×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Successful Stem Cell Replacement of Windpipe

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the difficult-to-gasp dept.

Biotech 116

thepacketmaster writes "In what is being hailed as a medical milestone, CNN reports a woman suffering from long-term tuberculosis had her lower trachea and bronchial tube replaced by tissue grown from her own stem cells. A team from the universities of Barcelona, Spain; Bristol, England; and Padua and Milan, Italy, decided to go ahead with the surgery instead of having to remove her left lung. The operation, reported Wednesday in the British medical journal The Lancet, has been hailed as a major leap for medicine that could offer new hope for patients suffering from serious illness."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

116 comments

!embryonic (4, Informative)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823475)

I just feel like I should point this out before someone decides to go on a rant about embryonic SC.

Re:!embryonic (3, Insightful)

fish_in_the_c (577259) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823505)

which makes a reasonable argument against doing something morally questionable and that upsets lots of people, if you can get the same or better resaults without it.

Re:!embryonic (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25823653)

There's nothing morally questionable about using embryonic stem cells, and just because it upsets certain people doesn't make it so.

Re:!embryonic (5, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823689)

Humm. So you decide what is moral and not for the planet?
Interesting.....

Re:!embryonic (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25823783)

If you believe that a dozen undifferentiated cells constitute a human being, that's your problem.

Re:!embryonic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25824609)

Parent AC modded flamebait why? FYI, it's the truth.

Re:!embryonic (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25825055)

I'm a biologist. I consider an undifferentiated ball of frog cells at the equivalent stage a frog individual. Later this week my students will be using corn kernals in a genetics experiment, because they are individual corn plants. Why make an exception for humans? Now, you can argue about wheather undeveloped humans deserve protection, but that they are human on a basic level isn't at issue.

Re:!embryonic (3, Insightful)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25825301)

Why make an exception for humans?

Well, I think it's the other side that's making an exception for humans. The only time anyone has a problem with harvesting ES cells is when it's from a human blastula. "Human" means more than a genetic identity. It's not illogical to say a human blastula may not have human rights, because it's not a "Human" in that sense, even though biologically it is an individual human embryo.

I'm not endorsing that view, for the record.

Re:!embryonic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25826001)

A biologist that says "kernals". Right. Extremely believable. GTFO, troll.

Re:!embryonic (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25826453)

I'm a biologist.

I doubt that.

I consider an undifferentiated ball of frog cells at the equivalent stage a frog individual

That is part of why I doubt it, especially since we are talking about mammals & not amphibians, so they don't have "equivelant" stages.

Why make an exception for humans?

Mammal. Amphibian. Different.

but that they are human on a basic level isn't at issue.

A single strand of my hair is enough to say it is a HUMAN hair. So at a basic level, my hair is of a human TYPE, but few would be foolish to argue that a strand of hair is, in itself, A human.

I feel badly for your alleged students.

Re:!embryonic (3, Informative)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25827563)

That is part of why I doubt it, especially since we are talking about mammals & not amphibians, so they don't have "equivelant" stages

Way off. Embryology is very heavily conserved, such that while there are clear differences, there are also clear similarities. An egg gets fertilized to make a one cell stage, cell division makes a hollow space called the blastula stage, the part that becomes the embryo is one cell layer thick. A pocket forms that becomes the gut, that's the gastrula stage. The part of the embryo that becomes the central nervous system makes a tube, that's the neurula stage.

After that point, things start to diverge more, but up until that point the two do have the same stages.

Here are some pictures of blastulas.

http://www.bootstrike.com/Genetics/StemCells/images/human_blastocyst.jpg [bootstrike.com]

http://porpax.bio.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/devel/human_blastula_removed.gif [miami.edu]

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/PDS/PDS139/microscopic-image-frog_~AA003891.jpg [fotosearch.com]

http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/electron/frog_blastula_composite_image_x350.gif [bates.edu]

As you can see, quite similar. There are certainly equivalent stages.

Here's a wiki page on "embryo" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo) Notice it says just "animals," many places and doesn't specify which species? It's not laziness.

Maybe you should take his class?

Re:!embryonic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25825623)

I wish we could invent a way to send light back in time. Then you could have a perfectly moral assassination weapon, by destroying people right when they were conceived.

If you believe that such a thing would be immoral, that's your problem.

Every Sperm Is Sacred [w/YouTube link] (0)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#25826209)

Men neighbours: [peering out of toilets] Every sperm is sacred [youtube.com] / Every sperm is great
Women neighbours: [on wall] If a sperm is wasted
Children: God get quite irate.

Priest: [in church] Every sperm is sacred.
Bride, Groom: Every sperm is good.
Nannies: Every sperm is needed
Cardinals: [in prams] In your neighbourhood!

Children: Every sperm is useful / Every sperm is fine
Funeral Cortege: God needs everybody's.
First Mourner: Mine!
Lady Mourner: And mine!
Corpse: And mine!

Re:!embryonic (1)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 5 years ago | (#25828501)

A dozen undifferentiated human cells constitute a human lifeform. If it's not human, what is it then?

