 @12:50AM from the you-and-what-arm-eye dept.

BarbaraHudson writes: The Globe and Mail is reporting the success of a procedure to implant a replacement retina grown from cells from the patient's skin. Quoting: "Transplant doctors are stepping gingerly into a new world, one month after a Japanese woman received the first-ever tissue transplant using stem cells that came from her own skin, not an embryo. On Sept. 12, doctors in a Kobe hospital replaced the retina of a 70-year-old woman suffering from macular degeneration, the leading cause of blindness in the developed world. The otherwise routine surgery was radical because scientists had grown the replacement retina in a petri dish, using skin scraped from the patient's arm.

The Japanese woman is fine and her retinal implant remains in place. Researchers around the world are now hoping to test other stem-cell-derived tissues in therapy. Dr. Jeanne Loring from the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., expects to get approval within a few years to see whether neurons derived from stem cells can be used to treat Parkinson's disease."

56 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

not abstract at all by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 00:53 · Score: 0

just more of our own juices....
Correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 00:54 · Score: 0

but what's the point in creating a retina with the same defective DNA? And furthermore, is the retina connected to the nerves somehow? I didn't think this was surgically possible, how will the brain cope with a new retinal mapping?
I'm sorry to burst the bubble of all the middle-aged slashdotters, but nothing improves with age.
1. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by binarylarry · 2014-10-24 00:59 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Internet smartguy debunks medical scientists from the room in his mother's house.
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
2. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 01:12 · Score: 0
  
  Fantastic answer, thanks! I learned a lot! Whatever happened to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? Oh that's for fags? We just repeat and believe everything we hear now? Got it!
  For example, nowhere does it say the patient can actually SEE with this retina!
3. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by Thanshin · 2014-10-24 01:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  1 - You are implying retinal transplants, a 20 year old procedure, are impossible.
  2 - You are implying age is somehow encoded in the ADN, which is not correct.
4. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry to burst the bubble of all the middle-aged slashdotters, but nothing improves with age.
  Emotional well being, does. So does wisdom and experience - you'll learn to snicker at job offers that offer stock options instead of decent pay or the tyical BS from recruiters.
5. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by AmiMoJo · 2014-10-24 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the summary does miss a few things out. This was covered in Japanese TV and they said that it wouldn't restore the woman's sight. It is just a test to prove that the cells can develop the right way and won't be rejected or otherwise fail somehow. Once that is proven actually making them work to restore sight is the next step.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
6. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  > I'm sorry to burst the bubble of all the middle-aged slashdotters, but nothing improves with age.
  bottle conditioned beer
7. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  You're a rather ungrateful person aren't you
8. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  If European
  
  Internet smartguy debunks medical scientists from the back bedroom in his mother's house.
  If American
  
  Internet smartguy debunks medical scientists from the depths of the basement in his mother's house.
  FTFY
9. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by BarbaraHudson · 2014-10-24 01:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If your eyes were OK for the first 50 years, and then you went blind due to retinal disease, what do you care if the replacement "only" lasts another 50 years?
  Combine that with this:
  
  Scientists have long been aware of Müller cells (which exist in great abundance in the eye) and have generally assumed that they were responsible for keeping retinal tissue protected and clear of debris. In recent years, however, researchers have reported that these cells sometimes exhibit progenitor cell behavior and re-enter the cell cycle (dividing and differentiating into other type of cells). Progenitor cells are similar to stem cells but are more mature and are more limited in the number of cells types they can become.
  ... and we might be able to get somewhere.
  As for the re-mapping, don't sell the optic nerve and brain short. People can go for years without even noticing the cumulative damage to their eyes.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
10. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by morgauxo · 2014-10-24 01:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The last retina lasted 70 years. I'd say that if she is still around and her retinas are her bigest concern after another 70 years she is doing pretty good!
11. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  Retinal transplants are a 20 year old procedure????
12. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you hate America? Oh, wait...
13. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by oodaloop · 2014-10-24 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  More like 30 years.
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
14. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  LOL yeah, real credible source there! Bahahaaa!!
15. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sorry to burst the bubble of all the middle-aged slashdotters, but nothing improves with age.
  Other than bank accounts?
  Other than orgasms?
  Other than the ability to perform thoughtful analysis and reasoning?
  Oh, but you would not know about any of that, would you?
16. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  Fantastic answer, thanks! I learned a lot! Whatever happened to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? Oh that's for fags? We just repeat and believe everything we hear now? Got it!
  For example, nowhere does it say the patient can actually SEE with this retina!
  As for:
  Whatever happened to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? Oh that's for fags?
  If you think about it for a minute (maybe longer), you just called yourself a fag.
  Furthermore, for people who keep up with this kind of research, it is not an "extraordinary claim", but rather an incremental step.
17. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by Zalbik · 2014-10-24 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  How exactly is RP International not a credible source?
  They are a fairly well-known charity involved in raising money for the research of eye problems & support of the vision impaired.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
18. Re: Correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  i have neither the time, nor the inclination to correct you. (ok, i have the time). why don't you exercize your brain a little bit rather than flapping your yap? Is your head modeled like a toilet bowl? ready to accept whatever shit gets dumped into it? Next time you get the urge to contest something you know nothing about, ... [insert over the line, insensitive suggestion here...]
19. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  Umm, what's the maximum post size?
20. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by sjames · 2014-10-24 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  but what's the point in creating a retina with the same defective DNA?
  Another 70 years of functional vision?
  
