Another cloning guru drops it for iPS

From this week’s Nature Medicine interview, with former cloning advocate Prof George Daley, my favourite passage is this:

“Q: Had you been working on cellular reprogramming before Shinya Yamanaka
reported the first mouse iPS cells in 2006?
A: Yes, I’d been thinking about reprogramming since the late 1990s, when I started to consider using embryonic stem cells to make customised cell therapies. That initially took the strategy of using cloning, though we never made human nuclear transfer effective… Once Yamanaka solved the problem, I turned around virtually my entire programme to take advantage of that breakthrough.”

Here is a fuller report on this revealing development, from Michael Cook’s BioEdge site – see http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/9087/

Leading stem cell scientist quietly drops embryonic work
by Michael Cook 3 Jul 2010

Amongst scientists who promoted the use of human embryonic stem cells five years ago, in the middle of passionate debates in the US, Australia and elsewhere, few were more influential in shaping the ethical debate than Harvard’s George Q. Daley. “We must support the vitally important applications of embryonic stem cells to medical research,” he testified to a Congressional committee in 2005.

He contended that work on hESCs was so important that it could not be delayed. It was needed for cures, drug development and genetic research. The fact that years had passed without results made no difference. “The field of human embryonic stem cell research is a mere 7 years old, so it is premature to expect successful cell therapies to have already been delivered to patients.”

Now, he has transferred the same sense of urgency and excitement to an ethical non-controversial alternative to hESC research which he dismissed before the committee – induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells). At the time, he said, “Although this strategy is worth pursuing, it is extremely high-risk, and may take years to perfect, and may never work as well as nuclear transfer, which we know we can practice today.”

However, in 2007 iPS cells were developed by Shinya Yamanaka. Professor Daley immediately stopped campaigning for hESCs. In an interview with Nature Medicine, he says, “Once Yamanaka solved the problem, I turned around virtually my entire program to take advantage of that breakthrough.” In language remarkably similar to his 2005 testimony, he now promotes iPS cells: “There's no reason in my mind to think that we're not going to have iPS cells that function as well as embryonic stem cells.” Why haven’t there been any cures yet? “You can't hold the field to too high a standard. It's only been two years, and a lot of this stuff is in the pipeline.” ~ Nature Medicine, June

Can it be?! The official ISSCR line on stem cell science moves nearer ours…

The times are a-changin' when the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), the peak-lobby-group that was scolded in Nature magazine for its disgusting deceit about cloned embryos not really being embryos (let's call them something different, so the public does not take their moral status too seriously), now tells us something close to the truth about stem cell science.

 

Watch and learn: cynical spin is subsiding in the face of scientific reality, and received opinion is starting to catch up with what we, at this site, have been saying for years.

 

The ISSCR has launched this month a useful site called "A closer look at stem cell treatments" – ostensibly directed at countering the claptrap about alleged stem cell therapies being flogged on the Internet and in dodgy Indian clinics. This aims to protect the public, who cannot readily judge scientific claims.

If only the ISSCR's own stem cell scientists and media enablers had been as principled about countering earlier claptrap during the embryo stem cell and cloning debates, and about protecting the public from dodgy scientific claims. Then it seemed fine for politicised scientists like Alan Trounson to parade grossly misleading videos about paralysed rats in order to persuade MPs to vote for embryo research, or for science reporters / cheerleaders like Elizabeth Finkel to drool about 'biological gold' flowing from the (fraudulent) experiments of Dr Hwang, or for the cloning lobby's PR machine to hype mercilessly about the miracle cures that would flow if only MPs would permit us to create and destroy human embryos.

 

Cloning, as it turns out, is dead in the water, and the value of this ISSCR site is the tacit acceptance that the future of stem cell science lies elsewhere.

Take this bit of straight-talking from the page 'Top 10 things to know about stem cell treatments' – in case any reader has doubted the validity of this site's repeated reminder about the non-usability of embryonic stem cells:

"However, embryonic stem cells themselves cannot directly be used for therapies as they would likely cause tumors and are unlikely to become the cells needed to regenerate a tissue on their own. They would first need to be coaxed to develop into specialized cell types before transplantation."

Any journalist who ever again says that 'embryonic stem cells are going to be given to patients' needs their nose rubbed in that ISSCR paragraph. It is official: ESCs cause tumours, or even tumors, and are unusable in humans. Get that? As this site has so patiently instructed readers, the only semi-safe ESC is not an ESC, but a mature cell like the 'terminally differentiated' nerve cells Geron Corp plans to use in its spinal transplants. However, even these 'terminally differentiated' cells may not be so safely finalised – they may still revert to those accursed little ESCs and cause tumours. That fact of stem cell nature is why the Geron trial has still not been approved, after all these false dawns over a decade.

