Finnish patient gets new jaw from own stem cells
Quote:
HELSINKI (Reuters) - Scientists in Finland said they had replaced a 65-year-old patient's upper jaw with a bone transplant cultivated from stem cells isolated from his own fatty tissue and grown inside his abdomen.
Researchers said on Friday the breakthrough opened up new ways to treat severe tissue damage and made the prospect of custom-made living spares parts for humans a step closer to reality.
"There have been a couple of similar-sounding procedures before, but these didn't use the patient's own stem cells that were first cultured and expanded in laboratory and differentiated into bone tissue," said Riitta Suuronen of the Regea Institute of Regenerative Medicine, part of the University of Tampere.
She told a news conference the patient was recovering more quickly than he would have if he had received a bone graft from his leg.
"From the outside nobody would be able to tell he has been through such a procedure," she said.
She added, the team used no materials from animals -- preventing the risk of transmitting viruses than can be hidden in an animal's DNA, and followed European Union guidelines.
Stem cells are the body's master cells and they can be found throughout the blood and tissues. Researchers have recently found that fat contains stem cells which can be directed to form a variety of different tissues.
Using a patient's own stem cells provides a tailor-made transplant that the body should not reject.
Suuronen and her colleagues -- the project was run jointly with the Helsinki University Central Hospital -- isolated stem cells from the patient's fat and grew them for two weeks in a specially formulated nutritious soup that included the patient's own blood serum.
In this case they identified and pulled out cells called mesenchymal stem cells -- immature cells than can give rise to bone, muscle or blood vessels.
When they had enough cells to work with, they attached them to a scaffold made out of a calcium phosphate biomaterial and then put it inside the patient's abdomen to grow for nine months. The cells turned into a variety of tissues and even produced blood vessels, the researchers said.
The block was later transplanted into the patient's head and connected to the skull bone using screws and microsurgery to connect arteries and veins to the vessels of the neck.
The patient's upper jaw had previously been removed due to a benign tumor and he was unable to eat or speak without the use of a removable prosthesis.
Suuronen said her team had submitted a report on the procedure to a medical journal to be reviewed.
The purpose of this thread? Rescusitating the stem cell debate. Embryonic versus Adult.
Given the success adult stem cells have had (certainly a lot more than embryonic stem cells), and given the lack of ethical issues (by comparison to embyronic stem cells, which ties into abortion debates and IVF technologies and a whole bunch of stuff that's been talked to death in here before), I must ask...
Why don't we hear the news media talk about adult stem cells more often?
And your thoughts on the necessity of embryonic stem cells, given that adult stem cells have been more successful?
Quote:
Why don't we hear the news media talk about adult stem cells more often?
Quote:
Given the success adult stem cells have had (certainly a lot more than embryonic stem cells), and given the lack of ethical issues (by comparison to embyronic stem cells, which ties into abortion debates and IVF technologies and a whole bunch of stuff that's been talked to death in here before)
Basically when there is no controversy, the news won't really report on it.
Embryonic stem cells is one of those things I do need to look further into to make a decent opinion on it, but I'm generally for it. I suppose.
Losing parts of my body is horrifying; so if stem cells can reverse even that, I'm all for it.
There is a shortage of donors of every kind (I'm basing that fact on the UK) so I too am all for stem cells.
Quote:
The purpose of this thread? Rescusitating the stem cell debate. Embryonic versus Adult.
There is no actual debate. Adult stem cell advocates are against abortion and the only debate is on that. If abortion was not involved nobody would oppose the most obvious answer, which is that science should research both and find many techniques.
Note that it will probably be possible to culture embryonic stem cells independently without abortions if research continues.
Quote:
IVF technologies
IVF technologies are controversial? Huh?
Come on, this is entirely about abortion.
Quote:
And your thoughts on the necessity of embryonic stem cells, given that adult stem cells have been more successful?