Re:!embryonic (1, Interesting)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823795)

Humm. So you decide what is moral and not for the planet?
Interesting.....

Re:!embryonic (0, Redundant)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25824205)

Mods, that wasn't redundant, that was pointing out hypocrisy. "You can't decide what's moral for everyone! I'm the only one that gets to do that!"

Re:!embryonic (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25825039)

Only it's not a hypocritical statement at all. LWATCDR and fish_in_the_c aren't claiming that it's amoral (that would be hypocritical); they're claiming that it's morally questionable.

"Morally questionable" isn't a judgment call. It doesn't mean "sort of moral". It means people are questioning its morality, and you can find people who question the morality of embryonic stem cells in droves.

Re:!embryonic (0, Redundant)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25825353)

Semantic and moral arguments aside, the post (and now MY post) is not redundant, it had a unique point.

Re:!embryonic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25828363)

Well, your post is either redundant (because it's explaining, and thus reiterating the parent post) or off-topic (because it's discussing the modding system).

The post in question is arguable, but I won't fault the mods for marking a post as redundant when it can easily be read as "I know you are, but what am I!"

Re:!embryonic (1)

fish_in_the_c (577259) | more than 5 years ago | (#25825351)

well, what is moral is moral and what is not is not.
so, I don't have to decide anything for anyone, the facts will not change regardless of what i decide. We may disagree on what the facts actually are, but that is an entirely different discussion.

Re:!embryonic (3, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25826189)

Humm. So you decide what is moral and not for the planet?
Interesting.....

I'm going to wait to see who actually attempts to impose their opinion on someone else by either requiring or prohibiting some action before I say who thinks they decide what is moral and not for the planet.

Oh that's right, I don't have to wait.

Re:!embryonic (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#25827679)

Right. The infants in question have already been Imposed Upon and foully murdered, obviously.

...

...

(Disclaimer: This post is not meant to serve as a real criticism of the use of embryonic stem cells by equating them to murder. It is instead intended to point out that the notion of "imposing your opinion upon someone else" works both ways, the outstanding issue tracing itself back to the "is this a human with rights" question which is so fantastically controversial, and that as such attempting to paint one's self or one's side as morally superior through this mechanism does not work except insofar as one has already accepted that the cells in question are not human beings with rights, at which point the matter is moot.)

Re:!embryonic (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25827961)

Right. The infants in question have already been Imposed Upon and foully murdered, obviously.

(Disclaimer: This post is not meant to serve as a real criticism of the use of embryonic stem cells by equating them to murder. It is instead intended to point out that the notion of "imposing your opinion upon someone else" works both ways

No, that's ridiculous. You are suggesting that embryonic stem cells are equivalent with murder, even if it's a Devil's Advocate position, because otherwise what you're saying makes no sense whatsoever, if you are not considering the embryo to be a full human with rights then nobody else is having anything imposed on them. Those for studying stem cells are not forcing anyone else to do so, those against it are trying to force people to stop. It's that simple.

attempting to paint one's self or one's side as morally superior

Who said anything about morally superior? The issue was "deciding what is moral for everyone" by forcing that opinion on everyone. One side is not doing that. The other is. Whose opinions are in fact "superior" is not the issue. Both sides think there's are. One side feels that they cannot allow anyone at all to act contrary to their opinion.

Re:!embryonic (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#25829575)

I am pointing out that there are those who actually believe that embryos are people, and that people using that world view can say that those who are doing embryonic stem cell research are imposing their will upon other people (though admittedly not, as you pointed out in your original post, "through requiring or prohibiting some action", but rather by taking some action). However, the post was not meant to be an argument in support of that point of view (although it contained an argument for that point of view).

As for your own language, though you stay away from any explicit attacks, your characterization of the opponents of embryonic stem cell research as "imposing their will on the entire planet" and "cannot allow anyone at all to act contrary to their opinion" seems hard to take in any way other than a negative one. The snarky tone of the "Oh, that's right, I don't even have to wait" comment reinforces this. This characterization is the focus of my criticism of your post as an attempt to position one side as "morally superior" independent of the moral question of the question of embryonic stem cells themselves. It is an appeal to some vague standard outside the conflict, presenting one side as in compliance, the other not, and it leaves the vague suggestion that one is righter than the other because of this.

In another way, the very language used is an attack, specially with regards to your characterization of the movement you criticize. You say "they cannot allow anyone at all to act contrary to their opinion", which paints a picture of one side chaining the whole world in shackles. Suppose, however, that someone were to call for an end to death by stoning - which is still practiced in some parts of the world. To characterize this as "one side cannot allow anyone at all to act contrary to their opinion" might technically be true, but it is a characterization that presupposes that the rest of the world would be acting within normal rights to be engaging in stoning, and that this prohibition would be some sort of fence upon the behavior of the world's populace at large. Likewise, applying such claims the hardcore PETA vegans (whose views I do not share) who claim that animals are people and that exploiting them and eating meat/dairy/etc would be to neglect the nature of their quest - some manner of liberation, or at least protection, of something, and would be disrespectful to them and to their cause, whether or not their moral philosophy is justified, or their proposed measures are desirable. Further notable characterizations of a similar nature (though more overt and extreme) which one may encounter include that of anti-abortion groups as backwards anti-feminist woman-haters (or similar) and that of pro-abortion groups as evil baby-hating monsters. While rhetorically powerful, they miss (often deliberately) the reality of the views generally held by such groups, and are intellectually dishonest.