One sign of the residual spin from the ISSCR is that they still feel obliged to talk up the Geron-type trial, with no acknowledgement that the FDA still does not consider it safe, and it is a standing joke about this trial being "due to start next summer" – see "Geron and on and on…". How lame, at the end of the "Top 10 things to know about stem cell treatments", after understating the genuine adult stem cell breakthroughs, they have to genuflect to Geron's embryonic junk science:

"The first embryonic stem cell-based treatment for acute spinal cord injury is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and will hopefully move into clinical trials soon."

Ah, yes, "hopefully soon"… You can fool some of the people all of the time…

 

Also strange is the ISSCR's petulant refusal to acknowledge the proven plasticity of adult stem cells for research and treatment – their long-established multipotent ability to transform into stem cells of entirely different tissues. Thus a patient of mine with Parkinson's has his olfactory plate (nasal) stem cells sampled in a quick biopsy, which are then transformed at Brisbane's National Adult Stem Cell Centre into other types of stem cells, capable of creating the cells of one's choice – say liver cells, or cardiac muscle cells, besides the obvious application of creating neural cells for Parkinson's research.

Still the ISSCR 'Top 10 things' page, under 'point 1: there are different types of stem cells' comments disingenuously:

"A neural stem cell won't spontaneously make a blood cell and likewise a hematopoietic stem cell won't spontaneously make a brain cell. Thus, it is unlikely that a single cell type could be used to treat a multitude of unrelated diseases that involve different tissues or organs."

Of course it does not happen 'spontaneously' – but it can happen in a predictable, safe way under the careful guidance of a stem cell scientist - which is the entire goal of stem cell therapy! This, again, is the standard negative spin of the ISSCR – trying to downplay adult stem cell plasticity and usefulness, in order to leave the embryonic alternative looking less shabby by contrast.

 

Finally, it is worth a look at more of the page on 'types of stem cells' – although the same spin applies re downplaying proven adult stem cell progress. Nevertheless, the ISSCR is straightforwardly acknowledging the non-usability of ESCs unless they are NOT an ESC any more:

"Furthermore, embryonic stem cells carry the risk of transforming into cancerous tissue after transplantation. To be used in cell transplant treatments the cells will most likely need to be directed into a more mature cell type… there are currently no treatments using embryonic stem cells."

On the great iPS breakthrough, there is some fudging – proposing that there are relevant 'differences' from ESCs, without pointing out that all those differences are to the practical benefit of iPS cells versus ESCs as tools for research – and also waffling about the need to refine iPS before they can be used for safe therapies: we argue that iPS cannot be used for therapies any more than ESCs, because they all cause tumours, and it is better to spell that out plainly.

 

At this authoritative site of the arch-lobbyists for embryonic exploitation, we witness the spin on cloning slowing to a stop, because the science of cloning has lost its bogus momentum; we see the embryonic hype withering on the vine because only adult stem cells are producing the goods with therapy and only iPS cells have achieved the goal of patient-specific pluripotent stem cells for research and drug development.

In as far as this site represents a face-saving move of the 'official' position on stem cell science towards our position, it is cause for celebration.

 

Sick Kidneys the latest to benefit from adult stem cells

It is almost embarrassingly simple: gather bone marrow stem cells (not difficult, and not expensive) and squirt them back into a vein – then let them seek out and repair the damaged bits.

 

And in case I have not mentioned it on this Blog, don't forget that your own adult stem cells do not form tumours, and do not (of course) get rejected by your immune system… Unlike certain dodgy cells culled from an IVF embryo. Which, of course, have not ever been used in humans, for the very reason of tumour formation and immune rejection. But perhaps I had already mentioned that…

 

Here, in this month's journal Circulation, human adult stem cells (aka HPSCs in this study) do good things to the damaged kidneys of mice: link at http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.928796v1

 

"Conclusions – These studies advance human HSPCs as a promising therapeutic strategy for promoting renal repair after injury."