They can be used for different techniques so that is like asking for an opinion on cellphones given that desktops have been more successful.
Considering this is about embryos and not developed babies, it is easy to prioritize. Billions of future lives and incredible scientific discoveries that can revolutionize humanity.
Also, the cells are not creating demand for abortions. It's not like if you ban it people will get less abortions.
I don't understand the underlying implication that those of us who are in favor of embryonic stem cell research are against adult stem cell research. If they work to the same effect, then by all means, use adult stem cells. If they do not, then lets continue to work with both types.
I hate it when people create dichotomies that do not actually exist.
Quote:
I hate it when people create dichotomies that do not actually exist.
You shouldn't do it then =D
I don't see it implied anywhere that folks who are for embryonic stem cell research are automatically against adult stem cell research =P
Anyway, on topic.
What JT said about why the media don't talk about it. A large majority of news companies and the like have a general preference for news that's controversial and grabs attention. Or rather, we should probably say that they do talk about such things (I mean, there's an article here about it after all), but they do it in a much quieter fashion than they do with the more sensational stuff.
As for the embryonic stem cell research vs adult stem cell point, I think it's great that adult stem cells are proving to be so much more successful for a number of purposes, and I say if that's the case then it should be continued to be looked into; not least due to the lack of moral and ethical red tape wrapped all over it. However at the same time I'd say it doesn't mean embryonic stem cell research should be completely abandoned - something may come of it too, given time. Although if they can achieve with adult cells what they can't with embryonic ones, then certainly the argument for supporting any such research with embryonic cells starts getting a good deal thinner - after all, why go about doing something in a way that raises moral and ethical debates and so forth when you can do it in a way that's completely legal and raises no issues? If I were a large corporation looking to lend aid to one of the two research fields, I know which one I'd be more likely to choose based on current situations ;p
~SilverShadow.
If you can't see how it was implied, then perhaps reading between the lines isn't your strong point.
Mod FIGHT!
Twenty on Astrid!
~Tobe
Quote:
perhaps reading between the lines isn't your strong point.
Or perhaps I just interpret things differently.
If there's an underlying implication I don't see it. That doesn't mean I can't "read between the lines" as it were, it just means I interpret what I see differently.
Hence the dig at you above - by stating that you didn't understand the underlying implication, you're creating the impression that there actually is one to begin with - or rather I suppose that you believe there to be one. But it's stated in such a way as to make it seem this is the only correct way of interpreting it, and your harsh comment aimed at me that I quoted above reinforces this impression.
I hope now you understand properly what I meant with my original humorous remark.
And Rico, what kind of childish behaviour is this derailing the thread, how could you =(
Someone else put the quarter on the tracks. I just accelerated the train. 
~Tobe
Could this research be used in some way to create zombies? I'm all for a yes here.
(Theres your penny, now stoke the boilers!)
I'm all for Stem Cells (SC). Embryonic are very different from Adult. I'm actually against abortion and think that one should take care of the consequences of ones actions. The SC we use in my lab come directly from aborted fetuses. We don't tell these women to have an abortion. We just salvage what they kill. Holy cow, that sounds far worse and more cruel than it actually is. XD
Anyhow, all over the world researchers are working so we are able to reverse a cell to its origins. Luckily there has been some success in this field. We're now able to obtain epithelial cells and reverse their programming so that they no longer have differentiation constrictions. So 1 point for SC researchers out there. ^_^
Ultra, why do you talk about "embryonic vs. adult" as if supporting one means you oppose the other? It's not like increasing support for ESCR automatically decreases support for ASCR. Unless you're talking about funding. I'm not sure how expensive it is to support but there is some wasteful spending elsewhere that can be cut to make up for at least some of it. Back in high school in the biology lab they had a microscope for every student and we only used them once or twice a year, maybe they could be more careful about spending on those kinds of things... and one hospital I was in once had VIDEO GAMES for me to play in the hospital bed since I was staying for more than a day, and as much as I am into video games, that wasn't needed, it really wasn't. Couldn't they just sell the games and send the funds straight to ESCR?
