Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stem Cell Breakthrough Uses No Embryos
Yahoo! News (AP) ^ | 11/20/2007 | Malcolm Ritter

Posted on 11/20/2007 7:40:45 AM PST by Pyro7480

NEW YORK - Scientists have made ordinary human skin cells take on the chameleon-like powers of embryonic stem cells, a startling breakthrough that might someday deliver the medical payoffs of embryo cloning without the controversy.

Laboratory teams on two continents report success in a pair of landmark papers released Tuesday. It's a neck-and-neck finish to a race that made headlines five months ago, when scientists announced that the feat had been accomplished in mice.

The "direct reprogramming" technique avoids the swarm of ethical, political and practical obstacles that have stymied attempts to produce human stem cells by cloning embryos.

Scientists familiar with the work said scientific questions remain and that it's still important to pursue the cloning strategy, but that the new work is a major coup.

"This work represents a tremendous scientific milestone — the biological equivalent of the Wright Brothers' first airplane," said Dr. Robert Lanza, chief science officer of Advanced Cell Technology, which has been trying to extract stem cells from cloned human embryos.

"It's a bit like learning how to turn lead into gold," said Lanza, while cautioning that the work is far from providing medical payoffs.

"It's a huge deal," agreed Rudolf Jaenisch, a prominent stem cell scientist at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass. "You have the proof of principle that you can do it."

There is a catch. At this point, the technique requires disrupting the DNA of the skin cells, which creates the potential for developing cancer. So it would be unacceptable for the most touted use of embryonic cells: creating transplant tissue that in theory could be used to treat diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's, and spinal cord injury.

But the DNA disruption is just a byproduct of the technique, and experts said they believe it can be avoided.

The new work is being published online by two journals, Cell and Science. The Cell paper is from a team led by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University; the Science paper is from a team led by Junying Yu, working in the lab of in stem-cell pioneer James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Both reported creating cells that behaved like stem cells in a series of lab tests.

Thomson, 48, made headlines in 1998 when he announced that his team had isolated human embryonic stem cells.

Yamanaka gained scientific notice in 2006 by reporting that direct reprogramming in mice had produced cells resembling embryonic stem cells, although with significant differences. In June, his group and two others announced they'd created mouse cells that were virtually indistinguishable from stem cells.

For the new work, the two men chose different cell types from a tissue supplier. Yamanaka reprogrammed skin cells from the face of an unidentified 36-year-old woman, and Thomson's team worked with foreskin cells from a newborn. Thomson, who was working his way from embryonic to fetal to adult cells, said he's still analyzing his results with adult cells.

Both labs did basically the same thing. Each used viruses to ferry four genes into the skin cells. These particular genes were known to turn other genes on and off, but just how they produced cells that mimic embryonic stem cells is a mystery.

"People didn't know it would be this easy," Thomson said. "Thousands of labs in the United States can do this, basically tomorrow."

The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, which holds three patents for Thomson's work, is applying for patents involving his new research, a spokeswoman said. Two of the four genes he used were different from Yamanaka's recipe.

Scientists prize embryonic stem cells because they can turn into virtually any kind of cell in the body. The cloning approach — which has worked so far only in mice and monkeys — should be able to produce stem cells that genetically match the person who donates body cells for cloning.

That means tissue made from the cells should be transplantable into that person without fear of rejection. Scientists emphasize that any such payoff would be well in the future, and that the more immediate medical benefits would come from basic research in the lab.

In fact, many scientists say the cloning technique has proven too expensive and cumbersome in its current form to produce stem cells routinely for transplants.

The new work shows that the direct reprogramming technique can also produce versatile cells that are genetically matched to a person. But it avoids several problems that have bedeviled the cloning approach.

For one thing, it doesn't require a supply of unfertilized human eggs, which are hard to obtain for research and subjects the women donating them to a surgical procedure. Using eggs also raises the ethical questions of whether women should be paid for them.

In cloning, those eggs are used to make embryos from which stem cells are harvested. But that destroys the embryos, which has led to political opposition from President Bush, the Roman Catholic church and others.

Those were "show-stopping ethical problems," said Laurie Zoloth, director of Northwestern University's Center for Bioethics, Science and Society.

The new work, she said, "redefines the ethical terrain."

Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called the new work "a very significant breakthrough in finding morally unproblematic alternatives to cloning. ... I think this is something that would be readily acceptable to Catholics."

Another advantage of direct reprogramming is that it would qualify for federal research funding, unlike projects that seek to extract stem cells from human embryos, noted Doug Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.

Still, scientific questions remain about the cells produced by direct reprogramming, called "iPS" cells. One is how the cells compare to embryonic stem cells in their behavior and potential. Yamanaka said his work detected differences in gene activity.

If they're different, iPS cells might prove better for some scientific uses and cloned stem cells preferable for other uses. Scientists want to study the roots of genetic disease and screen potential drug treatments in their laboratories, for example.

Scottish researcher Ian Wilmut, famous for his role in cloning Dolly the sheep a decade ago, told London's Daily Telegraph that he is giving up the cloning approach to produce stem cells and plans to pursue direct reprogramming instead.

Other scientists said it's too early for the field to follow Wilmut's lead. Cloning embryos to produce stem cells remains too valuable as a research tool, Jaenisch said.

Dr. George Daley of the Harvard institute, who said his own lab has also achieved direct reprogramming of human cells, said it's not clear how long it will take to get around the cancer risk problem. Nor is it clear just how direct reprogramming works, or whether that approach mimics what happens in cloning, he noted.

So the cloning approach still has much to offer, he said.

Daley, who's president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, said his lab is pursuing both strategies.

