"Scientists Bypass Need for Embryo to Get Stem Cells"-- NYT

This New York Times article details an advance in stem cell research.

The advance, which was recently pioneered in human stem cells, was first pioneered in experiments on mice.

The article states:

Last year, Dr. Yamanaka published a paper showing that he could add four genes to mouse cells and turn them into mouse embryonic stem cells.

Of the recent experiment, the article states:

Two teams of scientists reported yesterday that they had turned human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells without having to make or destroy an embryo — a feat that could quell the ethical debate troubling the field.All they had to do, the scientists said, was add four genes. The genes reprogrammed the chromosomes of the skin cells, making the cells into blank slates that should be able to turn into any of the 220 cell types of the human body, be it heart, brain, blood or bone. Until now, the only way to get such human universal cells was to pluck them from a human embryo several days after fertilization, destroying the embryo in the process.

This is fascinating, and most importantly, possibly a very good solution to the ethical debate over the question of embryonic stem cells.

On these forums I've discussed this before. People have hoped that embryonic stem cells would be a solution to many medical problems because of their plasticity, that is, their ability to differentiate into many different types. In fact, embryonic stem cells can potentially become any type of cell.

The ethical problem, however, has made many people, including myself, very reserved about using them, because it requires the destruction of an embryo.

Adult Stem Cells, by contrast, have never been an ethical problem. The problem is with their plasticity, which was usually considered to be very limited. In discussions on this board, I had offered for discussion news stories which showed that adult stem cells have far more plasticity than was previously thought, for instance, that olfactory stem cells can turn into multiple types of cells. Adult stem cells also have one more advantage-- since they can be harvested from the person who needs them, it is much less likely that one's body will reject them.

This advance seems to be a potential solution of the problem-- adult stem cells which can potentially differentiate into any cell.

The article mentions this and adds another piece of information:

Genetically matched cells would not be rejected by the immune system if used as replacement tissues for patients. Even more important, scientists say, is that genetically matched cells from patients would enable them to study complex diseases, like Alzheimer’s, in the laboratory.

The biggest problem, though, is this:

Another caveat is that, so far, scientists use a type of virus, a retrovirus, to insert the genes into the cells’ chromosomes. Retroviruses slip genes into chromosomes at random, sometimes causing mutations that can make normal cells turn into cancers.

As a note, the Dr.'s who are doing this may have a solution:

But even the retrovirus drawback may be temporary, scientists say. Dr. Yamanaka and several other researchers are trying to get the same effect by adding chemicals or using more benign viruses to get the genes into cells. They say they are starting to see success.

The article notes that the rate of cancer in Dr. Yamanaka's mice experiment was fairly high.

Nevertheless, it is potentially a real solution to both a medical and ethical problem. I hope it does work.

Comments?

-Rob

Note: This is not a topic to argue the morality of embryonic stem cell research.

This is quite interesting, although I don't have any problems with embryonic stem cell research, this could potentially solve the problems many people have.

Hopefully the doctors will be able to fix the problem with the virus, this looks very promising.

Good news for the industry. I never had any ethical problems with embryonic stem cells, but if this ends up panning out it would get rid of most people's reservations. With luck that would get rid of laws limiting/banning stem cell research.

But...but...this is news that virtually everybody should agree on! I feel cheated, next time more controversy plz

I guess the potential solution to the stem cell debate is a good thing, but it really doesn't seem like something that can spark discussion any deeper than an "Oh, that's nice."

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Good news for the industry. I never had any ethical problems with embryonic stem cells, but if this ends up panning out it would get rid of most people's reservations.

Indeed.

With luck that would get rid of laws limiting/banning stem cell research.

Are there really laws that do that? I had thought that embryonic stem cell research was legal, but generally unfunded federally (except for a small bit). As far as I know adult stem cells are quite legal. I'm not sure that any laws would have to change.

