Nature News wrote that they used human embryonic stem cells, IIRC. Maybe something got lost in translation from Japanese.
Please cure type 1 diabetes.
Hopefully some will recognize the difference between using public tax money to fund the use of stem cells, and simply utilizing stem cells in research. There’s a world of difference between the two for many (most?) people.
Instead they are using pluripotential stem cell. Pluripetential stem cells are found in our red bone marrow. These stem cells becomes our red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets.
It is interesting that they revert adult skin cells back to pluripotential stem cells. It would make it alot easier to cure some types of diseases without having to use bone marrow donors.
Are these Adult or Embryonic? Seems like Adult ones have been in prime time for years and years, and Embryonic ones have been all hype up till now...has Embryonic finally actually produced a benefit for all the hype and Californian tax money?
Placemarker
These are stem cells taken from ADULT tissue, not embryonic, so they're not having the issue of tumor growth.
It appears that the article is talking about 2 separate trials with RPE from different sources.
I’m looking for an older article that I know I’ve seen, but there’s this one
http://dx.crossref.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0037342
Here’s an earlier publication by Takahashi on iPS retinal cells
http://jcs.biologists.org/content/122/17/3169.short
Amazing!