Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Fake Banner
By Erin Richards | October 27th 2008 01:39 PM | 6 comments | Track Comments

About Erin Richards

I am a graduate from the University of California, Davis with a degree in Biological Sciences. I have a background in English and Journalism and a passion for writing about science.

I have a... Full Bio

More from Erin Richards

All
Since their discovery, stem cells have been hailed as the ultimate answer for crippling and incurable diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other conditions that leave vital organs like heart or nerves damaged beyond repair. Researchers from the University of Cambridge, under the leadership of Professor Austin Smith, Director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research at the University of Cambridge, recently published a paper(1) detailing a new technology that can transform adult stem cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS). This technique is able to reliably reprogram adult cells into iPS rapidly and can forego the need to rely on mammalian embryos to generate pluripotent stem cells.

Working with stem cells has proved a much greater challenge than foreseen, however, as both scientific and ethical challenges confront stem cell research from all sides. Stem cells are tricky to work with and although they are indefinite, can stop dividing at any time. The best stem cells are also the cells with the least amount of differentiation (or development). These cells occur during embryonic development and the harvesting of such cells results in the death of the rest of the embryo. The resulting loss of the embryo is the cause of the ethical dilemmas concerning the usage of stem cells and the development of stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cells have a great deal of potential but the restrictions put in place for federally funded research projects have limited their use and the controversy over the ethical issues has consumed a great deal of time in the science community.  This ethical dilemma can be bypassed altogether if adult mammalian cells are reprogrammed to form iPS, which are cells almost identical to those from embryonic stem cells but which come from adult tissue instead of embryos, and the same results can be obtained.


Credit: University of Cambridge's Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research.

The technique for reprogramming relies on the usage of a combination of chemical inhibitors provided by Stem Cell Sciences, a company providing commercial use of stem cells and stem cell technologies. These chemical inhibitors, including use of enzymes MEK and GSK3 in combination with a cell growth promoter and leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) provide the key to transition fully differentiated adult cells into cells that are indistinguishable from authentic embryonic stem (ES) cells.

Stem Cell Sciences developed this Culticell iSTEM™ media range to overcome the limitations in current approaches to producing reprogrammed pluripotent stem cells. Smith and his team developed this key step in the successful complete transfer of adult cells into iPS using this specific combination of enzymes, inhibitors and cellular growth indicators.

"This proprietary technique greatly facilitates the simple, most reliable and efficient route to obtaining authentic induced pluripotent stem cells and will form the basis for the industrialization of iPS cell production,” noted Dr. Tim Allsopp, Chief Scientific Officer of Stem Cell Sciences. “This is an important validation of the technology Professor Smith and his team have developed and Stem Cell Sciences is very pleased to be working with Cambridge University and Professor Smith's team on this important breakthrough."


Stem Cell Pathway: Smith's research centers on the  regulatory processes and machinery that govern self-renewal and lineage programming in stem cells. This picture represents the transition from an undifferentiated embryonic cell to different tissue cells.Credit: University of Cambridge.

This breakthrough of complete transformation follows on the heels of previous studies in which progression to iPS was limited and extremely inefficient. This process has greatly improved both the success and efficiency rate making a reliable source to generate iPS without depending on embryonic cells

Stem cells are unique because they have the potential to be any number of various cell types. They are undifferentiated cells, and if at the earliest stage of development, they have the ability to create a completely new individual. As such, they can be directed to make any number of useful tissues, including nervous tissue, heart tissue or a new liver.

Research with stem cells can help us develop procedures like gene therapy, testing drugs with lessened need for animal and human test subjects, genetic disorder correction and replacement of damaged tissues or organs. The possibilities are endless, applications in real world situations limitless and now the technology to propel us into the future of stem cell applications is very real.