As for the "ASCR has more success" argument, last I checked ASCR has had decades longer to deliver its results while ESCR is relatively new, (to be fair, I got that from within the Internet, a while ago, and I forget the URL) and if that's the case then it's an unfair comparison. If not, still, just because it hasn't given cures so far doesn't mean it won't in the future, and wouldn't refusing to support ESCR because of the lack of cures if anything be more of a catch-22? Thing is, ESCR actually has MORE potential for finding cures since the cells they use are from before cell specialization, as such can form different types of cells. I can't help but think the whole "more success" argument is more so pushed at first by people opposed to it for other reasons, I mean if they really are personally against it and want less of it, them using whatever arguments they can to convince people against it is something to be expected, even arguments not from ethicality. We've seen this with PETA and their claiming that milk causes zits, etc... and we see this now with opposition to ESCR.
As for the "tie-ins" to abortion and IVF, those might not be as necessary if people would only support the cloning of embryos more. Some say they're "creating human life only to destroy" it, and that that's wrong even if the human life isn't sentient, it's life according to biological classifications. But why? Why should blastocysts be protected at the expense of people with diseases ESCR has potential to cure? If you're supposed to use definitions from sub-branches of science to make an ethical point, what about work? In physics, work refers to the product of an unbalanced force and the resulting motion. So, everything that applies force that results in motion counts as work according to that definition. Should everything that applies force resulting in motion be therefore have a paid wage? Of course not, because there are different meanings to the term "work"; the same applies, there are different meanings to the term "life"; someone's life could also mean the sum of someone's experiences, in which case this doesn't apply to embryos that don't have a consciousness.
And some say tax money shouldn't be used for things people would disagree with. Well, some people disagree with public health care, yet their tax dollars go towards it so you might as well be against public health care if that's your reason.
I keep hearing about church opposition to such and such method, scientists trying to design such and such alternative to the embryos, etc... but why should scientists have to bend to the will of the churches pulling the religious choke chain on ESCR? As for the tone of this paragraph, we've seen some ESCR advocates like Michael J. Fox, for example, trying to be gentle with opponents and he got met with false accusations of partisanship, faking, and half-truth... I think ESCR advocates should fight back.
Quote:
Thing is, ESCR actually has MORE potential for finding cures since the cells they use are from before cell specialization, as such can form different types of cells.
Not forming sides here, but are you saying that adult stem cells can't? By it's definition a stem cell is a cell which can become any other type of cell, regardless of whether it's embryonic or adult.
Matt!! The hospital's own staff most likely brought in those games. Also, the basis for getting paid is doing something someone with money wants you to do, not doing just any work. Also, disagreeing with paying taxes toward one thing is not a reason to disagree with all things taxes are paid toward. If you were implying that disagreeing with something you have no say in the matter of is pointless, that is also false!! due to obvious things.
This was slightly off topic. 
eww i hope we soon dont get like piccolo from dbz...
Quote:
and one hospital I was in once had VIDEO GAMES for me to play in the hospital bed since I was staying for more than a day, and as much as I am into video games, that wasn't needed, it really wasn't.
Happy patients are more likely to recover faster than depressed/bored/sad patients, thus saving monies.
Quote:
Edited by: matthayter700 at: 2/9/08 5:03 pm
no, this is why editing got locked down in marble =/ as such:
Quote:
I don't know how bad the timing is but I'm back for this one Ultra, why do you talk about "embryonic vs. adult" as if supporting one means you oppose the other? It's not like increasing support for ESCR automatically decreases support for ASCR. Unless you're talking about funding. I'm not sure how expensive it is to support but there is some wasteful spending elsewhere that can be cut to make up for at least some of it. Back in high school in the biology lab they had a microscope for every student and we only used them once or twice a year, maybe they could be more careful about spending on those kinds of things... and one hospital I was in once had VIDEO GAMES for me to play in the hospital bed since I was staying for more than a day, and as much as I am into video games, that wasn't needed, it really wasn't. Couldn't they just sell the games and send the funds straight to ESCR?
