Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Use Stem Cells To Regenerate the External Layer of a Human Heart (indy100.com)

schwit1 quotes a report from Indy100: A team of scientists from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School have used adult skin cells to regenerate functional human heart tissue. The study, published in the journal Circulation Research, detailed that the team took adult skin cells, using a technique called messenger RNA to turn them into pluripotent stem cells, before inducing them to become two different types of cardiac cells. Then for two weeks they infused the hearts with a nutrient solution, allowing them to develop under the same circumstances a heart would grow inside a human body. After the two week period, the hearts contained well-structured tissue, which appeared similar to that contained in developing human hearts. When shocked with electricity, they started beating. This represents the closest that medical researchers have come to growing an entire beating human heart.

51 comments

  1. How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Millions and millions more to come, Brave New World. Are you happy yet?

    1. Re: How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      None? They're made from skin cells

    2. Re:How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by womble91 · · Score: 1

      This is the typical anti-science hysteria which there seems to be a huge problem with lately. Firstly, please try to understand things before you make a comment as it's just likely to mislead other people if you appear to know what you're talking about even if what you've said is clearly baseless. Secondly, please keep religious to yourself. And finally, please please don't vote or put yourself in any position of responsibility as you don't seem qualified.

    3. Re:How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by sittingnut · · Score: 1, Insightful

      you seem to be pretty irrational in your response.

      GP was wrong to not read carefully and assume, (like lots of people) that all stem cells are embryonic stem cells (which btw are pretty useless scientifically) and this involved latter. sibling reply has already addressed that mistake before you,
      but you are wrong to say "please keep religious to yourself" and "please don't vote or put yourself in any position of responsibility as you don't seem qualified".

      1/ he did not refer to religion.

      2/ one can be anti abortion, and/or anti embryonic stem cell harvesting, without being religious.

      3/ he should be free to, and as an active citizen should, express ethical concerns based on ethical rules stemming from religion or any beliefs he has. (btw all moral codes, that extend beyond 1 person at 1 point of time, are beliefs).

      4/ everyone operate with limited knowledge and qualifications (that includes you, GP and me), none are not omniscient gods. so no one should be excluded on arbitrary criteria preferred by some. instead rational discussion and debate, backed with verifiable facts, should be criteria on which words and actions should be judged. did you do that?

    4. Re:How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by Maritz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny how people like you are more concerned with a ball of cells than an actual human that breathes air. Goes to show, you end up with weird values when you base how you live your life on the rantings of a bunch of bronze age goat herders.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    5. Re:How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by Maritz · · Score: 0

      Hmmmmmm yeah maybe he's not a religious nut. Of course. But he is.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    6. Re:How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by womble91 · · Score: 0

      How is that irrational... You can be anti-abortion without being religious but it's a rare combination to be pro-science and anti-abortion. He did not mention religion directly but it can be likely inferred. Yes I will accept I'm strongly against religious opinions being shared but I view this as rational and akin to being against the sharing of infectious diseases. My opinion that he shouldn't vote in solely my opinion and I don't think it's unreasonable for me to express it. I also don't think climate change deniers should be allowed to vote either... is that irrational? You've mistaken me expressing my opinion as some statement of fact.

    7. Re:How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that irrational...

      You can be anti-abortion without being religious but it's a rare combination to be pro-science and anti-abortion. He did not mention religion directly but it can be likely inferred. Yes I will accept I'm strongly against religious opinions being shared but I view this as rational and akin to being against the sharing of infectious diseases. My opinion that he shouldn't vote in solely my opinion and I don't think it's unreasonable for me to express it. I also don't think climate change deniers should be allowed to vote either... is that irrational? You've mistaken me expressing my opinion as some statement of fact.

      You ask how is that irrational after that? You are the definition of Intolerant Bigot.

    8. Re: How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are atheists who are pro-life. Come out of your little box and enjoy the world ... either with the atheists or us "religious nuts"
      Incidentally, the those who are informed (or at least read past the title) know the difference between embryonic and pluripotent or adult stem cells.

    9. Re: How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your comments have no basis in reality. And if you're lumping Muslim extremists in with Christians then you need to look up the definition of an equivocation fallacy. Educate yourself a little. OK?

    10. Re: How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Informative
      Quite. Since GW Bush was president, it has been possible to remove embryonic stem cells without harming the fetus.

      It's just not necessary, unless researchers need totipotent cells, since pluripotent cells are what's being discussed here.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    11. Re:How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm pro-science and anti-abortion. Most of my friends are. That statement is literally like saying "How can you be pro-science and vegan". Both are saying you cannot support science while respecting life.

