From Wapo: "It is not known whether the information has been accessed by anyone but Vickery." So not really a confirmed hit/leak, just a serious vulnerability at this point.
Really can't emphasize enough here the differences in aging between human and mice models: metabolism, neurological health and cardiovascular health are so variable between the two that attributing one phenomenon as translatable to another is irresponsible at best (especially considering lack of replicable results). Healthcare isn't a typical consumer service where a buyer-beware approach is acceptable, one bad study leading to a hyped up pseudo-treatment is bad news for everyone. On a sidenote though ambrosia is ragweed, that horrible allergenic pollen. So at least the company name is fitting.
The potential is exciting, but the big issues are cost of synthesis, which is fixable, and stability, which is unfortunately more pervasive. DNA is super stable, but only when its uncontaminated.
Nucleases (enzymes specifically designed to cleave DNA) are everywhere and certain chemical or UV exposure would ruin the base sequences irreparably. Basically if the hard drive isn't in sterile conditions it risks being easily destroyed, so a misplaced sneeze could delete everything. Also cytosine (C) has a tendency to convert to Uracil (U, basically a substitute for T in RNA). I'm sure engineers will probably fix all these issues, but there's always nucleases that evolve to counter anti-nuclease activity.
Worth pointing out that solar produced hydrogen efficiency is also improving, world record efficiency published last week. (Unfortunately nature energy pay walls all their articles, RDM did a report on it though) http://www.rdmag.com/news/2017...
P53 is always present in cells but needs to be activated. Basically it's on standby to quickly kill cells in case there's DNA damage(very bad=cancer usually), so FOX helps keep it from killing healthy cells.
On a side note peptides tend to get a lot of scrutiny from drug companies/designers. Our bodies readily metabolize peptides, so drug stability/delivery issues are usually the kiss of death for peptide drugs.
Also, senescence is a good thing. Senescent cells don't actively divide, the alternative is mitotic cells that do divide. More divisions you have, more likely it is cancer forms. So as always, cancer and aging are inseparable and we're all doomed:)
Well looks like I clicked on the wrong NEJM abstract in the link, you were right, they did use adipose derived stem cells. But the entire thing is much, much worse than iPSCs. First, the method they used wasn't the same one in clinical trials. But secondly, the patients thought they were receiving the clinical trial procedure (which they weren't) AND the procedure they thought they were getting had already been revoked from clinical trials by the time they got this shady one. From the paper:
"A distinction has been made between clinical studies of stem-cell therapies that are founded on solid preclinical research with strong scientific design and programs that lack preclinical research justification. These programs are often funded by patients at nonacademic centers, and they may not receive FDA oversight if these procedures are performed without the filing of an investigational new drug application with the FDA, which requires extensive safety data. At least one of the patients thought the procedure was performed within the context of a clinical trial (NCT02024269). However, the consent forms signed by all three patients do not mention a clinical trial. The patients paid for a procedure that had never been studied in a clinical trial, lacked sufficient safety data, and was performed in both eyes on the same day."
They didn't use mesenchymal, they used indued pluripotent stem cells derived from fat cells.. There's different ways cells can be induced to pluripotency (the Yamanaka method is the favorite) but the one of the biggest trouble with iPSCs is their epigenetic profiles [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3760008/]. Basically just because you activate the genes you need for iPSCs to form doesn't mean their epigenetic profiles are the same as naturually occuring pluripotent cells, so unexpected growth and differentiation can occur. Also, iPSCs have a tendency to become cancerous, so even if you run the same treatment there's still a risk of tumor formation.
Slashdot Mirror
From Wapo: "It is not known whether the information has been accessed by anyone but Vickery." So not really a confirmed hit/leak, just a serious vulnerability at this point.
Really can't emphasize enough here the differences in aging between human and mice models: metabolism, neurological health and cardiovascular health are so variable between the two that attributing one phenomenon as translatable to another is irresponsible at best (especially considering lack of replicable results). Healthcare isn't a typical consumer service where a buyer-beware approach is acceptable, one bad study leading to a hyped up pseudo-treatment is bad news for everyone. On a sidenote though ambrosia is ragweed, that horrible allergenic pollen. So at least the company name is fitting.
The potential is exciting, but the big issues are cost of synthesis, which is fixable, and stability, which is unfortunately more pervasive. DNA is super stable, but only when its uncontaminated. Nucleases (enzymes specifically designed to cleave DNA) are everywhere and certain chemical or UV exposure would ruin the base sequences irreparably. Basically if the hard drive isn't in sterile conditions it risks being easily destroyed, so a misplaced sneeze could delete everything. Also cytosine (C) has a tendency to convert to Uracil (U, basically a substitute for T in RNA). I'm sure engineers will probably fix all these issues, but there's always nucleases that evolve to counter anti-nuclease activity.
Worth pointing out that solar produced hydrogen efficiency is also improving, world record efficiency published last week. (Unfortunately nature energy pay walls all their articles, RDM did a report on it though) http://www.rdmag.com/news/2017...
P53 is always present in cells but needs to be activated. Basically it's on standby to quickly kill cells in case there's DNA damage(very bad=cancer usually), so FOX helps keep it from killing healthy cells. On a side note peptides tend to get a lot of scrutiny from drug companies/designers. Our bodies readily metabolize peptides, so drug stability/delivery issues are usually the kiss of death for peptide drugs. Also, senescence is a good thing. Senescent cells don't actively divide, the alternative is mitotic cells that do divide. More divisions you have, more likely it is cancer forms. So as always, cancer and aging are inseparable and we're all doomed :)
Well looks like I clicked on the wrong NEJM abstract in the link, you were right, they did use adipose derived stem cells. But the entire thing is much, much worse than iPSCs. First, the method they used wasn't the same one in clinical trials. But secondly, the patients thought they were receiving the clinical trial procedure (which they weren't) AND the procedure they thought they were getting had already been revoked from clinical trials by the time they got this shady one. From the paper: "A distinction has been made between clinical studies of stem-cell therapies that are founded on solid preclinical research with strong scientific design and programs that lack preclinical research justification. These programs are often funded by patients at nonacademic centers, and they may not receive FDA oversight if these procedures are performed without the filing of an investigational new drug application with the FDA, which requires extensive safety data. At least one of the patients thought the procedure was performed within the context of a clinical trial (NCT02024269). However, the consent forms signed by all three patients do not mention a clinical trial. The patients paid for a procedure that had never been studied in a clinical trial, lacked sufficient safety data, and was performed in both eyes on the same day."
They didn't use mesenchymal, they used indued pluripotent stem cells derived from fat cells.. There's different ways cells can be induced to pluripotency (the Yamanaka method is the favorite) but the one of the biggest trouble with iPSCs is their epigenetic profiles [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3760008/]. Basically just because you activate the genes you need for iPSCs to form doesn't mean their epigenetic profiles are the same as naturually occuring pluripotent cells, so unexpected growth and differentiation can occur. Also, iPSCs have a tendency to become cancerous, so even if you run the same treatment there's still a risk of tumor formation.