Originally Posted by Homarid

But...but...this is news that virtually everybody should agree on! I feel cheated, next time more controversy plz

I guess the potential solution to the stem cell debate is a good thing, but it really doesn't seem like something that can spark discussion any deeper than an "Oh, that's nice."

It's nice to have a non-controversial topic occasionally. You're probably right about the discussion though-- my topics tend to bomb out fairly quickly.

GDwarf et al. have responded the same. I think it also can be a discussion of cooperation in politics. If X and Y can both achieve end Z, but X is deemed unethical or immoral by a substantial subset of the population, then it would seem to be reasonable decision for those people who do not have ethical problems with X to, nevertheless, abandon X, in the interest of the community. Obviously, it becomes more and more reasonable the closer Y approaches to X in efficiency, which would seem to be nearly equal in this case (and perhaps greater).

-Rob

I'm curious as to how they are actually doing this. Once cells differentiate, it is hard to force them to become anything else. There are various nuclear factors and other proteins within a cell that regulate and maintain a cell's differentiated state. I don't see how these new genes are going to be able to make the various repressor proteins and transcription factors that bind to DNA suddenly disappear or become detached from the DNA.

I'd really need to read the paper, the news article is too vague when it comes to the science behind it.

While the embryonic side of the debate, it opens up an entirely new one on eugenics and social engineering.

Originally Posted by MMKB

I'm curious as to how they are actually doing this. Once cells differentiate, it is hard to force them to become anything else. There are various nuclear factors and other proteins within a cell that regulate and maintain a cell's differentiated state. I don't see how these new genes are going to be able to make the various repressor proteins and transcription factors that bind to DNA suddenly disappear or become detached from the DNA.

I'd really need to read the paper, the news article is too vague when it comes to the science behind it.

I could be wrong-- but I believe this is the article.

Happy reading.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

While the embryonic side of the debate, it opens up an entirely new one on eugenics and social engineering.

I'd be happy to discuss any issues you could bring up.

-Rob

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Are there really laws that do that? I had thought that embryonic stem cell research was legal, but generally unfunded federally (except for a small bit). As far as I know adult stem cells are quite legal. I'm not sure that any laws would have to change.

That would indeed seem to be the case, evidently I was mistaken.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

I could be wrong-- but I believe this is the article.

Happy reading.

Great, thanks! I'll take a read of it later tonight.
I'm only a first year biology undergrad, so I'm hoping I can understand enough of the technical details to see how they got around the various problems.
Once I've done genetics next year I should have a pretty good grasp of the science behind papers like this.

the solution would be to take cells from a human and to apply the retrovirus outside of the body and to "breed" the cells until the cancerous cells can be differentiated from the others and eliminated.

that's a bit more tricky though

Originally Posted by MMKB

Great, thanks! I'll take a read of it later tonight.
I'm only a first year biology undergrad, so I'm hoping I can understand enough of the technical details to see how they got around the various problems.
Once I've done genetics next year I should have a pretty good grasp of the science behind papers like this.

Yep. I looked through it and thought, mmmh, that's nice. And then I got distracted by the pretty graphs.

I try my hardest.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

the solution would be to take cells from a human and to apply the retrovirus outside of the body and to "breed" the cells until the cancerous cells can be differentiated from the others and eliminated.

that's a bit more tricky though

I feel as if I've come in halfway in this. Forgive me, but I'm not sure what you mean. The solution to what? If you could explain a bit more for me, I'm sure I'd get it (and perhaps any readers who are also perplexed).

-Rob

Originally Posted by Bobslob

I feel as if I've come in halfway in this. Forgive me, but I'm not sure what youmean. The solution to what? If you could explain a bit more for me, I'm sure I'd get it (and perhaps any readers who are also perplexed).

-Rob

let the cells multiply outside fo the body and cull the cancerous ones.

and yes I know, easier said than done.

Wow... if they are figuring out how to MAKE and edit cells, I really don't think it's that far off that we could be able to make people in machines. >.>