  And furthermore, is the retina connected to the nerves somehow?
  If it goes like other experimental retina transplants, yes.
  The brain will cope the same way it does with other changes in the eye. Your retina contains none of the cells that were there when you were a child. Can you see?
21. Re: Correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-25 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  Have you heard about genomic engineering? Stem cell scientists 'fix' bad genes in the interim if it's necessary. Source: I'm a stem cell scientist from the labs you read about.
And now? by drainbramage · 2014-10-24 01:00 · Score: 5, Funny

And now the patient shows remarkable hand eye coordination.

--
No brain, no pain.
1. Re:And now? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  Which is preferable to using stem cells harvested from foreskin, which leaves patients cockeyed... (bah-dum-tisss)
2. Re:And now? by drainbramage · 2014-10-24 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  But with the potential of developing foresight.
  
  --
  No brain, no pain.
Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 01:10 · Score: 0

Finally, does this mean all tablet, mobile, and shitty responsive designs can stop using huge oversized fonts???
One thing missing by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-10-24 01:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

:I didn't see anything in the article saying the woman could actually see again. The article noted she was " fine"

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
1. Re:One thing missing by BarbaraHudson · 2014-10-24 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  It's a first step. Were you one of those ones who complained "Big deal, so they launched someone into orbit. Call me when they get to the moon."
  The procedure was done last month. We don't know what will happen over the next year. Obviously they're going to take subjects who are pretty much blind to begin with, because why possibly sacrifice partial vision for no vision.
  As research evolves, we learn what works and doesn't (slashdot BETA, anyone?). But the fact that she IS fine is a big thing - it shows that the tissue is not dying, is not being rejected.
  You might want to read this, particularly the part starting at "Transplantation aimed at photoreceptor cell replacement".
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
2. Re:One thing missing by JanneM · 2014-10-24 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  The purpose of this round of tests is to assess the safety and viability of the procedure. There is no expectation that she will substantially improve her sight. That's a major reason they selected a volunteer her 70's for this, not somebody young.
  
  --
  Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
3. Re:One thing missing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  It's a first step. Were you one of those ones who complained "Big deal, so they launched someone into orbit. Call me when they get to the moon."
  And I never did get that call.
4. Re:One thing missing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  It's a first step. Were you one of those ones who complained "Big deal, so they launched someone into orbit. Call me when they get to the moon."
  And I never did get that call.
  Well, duh. You posted AC.
5. Re:One thing missing by tlambert · 2014-10-24 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  :I didn't see anything in the article saying the woman could actually see again. The article noted she was " fine"
  