 

"Ah!" you say, "but didn't they find benefit for mice last year using embryonic stem cells too?" A sincere, if dull-witted question, but I will answer it: yes they did, but why bother? Certainly, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology last October, injection of ASCs was found to repair kidney function in Alport's disease, and "Injection of mouse and human embryonic stem cells produced similar results." See http://jasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/11/2359 Yes, both types of stem cell worked – but why even bother with those dangerous, and ethically ugly, embryo cells? Is it the tumour-forming powers of ESCs that you most want for your patients, or are you pleased that they would have to take dangerous immune-suppressant drugs?

 

Now… stay tuned to the new Phase 1 human trials using our own ASCs in kidney repair.

 

 

 

 

Multiple Sclerosis: safety established – and an early hint of benefit - using adult stem cells

More solid work from Prof Neil Scolding of the UK, published last week in the Journal Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (part of the Nature group or journals). Here is the link to the abstract: http://www.nature.com/clpt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/clpt201044a.html

It describes a phase I trial (that means establishing that it can be done safely, but not yet establishing effectiveness) of mobilising marrow stem cells from MS patients. Take the marrow sample, and reinject a mix of stem cells into the circulation, to home in on damaged MS plaques in the brain and do some good…

 

This phase I research should now lead to bigger trials, and refinement of the protocol to maximise benefit.

 

It does not quite justify the excitement of the newspaper report below, but is still a solid first step in establishing safety and a hint of benefit. And like ASC treatment in diabetes, the key appears to be catching the illness in the early stages, before most of the damage is done.

 

DvG.

 

Stem cells raise hope for treatment for multiple sclerosis patients Thousands of MS sufferers could benefit from a revolutionary treatment that injects them with stem cells taken from their own bone marrow.

By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent 05 May 2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7682055/Stem-cells-raise-hope-for-treatment-for-multiple-sclerosis-patients.html

 

 

Researchers have long believed that the stem cells could halt and even reverse the effects of the disease by patching up the damaged parts of the brain and spinal cord.

 

Now British scientists carrying out one of the first ever trials into the procedure believe that they have proved that it works.

 

The research team, led by Professor Neil Scolding, at the University of Bristol and North Bristol NHS Trust, believe that the treatment has stabilised the condition and shown some "benefits".

 

"We are encouraged by the results of this early study," he said.

 

"We believe that stem cells mobilised from the marrow to the blood are responsible, and that they help improve disease in several ways."…

 

Researchers found that the patients suffered "no serious adverse effects" from the treatment and tests suggested the disease was stable and there had been improvement in the effectiveness of damaged nerve cells.

 

They showed that the damaged nerve pathways were able to carry electrical pulses more effectively after the treatment.

 

Now the researchers want to carry out a longer and larger study to see if the treatment can be improved and works consistently.

 

Professor Neil Scolding said: "The safety data are reassuring and the suggestion of benefit tantalising."

 

Dr Claire Rice, co-author, said: "The results are very encouraging. We would have expected these pathways to get worse but they have actually got better.

 

Bone marrow is known to contain stem cells capable of replacing cells in many types of tissues and organs – and so is of great interest to those working to develop new treatments for many diseases, including those affecting the nervous system.

 

An earlier study on 21 adults in the Lancet also showed that stem cells could halt the progress of the disease and even show some improvement.

 

The idea is that if caught early enough the stem cells could protect patients from the permanent damage caused to nerve cells and prevent disability.

 

ESC ‘success’ in mice? Pity about the tumours

Is this finally some good news for ESCs? Last week we hear that scientists have "successfully used mouse embryonic stem cells to replace diseased retinal cells and restore sight in a mouse model of retinitis pigmentosa." Then reality strikes:

However, complications of benign tumors and retinal detachments were seen in some of the mice, so Dr. Tsang and colleagues will optimize techniques to decrease the incidence of these complications in human embryonic stem cells before testing in human patients can begin.

 

Yeah, right… Optimise those techniques, decrease those teratomas… Touching optimism by Dr Tsang, the triumph of hope over experience.

Reality check: the very nature of ESCs is to proliferate into tumours, and here we see ESCs acting according to their nature.

 

The same thwarted hope is there in abstract in the journal Transplantation - excited by the improved electrical response in some mice retinas, but then running aground on the tumours (and retinal detachment):

Although more than half of the mice were complicated with retinal detachments or tumor development, one fourth of the mice showed increased electroretinogram responses in the transplanted eyes.

 

The no-brainer is that if you want cells to treat human eyes, use human 'adult stem cell' derivatives – as noted earlier on this Blog, at the University of Nebraska for instance – which will not give you tumours.

Again the eyes have it… more success with our own ASCs

Only just noticed this one, although it was published in Stem Cells online last month.