"We'll see, ultimately, which one works and which one is more practical."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: embryos; stemcells
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last
My bet: Leftists are still going to pursue embyonic stem cells.
1 posted on 11/20/2007 7:40:46 AM PST by Pyro7480
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Coleus; cpforlife.org; wagglebee

Ping!


2 posted on 11/20/2007 7:41:10 AM PST by Pyro7480 ("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

But, but, but, the liberals said it HAS to be from murdered babies. They wouldnt’ lie to us would they?


3 posted on 11/20/2007 7:41:57 AM PST by SengirV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Look at these filthy theocrats - using our own science against us!

This is not good for the sacred cause of Abortion.

4 posted on 11/20/2007 7:43:27 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Scientists have made ordinary human skin cells take on the chameleon-like powers of embryonic stem cells, a startling breakthrough that might someday deliver the medical payoffs of embryo cloning without the controversy.

Ah yes, the medical payoffs of embryo cloning. What were those again?

5 posted on 11/20/2007 7:43:58 AM PST by xjcsa (Defenseless enemies are fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Pyro7480

“Damn. Now we have to come up with some other reason to murder babies. Alternative energy, maybe?”

/Democrat Party


7 posted on 11/20/2007 7:51:49 AM PST by Master Shake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Master Shake

8 posted on 11/20/2007 7:55:46 AM PST by Pyro7480 ("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JackRyanCIA

Nice to see University of Wisc will hold more patents in this procedure. Of course they owned patents on the Embryonic Stem Cell lines and many ‘research’ facilities tried to get around paying royalties. Will be interesting to see what the idiots in California who set aside $3 billion for their own stem cell iniative will do. In any event, this is wonderful news because my son’s endocrinologist has always been saying that the rejection problem of using someone elses cells to cure diabetes would creat as many problems as they solve. I.e. having to take powerful/expensive inmmuno suppresetn drugs for the rest of your life to prevent rejection. This new method will get around that problem.


9 posted on 11/20/2007 7:59:56 AM PST by milwguy (........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
How’s Arnold’s multimillion dollar “investment” of tax money in embryo destruction looking now? Thank God for the native born clause in the Constitution.
10 posted on 11/20/2007 8:00:32 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Now this is research I can back fully. Go science !!! :)


11 posted on 11/20/2007 8:03:30 AM PST by Centurion2000 (False modesty is as great a sin as false pride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
May I use this as an example of perspective on how beliefs can color scientific approach?

Here we find that what might be considered a more moral approach to stem cell therapy actually works. There is a lot of evidence that suggests it may even work better.

Before picking up more activity in armed citizenry and creationism, I posted several articles about other methods to get stem cells besides harvesting embryos. (I can't decide if my favorite source was the liposuctioned fat or the mouse testicles.)

But despite all of these promising areas that were within ethical boundaries, scientists were eager to go down the embryonic road. And people wrote articles and columns decrying Bush as being "anti-science" about it.

I see that as a classic example of how beliefs affect science.
12 posted on 11/20/2007 8:16:38 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Celebrating three years on Free Republic. Woo. (And, yay.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Important Life Ping!


13 posted on 11/20/2007 8:42:44 AM PST by Frank Sheed (Fr. V. R. Capodanno, Lt, USN, Catholic Chaplain. 3rd/5th, 1st Marine Div., FMF. MOH, posthumously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

The scientist who cloned Dolly has pitched that approach and is going into this re-programming technology.

The issue here is that scientists knew that IF this could be accomplished, it would hold a tremendous advantage in that cells from patient A can be used in patient A with no problems of rejection.

The issue always seemed to be that we didn’t know how complicated this process could be and how totipotent the cells would become. That this is somewhat more simple than supposed is astonishing.

I hope this technique is as big a breakthrough as is being touted.

F


14 posted on 11/20/2007 8:47:54 AM PST by Frank Sheed (Fr. V. R. Capodanno, Lt, USN, Catholic Chaplain. 3rd/5th, 1st Marine Div., FMF. MOH, posthumously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

“...cells that were virtually indistinguishable from stem cells.”
Let’s wait until the cells are literally indistinguishable. I think there is a great difference between the two words when it involves medicine.


15 posted on 11/20/2007 8:48:01 AM PST by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; em2vn

By the time they get these cells fine-tuned enough to be useful for treatments, they will be viable embryos. I don’t have a problem with any kind of embryonic stem research, but those who object to stopping the development of any viable embryo in order to use its cells for treatment or research shouldn’t get too excited about this. The rest of us, however, are thrilled that serious progress appears to have been made towards creating genetically matched totipotent stem cells for treatment.


16 posted on 11/20/2007 9:03:04 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
"Other scientists said it's too early for the field to follow Wilmut's lead. Cloning embryos to produce stem cells remains too valuable as a research tool, Jaenisch said. "

An unborn child is just a "research tool" for these scumbags.

Nuremberg Code, anyone?

17 posted on 11/20/2007 9:16:28 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

I was just thinking about that. And it’s billions, about 6 actually. And the money can only be used for embryonic research, so this new stuff won’t get a dime.


18 posted on 11/20/2007 9:26:56 AM PST by oldleft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker; Pyro7480; em2vn
"By the time they get these cells fine-tuned enough to be useful for treatments, they will be viable embryos."

Excuse me, but my impression is that it's exactly the opposite. It's the totipotent feature of embryo cells that makes them such a wild-card in proposed therapeutic use: fingernails, hair and teeth growing in patient's brains, etc. Thr more specific the stem cells is (e.g. pluripotent, multipotent) the more useful it is in actual treatment applications.

19 posted on 11/20/2007 9:28:12 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom...though it cost all you have, get understanding" - Prov. 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Pres Bush approves of this.


20 posted on 11/20/2007 9:28:30 AM PST by RightWhale (anti-razors are pro-life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson