Recently in Stem Cells Category

In an unimposing brick building located in the heart of Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood, lives a repository of information that could lead to the cures for Cancer, Parkinson's Disease, Diabetes, spinal cord injury and a host of other diseases.

 

In early March, when President Obama cleared the way for federally funded stem cell research, he also may have launched Chicago as the world's top supplier of valuable stem cell lines. While many laboratories, genetic and fertility centers store stem cell lines, the difference at Reproductive Genetics Institute (RGI), located at 2825 N. Halsted in Chicago, is sheer volume. This relatively small facility houses over 300 stem cell lines, more than the entire cumulative number of all of the other existing stem cell lines worldwide. 

 

'How can this be?' one asks when looking at the building that would be hard pressed to hold 300 people.  The answer exists in the heart and philosophy of RGI Founder and Scientific Director, Dr. Yury Verlinsky, who opened RGI in 1990 and has spent the better part of the last six years creating these scientific 'lifelines'.  "Our early discoveries of polar body biopsy and recovery are now the standard practice for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) which is used to help screen out genetic disease in embryos.  We continue to be committed to the research and discovery that will allow us to prevent and ultimately cure disease," says Verlinsky. "Stem Cell research is just getting underway and we hope to be able to add to this exciting technology by our existing stem cell lines, some of which represent healthy models, others which contain disease."

 

Such was Verlinsky's plan six years ago, when, as a privately funded facility, he was allowed to use discarded and diseased embryos that had been abandoned or donated by their owners, to create what he believes will contain some of the answers to the greatest dilemmas posed to science and medicine.  Often published and well regarded in his fields of reproductive genetics, cytogenetics and cytology, Verlinsky holds a Ph.D. and has worked as a Laboratory Director for 45 years.  And while the accomplishments of the staff at RGI, made up of molecular geneticists, embryologists and physicians have been considerable, they have been quiet in their pursuits and quieter still in heralding their success.

 

RGI's groundbreaking work in the field helped Denver parents, Lisa and Jack Nash, conceive a healthy child who could donate bone marrow to an older sibling, Molly, who was dying of Fanconi's Anemia. The Molly Nash case sparked a heated controversy, as religious leaders debated the ethics of the procedure. "Ultimately, while they argued, we saved a young girl's life," says Verlinsky with confidence.  Since then, PGD has led to the birth of more than 250 healthy children worldwide who have saved their older siblings from effects of deadly or debilitating diseases.

 

Poised now to face a similar challenge in the newly re-opened stem cell controversy; Verlinsky's lab is hoping to provide a clearinghouse for universities, clinics and institutions worldwide seeking to purchase existing stem cell lines.  "We've done the work, the lines are ready to go and we're excited to collaborate within the community to create more milestones," says Verlinsky.  "We can provide a running start to the research."

 

All from an unlikely, yet solid starting block in the lab 'next door'.

Copyright 2009

###

 

Reproductive Genetics Institute was established in 1990 by scientific director and CEO, Dr. Yury Verlinsky. Dr. Verlinsky, an expert in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), pioneered the polar body biopsy and removal technology that is widely used during PGD today.  With centers worldwide, RGI is recognized as a leading genetics institute for the prevention of genetic disease through PGD, whether the disease is caused by a single gene defect such as cystic fibrosis or chromosomal issues, which includes Down syndrome. With ever advancing techniques, RGI's staff of geneticists, genetic counselors, fertility specialists and embryologists are able to counsel families and screen for numerous genetic diseases including certain cancers, early onset Alzheimer's and other conditions that contain an inherited component. 

 

Reproductive Genetics Institute (RGI) does not provide any general, limited or implied warranties regarding the use of stem cell lines or embryos to create donor matches or genes that are disease free.  Although RGI believes that research on stem cell lines will lead to cures for diseases, RGI does not warrant or represent that any of its stem cell lines contain specific cures for such diseases.  Further, RGI makes no specific claim to being the largest repository of stem cell lines in the world. The information contained in each press release was accurate at the time of issuance, and RGI assumes no responsibility for updating the information to reflect subsequent developments.