Another beautiful demonstration of the healing power of our own stem cells – here, patients with limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) had some residual limbal stem cells sampled, multiplied in a culture (that excluded any animal products) and reimplanted in sufficient numbers to help regenerate the patient's own damaged cornea. All patients gained better vision and reduced discomfort.

• News report from the British NHS, "stem cells restore sight": here
  
• And the full article from Stem Cells (while it remains available on the web): here
  

The noughties – nought to show for ESCs

Here is an amusing bit of spin from an ESC advocate "reflecting on a decade of stem cell research" – an end-of-decade review broadcast on the US National Public Radio yesterday.

 

Note the usual distortion of the science. Because ASCs (adult stem cells) are kicking such great goals in the treatment of actual patients, they do not even get a mention! That would be impolite – a bit like avoiding praising the top student in the class, because it might harm the self-esteem of the idlers.

 

And although you and I know that ESCs are inherently unusable in humans – thanks to their inherent tumour tendency – Dr Zon of the Boston Children's Hospital merely says that such treatments are "still a ways off". Chuckle. See "Geron and on and on" for an adult version of the end of the rainbow being "still a ways off". However, when the pot of research gold can be gained simply by showing politicians how pretty that rainbow is, never needing to find rainbow's end, you can understand Dr Zon's ever-hopeful fantasy.

 

The happy moment in this piece comes with Dr Zon's enthusiasm for iPS, which is proving so powerful that the stem cell spin machine is having trouble containing it. So, after consigning ESC therapies to the never never of "a couple of decades" we read:

More immediate, Zon says, is finding new drug therapies using a technique made possible by Japanese researcher Shinya Yamanaka. He found a way to take ordinary skin cells and turn them into cells that behave just like embryonic stem cells, but without destroying an embryo.

When the new technique was announced in 1997 (sic – it was 2007, DvG), stem cell researcher Jose Cibelli of Michigan State University predicted it would revolutionize the field of stem cell research, and not just because it removed the moral quandary of destroying embryos.

"Anybody can do this procedure," Cibelli said. "It's a very simple recipe. It's a combination of three or four genes, and in a couple of weeks you go from a skin cell to an embryonic stem cell. It's remarkable."

The new technique allows scientists to take cells from a patient with a disease, then convert them into these embryonic stem cell-like cells that can grow indefinitely in the lab.

 

A refreshing bit of truth in a sea of stale platitudes.

 

As to the closing claptrap about ESC research still being needed to provide the 'gold standard' against iPS – see earlier post. This is fool's gold, and how debased the ESC / cloning currency has become, that instead of being the saviour of little diabetics and old parkinson's patients, it is now merely a 'standard' to measure the real achievers against!

 

A Happy New Year – and may 2010 see scientific truthfulness and political integrity prevail in Australia. With the review of our cloning laws, the time has come to accept that (post the iPS revolution of November 2007) the scientific justification for cloning no longer exists. The unmitigated abomination of creating embryonic humans solely for research must cease.

DvG.

Heart journal publishes success with adult stem cells

More good news from the quiet achiever of the stem cell world, the humble ASC.

Here, a rigorously structured human clinical trial in a leading journal shows safety and efficacy with adult stem cells (ASCs) after heart attack – improving objective measures like cardiac output and demonstrating repair of heart muscle in those treated with ASCs versus placebo.

Chuckle… Anybody interested in a trial using those tumorigenic ESCs? Even precious ones derived from a clone of yourself? No? Good decision: it is lot safer to suck a few ASCs out of your blood or marrow and use them – and hey, you have 'done no harm' in the process.

• Here is the link to the abstract of the article in the Journal of the Americal College of Cardiology: http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/abstract/54/24/2277
  

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Escalation Study of Intravenous Adult Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells (Prochymal) After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Joshua M. Hare, MD_*^,_{* et al.} J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009; 54:2277-2286, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.06.055

• and here is the link to a commentary in the science pages of the Dr Hare's local paper: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/1359195.html
  

`A PRETTY BIG DEAL'

``This is a pretty big deal. Echocardiograms showed improved heart function, particularly in those patients with large amounts of cardiac damage,'' said Hare, who also is director of the UM Medical School's Interdisciplinary Stem Cell Institute. ``They also had improvements in lung function.''

RESULTS

Patients who received the stem cells were compared to similar patients who received placebo injections. Both were followed by MRI and echocardiogram. After six months, treated patients:

• Were four times as likely to have improved overall condition.

