SciTech

Alchemists of Molecular Biology Turn Skin Cells into Stem Cells

pO157.

Posted to SciTech on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 08:03:30 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Scientists on two continents released results in two landmark papers today which will certainly transform the debate on the ethics of cloning and bring hope to thousands awaiting a cure for horrible degenerative diseases or suffering for lack of an organ donor.

In two papers (first requires society membership to see full text [free summary here], second links directly to pdf) published today as part of a negotiated tie, researchers in Japan and the United States described how cells from the skin or connective tissues can be induced to become pluripotent cells -- or cells that may be differentiated into any needed subtype of cells. This is the application of a method first used to transform skin cells in mice about a year ago in which four modified genes carried on viruses were used to induce the change.

This is important because inducing pluripotent cells from a patient's skin could theoretically lead to growth of replacement organs which are recognized as self by the immune system and not rejected. It could remove the need for transplant lists and allow those paralyzed or suffering from degenerative nerve disorders to be treated. Moreover, it does not come with the ethical dilemmas and religious objections that may arise from suggesting the use of embryonic stem cells.

Any therapeutic use of this new method may be years away. The viral delivery method to place the genes in the skin cells is not generally accepted for use in patients due to problems in the past. Once new tools are in place to safely manipulate the genetic material of patients without these side effects the possibilities and new discoveries to come will be quite exciting.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by pO157, science, stem cells (all tags)

This story: 9 comments (3 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Gaaaaahhh

3fingerspointback.

Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 03:08:00 AM EST

none

I need to talk to my dad again, as he is a colleague of Jamie Thomson, and his pathology lab did work on some of the mice from Thomson's study.  The only inside track information I remember from talking with him is that therapeutic use is indeed years away.  It's one thing to generate a batch of your own stem cells, but quite another to get them to grow into something useful--all the stem cells in Thomson's mice expressed themselves as Teratomas (search for images at your own risk).  Any medical use would have to guarantee that the patients should have no fear that a sloppy mass of bone and tooth and hair and brain is growing where their new organ is supposed to be.

(is 3fingerspointback)

2

^ 1

Disregard "technical" part of above post

3fingerspointback.

Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:31:32 AM EST

5.00 (informative)

Conveniently enough, he called me tonight to compare notes on our Thanksgivings, and I got a plain-English explanation out of him that I can still remember at the moment.  What I wrote above was garbage, here's a better overview of the process and the problems:

Both teams arrived at the process of creating stem cells by observing how it's done naturally--that is, how a developing female embryo can create egg cells (which grow into anything) out of existing cells that have already been specialized.  In mice, it was found that by taking cells from connective tissue, then activating four special genes inside the cell via retrovirus, the sampled cells would stop acting like connective tissue and start acting like stem cells.  This was verified by implanting batches of the cells into nude mice and letting tumors grow--only stem cell tumors differentiate themselves into teratomas, so the presence of these tumors was a positive indicator that the researchers were on the right track.

The next step was to see if the same process used on mouse cells would also work on human cells, and sure enough, it does, hence the press releases.  Yay science!  But here is the catch:  One of the genes that needs to be turned on to make this work is a known protooncogene--that is, encouraging c-Myc to express itself inside a body is a quick way to get that body to grow tumors.  So prospective treatments will have to ensure that the elements used to generate the stem cells are not introduced to the host body.

(is 3fingerspointback)

3

What's human?

port1080.

Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 09:09:51 AM EST

none

Leaving aside the issue of embryonic cells for a moment...let's say this process is developed to its logical conclusion, and we obtain the ability to grow replacement organs in a dish.  At what point is this process itself unethical / problematic?  

I think most people would agree that it's not a big problem to grow most organs and tissue, but what if that process requires growing an entire body?  Is it okay to grow brainless clones and keep them "in reserve" on life support, just in case you need an organ transplant after an accident?  What about cloning brains?  

Say someone's young son is in an accident and is clinically brain dead, but the body works.  Would we allow the parents to stick in a cloned brain and start over raising the same child?  Sure the kid's memories would be gone, but in some ways it's not all that different than starting over after a severe brain trauma involving memory loss.  

What part is the part that makes us human?  Is it the brain?  Is it the brain in combination with something else?  Where do we draw the line?  Barring some sort of economic / technological collapse, we're probably only decades away from some really disturbing possibilities (brain transplant, anyone?).  It would be good if we had some consensus on the ethical issues first, before rushing headlong into the void...

4

^ 3

Re: What's human?

WMK.

Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 10:05:18 AM EST

none

I see the big problem with stem cells is that non-scientists lose the point almost immediately and veer off into discussing science fiction scenarios with wacky ethical 'gotchas!'.  

Q: "What if I stick a cloned replacement brain in my sons accidentally de-brained body? - will God be ANGRY?!"
A: The Lord giveth and the Lord de-braineth but then the Lord provideth a new empty brain which surely proveth the Lord is a fucking crazy enigma and that's how HE roll-eth.