Link

 



FOR BLOOD STEM CELLS, THE FORCE IS STRONG
Blood flow, nitric oxide boost production of stem cell

Blood stem cells grow with the flow, two new studies show.

The studies, led by independent groups at Children's Hospital Boston, report that an embryo's heartbeat and blood circulation stimulate the growth of blood stem cells.

The discovery could be a boon to researchers seeking to make blood stem cells for people with blood cancers, immune system disorders and other diseases that require bone marrow transplants. In children and adults, blood stem cells reside in the bone marrow. Only about a third of patients who require bone marrow transplants have matching donors.

"Basically we cannot offer optimal therapy to two-thirds of patients," says Leonard Zon, director of the Stem Cell Program at Children's Hospital Boston, and a coauthor of one of the new studies, which appears online May 13 and in the May 15 Cell.

Scientists can make red and white blood cells easily in the laboratory, but bone marrow patients need blood stem cells to constantly replenish their blood supply. Producing these cells, also called hematopoietic stem cells, is much more difficult, Zon says.

Now, his group suggests that a little force can boost blood stem cell production in zebrafish embryos. Reporting online May 13 in Nature, a group led by George Daley, director of the Pediatric Stem Cell Transplantation Program at Children's Hospital Boston, demonstrates that blood flow also triggers hematopoietic stem cell production in mouse embryos. Both groups found nitric oxide plays an important role.

Daley's group directly tested the ability of blood flow to turn cells into hematopoietic stem cells. The team placed mouse embryonic stem cells in a centrifuge-like device that mimics sheer stress -- the frictional force blood creates when it flows over cells -- in a mouse's aorta. In early embryos, blood stem cells first form on the floor of the aorta. Later in development, they migrate to the bone marrow.

Embryonic stem cells exposed to the same magnitude of sheer stress as found in the mouse aorta produced hematopoietic stem cells. Cells that were exposed to a different magnitude of sheer stress, such as that in the human aorta, did not.
A nitric oxide-blocking drug reduced the number of blood stem cells induced by the sheer stress. Nitric oxide is a chemical produced naturally in the body and is known to be important in regulating blood vessel growth and elasticity.

When the researchers gave the nitric oxide-blocker to pregnant mice, their embryos also had problems making blood stem cells.

Zon's team used zebrafish embryos, which are transparent, to watch the stem cells develop. He and his colleagues found that chemicals that increase blood flow in the tails of zebrafish embryos also boost activity of RUNX1, a master regulator of blood stem cells. Mutant embryos that don't have a heartbeat because of a defect in a heart muscle protein don't make hematopoietic stem cells in their tails.

When the researchers gave a nitric oxide compound to the mutant embryos, however, the embryos produced more blood stem cells. The nitric oxide-blocker also inhibited blood stem cell production, the researchers found. Those findings suggest that blood flow may increase nitric oxide levels, which then boost stem cell production, Zon says.

Intuitively, scientists might expect that mechanical forces play a role in shaping development, but few biologists have studied this due to experimental difficulties, says Ihor Lemischka, a stem cell biologist at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.

"I think we'll be seeing more of these types of studies," Lemischka says.

It's still not clear how the cells sense sheer stress, and researchers are trying to unravel the chain of events between mechanical force and stem cell production in order to manipulate the process to make blood stem cells for transplant.


Link

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                         Monday, March 9, 2009

Remarks of President Barack Obama - As Prepared for Delivery

Signing of Stem Cell Executive Order and Scientific Integrity Presidential Memorandum
Washington, DC
March 9, 2009

Today, with the Executive Order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers; doctors and innovators; patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.

At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions. To regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair. To spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles. To treat Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them.

But that potential will not reveal itself on its own. Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research - from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit - and from a government willing to support that work. From life-saving vaccines, to pioneering cancer treatments, to the sequencing of the human genome - that is the story of scientific progress in America. When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives.

But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research - and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.

It is a difficult and delicate balance. Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.

But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans - from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs - have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.