    12. Re:How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

      This is an excellent point. I'm getting tired of activists who, having run out of all scientifically verifiable reasons to oppose some construction project or even a new scientific development, resort to vague claims of sacredness - in this case, using a religious position that doesn't even apply to the technology being applied. I hope these people get ground under the treads of the incoming administration so we can finally get our telescopes and pipelines built.

    13. Re:How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by womble91 · · Score: 0

      You're more than welcome to feel that way but I take very little notice of ill thought out comments like that. Please either offer a decent contribution to the conversation or get back to trolling somewhere else. I'm happy to admit I have extremely liberal views and that I have very little time for people who don't use logic and common sense. You can call me a bigot for saying that but you're clearly misunderstanding the word.

    14. Re:How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To anti-abortionists, life begins at conception and ends at birth. But god forbid if those same mother's go on state aid to to help.

      Or god forbid if a parent wants maternity or paternity leave to care for that child. When they start fighting for mandatory paid maternity and paternity leave, medicare for children, free daycare and basically make changes so that raising a child is not such an expensive burden, then I'll listen to them regarding banning abortion - or at most late term ones.

      It takes a village to raise a child.

      And this demand that we MUST move to where the work is - away from family help - in order to get jobs destroys the family.

      As it is, our society is very anti-family - capitalism is anti-family - and that's where conservative values collide.

    15. Re: How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Claims to have "extremely liberal views".

      Thinks that people who disagree with him shouldn't be allowed to vote.

    16. Re:How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep repeating that lie, and destroy the credibility of the Democrats a little bit each time. Well done, chap.

    17. Re: How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Since 2006, they've had the ability to convert your own adult cells into pluripotent stem cells. Why the heck would you extract them from an embryo?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    18. Re:How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Respecting Life" is an arbitrary moral code that runs counter to logic. You know any carnivorous mammal has to kill more than one thing to live, so logically you would want to exterminate entire species to respect life under the same code. Oh wait, it's more subtle to that and has a bunch of religious mumbo jumbo behind something about humans being special? Right, you're a liar and a nut, just like most of your "friends" with which you're trying to make some specious rationalization.

    19. Re:How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Womble, we know that the fetus is viable on it's own after 20 weeks of gestation, so at that point, from a scientific standpoint the only difference between a fetus and a baby is location of residence and method of getting nutrients. Further, we have scientifically advanced our definition of human life (and human death) as the presence of lack of brain activity. For the fetus, this begins at around 6 weeks. Thus, from our current understanding and legal definition of human life, which we apply across the board to all human beings (except for the fetus, due to a mistake by 7 attorneys in black robes 43 years ago), human life begins at around 6 weeks after conception, and a fetus is certainly a human being at 20 weeks.

      As you can tell I have a strong pro-life position, and I have thoroughly researched the issue as I personally had to make a choice on the issue of one life or another. 99% of pro-life advocates believe in exceptions for abortion in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, where abortion is a sad but necessary procedure. We do not agree that abortion for the convenience of the mother or father is acceptable. Carrying to term and childbirth are difficult consequences for irresponsible unprotected sex, but adoption is a far better option for the mental and physical health of everyone involved over 99% of the time.

      Just 2.8% of women surveyed claimed that their abortion was over concerns for maternal health in the one survey that is available on the subject. The actual stats are un-knowable because no solid studies have been performed thanks to the pro-abortion lobbies who want to obfuscate the issue. We do know that maternal childbirth related deaths in the US are at 0.0185% vs Brazil at 0.055% which has strict anti-abortion laws. Assuming all the difference has nothing to do with quality of health care or delivery facilities (which it doesn't), we are talking about a 0.037% difference in maternal childbirth mortality rates. You and I think nothing of jumping in a car where your risk of dying over three years of driving is 0.033% or about the delta in risk rates. The odds of dying from a legal abortion are higher but comparable with any invasive medical procedure. Again, impossible to find exact stats due to obfuscation at the highest levels. These numbers for medically necessary abortions hardly scratch the surface on the 54,000,000 abortions since Roe v Wade.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...
      http://www.factcheck.org/2012/...
      http://www.politifact.com/new-...
      http://riskcalculator.facs.org...

      The fact that you have to attack a person's religious beliefs instead of simply using facts like I have above shows just how weak your pro-abortion position is. Science since 1973 continues to show that the practice of abortion on demand is taking the life of another human being. There is a reason that no federal law has ever been passed making abortion legal, and that is that anyone who spends time actually digging into the facts (or who becomes pregnant and watches the ultrasound) can conclude that a fetus is a human life. In 100 years, society will look back at abortion in much the same way we look back at slavery. Amazed and disgusted that a civilized society could condone the savage abuse of a innocent, defenseless portion of the population for convenience.

      http://www.whattoexpect.com/pr...

