Slashdot Mirror


Patients Regain Sight After Groundbreaking Trial (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Doctors have taken a major step towards curing the most common form of blindness in the UK -- age-related macular degeneration. Douglas Waters, 86, could not see out of his right eye, but "I can now read the newspaper" with it, he says. He was one of two patients given pioneering stem cell therapy at Moorfields Eye Hospital in London. Cells from a human embryo were grown into a patch that was delicately inserted into the back of the eye.

The macula is the part of the eye that allows you to see straight ahead -- whether to recognize faces, watch TV or read a book. The macula is made up of rods and cones that sense light and behind those are a layer of nourishing cells called the retinal pigment epithelium. When this support layer fails, it causes macular degeneration and blindness. Doctors have devised a way of building a new retinal pigment epithelium and surgically implanting it into the eye. The technique, published in Nature Biotechnology, starts with embryonic stem cells. These are a special type of cell that can become any other in the human body. They are converted into the type of cell that makes up the retinal pigment epithelium and embedded into a scaffold to hold them in place. The living patch is only one layer of cells thick -- about 40 microns -- and 6mm long and 4mm wide. It is then placed underneath the rods and cones in the back of the eye. The operation takes up to two hours.

73 comments

  1. Whoa. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    Get this guy a hacksaw.

    But in all seriousness, that's seriously awesome. Was this wet AMD or dry AMD? Because the description doesn't sound like either one.

    --

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

    1. Re: Whoa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The BBC article says both patients had wet AMD.

    2. Re:Whoa. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      Was this wet AMD or dry AMD

      Two wet ones so far.

      They plan to test on more, including dry also.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re: Whoa. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The BBC article says both patients had wet AMD.

      Only 10-15% of AMD are "wet". Also wet AMD often only affects one eye. Dry AMD usually affects both.

      This is still great news, and hopefully there will be new breakthroughs on the dry side soon. AMD affects more than 10 million people just in America, roughly 3% of the population, and that is expected to grow with demographic changes, doubling by 2050 without new treatments. An effective treatment will make a huge difference to the quality of life of many people.

    4. Re: Whoa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An effective treatment will make a huge difference to the quality of life of many people.

      Should treatment be given to Republicans who opposed embryonic stem cell research?

    5. Re:Whoa. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      Get this guy a hacksaw.

      But in all seriousness, that's seriously awesome. Was this wet AMD or dry AMD? Because the description doesn't sound like either one.

      What? People who get AMD go blind? A reason to buy Intel maybe. Then you won't go blind or lose an ARM.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    6. Re: Whoa. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I have this condition too. Fortunately, I'm a Republican who supports stem cell research. If we can get everyone to support CRISPR as well as stem cell, we should be able to knock off a host of diseases that are gene-related.

    7. Re: Whoa. by GreatDrok · · Score: 3, Funny

      "This is still great news, and hopefully there will be new breakthroughs on the dry side soon. AMD affects more than 10 million people just in America, roughly 3% of the population"

      True, but this is a product of socialist medicine in the UK so that's what, communism? Or something? I'm sure Americans would rather stay blind than endorse such an anti-capitalist system of medicine.

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
    8. Re: Whoa. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      True, but this is a product of socialist medicine in the UK so that's what, communism?

      Per capita, America spends more than twice as much on medical research as the UK. In fact, America spends nearly as much as the rest of the world combined.

    9. Re: Whoa. by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      How's the frame rate compare with nVidia?

      Sorry, couldn't help myself. This is amazing and all that but you put a pun like that in front of nerd... it's like steak before a poorly trained dog.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    10. Re: Whoa. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I wish I could say that I saw it coming.

      --

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

    11. Re: Whoa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there.

    12. Re: Whoa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have this condition too. Fortunately, I'm a Republican who supports stem cell research. If we can get everyone to support CRISPR as well as stem cell, we should be able to knock off a host of diseases that are gene-related.

      Are you implying that only Republicans support stem cell research?

    13. Re: Whoa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Republicans made it impossible to get government funding for fetal stem cell research because they are beholden to the fundamentalists, who believe that the Bible is the absolute word of an infallible God, who accidentally left out the part about about life beginning at fertilization, etc...

    14. Re: Whoa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet we let petty partisan garbage keep us from spending that money on fetal stem cell research

      How much funding went into trying to get normal cells to regress to stem cell state?