Dude, seriously?

Q: "What part is the part that makes us human?"
A: YOU = (your physical parts + your life experiences) * intelligence / (what you've learned +/- how much you've had to drink) * your 'top shelf' repertoire of habitual responses

...Or make your own equation - I tend to believe that without our memories(or our original factory installed brain) there really wouldn't be much of a 'self' present. If you open the case and start popping aftermarket brains in there - you've voided your self-hood warranty.  They should have that disclaimer before each episode of 'PIMP MY BRAIN' on future television.

I love a good science fiction story with creepy visualizations of the protagonist discovering a warehouse full of brainless clone bodies floating in tanks of glowing liquid and then hitting the audience over the head with some sort of 'this is SO WRONG! (and its gross!)' moment.  The problem is that THIS real life stem cell story is nowhere near that cinematic level of emotional payoff for the audience.

What this story seems to say is that some scientists have been able to flip a few genetic switches in mouse skin cells and they turned into Teratomas (read that wiki linked above - these teratomas are a FAR cry from cloned brains, organs, or a satisfying backdrop for heavy handed movie moralizing.).  The scientists were able to flip the same switches in some human cells with the same result  - so great, they can now induce freaky tumors at will - hooray.  

The real story here is how any stem cell news becomes a political football for the religious right to jerk its anti-abortion knees violently.  Some right wing hand waver will undoubtedly point to a press release about this story and start screeching about how they have been justified all along in equating stem cells with abortion and they don't have to feel the sting of any criticism for efforts to block promising stem cell research that might have helped actual living sick people sooner rather than later - you can be a tunnel visioned anti-abortion zealot voter without any moral qualms since non-fetal mouse tumors can be induced in a lab - yay!  The real story here is that politicians will exploit it in order to kill funding for medical research into fetal stem cells, as they have already been doing for years, and use this 'GREAT NEWS: we have discovered a way to give people tumors with eyeballs and teeth!' advancement as a red herring.

"...when theft and high crime becomes obscenely obvious to even the blindest beer sucking idiot, it is always the Republicans who are in office." -- Joe Bageant

5

^ 4

Re: What's human?

port1080.

Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:22:59 AM EST

none

I see the big problem with stem cells is that non-scientists lose the point almost immediately and veer off into discussing science fiction scenarios with wacky ethical 'gotchas!'.

If you'll re-read my initial post, you'll note that I did not draw my points directly from this story. I agree with you that with current technology the points I raised are not pressing, and that a lot of the opposition to embryonic stem cell research has come from unthinking religious luddites. Nonetheless, thoughtful medical ethicists are also divided on the issue, and it's not fair to discount their objections by lumping embryonic research opponents together and then critiquing them based on the lowest common denominator.

Stories like this emphasize that biotech is moving along at a very rapid pace, and hence I think we do need to consider the moral and ethical ramifications now, rather than later. We already have some disturbing ethical dilemmas that we haven't fully worked out (like, is it okay for parents to conceive another child for the purpose of creating a bone marrow donor for a child that they've already had which is ill with cancer?) If these are already issues now, with the relatively limited technology that we have, it's not ridiculous to claim that we need to seriously start thinking about the future.

6

the achievement of the century

gerrymander.

Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 01:30:55 PM EST

none

It's hard to overstate exactly how huge of a step forward this is for medical science. The ability to selectively replace damaged cells would solve a substantial number of the "wear and tear" kind of aging problems: weakened heart muscle, cataracts and other ocular degeneration, burn victims, smokers' lung -- the list goes on and on.

The real beauty is that, unlike similar advancement using fetal stem cells, there's no foreign DNA to contend with; so if/when future treatments are developed which target intra-cell processes, there won't be complications from multiple DNA sources.

As 3fingerspointback noted above, there's still a huge way to go before this advance can become a viable medical treatment. But we didn't stop producing cars just because the first generation were little better than mobile boiler explosions, and we won't stop with this either.

7

^ 6

The achievement of the century...so far

Lou.

Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 05:41:15 PM EST

none

I agree that this is exciting stuff...but I won't get too worked up until I can watch a new heart grow from a sliver of my fingernail on a boring Sunday afternoon.  Now THAT would be something.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

8

^ 7

Re: The achievement of the century...so far

3fingerspointback.

Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:56:51 PM EST

none

Yeah, that sounds cool at first, but the one I put under my floorboards has just been getting louder and louder for weeks now.

(is 3fingerspointback)

9

^ 8

Re: The achievement of the century...so far

Lou.

Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:07:55 PM EST

none

Floorboards?  Well dammit...there's yer problem.  You need a GE Cryogen 3000 freezer to keep organs fresh and ready for use.  See the beauty is you keep the heart in the Cryogen, then you go out on a hell bent for the horizon bender, and when your current heart craps out, boom...you're all set.  Or am I thinking of livers?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

This story: 9 comments (3 from subqueue)
Post a Comment