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    20. Re: How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      bronze age goat herders

      if you're lumping Muslim extremists in with Christians

      Hate to break it to you, all current major religions were started by bronze age goat herders.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    21. Re:How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      But he's right even if he's giving the wrong implication. Billions of babies have died for your stem cells to have evolved into a human being. Given the current world population, at least 8B more will die, should the world end today.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    22. Re:How Many Babies Died For Your Stem Cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not. Babies are cheap and fun to make.

  2. Re:A few more layers, and there's hope for Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The abstract is quite explicit that this was for HUMAN stem cells.

    Reptilian aliens and female dogs need not apply.

    What abomination of nature have reptilian aliens and female dogs done to you to deserve being compared to Hillary!, anyway?

  3. Re:A few more layers, and there's hope for Hillary by womble91 · · Score: 0

    At least they weren't compared with Trump. Things can always be worse.

  4. mRNA is not a technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    FYI, all cells use an intermediate form of nucleic acid (i.e., mRNA) to produce proteins. mRNA is transcribed from the host cell DNA and translated to construct protein(s) using ribosomes (yet another form of nucleic acid: rRNA).

    1. Re:mRNA is not a technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >ribosomes (yet another form of nucleic acid: rRNA)

      rRNA are only a part of the ribosomes. A ribosomes is a complex of rRNA and proteins.

  5. using a technique called messenger RNA. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >using a technique called messenger RNA

    No, there isn't a technic called messenger RNA. They created artificial RNA messengers a special type of RNA which act like a messenger and is translated by ribosomes in proteins.

  6. Re:A few more layers, and there's hope for Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least they weren't compared with Trump. Things can always be worse.

    Yep, they could. We could be stuck with more Obama.

    Small-business optimism soars after Trump election

    Optimism on Main Street continues to soar in the wake of the election of Donald Trump. The National Federation of Independent Business' read on small-business sentiment for December hit its highest level since 2004, thanks to a sunnier outlook for business conditions.

    The NFIB's index increased by 7.4 points in December to 105.8, up from November's 98.4. It's the largest month-over-month index change since it began in 1986.

    Would that be actual hope and change?

    Don't be too butthurt. :-)

  7. Link in summary needs modification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The hyperlink in the summary should be modified to the following:

    http://www.popsci.com/scientists-grow-transplantable-hearts-with-stem-cells?con=TrueAnthem&dom=fb&src=SOC&utm_campaign=&utm_content=58753766a167da00066f21ce&utm_medium=&utm_source=

    The summary link leads to a summary of a different news article at Popular Science (above link). The Popular Science article provides sufficient information to understand the techniques used to produce stem cells to regrow cardiac tissue.

  8. Re:A few more layers, and there's hope for Hillary by womble91 · · Score: 1

    Yeah a great economy is all that matters.... oh wait I actually care about free speech, reduction in gun crime, better foreign relations, less hate crime, better education, less corruption, better healthcare and a vast swathe of other things that I guess you don't feel are needed.

  9. Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    PopSci had this story nearly a year ago ... back in March 2016

  10. Re: A few more layers, and there's hope for Hillar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's hope but a market which rallies might just be expecting a lot of short term gains before everything collapses.

  11. Re: A few more layers, and there's hope for Hillar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "free speech, reduction in gun crime, better foreign relations, less hate crime, better education, less corruption, better healthcare"

    We already have free speech.
    Giving more people guns to defend themselves will result in less confident criminals.
    Trump is friends with Russia.
    Trump wants to fix Chicago.
    Trump wants to get rid of illegals that mess up the education system among other things.
    Trumps campaign exposes DNC corruption.
    Obamacare is not better healthcare, it's shittier healthcare for everyone. Good healthcare costs money.

    Good news, Trump is the President you want!

  12. Has the baby been born..? by Bruinwar · · Score: 1

    Has the baby been born that will live to it's 200th birthday?

    --
    SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
  13. Still won't help with a broken heart ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    if your girlfriend dumps you ... stem cell technology still has a long way to go ...

    1. Re:Still won't help with a broken heart ... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      We've had cloning for long.

  14. For those who don't RTFA or UTFA by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 4, Informative

    (understand the fucking article)

    The summary is somewhat inaccurate and oversimplified (this is Slashdot, of course).

    The authors took donor hearts and removed all the cardiac cells, leaving only the extracellular matrix, which is the scaffolding that cells reside in. They then created stem cells from skin cells, not via a technique called "messenger RNA" (which is a type of biological molecule and not a technique), but by reprogramming the skin cells by providing synthetic messenger RNAs that instruct the cells to make 5 proteins that cause a "reversal" to a stem cell-like state. These new stem cells were instructed to become cardiac cells, which spontaneously exhibited "a heart beat", and then seeded onto slices of the cardiac matrix from a donor heart, and even a full heart. The cells contracted in unison, and could be "paced" by a "pacemaker".