As for the "ASCR has more success" argument, last I checked ASCR has had decades longer to deliver its results while ESCR is relatively new, (to be fair, I got that from within the Internet, a while ago, and I forget the URL) and if that's the case then it's an unfair comparison. If not, still, just because it hasn't given cures so far doesn't mean it won't, and not supporting it because of the lack of cures so far is a bit of a catch-22. Thing is, ESCR actually has MORE potential for finding cures since the cells they use are from before cell specialization, as such can form different types of cells. I can't help but think the whole "more success" argument is more so pushed at first by people opposed to it for other reasons, I mean if they really are personally against it and want less of it, them using whatever arguments they can to convince people against it would be expected, even arguments not from ethicality. We've seen this with PETA and their claiming that milk causes zits, etc... and we see this now with opposition to ESCR.
As for the "tie-ins" to abortion and IVF, those might not be as necessary if people would only support the cloning of embryos more. Some say they're "creating human life only to destroy" it, and that that's wrong even if the human life isn't sentient, it's life according to biological classifications. But why? Why should blastocysts be protected at the expense of people with diseases ESCR has potential to cure? If you're supposed to use definitions from sub-branches of science to make an ethical point, what about work? In physics, work is the product of an unbalanced force and the resulting motion. So, everything that applies force that results in motion counts as work according to that definition. Should everything that applies force resulting in motion be therefore have a paid wage? Of course not, because there are different meanings to the term "work"; the same applies, there are different meanings to the term "life"; someone's life could also mean the sum of someone's experiences, in which case this doesn't apply to embryos that don't have a consciousness.
And some say tax money shouldn't be used for things people would disagree with. Well, some people disagree with public health care, yet their tax dollars go towards it so you might as well be against public health care if that's your reason.
I keep hearing about church opposition to such and such research, scientists trying to design this alternative to the embryos, etc... but why should scientists have to bend to the will of the churches pulling the religious choke chain on medical research? We've seen some embryonic stem cell research advocates like Michael J. Fox, for example, trying to be gentle with opponents, and he got met with completely false accusations of partisanship, faking, and half-truth... civility doesn't seem to be working. -.-
i'd have loved computer games to play, or even a TV to watch in my short hospital stay a while ago.. it would've been a lovely destraction when you're tired, bored out of your mind and in pain. ^^
Quote:
Not forming sides here, but are you saying that adult stem cells can't?
I guess I misworded that part. I meant to say that because [EDIT: embryonic stem cells are] from before cell specialization they have more potential to form more different kinds of cells compared to adult stem cells.
Quote:
no, this is why editing got locked down in marble
The editing of my post was to fix the wording in cases where I later realized I misworded things. This wasn't very long after I posted the post. It wasn't done to bump the thread. Besides, the whole marble lockdown thing from a while ago didn't seem to make much sense to me anyway. At the time the only posts I ever had in marble were in the religion thread, (that one thread I had already bumped by then) and for that matter I didn't even post them in marble but posted them in MFC before the thread got moved to marble. Actually, I think this thread is the only time I've posted directly to MG. o.o
Off topic but matt seriously you could of summed that whole post up to "It's okay for me to edit it because the rules made no sense!"
Back on topic: I've been thinking that you could potentially remove a damaged section of the spinal cord and replace it with a stem cell copy thereby curing paralysis.
Okie dokie, here we go...
ASC can be obtained however let's use the domino analogy: We have a row of dominoes and if you push the first it will fall and make the next one fall and so one. You come to a fork in the domino row. You can choose path A or B or neither... just stay where you are and don't know down the other domino.