That is a conclusion with which I agree. That is why I am signing this Executive Order, and why I hope Congress will act on a bi-partisan basis to provide further support for this research. We are joined today by many leaders who have reached across the aisle to champion this cause, and I commend them for that work.

Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No President can promise that. But I can promise that we will seek them - actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground. Not just by opening up this new frontier of research today, but by supporting promising research of all kinds, including groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells.

I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.

This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let's be clear: promoting science isn't just about providing resources - it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient - especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.

By doing this, we will ensure America's continued global leadership in scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs. That is essential not only for our economic prosperity, but for the progress of all humanity.

That is why today, I am also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making. To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That is how we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals - to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives.

As we restore our commitment to science, and resume funding for promising stem cell research, we owe a debt of gratitude to so many tireless advocates, some of whom are with us today, many of whom are not. Today, we honor all those whose names we don't know, who organized, and raised awareness, and kept on fighting - even when it was too late for them, or for the people they love. And we honor those we know, who used their influence to help others and bring attention to this cause - people like Christopher and Dana Reeve, who we wish could be here to see this moment.

One of Christopher's friends recalled that he hung a sign on the wall of the exercise room where he did his grueling regimen of physical therapy. It read: "For everyone who thought I couldn't do it. For everyone who thought I shouldn't do it. For everyone who said, 'It's impossible.' See you at the finish line."

Christopher once told a reporter who was interviewing him: "If you came back here in ten years, I expect that I'd walk to the door to greet you."

Christopher did not get that chance. But if we pursue this research, maybe one day - maybe not in our lifetime, or even in our children's lifetime - but maybe one day, others like him might.

There is no finish line in the work of science. The race is always with us - the urgent work of giving substance to hope and answering those many bedside prayers, of seeking a day when words like "terminal" and "incurable" are finally retired from our vocabulary.

Today, using every resource at our disposal, with renewed determination to lead the world in the discoveries of this new century, we rededicate ourselves to this work.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America.

##



I'm a siner?

The document "Dignitas Personae" can be found here.

Vatican affirms 'dignity of human embryo'

VATICAN CITY (AFP) -- The Vatican on Friday reopened ethical questions surrounding stem cell research and techniques such as cloning with a document affirming the "dignity of the human embryo."

"Dignitas Personae" (Dignity of the Person), the first "instruction" on reproductive technology in more than 20 years, comes as countries including the United States and France prepare to review policies in the controversial field.

The sweeping instruction lists biomedical techniques considered "illicit" by the Roman Catholic Church such as in vitro fertilisation, cloning, the therapeutic use of stem cells, producing vaccines from embryo cells and the use of the "morning-after" contraceptive pill.

Such practices go against the "fundamental principle" that the dignity of the person must be recognised from conception until natural death, it says.

Issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's doctrinal watchdog, the 33-page instruction updates a 1987 document, "Donum Vitae" (The Gift of Life), which asserted the integrity of the human embryo.

The new instruction virtually enshrines the embryo not only as a human being but also as a whole "person" with all the philosophical and legal consequences that such recognition might entail, according to Bishop Rino Fisichella, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

"The recognition is implicit, but we don't get involved in the philosophical debate," Fisichella said as he presented the document.

The document, approved by Pope Benedict XVI, also reprises the Church's condemnation of in vitro fertilisation, while decrying methods that prevent implantation of the embryo or cause its elimination as "falling within the sin of abortion".

"The blithe acceptance of the enormous number of abortions involved in the process of in vitro fertilisation vividly illustrates how the replacement of the conjugal act by a technical procedure ... leads to a weakening of the respect owed to every human being," the document says.

The text also warns against a "eugenic mentality" arising from advances in genetic engineering, saying: "In the attempt to create a new type of human being, one can recognise an ideological element in which man tries to take the place of his Creator."

Catholics are called to abide by such "instructions," which have had practical consequences across the centuries.

The 1987 instruction, focussing on in vitro fertilisation, was signed by the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, during his 24-year tenure at the head of the Vatican's highest rule-making authority.