  She can't. This was a test of the stem cell transplant, and didn't hook the new cells up to anything that would provide vision.
  There's a gene therapy technique which would have worked, but she didn't get that:
  http://newscenter.berkeley.edu...
6. Re:One thing missing by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-10-24 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  It's a first step. Were you one of those ones who complained "Big deal, so they launched someone into orbit. Call me when they get to the moon."
  Why no, I wasn't. I was making the apparently stupid and asinine observation that maybe in an article about a homegrown retina replacement from stem cells, that someone somewhere might just be interested in if the thing actually accomplished anything.
  My comment is that the FA was a serious piece of shit.
  Tell me - are you interested at all, in any way shape or form, if the replacement did anything? After all if you have a retina replacement from stem cells, it might be a matter of at least passing interest if the lady had any restored vision.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
7. Re:One thing missing by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-10-24 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  The purpose of this round of tests is to assess the safety and viability of the procedure. There is no expectation that she will substantially improve her sight. That's a major reason they selected a volunteer her 70's for this, not somebody young.
  So is the answer "No" she cannot see? And where did you get the safety and viability quote from?
  My point, which apparently I need to make over and over again is that It is awesome they are trying this. But the article referenced is very, very poor.
  An article about a retinal transplant, where restored vision isn't even noted.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
8. Re:One thing missing by JanneM · 2014-10-24 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  So is the answer "No" she cannot see? And where did you get the safety and viability quote from?
  Japanese media reported about this earlier this year when they decided to try this and were looking for volunteer patients, as well as now when they want ahead with it. It was made very clear from the start that this was a procedure to test if the cells would survive and not cause any unwanted side effects.
  Kind of the same as with the man who got some feeling back in his legs after a stem cell treatment in Poland the other day. They did not expect to see significant improvement (and the other three patients had much less or no effect at all), but just to confirm that it was possible and didn't make things worse.
  
  --
  Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
9. Re:One thing missing by sjames · 2014-10-24 21:16 · Score: 1
  
  In previous tests of photoreceptor transplants, it took several months for the recipient to notice a difference. Even if this does have an effect, we won't know for a while.
10. Re:One thing missing by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-10-25 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  In previous tests of photoreceptor transplants, it took several months for the recipient to notice a difference. Even if this does have an effect, we won't know for a while.
  Now wouldn't that be a good thing to put in the article?
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
11. Re: One thing missing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-25 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  Phase 1 is about safety.
C Homework help? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 01:33 · Score: 0

I'm trying to read a text file into a character buffer in C. I got my fd, I got the number of bytes in the file and I did malloc for that number + 1, so I got my pointer. How do I tell computer to make that memory space into a character array so i can start filling it from the file? Is this called casting a type? I've looked everywhere, maybe I don't see the answer :(
Since the article, summary and title fail to even mention whether or not she can see after this operation.
1. Re:C Homework help? by BarbaraHudson · 2014-10-24 02:07 · Score: 1
  You do the cast to a character pointer in your original malloc statement.
  As for your complaint that the article doesn't say whether she can see now or not, this was a huge step forward. Look at what was involved:
  
  Taking the patient's own skin cells and getting them to act like stem cells;
  
  Growing retinal tissue from these cells;
  
  Successfully transplanting them into the patient;
  
  No rejection, cell death from lack of blood supply, etc.
  
  The surgery was only a month ago. Let's observe the patient over the next year to see what else develops.
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Incredible by Jonifico · 2014-10-24 01:43 · Score: 1

Fantastic achievement! People with visual disabilities might have a real shot now in future generations.
More Accurately, A Non-Neural Retina Transplant by Egg+Sniper · 2014-10-24 01:51 · Score: 4, Informative

As outlined here, it is the retinal pigmented epithelial (RPE) cells and/or photo-receptors that are being grown and transplanted here. The RPE cells are the supply source for the photo-receptors and comprise the far rear layer of the retina (the neurons of the retina are supplied by blood vessels at the front which you're looking through right now). The photo-receptors, while technically sensory neurons, don't project very far, so replacing them could conceivably restore sensitivity without disrupting the neural connections of the retina. Growing them with the proper alignment to the optics of the eye might be a challenge, though.
Replacing the whole retina is not yet feasible. The ganglion cells project through the optic nerve all the way to the middle of the brain - you can't just swap these out. The other neurons (amacrine, bipolar, horizontal, etc.) of the retina form very specific types of connections during development, and simply replacing these with new cells won't restore such connections. The RPE cells and photo-receptors are about the only thing that might be replaced to restore some lost sensitivity, and are also the easiest to reach surgically, being near the back.
1. Re:More Accurately, A Non-Neural Retina Transplant by wierd_w · 2014-10-24 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  Makes me wonder about other implications of the olfactory cells used to repair that man's spinal cord that was reported on recently.
  A spinal cord does not do the same signal processing that the retina does, but it too is a long-axon type neural structure. It "Might" be possible to grow a complete retina (rather, complete eyeball-- the complete retina is a rather large part of the rear of the eye.) then attach it to a severed optic nerve using a similar approach.
Without RTFA or the summary... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 03:00 · Score: 0