• Were able to pump more blood with each heartbeat than untreated patients.

• Had only one-quarter as many dangerous heart arrhythmias.

• Suffered no toxicity or other serious adverse side effects.

Geron…. and on… and on…

From the USA, and colleague David Prentice, comes this handy synopsis of Geron Corp's triumph of hope over experience.

This is the company that makes headlines at regular intervals with its imminent human trial of embryonic stem cells – year after share-price-massaging year from at least 2002 (see comedy highlights below).

Hmmm… I am no financial planner, but why would you put money into such a left-behind science? In fact, a science that has never even got started – since there has still never been a single ESC put into a single human being anywhere (because, as we all know, they cause tumours, and do not even match the patient's immune system). If you have stem cell investments (and I do not) put your money where there are already results in human treatments – adult stem cells – or where we have the equivalent of ESCs which do in fact match the patients for research purposes – iPS cells. And leave the embryos unexploited.

For now – jeer on with this commentary from DP:

"Next Year" for Embryonic Stem Cells?

Geron now says that it hopes its embryonic stem cell experiment on spinal cord injury patients might begin in the 3rd quarter of 2010. The original FDA approval to test the cells in patients was given in January 2009 and Geron claimed it would begin in the summer of 2009, but before a single desperate patient had been injected with the potentially-dangerous cells, the FDA placed a hold on the Geron experiment due to safety concerns.

Meanwhile, the obsession with embryonic stem cells has obscured the real hope for patients-ADULT STEM CELLS. Peer-reviewed evidence of adult stem cell success for spinal cord injury patients has already been published by groups in Portugal, in Ecuador, and in Brazil.

With Geron's latest announcement Geron stock rose as much as 12%.

The Geron Prophecies

30 October 2009
Geron expects the data from this study to enable re-initiation of the clinical trial in the third quarter of 2010.

27 January 2009
Geron says that it expects to begin enrolment early this summer at up to seven US medical centres.

20 October 2008
A clinical trial that would test the use of embryonic stem cells to treat spinal cord injury could begin within three months.

17 October 2008
But the FDA is nearing the end of its review process and may lift the hold and allow clinical trials to commence within the next three months, Okarma told The Scientist.

15 May 2008
The Geron Corporation announced Wednesday that its plans to begin the first clinical trial using embryonic stem cells had been delayed by federal regulators. While companies typically do not announce when they submit an application to begin a trial for an investigational new drug, the F.D.A.'s action means Geron must have submitted its application in the last 30 days, Mr. Benjamin said.

12 February 2008
The first experiments using human embryonic stem cells in human subjects could begin within a few months, the chief executive of biotech Geron said Monday. At the annual BIO CEO conference in New York, Dr. Thomas Okarma said Geron plans to start embryonic stem-cell studies in humans with spinal cord injuries toward the end of the second quarter. Okarma said the tests would involve up to 40 human patients, while all prior tests involved rats.

13 November 2007
Geron's development plan for the product calls for the filing of an Investigational New Drug (IND) Application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and, pending the agency's review, initiation of human clinical trials in 2008.

31 October 2007
Geron, based in Menlo Park, Calif., has been using rats in its experiments of a potential treatment for spinal cord injuries. Geron has already met with the FDA and will submit its plans for human testing to the agency by the end of this year, according to Sion.

20 July 2007
"Geron Corporation in Menlo Park, California, expects to start clinical trials of a therapy for spinal cord injury early in 2008, according to spokesperson David Schull."

9 May 2007
"The first clinical trial of embryonic stem cells is on track to start early next year on patients with spinal cord injury. Geron, the California-based biotechnology company, will carry out the study on accident victims in six trauma centres across the US."

4 August 2006
One company, in particular, Menlo Park, CA-based Geron, is taking the lead in developing experimental embryonic stem cell therapies and hopes to begin human trials next year.

27 July 2006
The company will apply for approval to start US clinical trials in 2007, using glial cells derived from human embryonic stem cells to treat spinal injuries.

17 June 2006
"I'm confident that we will be in the clinic next year with the first human ESC-derived product," said Tom Okarma, chief executive of Geron, at a conference in London last week.

29 March 2006
Tom Okarma: We will complete our IND-enabling studies, which are now in process and still on track, and file our IND during the fourth quarter of this year, assuming the preclinical data continue to go well. That starts a 30-day review clock by the FDA, who then has 30 days to either accept our IND and allow us to proceed or, at that point, they have questions that we must answer before we can begin. We are on track for that. So, assuming they bless the IND, we would hope to be in the clinic in the first quarter of (2007).