You may, of course, disagree with the anti-embryonic-stem-cell movement, criticize them as wrong and misguided, accuse them of holding back the progress of science and improvements to medical technology and living standards around the world for a trifling artifact of a religious philosophy which ought to be discarded, or any number of things to that effect. But presenting their feelings as a desire for some special constraints to be placed upon every individual on the planet and exact some form of Compliance is simply untrue, and to claim that you are holding yourself off in some "neutral" territory while making such a claim is some form of falsehood.

Re:!embryonic (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 5 years ago | (#25827423)

The world doesn't give a damn about you. Do what you want. It's the same result in the end anyway, as far as I can see.

Re:!embryonic (1, Informative)

AhtirTano (638534) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823809)

The fact that you thinks its moral, and someone else thinks its immoral is exactly what makes it morally questionable. If you both agreed, it wouldn't be questionable anymore, it would be definitively moral or immoral.

Re:!embryonic (1, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#25824003)

So if someone thinks allowing people with genetically inheritable diseases to produce offspring is immoral, does that make the entire idea morally questionable? I don't think so...

Re:!embryonic (2, Insightful)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 5 years ago | (#25824105)

My wife and I decided to have another child, which we knew would be born by C-section and bottle-fed. Consequently, she was permanently banned from one of her parenting forums for making such an immoral and obviously unsafe decision.

Pretty sure it's not, though.

Believing something to be true doesn't make it true.

Re:!embryonic (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25825525)

Consequently, she was permanently banned from one of her parenting forums for making such an immoral and obviously unsafe decision.

Is it possible she was banned for being a jerk about it? I can't imagine they'd even know if she didn't get into a flame war over it.

Re:!embryonic (0)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 5 years ago | (#25824451)

So if someone thinks allowing people with genetically inheritable diseases to produce offspring is immoral, does that make the entire idea morally questionable? I don't think so...

Not to drag the latest election into this.
Looking at all the people that said Sarah Palin should have gotten an abortion... Yeah, I'd say that makes it morally questionable to some people.

(An example would be Wonkette saying that Palin's Down-baby wishes it would have been aborted)

Re:!embryonic (2, Insightful)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 5 years ago | (#25824865)

I know I'm probably going to get modded down for this, but it needs to be said:

The only thing "questionable" about Wonkette saying what she said, is the question of how hard Wonkette should be Donkey Punched for saying something like that about somebody else's baby.

I don't care what your political affiliations are, that is just VILE to say that someone's baby wishes they were aborted. I would expect that on /b/. Not from Wonkette.

(Or maybe I SHOULD expect it. Is her site that bad on a regular basis?)

Ok, off-topic rant over.

Re:!embryonic (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25825407)

WHat is someone commits suicide, then can we say they would have wanted to be aborted?

Actually, this is the first I have heard of this.

Re:!embryonic (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 5 years ago | (#25826663)

WHat is someone commits suicide, then can we say they would have wanted to be aborted?

Actually, this is the first I have heard of this.

The quote goes as follows:

Little baby Trig must be so glad he wasnâ(TM)t aborted for this, his first Halloween, because his parents dressed him up like a political party symbol to be carried around at snarling political events. Aww. Isnâ(TM)t life just grand?

And HERE [wonkette.com] is the link.

Re:!embryonic (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25826461)

Wait, there's someone (presumably a woman) who calls herself wonkette? Hey, is she the crazy chick from the View who thinks that the world is flat and Christianity is the oldest religion?

Re:!embryonic (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 5 years ago | (#25826299)

Skinheads think it's immoral to allow white people to marry black people and pollute their racial purity. Therefore, it is a morally questionable practice?

Re:!embryonic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25825355)

There's nothing morally questionable about using embryonic stem cells

Only if you have no morals.

What is wrong with ESC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25825645)

What is wrong with it then?

Please, enlighten me as to why it is "sickening, the devils work, EVIL!".
Note: if these are your "reasons", don't bother replying, because those aren't reasons.

Re:!embryonic (1)

fish_in_the_c (577259) | more than 5 years ago | (#25825569)

If the stem cell are gathered through the destruction of human embryos, not always the case, it is most certainly morally questionable.

Unless of coarse either you believe human embryos are not human ( an oxymoron) or that the destruction of whole human beings is not morally questionable, neither of which are facts that hold up to objective scrutiny.