    15. Re: Whoa. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Great news, what ever happened to sythetic lenses or lenses grown outside the human body and then used to replace the tired, worn old, less bendy lense, so much promised for so long with so little delivered, and it's not like there would not be a shit bucket ton of profit in it. Are we plagued by the glasses monopoly http://wire.kapitall.com/inves..., are those poor excuses for human beings blocking synthetic lenses, they would.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re: Whoa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On medical research yes, but you still let people die on the street from easily cured diseases and injuries.

      On the other hand, in 10-15 years when I have AMD, I'll be getting it fixed for free.

    17. Re: Whoa. by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      No. Hand them a bible, it should be at least as good.

      If you think it's good enough for our education system, it's good enough for your health.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re: Whoa. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      So Communism is not only more effective but also cheaper?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re: Whoa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even a blind pig can find an acorn in the mudhole some days

    20. Re: Whoa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lens replacements happen all the time for conditions like cataracts, moron.

        NPR -JUST- reported on an anti-cataract campaign in Ethiopia that was doing replacements at a cost of $75 per patient. The lenses themselves only cost 4 bucks each, and the procedure takes 4 minutes

      The macula affected by AMD are part of the iris, not the lens (cornea).

    21. Re: Whoa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in the UK it's taxes that are spent, so... communism!

    22. Re: Whoa. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Only that this blind pig somehow manages to find more acorns than the pigs searching with both eyes open.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. It's about time by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

    we get some medical breakthroughs. I don't think I can handle another SpaceX, 3D printer, virtual reality, cryptocurrency, or Apple story.

    None of these things matter if you can't see.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
  3. Then they read the headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And asked for the procedure to be reversed.

  4. Embryonic stem cells by Leuf · · Score: 0

    I'm sure all the old pro-lifers that are going blind will reject this treatment on principle.

    1. Re:Embryonic stem cells by Trogre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably.

      From their point of view, regaining their sight is worth a lot, but isn't worth sacrificing another human life.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    2. Re:Embryonic stem cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are aware that embryonic cells can be harvested from the placenta, and mother still delivers colostrum to her living child?

      Sorry to burst your drama bubble.

    3. Re:Embryonic stem cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't this be done with pluripotent cells, anyhow?

    4. Re:Embryonic stem cells by Trogre · · Score: 2

      ... if that were the case here, then pro-lifers wouldn't have a problem with it, would they?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    5. Re:Embryonic stem cells by HeckRuler · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also, from skin cells making the entire political debate kinda moot. Some people will never bury the hatchet. Once a term is associated with politics, it'll always live under a shadow. Kinda sucks.

    6. Re:Embryonic stem cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, from skin cells making the entire process ethically viable.

      FTFY

      "Non-embryonic" is an important distinction and should really be used more. The implication being that no babies were killed in the curing of this disease.

    7. Re:Embryonic stem cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they're not from a person and have nothing to do with pro-life.

      Sorry to burst your strawman.

    8. Re:Embryonic stem cells by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why can't this be done with pluripotent cells, anyhow?

      It probably can.

      Embryonic stem cells are mainly about figuring out how these things work - and getting farther back toward the simple states than you can with more differentiated lines.

      While some initial treatments (especially on tissues isolated from the immune system) have been, and may still be, tried with them, on the model of transfusions and transplants, the target will always be using the patient's own cells, some cell-bank equivalent, or some other mechanism than harvesting them (destructively) from embryos.

      For instance, such treatments could work by taking tissue samples from the patient, by inducing them to "back up" (induced pluripotency) and then re-differentiate into the desired target cell line(s). (Indeed, work on that, for instance starting from fat cells, is already being done.)

      Using cells from the patient (absent an autoimmune disease) sidesteps rejection issues. Meanwhile, embryonic stem cell treatments tend to produce cancers, as the too-undifferentiated cell lines get confused about what they're supposed to become.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    9. Re:Embryonic stem cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You... don't get out much, do you?

    10. Re:Embryonic stem cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a wholesome, unbiased opinion. It surely painted an accurate picture of both sides of debate.

    11. Re:Embryonic stem cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Non-embryonic" is an important distinction and should really be used more. The implication being that no babies were killed in the curing of this disease.

