Interesting advance in stem cell research

[Downthestretch55]

I know that many will not find this to be of interest, but some might.
The implications of these recent findings could be huge.
The article is pretty straight forward.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/447618a.html

For those that are interested in science...

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

I know that many will not find this to be of interest, but some might.
The implications of these recent findings could be huge.
The article is pretty straight forward.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/447618a.html

For those that are interested in science...

Very interesting article...science is moving at the speed of light nowdays, I can only hope that the ethics keep up with the science. The possibilities of curing disease mandate this work but the possible abuses remain a point of concern!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Very interesting article...science is moving at the speed of light nowdays, I can only hope that the ethics keep up with the science. The possibilities of curing disease mandate this work but the possible abuses remain a point of concern!

Somerfrost,
I agree that science is moving very quickly.
The article shows that ethical concerns aren't a factor in this approach.
There is no "killing" of embryos to obtain these stem cells. They originate from skin cells. There is no cloning, though the implications may equally as important as Dolly.
Please reference the "possible abuse" from the article that causes you concern.
Respectfully,
DTS

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somerfrost,
I agree that science is moving very quickly.
The article shows that ethical concerns aren't a factor in this approach.
There is no "killing" of embryos to obtain these stem cells. They originate from skin cells. There is no cloning, though the implications may equally as important as Dolly.
Please reference the "possible abuse" from the article that causes you concern.
Respectfully,
DTS

My concern would be the artificial creation of life, while there would be no "cloning", the result could be the same...the creation of an organism for "spare parts", or "improvements" of the species. I just finished watching the two years of Dark Angel...a great sci-fi TV show that deals with genetic engineering. I'm not saying that this science is a bad thing, it has the potential to provide great things but we must monitor least some cat decides mankind would be better if we could fly or jump higher etc.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

My concern would be the artificial creation of life, while there would be no "cloning", the result could be the same...the creation of an organism for "spare parts", or "improvements" of the species. I just finished watching the two years of Dark Angel...a great sci-fi TV show that deals with genetic engineering. I'm not saying that this science is a bad thing, it has the potential to provide great things but we must monitor least some cat decides mankind would be better if we could fly or jump higher etc.

Somerfrost,
Thanks for explaining. At this point, we're only talking embryonic stem cells from mice.
I put the Nature article up as my son works with a line of mice that he uses to determine cardio defects that cause "hole in the heart" for newborns.
This condition is evident in six of 10K live births (humans). The babies are immediately rushed from the delivery room to surgery, for open heart remedy.
It's my opinion that humans are more important than mice.
This is not about the "artificial creation of life", but rather, the quest to find ways to solve problems that cause it to be degenerated.
I'll go with those that quest to enhance life and resolve suffering.
Just my opinion.
DTS

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Somerfrost,
Thanks for explaining. At this point, we're only talking embryonic stem cells from mice.
I put the Nature article up as my son works with a line of mice that he uses to determine cardio defects that cause "hole in the heart" for newborns.
This condition is evident in six of 10K live births (humans). The babies are immediately rushed from the delivery room to surgery, for open heart remedy.
It's my opinion that humans are more important than mice.
This is not about the "artificial creation of life", but rather, the quest to find ways to solve problems that cause it to be degenerated.
I'll go with those that quest to enhance life and resolve suffering.
Just my opinion.
DTS

I agree...just saying that we need to supervise! The positives here are endless.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I agree...just saying that we need to supervise! The positives here are endless.

"Who" needs to supervise?

Hopefully not the scientifically ignorant, who respond and judge from fear and lack of understanding.

[Downthestretch55]

OK, thanks for explaining.
I'm sure there will be "supervision".
At this point, there's no way this "genie is going to be put back into the bottle".
No dependecy on fertility clinics for human embryos, no "abortions", no "moral interference", and no funding constituancies (NIH) to appease.
Let's move forward in the research that benefits the human condition.
The implications of the findings are indeed momentous.

As an aside, scientists cause concern because they deal with some things that are not easily understood. From my dealings with them, even one of my friends that worked on the Manhatten Project, they are in favor of life.
Their efforts are to make it better.
I have to say that these people are curious but not dangerous. Those that use their findings inappropriately are the ones to beware of.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Riot

"Who" needs to supervise?

Hopefully not the scientifically ignorant, who respond and judge from fear and lack of understanding.

You don't know me very well......

[Riot]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

You don't know me very well......

I wasn't referring to "you". I was referring to those who have already attempted to get involved in such issues.