Last I checked the beginning of the mammalian life cycle was well established.,
Do you suggest some other objectively measurable criteria for establishing the humanity of a unique individual, that doesn't require injecting a religious opinion about when the mammal of type human somehow becomes a person or is 'ensouled'.

Re:!embryonic (4, Insightful)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823859)

which makes a reasonable argument against doing something morally questionable and that upsets lots of people, if you can get the same or better resaults without it.

For specific areas where adult stem cells make sense and indeed have advantages that hardly needs saying.

Of course you have to acknowledge that embryonic stem cells are different and may provide viable treatments in areas where adult stem cells won't work for some reason.

Re:!embryonic (0, Offtopic)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823937)

You're wrong.

He doesn't have to acknowledge anything, if he doesn't want to. That's what Slashdot is all about.

Re:!embryonic (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 5 years ago | (#25824259)

That's what Slashdot is all about.

That and moronic, pointless posts that don't contribute anything to the area under discussion..

Actually, it does need saying... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25825967)

> Of course you have to acknowledge that embryonic stem cells are different and may provide viable treatments in areas where adult stem cells won't work for some reason.

We have many proven cases of adults stem cells being superior (because of rejection and because they're partially differentiated and therefore less likely to cause nasty things like teratomas [wikipedia.org]).

While I'm willing to acknowledge that they might be a superior treatment, I would need medical evidence before making that conclusion.

As best I can tell, the only thing they're better at is what they can differentiate into. And that's a severe disadvantage for any treatment I've seen proposed.

Do you have any actual evidence that embryonic stem cells are better at curing people? Do you have any treatments where, in spite of rejection problems, embryonic stem cells are preferred to adult stem cells? Or am I supposed to accept the supposition that they might be better in place of evidence?

Re:!embryonic (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25823903)

which makes a reasonable argument against doing something morally questionable and that upsets lots of people, if you can get the same or better resaults without it.

... sure, if you ignore the fact that it was that "morally questionable" research which lead to the ability to do this. Without the embryonic research, the state of the art may have never progressed to the point where embryonic cells are not needed.

What if there had been no ban? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25827567)

> Without the embryonic research, the state of the art may have never progressed to the point where embryonic cells are not needed.

Actually, the ban on using ESCs is probably what pushed the ASC treatment to this level. At the outset, scientists were always claiming that ESCs were better because they were fully undifferentiated and they were most eager to study those. But once they needed a replacement, they turned to ASCs and research since then has shown them to be the superior treatment option because they aren't rejected by the body the way ESCs are and because they don't have the same proclivity to cause tumors the way ESCs do.

So you should thank them for putting science on the right track. No matter what actors like Reeve may claim, we're years closer to actual cures thanks to this than we would be if we wasted all our time on ESCs, when none of that research has lead to promising treatments.

Re:!embryonic (4, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823951)

From what some friends of mine at Bristol Uni have been saying, yes this was done with non-embryonic stem cells, but embryonic stem cells would raise the likelihood of success in such cases as they are more likely to adapt to the required level.

And as to whether or not usage of embryonic stem cells is morally questionable, doesn't that depend on a huge set of variables, such as how the cells are harvested (you can save embryonic stem cells from the birth of a living baby for example), and your own personal beliefs?

Re:!embryonic (4, Interesting)

HanClinto (621615) | more than 5 years ago | (#25825289)

but embryonic stem cells would raise the likelihood of success in such cases as they are more likely to adapt to the required level.

IANAB (I am not a biologist), but if the possibility set of the patient-harvested polypotent stem cells include trachea cells, I don't see why you would need pluripotent stem cells in order for it to be a "success"?

Sadly, your friends are wrong in that if embryonic stem cells had been used in this case, that it somehow would have had a higher chance of success. The very fact that the safer and stabler ASCs (adult stem cells) were used in this operation means that the patient won't reject the organ, and the patient won't get cancer. Embryonic stem cells are too unstable in their pluripotency for them to be usable, and always go cancerous (tumor rates is one of the measures that is used to determine how well the embryonic cells have been accepted by the test mice/rats -- more tumors means that more embryonic cells lived).

you can save embryonic stem cells from the birth of a living baby for example

Sorry, but you cannot harvest truly pluripotent cells without destroying the embryo. You can get polypotent ASCs that are very nearly the equivalent of pluripotent embryonic stem cells by using cord blood stem cells, but you cannot actually gain pluripotent stem cells without destroying the living organism.

This is why many people (such as myself) are truly puzzled as to why so many people aren't more excited about ASC research -- it is usable today, and the cancer and rejection risks are so much lower than ESCs. As you noted, ASCs harvested from live births through cord blood have more than enough polypotency to treat even many neurological disorders, and they are far superior in their cancer-potential-stability.

Re:!embryonic (2, Interesting)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 5 years ago | (#25828287)

Well one question I would wonder about is what do you do if you need a cell from another germ layer. Basically you can divide up cells in any animal (well except coral) as being derived from one of 3 layers, mesoderm, endoderm, and ectoderm. Bone marrow (which is what they used) and connective tissue are both mesoderm so it was a bit of a stretch but not totally unthinkable you could get one from the other. However it's a bigger stretch to get say bone marrow(mesoderm) to say endoderm(Liver or lungs just to name two.) Of course pleuripotent stem cells could generate any of these layers but then you'd have rejection problems. (I think you can get around that by theraputic cloning but that's almost certainly going to dredge up loads of ethical issues.)