How on earth can you replace an iPad retina display with an organic substance?
Stem cells... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 03:35 · Score: 0

... are truly the tool of the devil along with the metric system.
A somewhat more informative link by clovis · 2014-10-24 03:44 · Score: 4, Informative

http://www.nature.com/news/jap...
"Age-related macular degeneration results from the breakdown of retinal epithelium, a layer of cells that support photoreceptors needed for vision. The procedure Kurimoto performed is unlikely to restore his patient's vision. However, researchers around the world will be watching closely to see whether the cells are able to check the further destruction of the retina while avoiding potential side effects, such as bringing about an immune reaction or inducing cancerous growth."
And this:
http://www.riken-ibri.jp/AMD/e...
"This is a very early-stage form of clinical research, and is intended to assess the safety of this intervention; it is not expected to yield significant improvements in visual acuity or other symptoms in the patients who participate in the study."
Generally the first stage testing a new clinical technique is to make sure that it does not cause harm. That's what they're doing with this test.
Stem cells to replace Retina? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 05:16 · Score: 0

Dammit, I just sold my kidney to get a 5K iMac too. Thanks, Apple.
The Old Testament, Japanese Edition... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-10-24 07:07 · Score: 1

Hand for eye?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Sounds 'armless to me. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 07:16 · Score: 0

The patient deserves a hand for seeing this through.
The hard question is. by LWATCDR · 2014-10-24 07:35 · Score: 1

What if we can cure macular degeneration but the cure takes a dedicated team of people 20 days to grow the new cells and then costs $1,000,000 dollars? so a person can see for the last 10 years of life?
When that same $1,000,000 dollars can provide clean water to a village of 200 people?
While it is not a zero sum game what happens when it gets more and more expensive and adds value for less and less of a persons life?
What happens when you can live forever but at a cost of a billion dollars a year?

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
1. Re:The hard question is. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  1. Awesome.
  2. Still Awesome.
  3. Doesn't factor into the demand for a Bugatti, so I don't think it will factor into this million dollar buying decision.
  4. That's not the way things tend to work, the more they are tried the better and relatively cheaper they tend to get.
  5. Automation, or only 20 or so people get to live forever.
2. Re:The hard question is. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 11:09 · Score: 0
  
  > What if we can cure macular degeneration but the cure takes a dedicated team of people 20 days to grow the new cells and then costs $1,000,000 dollars? so a person can see for the last 10 years of life?
  What about 80 years of life? The patient mentioned was obviously a volunteer. A person's value to society is variable, but only if they participate.
  > What happens when you can live forever but at a cost of a billion dollars a year?
  That's quite a deal and not exactly related to my point but I would take that deal. Statistically, everyone would, if they could.
  I have no hate or love for rural peoples. If they can't get clean water, I'm not interested in their suffering. I'm interested in their choice not to participate in modern society and the timeline for their extinction. It's the way of the world.
3. Re:The hard question is. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-24 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  I would personally be quite happy to pay the $1m for a transplant. I can afford it, and am an otherwise very healthy 40 year old.
  As an alternative to paying the $1m, though, I would be in a position to spend a couple of years of my sighted life sorting out the water supply of this theoretical village. ..or I could both pay the $1m, and sort out the village. ..alternatively, society can look after me for the 30 years of my life during which I am unable to work.
  When it comes to sorting out eyesight, it is very easy to convert someone who would be a burden into someone who would be productive. ...That's always assuming you are narrow minded enough to consider the restoration of eyesight as a purely economic issue, which is an attitude I have almost never come across.
4. Re:The hard question is. by LWATCDR · 2014-10-27 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  4 only applies to computers. You do reach a point of diminishing returns on most technologies. Take steam turbines for example. They are no improving at a rapid rate yet they are still just about the best solution for many types of power generation.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Watching these developments closely.. by popoutman · 2014-10-24 08:22 · Score: 1

I'm going to watch these types of development very closely. I've got the earliest symptoms of macular degeneration, only spotted this early (too early for the retinal thickness measuring laser to definitively measure) due to using astronomical equipment including a hydrogen-alpha scope. Also the fact that I am utterly pedantic about my sight is another factor in my being able to spot the early onset symptoms.
The prospect of a valid retinal transplant is something that I would certainly look at in the future if/when I lose the central portions of my vision, and the possibility of sight restoration is something I know I would like the option of.
It's a nasty complaint for a lifelong astronomer that likes extreme sports :(

--
- This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.