It had important consequences for Catholic hospitals around the world as they scrapped programmes to help infertile couples, and it affected funding for certain medical research.

While the techniques condemned by the Church are legal in many countries and widely practised, the new document says Catholic researchers have the duty to distance themselves from a "gravely unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the value of human life".

US president-elect Barack Obama, who is to take office on January 20, is expected to act quickly to reverse an executive order by President George W. Bush banning embryonic stem cell research.

Also, French bioethics law is set for review next year.

The Holy See is aware that it is challenging cutting-edge technology, led notably by British embryo researchers, and expects "a variety of reactions," Fisichella said.

"Some will prefer to ignore (the instruction), others will take the easier route of deriding it, and still others will file these pages away as a manifestation of obscurantism blocking progress and free research, but many others will share our concern and our analysis," he said.


I find this ridiculous.

December 4, 2008

Parents Torn Over Fate of Frozen Embryos

For nearly 15 years, Kim and Walt Best have been paying about $200 a year to keep nine embryos stored in a freezer at a fertility clinic at Duke University -- embryos that they no longer need, because they are finished having children but that Ms. Best cannot bear to destroy, donate for research or give away to another couple.

The embryos were created by in vitro fertilization, which gave the Bests a set of twins, now 14 years old.

Although the couple, who live in Brentwood, Tenn., have known for years that they wanted no more children, deciding what to do with the extra embryos has been a dilemma. He would have them discarded; she cannot.

"There is no easy answer," said Ms. Best, a nurse. "I can't look at my twins and not wonder sometimes what the other nine would be like. I will keep them frozen for now. I will search in my heart."

At least 400,000 embryos are frozen at clinics around the country, with more being added every day, and many people who are done having children are finding it harder than they had ever expected to decide the fate of those embryos.

A new survey of 1,020 fertility patients at nine clinics reveals more than a little discontent with the most common options offered by the clinics. The survey, in which Ms. Best took part, is being published on Thursday in the journal Fertility and Sterility.

Among patients who wanted no more children, 53 percent did not want to donate their embryos to other couples, mostly because they did not want someone else bringing up their children, or did not want their own children to worry about encountering an unknown sibling someday.

Forty-three percent did not want the embryos discarded. About 66 percent said they would be likely to donate the embryos for research, but that option was available at only four of the nine clinics in the survey. Twenty percent said they were likely to keep the embryos frozen forever.

Embryos can remain viable for a decade or more if they are frozen properly but not all of them survive when they are thawed.

Smaller numbers of patients wished for solutions that typically are not offered. Among them were holding a small ceremony during the thawing and disposal of the embryos, or having them placed in the woman's body at a time in her cycle when she would probably not become pregnant, so that they would die naturally.

The message from the survey is that patients need more information, earlier in the in vitro process, to let them know that frozen embryos may result and that deciding what to do with them in the future "may be difficult in ways you don't anticipate," said Dr. Anne Drapkin Lyerly, the first author of the study and a bioethicist and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University.

Dr. Lyerly also said discussions about the embryos should be "revisited, and not happen just at the time of embryo freezing, because people's goals and their way of thinking about embryos change as time passes and they go through infertility treatment."

Many couples are so desperate to have a child that when eggs are fertilized in the clinic, they want to create as many embryos as possible, to maximize their chances, Dr. Lyerly said. At that time, the notion that there could be too many embryos may seem unimaginable. (In Italy, fertility clinics are not allowed to create more embryos than can be implanted in the uterus at one time, specifically to avoid the ethical quandary posed by frozen embryos.)

In a previous study by Dr. Lyerly, women expressed wide-ranging views about embryos: one called them "just another laboratory specimen," but another said a freezer full of embryos was "like an orphanage."

Dr. Mark V. Sauer, the director of the Center for Women's Reproductive Care at Columbia University Medical Center in Manhattan, said: "It's a huge issue. And the wife and husband may not be on the same page."

Some people pay storage fees for years and years, Dr. Sauer said. Others stop paying and disappear, leaving the clinic to decide whether to maintain the embryos free or to get rid of them.