Re:!embryonic (3, Interesting)

HanClinto (621615) | more than 5 years ago | (#25828517)

Therapeutic cloning has a host of problems all its own -- in addition to the fact that "there is no such thing as a normal clone", the large number of donor embryos that would be required for ever person treated. We have a limited supply of unused living human embryos that we've built up over the years through IVF treatments, but if therapeutic cloning became widespread, there's no way IVF surplus would keep up with the demand. Harvesting aborted humans is another option, but that wouldn't work so well for the cloning part since the aborted organism is largely dead, and is often aborted later on in the development cycle, when performing a wholesale cloning operation is no longer feasible (though I've heard things about some clinics being able to offset costs by selling aborted human embryonic biomatter for research).

Cord blood is a great way to get near-pluripotent ASCs that still maintain most of an ESC's potentiality, but have increased availability and the added stability of being further on down the specialization line. Increased supply means increased odds of finding a matching donor (similar to how bone marrow transplants are done today).

Re:!embryonic (1)

sameerds (148710) | more than 5 years ago | (#25829431)

IANAB (I am not a biologist), but if the possibility set of the patient-harvested polypotent stem cells include trachea cells, I don't see why you would need pluripotent stem cells in order for it to be a "success"?

Huh? Are you sure you are not a biologist?

Re:!embryonic (1)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 5 years ago | (#25829535)

IANAB (I am not a biologist)

DUAAIYAGTSIORAUYAGTUIMTO (dont use an abbreviation if you are going to spell it out right after unless you are going to use it more than once)

You've typed more than you would with or with out the abbreviation!

Re:!embryonic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25826539)

> but embryonic stem cells would raise the likelihood of success in such cases as they are more likely to adapt to the required level.

But they'd also leave the person on anti-rejection drugs for life to prevent rejection, wouldn't they? It seems like adult stem cells were the better choice, especially given that the cells did adapt to the required level.

But can they replace THIS pipe? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25823745)

http://www.goatse.cx

Thank you, thank you...I'll be here all week!

  (This isn't a troll because the site doesn't exist, so do not mod down.)

Re:!embryonic (1)

WgT2 (591074) | more than 5 years ago | (#25830739)

Just as an aside: researchers are going to the government for financing because NO ONE wants to invest in what has already proven to be an abysmal failure.

Re:!embryonic (1)

jcorno (889560) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832167)

I just feel like I should point this out before someone decides to go on a rant about embryonic SC.

If you were trying to avoid a debate, you failed spectacularly.

The score (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25823477)

Adult Stem Cells : Lots
Embryonic Stem Cells : 0

Re:The score (2, Insightful)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25824287)

That's a politically convinient way of looking at it. It ignores the fact that studies on ES cells advanced our understanding of adult stem cells, so the scores are irrevocably intertwined, but I can see why you'd like to ignore that fact.

Re:The score (2)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 5 years ago | (#25824591)

That's a politically convinient way of looking at it. It ignores the fact that studies on ES cells advanced our understanding of adult stem cells, so the scores are irrevocably intertwined, but I can see why you'd like to ignore that fact.

Good thing Bush allowed for federal funding for research on existing lines of embryonic stem cells.

Re:The score (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25830787)

How gracious of him, to only cripple progress rather than halt it entirely.

Re:The score (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 5 years ago | (#25831053)

How gracious of him, to only cripple progress rather than halt it entirely.

This assumption is wide spread, even though it is completely false. Bush is the first president to offer federal funding for any kind of stem cell research. Unfortunately, to this AC and so many like him, to fund something for the first time is to "cripple progress".

Re:The score (1)

AnonChef (947738) | more than 5 years ago | (#25831619)

Or (and this is an honest question) is he the first president to differentiate stem cell research from other cell research?

Seems like Adult stem cells are the way to go. (3, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823489)

No rejection and lots of progress. This is really great news.

Re:Seems like Adult stem cells are the way to go. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25823715)

gentil grande poitrine. du heste kuk suger.

Re:Seems like Adult stem cells are the way to go. (1)

thule (9041) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823901)

The serious problems with rejection don't come from stem cells from your own body. The problem with cells from your own body is the issue of finding a good source. Major progress has been made in finding a good sources of good stem cells from your own body. No real progress has been made in embryonic cells. This is why embryonic has been having trouble finding research dollars. Companies want to put their money to something that is starting to show results. There are plenty of adult stem cells therapies in clinical trials. No trails with embryonic.

Re:Seems like Adult stem cells are the way to go. (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#25826153)

> No trials with embryonic.