    Limitations of this approach are that the you need a human heart to start with (until a scaffold could be 3D printed, for example), cells did not fully differentiate into mature heart muscle cells, don't seem to maintain this fate past a certain time frame, didn't develop into all cell types needed for a functioning heart, and contracted with only a fraction of the force that a normal human heart does. But damn, the bioreactor with "grown" heart is incredible to behold (figure 6E), and this appears to be an interesting step forward to lab grown organs.

    1. Re:For those who don't RTFA or UTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I studied biology in college and saw beating cells under a microscope. Stem cells were taken and designated as heart-muscle tissue, placed in a special solution and beat on their own. What's new here? Hasn't this been accomplished years ago?

    2. Re:For those who don't RTFA or UTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I RTFA, but don't UTFA. The idea of removing the cells out of the matrix seems not possible. It it like removing the soap out of a bubble, and replacing it with a different soap. The cells are the vast majority of the matrix. I am not saying that this is impossible, only that I don't understand it. Therefore, I'm going to be super skeptical. But I REALLY hope I'm wrong, as this would be too cool.

    3. Re:For those who don't RTFA or UTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if the pace of research continues, it's not unimaginable that in 30 years or so it might be possible to replace part or all of a diseased heart using one grown from that person's own cells, i.e., no rejection.

      Whether people will be able to pay for it is a different question...

    4. Re:For those who don't RTFA or UTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can always pay for it by harvesting the hearts of your enemies for sale :-)

    5. Re:For those who don't RTFA or UTFA by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 1

      What's new is that instead of having cells in a dish that "beat", they have cells approximating the size and shape of a left ventricle or cross-sections of a human heart and are exhibiting correct functional behavior (although not quite at the level of performance of a normal heart). This is arguably one of the first major steps in going from patient's skin cells -> stem cells -> cardiac cells in a dish -> cardiac cells in the shape of a heart -> lab grown heart. (Probably a step or two downplayed in there.)

    6. Re:For those who don't RTFA or UTFA by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 1

      Your analogy is not exactly correct. Think of it as removing the bricks from a building and leaving all of the mortar in place. You then put new bricks into the mortar scaffolding where the old ones were. Oddly, you mention soap, which is sort of what is used to lyse (dissolve) the cells and not affect the matrix. They have photographs and present other data of the scaffolding (ECM), as well as test it to make sure it isn't altered. This is far from the first time this technique to remove cells from a matrix has been used. But it isn't a fast process either. I believe they mention it takes ~400 hours.

    7. Re:For those who don't RTFA or UTFA by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely not unimaginable, which is why it is so cool. I see two really hard problems to solve on that path: 1) getting cells to differentiate into the appropriate cell types in the right place; 2) getting the vasculature correct.

      #1 is hard when starting with a scaffold, where everything is adult-sized from the start and has to be organized at the end. Maybe we'll need breakthroughs in understanding regeneration in animals capable of it (e.g., newts) and how they regrow adult-sized structures, rather than embryonic-sized structures that scale up. It seems like it would be easier to follow the route of growing from an embryonic size, maybe starting with an embryoid body (clump of stem cells, not too different from a fertilized egg after a few divisions) and directing the growth.

      #2 is hard for growing any organ in a vat, and is part of #1, but really important because without appropriate vasculature the organ will die. Obviously, there are more important reasons why this needs to be correct for a lab grown heart (can't pump blood, it's main purpose, without proper vasculature). The researchers in TFA found that the stem cells followed the scaffolding of the vasculature closely. That's good, but they didn't become vasculature cells, just cardiac muscle cells. Plus, if the original heart had narrowed blood vessels due to atherosclerosis/plaque, the final vessels formed by the stem cells were also narrow. Furthermore, the microvasculature (the very tiny blood vessels) were closed off or clogged by stem cells, so nutrient distribution to those cells was incomplete and (if I recall) many died in the deep tissue.

    8. Re:For those who don't RTFA or UTFA by tsotha · · Score: 1

      As I recall these kinds of approaches also have problems with different cell types, i.e. a heart grown on a matrix isn't going to work very well without arteries.

      I don't think the fact that you start with an existing heart is a very big deal. As I understand it most donated hearts can't be transplanted for one reason or another and could be used if this technique was made to work.

  15. Re: A few more layers, and there's hope for Hillar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm really going to miss Wheeler though. Brightest star in Obama's tenure. The speculation on his replacement is grim.

    In their (generally laudable) opposition to the insane overregulation foisted upon the country by Democrats, Republicans have forgotten that regulation IS appropriate and beneficial when it levels a playing field for competition. They are idiots to cede that issue to the Democrats.