The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
(Page 2 of 2)
The team's first attempt had been with skin cells. Upon hearing that liver cells required less viral integration for effective reprogramming, however, they changed their approach.
The efficiency, as described in latest edition of the journal Science, is still incredibly low. Out of 1 million adenovirus-infected cells, the researchers ultimately produced just one stable line of stem cells. But the line was genetically unaltered, and when the cells were implanted in mice, they formed a cluster of cells that had differentiated into multiple tissue types (a standard test for pluripotency). When the researchers injected the cells into mouse embryos, the resulting mice had integrated the stem cells into a number of different types of tissue, including tissue in the brain, lungs, and heart. And mice as old as 13 weeks remained tumor-free.
Until now, iPS cells couldn't be compared to embryonic stem cells, since the effects of the integrated virus were unknown. "It was like comparing apples and oranges," Hochedlinger says. Now, however, the potency of the two cell types can be evaluated head to head. "You can really think about doing this in a human setting now, and about making genetically unmodified human cells for modeling or even for therapy."
The finding already has other stem-cell experts thinking about the possibilities. "The paper represents a major breakthrough in reprogramming research and proves to the field that we can reprogram cells directly without viral contamination," says George Daley, a Harvard biologist and stem-cell researcher who was not involved with the research. "It is a major step towards making clinical transplantation of patient-specific cells feasible."
Hochedlinger and his colleagues are now working to increase the efficiency of their adenovirus technique and to repeat their methods to create human iPS cells. "Once we do that," Hochedlinger says, "we can figure out whether [embryonic stem] cells and unmodified iPS cells are really identical to each other or not. I don't know the answer yet."
This is a great achievement!
Now, not even some bible thumping mongoloid voter from the deep south can stop scientific progress in fighting disease.
"Ethical gray area" indeed! It annoys me that science journalists have used this terminology.
Having an issue with ethics implies that you actually understand the debate. There is no ethical gray area because the people who oppose this seem to think that science is satanism and go out of their way to not know biology, even from a lay perspective.
ps: mark this down as flamebait or edit it out...but you all know that I am right.
To the contrary, it's a demonstration that taking a hard ethical stand can encourage scientists to achieve their intended outcomes with less side effects. Isn't that a bit like Darwin's natural selection process?
In the article it says, "only one in every 10,000 to 100,000 fetal liver cells can be converted."
Do you really mean FETAL liver cells?
If iPS cells are to be compatible with the patient, such as when they are to be used as part of a therapy for conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, then obviously the nucleus of the cell has to share the same DNA if it isn’t to be rejected. This is now achievable by using the patient’s own cell as the basis for creating the iPS cells. However, isn’t there an inherent problem here? If the patient is suffering from a genetically based condition then by converting ordinary cells, such as their skin cells into iPS cells, won’t it be the case that the DNA in the new cells will still be defective and therefore ultimately undermine the potential therapeutic value of this treatment?
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
bugmenot2
10 Comments
Yayer
When to they start putting them in sports
drinks? FilthyRichmond.com
Reply