"They would rather have you pull the trigger on the embryos," Dr. Sauer said. "It's like, 'I don't want another baby, but I don't have it in me; I have too much guilt to tell you what to do, to have them discarded.' "

A few patients have asked that extra embryos be given to them, and he cooperates, Dr. Sauer said, adding, "I don't know if they take them home and bury them."

Federal and state regulations have made it increasingly difficult for those who want to donate to other couples, requiring that donors come back to the clinic to be screened for infectious diseases, sometimes at their own expense, Dr. Sauer said.

"It's partly reflected in the attitude of the clinics," he said, explaining that he does not even suggest that people give embryos to other couples anymore, whereas 10 years ago many patients did donate.

Ms. Best said her nine embryos "have the potential to become beautiful people."

The thought of giving them up for research "conjures all sorts of horrors, from Frankenstein to the Holocaust," she said, adding that destroying them would be preferable.

Her teenage daughter favors letting another couple adopt the embryos, but, Ms. Best said, she would worry too much about "what kind of parents they were with, what kind of life they had."

Another survey participant, Lynnelle Fowler McDonald, a case manager for a nonprofit social service agency in Durham, N.C., has one embryo frozen at Duke, all that is left of three failed efforts at the fertility clinic.

Given the physical and emotional stress, and the expense of in vitro fertilization, Ms. McDonald said she did not know whether she and her husband could go through it again. But to get rid of that last embryo would be final; it would mean they were giving up.

"There is still, in the back of my mind, this hope," she said.

At the Genetics and IVF Institute in Fairfax, Va., Andrew Dorfmann, the chief embryologist, said many patients were genuinely torn about what to do with extra embryos, and that a few had asked to be present to say a prayer when their embryos were thawed and destroyed.

Jacqueline Betancourt, a marketing analyst with a software company who took part in the survey, said she and her husband donated their embryos at Duke "to science, whatever that means." It was important to them that the embryos were not just going to be discarded without any use being made of them.

Ms. Betancourt, who has two sons, said: "We didn't ask many questions. We were just comfortable with the idea that they weren't going to be destroyed. We didn't see the point in destroying something that could be useful to science, to other people, to helping other people."

Ms. Betancourt said she wished there had been more discussion about the extra embryos early in the process. If she had known more, she said, she might have considered creating fewer embryos in the first place.


Link
This is what they did:

Reoved cells and MHC antigens from a human donor trachea, which was then readily colonised by epithelial cells and mesenchymal stem-cell-derived chondrocytes that had been cultured from cells taken from the recipient (a 30-year old woman with end-stage bronchomalacia). This graft was then used to replace the recipient's left main bronchus.

Result: Functional airway!

Article via The Lancet here

Video via CBS:

A baby who was grown in order to donate umbilical cord blood to his brother was born last week in Spain, and it was widely reported in Spanish media. They are calling him "baby medicine".

I've seen 400+ media coverage articles about the story.
I also received this report regarding Bishops from Spain from hat seems to be a catholic news site.

One of the news articles says (Spanish - sorry - lazy to translate - it's Friday):

El Vaticano ya ha lanzado una voz de alarma sobre el avance científico advirtiendo de que -los beneficios fáciles y la arrogancia de sustituir al Creador pueden poner en peligro a la humanidad."
Rapid translation : I'm a danger to humanity.

"cuando tiene como fin el hombre y su bienestar y el progreso de la humanidad - y precisó que - no es el árbol de la ciencia el que mata, sino la desobediencia"
Rapid translation: I'm disobedient.

"la ciencia - no está capacitada- para establecer principios éticos. -Ella sólo puede aceptarlos en sí y reconocerlos como necesarios para erradicar sus eventuales patologías. La filosofía y la teología sirven en ese momento como ayuda indispensable para evitar que la ciencia proceda en solitario por un camino tortuoso, lleno de imprevistos y de riesgos-
Rapid translation: none

And..

"El nacimiento de una persona humana ha venido acompañada de la destrucción de otras, sus propios hermanos, a los que se les ha privado del derecho fundamental a la vida"
Rapid translation: Too strong. Makes me mad.