      They weren't killed by the process of curing the disease, but they were still killed during the process. The embryos for embryonic stem cell research typically come from the discards from In Vitro Fertilization. The harvesting of the stem cells in that case causes exactly zero extra embryos to be destroyed. For every successful IVF procedure, at least half a dozen embryos are created and ultimately disposed of. For some reason, no-one seems to be up in arms about saving those embryos, even though the ones that they actually are up arms about saving are literally a small subset.

    12. Re:Embryonic stem cells by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Of course they would, because the pro-life set are the stupidist of the stupid.

      Then you haven't met any No GMO activists.

    13. Re:Embryonic stem cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh, oddly that's the same reply Russian bots give on twitter these days. Working both sides again, eh?

    14. Re:Embryonic stem cells by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      I bet my eye sight that those "pro-lifers" won't have a problem whatsoever with it as long as they can see again.

      Show me one moralist that doesn't immediately go into full reverse as soon as it affects him personally.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Embryonic stem cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd probably lose. The non-hypocrites rarely make the news.

    16. Re:Embryonic stem cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You'd shoot someone you didn't know if it meant curing you of a disability?

  5. Guaranteed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You and the rest of your kind take blind comfort in the belief that we are monsters, that you could never do what we did. The key ingredient in the anti-agathic cannot be synthesized. It must be taken from living beings. For one to live forever, another one must die. You will fall upon one another like wolves. It will make what we did pale by comparison. The billions who live forever will be a testimony to my work. And the billions who are murdered to buy that immortality will be the continuance of my work. Not like us? You will become us. That is my monument, Commander.

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

      ...and then she got blown to pieces. Justice is served.

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

      Was it? Who appointed the Vorlons the stewards of immortality?

    3. Re: Guaranteed by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Lorien.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  6. Girl who ripped her eyes out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see how this can help her. ðY

  7. Bright future. by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember when stem cell therapy was first making the news and getting people excited. It's really nice to read when that sort of basic research pays off with applied medicine. It's seeing the sci-fi books come to you and makes the future look a little more bright.

  8. why not? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    I don't think I can handle another SpaceX, 3D printer, virtual reality, cryptocurrency, or Apple story.

    Then you probably want to avoid medical-breakthrough stories.

    3-D printers are starting to be big in medicine.
      - Building replacement parts of complex organs by printing tissue scaffolds.
      - Ditto by seeding them with stem cells (rather than waiting for the body to infiltrate them) and/or putting the right cells in the right place from the start.
      - Making practice models for surgeons, before the surgery on the actual patient.
      - Making custom prosthetics, dental appliances, crowns, ...
      (I could go on.)

    Face it: Sometimes an invention turns out to have an explosion of applications.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:why not? by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Please provide a list of Slashdot stories talking about that in the last 12 months.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
  9. Holy shit! We're living in the future! by mark-t · · Score: 2

    This is so many levels of awesome, that I have no other words for it.

    1. Re:Holy shit! We're living in the future! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about ghoulish?

  10. Agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I come to slashdot for stories like this. They lift the spirits. They also remind us that limitations which we thought were "givens" in our existence, are anything but.

    Life can be very depressing when you assume that everything you can't do today will never be achievable, and everything that is assumed today is actually true. Breaking walls like this reminds us just how unfounded such assumptions are.

  11. BEWARE of the lifetime of such implants! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is not said, is that the scaffolding of those implants is not of the same quality as your natural one, and does not have an infinite lifetime. It only survives about 10-15 years, before you have to repeat the whole thing. And its often not really repeatable, as the operations harm other tissue to the point of failure too.
    So it's alright for the elderly, who aren't expected to live that long anymore anyway.
    But if you still got half your life ahead of you, this is unfortunately not a solution.

    1. Re:BEWARE of the lifetime of such implants! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Of course, the "A" in "AMD" stands for age-related, which is to say that having half your life ahead of you is pretty rare. Most people who get it do so in their 60s or 70s.

      --

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

    2. Re:BEWARE of the lifetime of such implants! by shilly · · Score: 1

      First off, no-one needs to be beware of anything in this way. There's this little thing called informed consent, which means these patients will have gone through every aspect of these operations with their doctors, including all the risks.

      Secondly, how you know the failure rate for an operation that's being reported here for the first time is beyond me.

    3. Re:BEWARE of the lifetime of such implants! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      We're talking about patients that are well above 70 years. If it lasts 10-15 years, it probably lasts longer than the patient.