7 November 2005
"[R]esearchers at Geron of Menlo Park want to take the next step - in people. They hope to get federal permission to inject those cells into damaged spinal cords. The procedure - which Geron intends to do next year - would be the first human tests of a treatment derived from human embryonic stem cells, the highly versatile body cells that can be coaxed into becoming almost any tissue in the body."

9 September 2005
"Geron plans to begin clinical trials on acute spinal cord injury treatment in early 2006, according to chief executive officer Tom Okarma."

19 April 2005
Thomas Okarma, Geron's CEO, is even less convinced that larger animals are necessary before testing Keirstead's technique in humans. During an interview at the conference, he said he believes the clinical trial could begin in mid-2006.

5 February 2005
"Next year [Hans Keirstead] and his corporate partner, Geron, plan to try treating people who have recent spinal cord injuries, in what would almost certainly be the first human trial of any therapy derived from such cells.

1 December 2004
According to Geron CEO Thomas Okarma, the company is aiming to file an investigational new drug application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requesting permission to begin clinical trials using glial cells derived from embryonic stem cells to repair damaged spinal cords in 2005 or early 2006.

22 February 2004
"The company believes it will be cleared to start the first stem-cell therapy in human tests next year, possibly for spinal-cord injury."

18 March 2002
Keirstead.would ask university officials to seek the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval to test the human embryonic stem cells on human patients with spinal cord injuries. Initially, Keirstead said he might be ready to take this step in about a year.

Back from leave… more good news re ‘virus-free’ iPS

Here it is again – making iPSCs with no genetic material introduced at all, no viral material involved at all (and no ethical violations at all). Yet we will still hear hysterical warnings, in the coming debate over the review of cloning laws in Australia, about how we need to keep creating and destroying embryos because the alternative to embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), are 'dangerous' because they have all sorts of 'viral genetic factors' in them… Watch this space, and watch their lying lips.

 

It is getting ever-easier and cleaner to make these iPS cells; here we have "the first proof in principles that somatic, or body cells, can be reprogrammed into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) simply through the influence of the microenvironment in which the sampled cells are cultured." Ethically easier, too, since we leave that embryonic human over there unmolested and use our own, superior, iPS cells. In the usual formulation found in all of these articles: "this would allow us to circumvent ethical issues and the problems caused by the immune system rejecting foreign cells".

 

Here is the report and the link - the research is published in Stem Cells this week:

 

Reprogramming a patient's eye cells may herald new treatments against degenerative disease

October 22nd, 2009 http://www.physorg.com/news175458227.html

 

Scientists have overcome a key barrier to the clinical use of stem cells with a technique which transforms regular body cells into artificial stem cells without the need for introducing foreign genetic materials, which could be potentially harmful. The research, published in Stem Cells, suggests that cells taken from a patient's eye can be "reprogrammed" to replace or restore cells lost to degenerative diseases.

 

The research, led by Professor Iqbal Ahmad and co-authors from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, is the first proof in principle that somatic, or body cells, can be reprogrammed into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) simply through the influence of the microenvironment in which the sampled cells are cultured. Until now genetic materials were introduced into somatic cells to re-programme them to become pluripotent, enabling them to generate cells of all three embryonic lineages.

 

"Our findings provide evidence for an emerging view that somatic cells may be reprogrammed safely and simply by defined chemicals and other factors, which may facilitate their clinical use," said Ahmad. "The next step is to know how robust the reprogramming is and what existed within the microenvironment to cause it."

 

The team sampled progenitor eye cells, which regenerate the eye's cornea, from laboratory rats. By reprogramming them to resemble stem cells they acquired the properties necessary to replace or restore neurons, cardiomyocytes, and hepatocytes, cell types which are degenerated in Parkinson's disease, heart disease, and liver disease.

 

This reprogramming technique may allow 'autologous cell transplantation', where the donor of the cells is also the recipient. This is preferable to using cells from another person which may cause the patient's immune system to reject the transplanted cells.

 

Also, because this technique involves the use of iPSCs derived from adult eye cells and not embryonic stem cells (ES) it side steps many of the ethical dilemmas which have embroiled stem cell research.

 

"This research shows that it is possible to take cells from a patient's eye without affecting vision and reprogram them for use in autologous cell therapy to replace or rescue degenerating cells," concluded Ahmad, "this would allow us to circumvent ethical issues and the problems caused by the immune system rejecting foreign cells."