References:
(1) Promotion of Reprogramming to Ground State Pluripotency by Signal Induction. Silva, J. et al. (2008) PLoS Biol 6(10): e253 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060253

Comments

aaanouel's picture

It all seems to be about names...!!!
Scientist have to be more careful about the names they give to their new (life-linked) researches and all of its parts in order to avoid "Xtrem moralists", superstitious and "Science/Tech/Research enemies" witch all the time, are searching and digging for any word slim linkable to any moralist religious or superstitious concepts just to obstruct or forbid it.
If Steam Cells technologies had been called something like "XMFT-007" from its beginnings, Science wouldn't have gotten all the troubles it has due ignorance.
So next time, get abstract names for your new life-linked Research.







spinner's picture
I think that there is more than just names at stake. I don't think you can avoid ethical issues by just calling it a different name. Abstract names to confuse the public may not get as much attention, but that doesn't absolve them from their ethical dilemmas. I'm a full fledged supported of stem cell research, but the ethical issues surrounding research have proved to be one of the biggest hurdles to overcome. Although I believe it easier to conduct research on leftover embryos from in-vitro fertilization that would be otherwise thrown away, those embryos do have the possibility of life. and its important not to forget that.

Even if I use a vague name, the ethical issues do not and more importantly should not be ignored by the scientific community. If I started practicing eugenics, though little people in the general public are familiar with the word, it still remains the process of selective sterilization. Still unethical, even if I call it something completely different.

aaanouel's picture
I do agree. You're right...  As the picture, my opinion is intentionally near to be a joke... but anyway you may agree that sometimes, researches' names and publicity awake useless surprising and almost amazing automatic resistances, oppositions and troubles from people like creationists, obstructionists and other Xtreme minded people that have nothing to do with research itself or Science.  So being careful with names is not over after all... old man's practical experiences of life...

I don't claim to be any sort of genius, i'm just interested in the topic.     First, if stem calls are caught before they become specialized and are taken out of the embryo can they stay un-specialized and alive? and for how long?          Second, i know the idea hasn't been as accepted or practiced as much as it should but i was pretty sure we had a successful clone and the ability to repeat the experiment fairly easily. If we were to clone the unspecific stem cells could we then not insert them where they need to be in order to gro to what they are being used for?

Hank's picture
First, if stem calls are caught before they become specialized and are taken out of the embryo can they stay un-specialized and alive? and for how long?

It's unknown.   They are still using hSEC stem cell lines from before the restriction of 2001 so that isn't the problem.   The issue remains mostly hype.   Jamie Thomson, the embryologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who created the first human embryonic stem cells in the lab, even says the truth has been exaggerated by both sides.   That it's life on one side or the cure-all with 'transplants' that's been portrayed by the other side.   Nothing of the kind would have happened now just because of federal funding and likely never will.   Drug discovery and screening would probably be the biggest benefit, not replacing parts.

Like a few other debates, where you come down on hESC research is mostly indicated by your political party.

Thomson was also a key guy behind induced pluripotent stem cells so he knows the limitations of hESC research as well as anyone.

Alexey's picture
I don't think iPS can replace the need of ES  so far.
Until now all of research groups can derive iPS lines using number genes, transcription factors and small molecules. All of these biological inductors make the system very artificial and very far from "natural" - program that occurs in embryogenesis.
So if i'll have a choice (let's say i work in BigPharma giant corp) for test my drug for Alzheimer diseases on cell line, i'll definitely choose hES but not iPS.
About ethical controversies - it's mostly noise in US (all of these stories around Bush and lines isolated before Aug 2001), but not in other countries. I believe that under right regulatory conditions we will have enough hES cell lines for diseases modeling, drug screening (for Pharma and Biotech) and toxicology testing, without needs of isolation iPS.
Only one advantage of iPS = personalized medicine! We can't wait when drugs for treatment of your disease will administrated individually, based on screening tests of your own iPS line.

Again i'm talking about today and maybe next 3 years, and not about cell-based therapies.

read more:
It is actually not like we thought before - ISSCR 2008 annual meeting report
http://hematopoiesis.info/2008/06/20/it-is-actually-not-like-we-thought-...

Celebrating 10 years of hESC lines: an interview with James Thomson. [Interviewed by Miodrag Stojkovíc and Susan Rainey Daher].
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19005178

Sweating the Details: An Interview with Jamie Thomson
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000182

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.