      There is a reason why cataract operations are done when you're 70. The later you do them, the higher the complication chance and with a life span of about 20 years, the lens will probably last longer than you.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:BEWARE of the lifetime of such implants! by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      the "A" in "AMD" stands for age-related, which is to say that having half your life ahead of you is pretty rare. Most people who get it do so in their 60s or 70s

      Yeah, well... I'm in my 60s and hell-bent and determined that this is half of my life (you insensitive clod)

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  12. Indeed. More generally: STUFF THAT MATTERS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I need a news site that ONLY presents me with stories that actually matter! So mainly science, and real actual RAW observations about things that are happening. NO "he said she sad $X happened". No "Trump did", "Putin did" "$somebody did"! No comments, no interpretations, no fuckin processing by any mind or machine other than me!
    (So ideally, stationary fixed cameras with a stereoscopic full sphere viewing field, light field camera and sound field audio in the whole perceptible spectrum with no distortions, running 24/7 without interruption, with only the ability to link to any volume in viewing space and time, so that I can always still look at the context around that.)

  13. I am blinded in one eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but I am not about to sacrifice an innocent baby so to harvest stem cells from it in order for me to see again.

    Doing such thing, to me, is insanely, criminally selfish!

    1. Re:I am blinded in one eye by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      maybe your wishes are coming true https://www.independent.co.uk/...

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    2. Re:I am blinded in one eye by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Jesus fucking christ. As said elsewhere, they can make stem cells from SKIN CELLS and there's really no need to involve fetuses. This is old news. It's been around for a long time. We have real-world technological solutions to the problems that plague us, BUT NO, some people just can't bury a hatchet and will keep fighting battle well after the war was lost.

      Of course for all the good done in the world with medical advancement, there's a few willfully ignorant asshats that make me wonder if humanity is worth saving. When can we engineer this problem away?

    3. Re:I am blinded in one eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that they're using stem cells, but the source of the stem cells. Here it specifically says they're of embryonic origin.

    4. Re:I am blinded in one eye by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      "Embryonic" here is a TYPE of stem cells, it's not describing their origin. They make embryonic stem cells from adult skin cells.

      Here you go. They found a way to reprogram adult cells to act like embryonic stem cells. And that's what we want. We want the capabilities. They can induce pluripotent, meaning it can change into a wider selection of different types of cells.

      Come on dude.... just... is it not possible to lay down your arms? Just declare victory and walk away. You didn't want a thing to happen and now it doesn't have to, there's no need. Do you really have to keep on with the lashing out and brow beating and calling people murderers?

      You're not saving anyone here, by anyone's definition. Is the fight for the fight's sake really more important than:

      Diseases and conditions where stem cell treatment is being investigated include:
      Diabetes[75]
      Rheumatoid arthritis[75]
      Parkinson's disease[75]
      Alzheimer's disease[75]
      Osteoarthritis[75]
      Stroke and traumatic brain injury repair[76]
      Learning disability due to congenital disorder [77]
      Spinal cord injury repair [78]
      Heart infarction [79]
      Anti-cancer treatments [80]
      Baldness reversal[81]
      Replace missing teeth [82]
      Repair hearing [83]
      Restore vision [84] and repair damage to the cornea[85]
      Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [86]
      Crohn's disease [87]
      Wound healing [88]
      Male infertility due to absence of spermatogonial stem cells [89]

    5. Re:I am blinded in one eye by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      oh fuck. after all that I only now realized I glossed over the bit where, yes, they did use an embryo.

      ok. ok, sorry about that.

      Lemme rephrase. You can be pissed about this one all you want, but if you wanted the exact same procedure done, you wouldn't have to use any embryo.

      I'm actually kinda curious why they didn't just sidestep that whole issue.

  14. Re:"cells from a human embryo" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    So many actually born people want to live and don't get to.

    Life ain't fair and it ends in death. Deal with it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. Re:"cells from a human embryo" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why shouldn't life be fair? At the very least, shouldn't it be a goal of our culture to make life more fair?

  16. Re:"cells from a human embryo" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Yes.

    Can we start with the living before we try for the unborn?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. color blindness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couldn't this be used to treat colorblindness? Like 99% of cases are due to genetic abnormalities in cones. If CRISPR was effective, you could even use host cells but with proper cones