ASC have taken either A or B and are stuck in one path.
ESC taken from 1-4 cell blastula are at the first domino.
What this means is that one ESC can produce any cell in the body (differentiate or give rise). ASC are differentiated a couple of times, hence we can get Neural Stem cells (produce Astrocytes, neurons and oligodendrocytes), Hematopoietic stem cells (produce T cells, B cells, monocytes etc), etc etc the list goes on.
This is the difference. ESC have more plasticity and give rise to any cell depending on the environment and available factors.
Like I mentioned before (I think I did). We are working on reprograming a cell. For example, taking a skin cell and injecting the nucleus of an ESC.
Cloning embryos is not as easy as it sounds but it's perfectly doable. We just need to make sure the cells that are form will not end in early death or worse keep dividing and producing teratomas (cancer).
But can all types of asc's be found in the human body after birth? Or can we only produce certain types of organs from esc's?
I had replied in a very nice post and my Safari browser decided to delete it. Here's what I remember from my inspiration:
We can find several types of stem cells in the adult body. Starting with cord blood. ASCs are often restricted to their lineage. They are also sometimes called progenitor cells because of this limitation. Hematopoietic SCs can be found in the bone marrow and sometimes migrate (very small quantities) to peripheral blood. Messenchymal cells are also found in the bone marrow. Neural progenitor cells are restricted to the subventricular zone and to the hippocampus. It is worthy of mention that the hippocampus is one of the first things to go (deteriorate) in neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's. Spermatogonial progenitor cells have been isolated from testes. SCs have also been derived from epithelial cells.
I think I may have some articles for anyone who's interested. For now I'm happy to provide additional information in a more simplistic way. The whole stem cell signaling still confuses me from time to time.
Maintenance of the stem cell population (proliferation) is regulated by many factors including our own Sonic hedgehog (SHh) protein ^___^
Now you see why he's important?
_____________________________________
Quote:
matt seriously you could of summed that whole post up to "It's okay for me to edit it because the rules made no sense!"
No I couldn't, because that's not even CLOSE to what I meant, so replacing it with that would be completely changing what I was saying. I wasn't talking about the editing itself but their response TO it. At the time (as in, the time which creo was referencing) the only posts I had in MG were in the religion thread, so responding to the bumping of that thread by locking down editing in MG wasn't going to prevent me from bumping any other threads any more than not doing so would, and as such didn't make sense as a response to it...
Anyway though, to get myself back on topic I'll rebutall a few people I forgot to last time...
Quote:
Come on, this is entirely about abortion.
I doubt it. It seems kinda often that people associate opposition to abortion with sexism. How often do you see opposition to ESCR being associated with prejudice against the disabled? That'd suggest that abortion has stronger support than ESCR. I guess this doesn't necessarily mean more controversy in ESCR (could be affected by how it's more reasonable to expect most people to know more about abortion) and even then doesn't mean the extra controversy is about IVF (I remember reading about some Green party somewhere that was against ESCR, don't remember why, I think the idea was that scientists shouldn't interfere with nature, though I think such is quite justified when nature interferes with people's health... and then there's the tax money aspect I mentioned earlier) just that it isn't entirely about abortion, especially when the embryonic stem cells don't all come from abortion.
Besides, the ones from aborted fetuses aren't the best ones for a fair bit of the research anyway; IIRC the ones from IVF and cloned embryos are better since they're from earlier in development, and if people are against ESCR because of their opposition to abortion, that's a problem in itself, especially since people are also opposed to the cloning of embryos despite how that could provide an alternative to abortion, (see, the issue of ESCR is one of the main reasons I'm so anti-religion in the first place) so the controversy CAN'T be entirely about abortion. Similar, I guess, in the common moral questions (though there's probably more reason to think a fetus has sentience/consciousness than there is for a blastocyst) but not all that connected.