Nobody really though there was a future in that direction. Why do ya think they wanted Uncle Sugar to fund it? Plenty of cash sloshing around in any promising line of research yet embryonic stem cell researchers were telling us they were toast unless they could find a government teat to latch onto. Told me everything I needed to know.

Re:Seems like Adult stem cells are the way to go. (2, Informative)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25826227)

I'd point out that ES cells are being widely used for primary research and are giving us new insights into basic cell biology and cellular differentiation. That will inevitably help with adult stem cells.

Also, companies are not the major source of funding in biomedical research, although they do often contribute. Government funding, from taxes, supports far more biomedical research than private enterprises do.

Third, IPS cells, basically cells turned into ES-like cells, are the most promising of all three, although they are the youngest and therefore least developed. IPS cells have the benefits of ES cells without the tissue rejection. So far we've only been able to make them using viruses, but they've only been around for a few years.

Re:Seems like Adult stem cells are the way to go. (2, Insightful)

Phoenix Rising (28955) | more than 5 years ago | (#25826083)

It's good for this application... Let's not get ahead of logic here.

Re:Seems like Adult stem cells are the way to go. (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25832187)

And most other applications!

Like most geeks, I track this topic and hear many more success stories about adult stem cells (mostly derived from the patient himself, or 'autologous') than using embryonic stem cells (actually I don't recall any signal success using ESCs).

This including news from Europe (where there are no restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.)

The world gets it? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823523)

The first 3 comments are all about how adult stem cells seem to actually have ready potential, instead of about how embryonic stem cells would have been so much better (which used to happen in the other 5 articles a lot). Can the world catch up now?

Re:The world gets it? (1)

fish_in_the_c (577259) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823593)

Are you saying embryonic stems cells would have been better? Do they have the same tissue rejection issue solved?
Not that there aren't plenty of ways to get embryonic stem cells that don't involve destroying embryos ( like cord blood.) but that is something often neglected.

Re:The world gets it? (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25826277)

Not that there aren't plenty of ways to get embryonic stem cells that don't involve destroying embryos ( like cord blood.) but that is something often neglected.

Well, if ES cells turn out to be the only way to get replacement cells that you need, it is going to get much stickier. Cord blood would be great for those few individuals who have their cord blood saved. But for those of us who don't, that's not an option. As people are quick to point out, ES cells would be rejected by your body... unless they were from, say, a clone of you...

Fortunately, it's not looking like the only way to repair, say, spinal cords is to clone a person and harvest the clone's ES cells.

Re:The world gets it? (0)

KasperMeerts (1305097) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823657)

I fear not. Most likely, people will have linked "stem cells" with "babykilling" a long, long time ago. It'll take a lot of hammering to get that one out.

A step toward donorless transplants? (4, Interesting)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823661)

FTA:

To create the new windpipe, the team took a seven-centimeter (2.75-inch) segment of trachea from a 51-year-old who had died. Over a six-week period, the team then removed all the cells from the donor trachea, because those cells could lead to rejection of the organ after transplant.

While this procedure still does require a donor organ, it basically only uses the donor as a collagen framework to grow the patient's cells into.

Could the next step be fabricating the collagen frame, perhaps through 3D printing?

Re:A step toward donorless transplants? (4, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#25824099)

So what you're saying is, I can print out my new and improved wang frame, coat it with my special sauce, wait a month or so, and then take it with me to the doctor's office to get it installed?

SWEET!

Re:A step toward donorless transplants? (4, Funny)

TypoNAM (695420) | more than 5 years ago | (#25824531)

'Meat' Printer: ~$2 million dollars from digikey
Wang Frame: $1.89 at wal-mart (sizes may vary)
Special Sauce: 2 minutes?
Doctor's visit: $200 thousand dollars

Scaring the shit out of your woman in the middle of the night with your new found creation called "beast": Priceless...

Re:A step toward donorless transplants? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25825279)

Tell the truth, if it was that big you wouldn't leave the house.

Being a little premature here. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25824549)

So what you're saying is, I can print out my new and improved wang frame, coat it with my special sauce, wait a month or so, and then take it with me to the doctor's office to get it installed?

I think you should probably wait until after it's installed to worry about coating it with your special sauce.

Collagen matrix (3, Interesting)

jfengel (409917) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823669)

I found this part at least as interesting as the stem cells:

To create the new windpipe, the team took a seven-centimeter (2.75-inch) segment of trachea from a 51-year-old who had died. Over a six-week period, the team then removed all the cells from the donor trachea, because those cells could lead to rejection of the organ after transplant.

All that remained of the donor's stripped-down trachea was a matrix of collagen, a sort of scaffolding onto which the team then put Castillo's own stem cells -- along with cells taken from a healthy part of her trachea.

So there's still a donor involved, but there's less risk of rejection. We're still a ways from growing sophisticated organs from scratch, but this is an interesting implementation detail.

Re:Collagen matrix (2, Interesting)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25824447)

Indeed, and what's more, the donation was sort of out of convinience, not necessity (sorta... read on.)