"Un acto egoísta"
Rapid translation: I'm selfish?

Specially disturbing, they said, is parents choosing a specific embryo because the child's tissues or organs might save the life of a sick sibling.

OOPS.

The Vatican isn't much for trying to save sick children's lives with embryonic stem cell research or PGD because they both mess with embryos and an embryo deserves the same respect as any adult. This is an old argument.

The best response is a perhaps over-used hypothetical scenario:

A building is burning down. Twelve small children are inside screaming for help. The building also contains a freezer storing a dozen or so frozen embryos. Which do you save first?
said Nancy Koehn, a historian at the Harvard Business School referring to the US bank intervention.

Same should apply for stem cell research. The goal is to cure devastating diseases as soon as possible. 

Link to article.

Valproic acid

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Chemical found to simplify production of stem cells
Harvard team hopes technique cuts tumor risk
By Maggie Fox
Reuters / October 13, 2008
WASHINGTON - Researchers trying to find ways to transform human skin cells into stem cells said yesterday that they found a shortcut by adding a chemical to the cells.
The chemical allowed the team at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute to use just two genes to transform skin cells into more powerful induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS cells.
"This study demonstrates there's a possibility that instead of using genes and viruses to reprogram cells, one can use chemicals," said Dr. Doug Melton, who directed the study published in the journal Nature Biotechnology. That could reduce the risk of tumors developing in the cells.
Melton said Danwei Huangfu, a postdoctoral researcher in his lab, developed the new method.
"The exciting thing about Danwei's work is you can see for the first time that you could sprinkle chemicals on cells and make stem cells," said Melton, a researcher at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Huangfu tried treating the cells first with valproic acid. After she did this, she found it took only two of the four usual genes to reprogram the human skin cells into iPS cells, which resemble embryonic stem cells.
Huangfu said the valproic acid unraveled the chromatin - the physical structure of the chromosomes - making it possible to get in and alter the DNA more easily.
"We may need two types of chemicals, one to loosen the chromatin structure, and one to reprogram. We are looking for that reprogramming chemical, and it should be possible to find it eventually," she said.
Stem cells are the body's master cells, giving rise to all the tissues, organs, and blood. Embryonic stem cells are considered the most versatile kinds of stem cells.
Doctors hope to someday use stem cells to transform medicine. Melton, for instance, wants to find a way to regenerate the pancreatic cells destroyed in type 1 diabetes and perhaps cure that disease.
But embryonic stem cells are difficult to make, requiring the use of an embryo or cloning technology. Many people also object to their use, and several countries, including the United States, limit funding for such experiments.
In the past year, several teams of scientists have reported finding a handful of genes that can transform ordinary skin cells into iPS cells.
To get these genes into the cells, they have had to use retroviruses, which integrate their own genetic material into the cells they infect. This can be dangerous and can cause tumors

Link

A breakthrough, then a surge, in stem cell research

A year after report, research into new type of stem cells continues to grow

Less than a year after a Wisconsin team helped discover a major alternative to human embryonic stem cells, the Madison scientists say more than 800 labs have begun using the approach, suggesting that many stem-cell researchers are starting to move beyond controversial embryonic sources for their work.

Such shifts may reframe the emotionally fraught debate over stem cells--an issue that has ignited passions across the political spectrum. Both presidential candidates have indicated they would lift President George W. Bush's restrictions on research funding, though Sen.Barack Obama has been more adamant than Sen. John McCain.

The biologist doing more than anyone else to stir the debate is University of Wisconsinresearcher James Thomson, who co-discovered human embryonic stem cells a decade ago, in November 1998. Last year Thomson shook the field again when his lab and a Japanese team showed a way of genetically reprogramming adult skin cells to act like stem cellsincluding the ability to form any of the body's tissues.

Some groups that oppose destroying embryos for research have hailed the new cells, called induced pluripotent stem cells, as a way to eliminate the need for stem cell research based on embryonic material. In a rare extended interview, Thomson said he shares some of their qualms but believes the issue's moral and scientific contours have never been more complex.