Quote:
Although if they can achieve with adult cells what they can't with embryonic ones, then certainly the argument for supporting any such research with embryonic cells starts getting a good deal thinner
Achieving some things with ASCR that they can't with ESCR doesn't mean they can't achieve other things with ESCR that they can't with ASCR, so ASCR achievements don't discredit ESCR, since different kinds serve different purposes and they're not mutually exclusive.
Quote:
The SC we use in my lab come directly from aborted fetuses.
Hmm? What branch of science is your lab of? I would've figured it'd be better to use those from IVF, though then again I guess it'd depend on the research being done...
As for the point a few others made about video games being a nice distractor, helping people recover faster etc... I guess that's a good point, and I'm not sure how expensive the video games were, maybe not very much so on a hospital scale, but I was just saying it'd probably be better if they focused more on funding more medical research, since no matter what keeps you occupied while there, hospitals can only do so much, and maybe they could do more than they can do now if they had a bigger variety of medical research helping them...
Quote:
cloned embryos are better since they're from earlier in development,
I agree but it's not that they are better. It depends on what they are being used. Cloned embryos are used a lot. They need to have divided few times so they are in the 4-8 cell blastula stage. Those cells are THE cells that are able to give rise to every single cell in the body.
I also agree this is not just about abortion. It's also about cloning and "playing god" as some people say. I'm all for it since this is about our advancements in science and how to solve the larger picture to find a cure or therapeutic treatments so people can live a better life.
Quote:
What branch of science is your lab of? I would've figured it'd be better to use those from IVF, though then again I guess it'd depend on the research being done...
My lab does neurotoxicity. We obtain neural progenitor cells from aborted fetuses. We then evaluate what makes them differentiate, migrate, proliferate, etc in regards to neurodegenerative diseases. In this case we are evaluating the effect of certain environmental conditions on adult neurogenesis.
Actually, chronic stress reduces neurogenesis. If anyone is interested I wrote a two page essay on the influence of stress to the detriment of the central nervous system (CNS). Including my recomendations for a med student who is studying for a test.
Oh I love my job!
Quote:
It's also about cloning and "playing god" as some people say.
Yeah, that whole aspect seems way too common; the whole idea of "who are we to question god's plan?" is just plain dogmatic even within believing in god, the existance of the nazis and the soviets wasn't a reason to be unquestioning of their plans...
Nice to see that you're all for it; hope your lab will never have to bow to church pressure.
Quote:
My lab does neurotoxicity. We obtain neural progenitor cells from aborted fetuses.
Progenitor? Heh, I don't remember learning that word in high school biology class; I guess since you're involved in this research you'd be a good person to ask; is this article accurate?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progenitor_cell
If so then maybe that probably better answers what Trudi was saying...
Quote:
hope your lab will never have to bow to church pressure
it's worse than church pressure. here the government wanted to pass a bill last year banning stem cell research due to ethical things. Luckily we passed a resolution against that bill ( I say we since I'm a student senator and we drafted the resolution).
Quote:
is this article accurate?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progenitor_cell
Yup, it's pretty accurate. Don't you love wikipedia!
Quote:
it's worse than church pressure.
Actually, just to clarify, I wasn't just referring to direct church pressure in and of itself, but also if they use law as a means for their influence being why I said "have to" bow to church pressure (like in the example you mentioned; granted it might not necessarily be the church, I myself mentioned reasons against ESCR that obviously wouldn't be religious, but it just seems like most of opposition to it has a lot to do with church influence) especially since the church influences the public which in turn chooses the government...
An idea I had:
Do we really have to kill the embryoyo to remove stem cells? Couldn't we just remove one stem cell, and then tell another stem cell in the body to split into two stem cells and give those two stem cells the orders to grow into the organs the removed cell would orignally grow into?
*stroke-striken Peter Griffin drags himself into stem cell research center*
*walks out normal five minutes later*
"WHY ARE WE NOT FUNDING THIS?"