The extracellular matrix that the body makes for its own tissues is pretty complex, I have no idea what our capabilities are as far as artificially producing that, but I would guess we're years off from being able to make a good scaffold in a dish. But it shouldn't be impossible forever. At some point, we should be able to make a scaffold from scratch and then populate them with your stem cells, or maybe get the stem cells to make their own scaffold in a dish before implanting it.

Along those lines, there was a story posted recently about doctors regrowing a man's finger by taking cartilage, powederinzing it, and applying it, giving cells a new scaffold.

Either way, you're right, we are closer to not needing donations.

slashdotters and their interests... (2, Interesting)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25823713)

Somehow, I figured lonely slashdotters would be more interested in this article: Using Stem Cells for Breast Enhancement [wbztv.com]

... which frankly, strikes me as dangerous. If they're replicating stem cells from people who are already at high risk of breast cancer, doesn't that increase it even more (more generations == shorter telomeres)?

-l

Re:slashdotters and their interests... (3, Interesting)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 5 years ago | (#25824797)

If they're replicating stem cells from people who are already at high risk of breast cancer, doesn't that increase it even more (more generations == shorter telomeres)?

Not really. Stem cells, like most cancer cells, produce telomerase and tend to have significantly longer telomeres than surrounding tissue. While this declines slowly with age, the cells in waist fat should be no more dangerous than those in breast fat in the same person.

Oh, and I'm not aware of any definitive link between breast size and cancer risk, so I have no idea if transferring fat from the waist -- who hears talk of belly fat cancer? -- to the breasts poses ay risk in itself. I doubt it, though.

Re:slashdotters and their interests... (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25827161)

The thing is, for these activities, typically you give drugs to the stem cells to make them produce like crazy (like the drugs+aphoresis marrow donation technique). That is what concerns me and was not addressed in the article.

-l

Good point. (1)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 5 years ago | (#25827951)

Now that is an interesting point. I unfortunately do not know enough on the issue to conjecture. I don't know how likely the stem cells are to "wear out early."

I'm going to have to do some reading up on this when I get some free time. Thanks for raising the point.

Re:slashdotters and their interests... (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25825915)

First, there's no proof that tissue created from stem cells is more prone to cancer, at least none that I have ever heard of. Second, you need to realize the very real, and very serious emotional issues that women go through when they are forced into having breast removed. Conciously or sub-conciously, breasts are an important aspect to a woman's feminity and self-esteem, losing one or both can be highly damaging for some women.

If nothing else, imagine if you got your wang cut off in an accident and the doctors told you they could replace it good as new but you'd have a slightly higher chance of getting cancer later in life. Would you really need to think about it?

Re:slashdotters and their interests... (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 5 years ago | (#25826199)

Somehow, I figured lonely slashdotters would be more interested in this article: Using Stem Cells for Breast Enhancement

Lonely slashdotters? My fiance has been asking me about implants for months, and I kept saying "You know, they wouldn't feel natural. It wouldn't be the same."

Suddenly, I can cut all that crap. This is the best news I've heard all year!

Re:slashdotters and their interests... (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25827595)

Believe it or not, I had similar thoughts, though my wife has perfect sized breasts. It will definitely be a hit with the strippers!

-l

Thanks for the definition (1, Flamebait)

TRex1993 (1135915) | more than 5 years ago | (#25824897)

My favorite part of the article is where CNN felt like they had to define what the trachea was. Do people reading the news really not know what a trachea is? That's like telling people that Africa is a continent.

What? Oh. Never mind.

Regrow tooth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25825209)

Can stem cells used to re-grow lost tooth?
 

WHat amazes me is that the insurance companies (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25825265)

don't lobby congress like mad to get stem cell research going in high gear.

replacing a pancreas will be a lot cheaper then treating diabetes for 40 years.

Same thing with any organ.
I predict Heart surgery could become out patient.

Oh, he has heart disease, we can spend 5000 a year treating it, or 10 grand to replace it.

Congress? (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 5 years ago | (#25827457)

They're all very old! You'd think those guys would be at the front of the line to get some new organs grown. Of course, the only reason we don't have a more-or-less perpetual government of the same people is because they haven't. It's bad enough that we have to put up with some of them for upwards of 30 years...

The correct link to the story (2, Funny)

PFritz21 (766949) | more than 5 years ago | (#25825889)

The person who submitted this story should have linked to this one... http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2008/11/19/lah.eod.japan.stem.cell.cnn?iref=videosearch [cnn.com] This one is a video talking about how Japanese doctors used stem cells to grow breast tissue for implants. IMO, this is a WAY more significant. And interesting. And stimulating...

Re:The correct link to the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25826317)

The person who submitted this story should have linked to this one... a video talking about how Japanese doctors used stem cells to grow breast tissue for implants. IMO, this is a WAY more significant. And interesting. And stimulating...

Two words: deep throat.

(Yeah, I know, esophagus not trachea. Just don't get in the way of a dirty joke, yeah?)