Thomson still supports lifting Bush's restrictions, he said, because no one knows whether the new iPS cells can match embryonic cells' knack for growing into any kind of tissue--brain cells, heart muscle, insulin-producing cells and dozens of others--in mass quantities.

Some scientists cite this potential in saying the true moral course is to accelerate research on embryonic cells because it might produce transplant tissue for illnesses like diabetes and Parkinson's disease. But Thomson also said many arguments for expanded federal funding have exaggerated the field's short-term promise. Perfecting such techniques could take many decades, he said. "It's certainly going to happen, but it's going to be hard, and people are not prepared for how hard it's likely to be."

The most profound effect of stem cells in the meantime could be to screen new drugs for safety and to gauge a medication's effectiveness on real human tissue without using patients as guinea pigs.

"It simply means that for the very first time we have access to the human body in the lab," Thomson said. "And for drug screening and drug discovery that's going to make a huge difference. When you use one of those drugs you won't know that human embryonic stem cells or iPS cells were involved. It won't make the front pages at all."

With a day's stubble on his chin and flip-flops on his feet, Thomson does not look like the sort of person who could change the world once, much less twice. He grew up in Oak Park and still keeps a beat-up dart board in his office that dates to his high school days. Thomson said he recently found a pay stub for $14 from his first job--delivering copies of the now-defunct Chicago Daily News.

One of his key skills as a biologist is the patient, constant nurturing of cells that other labs have found difficult to master.

"Things grow for me," Thomson said, gesturing to a set of flourishing staghorn fern plants in his office.

He said he's amazed at how quickly scientists have begun exploring the use of the reprogrammed skin cells he reported on last year. "People are jumping in very rapidly, much more rapidly than they did 10 years ago" after the initial discovery of embryonic stem cells, Thomson said.

In all, 812 labs in dozens of countries have requested the materials needed to reprogram ordinary cells into iPS cells, said Addgene, a Massachusetts-based repository for research supplies. By contrast, a half-dozen or so labs started working with embryonic stem cells in the months after his landmark 1998 paper, Thomson said.

In recent months Thomson has been racing other labs to grow an improved form of iPS cells that potentially could be used in human patients. The original method probably could not be tested in people because it relied on a retrovirus to activate a few genes that reprogram the cells.

The first successful attempt to make iPS cells without such potentially dangerous viruses was published online recently in the journal Science. A group from Massachusetts General Hospital grew the cells using relatively safe viruses that can be cleared from the cells once they do their jobs, though the method was not as efficient as existing techniques.

Already, researchers said, iPS cells have proved easier for individual labs to make than embryonic stem cells, fueling the intense interest.

Before the iPS papers, stem-cell research "was still a select fraternity," said Evan Snyder, director of the stem cells and regenerative medicine program at the California-basedBurnham Institute. "Now it's been kind of opened to the masses."

To use embryonic stem cells, labs must either make their own--which requires the destruction of human embryos--or get them from a lab like Thomson's that already has made its own cell lines. Only cell lines made before August 2001 qualify for federal funding under Bush's research restrictions.

With iPS cells, Snyder said, "you can do a skin biopsy on yourself if you want" and use that tissue as raw material for the stem cells.

Many scientists said the absence of ethical concerns over iPS cells also is a draw. "As soon as you have a cell type that is relatively free of this black cloud, then obviously there's huge pent-up interest," said George Daley, director of the stem cell program at Children's Hospital Boston.

Yet no one knows whether iPS cells can fill the same roles as embryonic stem cells, most researchers said. Some believe iPS cells may work differently depending on the type of tissue they came from--that skin cells might be difficult to transform into blood cells, for example.

That's a major reason why Thomson still refers to his original embryonic stem cells as a "gold standard."

"My belief is that if iPS cells turn out to be completely biologically equivalent [to embryonic stem cells], scientists will just migrate to them because they're easier to deal with," Thomson said. "But that may not be true, and we should simply let the science play itself out."