New and interesting, but over hyped (5, Informative)

az-saguaro (1231754) | more than 5 years ago | (#25828457)

I have been listening to this story being hyped in the news all day, but it doesn't deserve quite that much attention. While this is a "great case" that most surgeons would appreciate, and a great outcome for the patient, the CNN report (and NPR and others) does what lay media generally do with medical reports - over-dramatize yesterday's news. This is an evolutionary case based on established surgical technologies which have been validated over the past 12 years, not a revolutionary implementation of new science. And regardless if you have any thoughts or opinions about embryonic stem cell research, this is not an embryonic case, it is just the use of autogenous cells to repopulate a regenerative biomatrix.

This is the "new surgery" of the 21st century, a move toward live engineering of living tissues rather than using alloplastic implants. Much of this new surgery is done strictly in situ, inserting an implant, and letting pluripotential cells circulating through the host find the implant and then reorganize themselves into a mature tissue. This works well with connective tissue matrices that will support the ingrowth of "connective tissue cells" derived from the embryonic mesoderm. The items available to surgeons are manufactured matrices such as Integra (Integra Life Sciences, New Jersey), and cadaveric matrices, usually dermis (of human, bovine, porcine, and equine origin, eg from LifeCell, Ethicon, TEI Biosciences, et al). Simply put, we implant these materials to reconstruct dermis, fascias, ligaments, and various skeletal and mesenchymal structures, and human host cells find them and make new living dermis-fascia-ligaments-etc. This works extremely well for reconstruction of skin and musculoskeletal structures. Not much progress has been made yet on the generation of glands and organs (which require function specific epithelial or ecto-entodermal cells).

These technologies and procedures have been a part of regular surgical practice since about 1996. Make no mistake about it - the tracheo-bronchial reconstruction you read about is a great case, but it is just a progressive implementation of existing concepts and methods to a wider range of diseases and indications. There will be more and more and more of this is the coming decades. In fact, existing regenerative materials could have easily made a new trachea-like conduit, avoiding the need for a human anatomical gift or organ donation, except for one thing . . .

The trachea and bronchi need a special architecture to avoid collapse. Because of the Bernoulli principle, these conduits could collapse during inspiration, so nature prevents that by having these pipes surrounded by semi-rigid cartilage rings. Regenerated cadaveric dermis by itself will not work. So instead, these guys used a donated trachea for its gross architecture and mechanical integrity, processed it in the same way that dermal matrices are processed to get rid of cells and immunogens, and then they seeded some host cells, then let it grow in situ. In actuality, the seeding step was largely irrelevant. When collagen-aminoglycan matrices (decellularized cadaveric materials) are implanted, circulating stem cells find them automatically. Pre-seeding could speed up the process by a week or so, but no big deal.

The cells which were seeded were NOT embryonic stem cells. They were just autogenous random marrow cells, some of which will be pluripotential, and able to regenerate tissues according to an embryonic model of tissue histogenesis. Note too that even if these were embryonic omnipotent stem cells, there is no such thing as a tracheal cell. What they implanted was a connective tissue matrix, generated by, and then repopulated by two and only two types of cells: fibroblasts and vascular cells. This is the supporting structure of all organs and tissues. Think of it like reinforced concrete. You can use cement and rebar to make a bridge, a road, a building, and so on, all with different shapes, loads, and functions, but it's all just cement and rebar. The trachea is the trachea because of its shape and what it does, not because its fibroblasts are different than those in skin, joints, stomach, or anywhere else. (Furthermore, when these biomatrices regenerate, the seeding provides only the fibroblasts. The surrounding host tissue supplied the angiocytes.)

So, this is new, but not novel, just another report of these new surgical principles, developed in the mid 1990s, being put into more creative uses to solve ever more complex problems. What is really the most important aspect of this case is that it marries two separate systems and technologies: cutting edge biomatrix regenerative surgery (in situ tissue engineering) with classic organ transplant procurement. It is indeed a great concept, but the popular media's insinuation that this validates applied embryonic stem cell biology is simply misleading and misunderstood.

Re:New and interesting, but over hyped (1)

qc_dk (734452) | more than 5 years ago | (#25830287)

The fact that this breakthrough is built on a long line of research and attempts doesn't detract anything from the acomplishment in my eyes. I know we all love the myth that there are these fantastic breakthroughs in science that spontaneously appear, but it is a myth. Even(I would say naturally) the biggest breakthroughs have been based on a earlier trial and error. Einsteins relativity is bsaed on the work of Lorentz and Minkowski. It is still an amazing breakthrough.

The Millau Viaduct is a great accomplishment even if they weren't the first to think bridges were a good idea.

I know it goes against the american infatuation with the Hero concept. But, that's how the world works. Neil Armstrong didn't invent and build his own rocket and went to the Moon on his own. It was the dedicated work of 1000s of engineers and scientists with the support of the government and the people, building on decades of research. Does that make it less of an accomplishment?

Who cares if the stem-cell grown windpipe is only one small step further based on years of research and practice. It is one step further!

-rant over

Anyhow, thanks for an informative comment.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...