Who would you suggest?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

OK, thanks for explaining.
I'm sure there will be "supervision".
At this point, there's no way this "genie is going to be put back into the bottle".
No dependecy on fertility clinics for human embryos, no "abortions", no "moral interference", and no funding constituancies (NIH) to appease.
Let's move forward in the research that benefits the human condition.
The implications of the findings are indeed momentous.

As an aside, scientists cause concern because they deal with some things that are not easily understood. From my dealings with them, even one of my friends that worked on the Manhatten Project, they are in favor of life.
Their efforts are to make it better.
I have to say that these people are curious but not dangerous. Those that use their findings inappropriately are the ones to beware of.

I agree DTS, my graduate training is in research and most everybody I met was concerned with improving the human condition...still the twin evils of greed and arrogance exist everywhere so we just have to be careful. Again, the science is wonderful, the devil (if there was one) is in the application.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Riot

I wasn't referring to "you". I was referring to those who have already attempted to get involved in such issues.

Who would you suggest?

I'm most comfortable when the scientific community polices itself as long as there is public disclosure...sure, that allows "wack-jobs" a soapbox for their own private sense of morality but it is necessary. Better to tolerate TV evangelists proclaiming "god has turned his back on America" than to end up with secret programs to "enhance" the human genome.

Long way to go on this.

The stem cells made by using no fetal tissue (skin connective cells called fibroblasts which I worked 3 years with, only in chickens) dont necessarily give rise to organs they might want to clone. It is exciting that they can use nonembryonic cells to make what behave like stem cells early on, but later, when the important differentiation occurs... not even close.

Im going to make a prediction. This is going to be very difficult. I think these genes they put in to cause these cells to revert to the stem cell stage do not change already altered crucial genes important in producing, for example, a fully functional liver. I believe that as cells differentiate, some very significant changes occur in the genome that will be very difficult to fix. Lots of splicing and dicing goes on. Very difficult stuff.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Long way to go on this.

The stem cells made by using no fetal tissue (skin connective cells called fibroblasts which I worked 3 years with, only in chickens) dont necessarily give rise to organs they might want to clone. It is exciting that they can use nonembryonic cells to make what behave like stem cells early on, but later, when the important differentiation occurs... not even close.

Im going to make a prediction. This is going to be very difficult. I think these genes they put in to cause these cells to revert to the stem cell stage do not change already altered crucial genes important in producing, for example, a fully functional liver. I believe that as cells differentiate, some very significant changes occur in the genome that will be very difficult to fix. Lots of splicing and dicing goes on. Very difficult stuff.

Pgardn,
You may be entirely correct with your prediction. There's a long way to go
with producing replacement organs (such as a liver as you suggest). We can discuss matrix and regeneration techniques some other time.
I think that the use of four protien transcriptors using retroviruses that express as pluripotent stem cells (as the Nature article states) and the transfer of iPS DNA to progeny are quite interesting.
Watson was recently given his personal genome and within a short time, all of us will have access to our own for a very modest price (1K).
I agree with you that this is "difficult", but not out of reach.
DTS

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Pgardn,
You may be entirely correct with your prediction. There's a long way to go
with producing replacement organs (such as a liver as you suggest). We can discuss matrix and regeneration techniques some other time.
I think that the use of four protien transcriptors using retroviruses that express as pluripotent stem cells (as the Nature article states) and the transfer of iPS DNA to progeny are quite interesting.
Watson was recently given his personal genome and within a short time, all of us will have access to our own for a very modest price (1K).
I agree with you that this is "difficult", but not out of reach.
DTS

There is a danger to this also. It is pretty clear that all cells are programmed to die or reproduce more. Cancer might really be defined as defects in the genes that control cell death or regeneration. These retroviral genes are playing with this basic concept. I dont see it as simple as sticking some genes into cells to make them act like cells that regenerate (stem cells). It just cant be that easy with all the modifications that occur to DNA when cells differentiate for specific function. Look closely into how are immune system works. The cells functioning here can make a huge array of proteins to attack foreign bodies just by snipping and splicing bits of DNA here and there. Its amazing stuff. But the DNA is altered for good.
For a long time we had no idea how our bodies could make antibodies to chocolate, diff types of perfume, and bacteria and viruses. We now know. Alteration of coding sequences in a random way to produce a huge array of cells that can recognize the most unique conformation of chemicals in invading organisms. Quite a hit and miss way, but a beautiful way to cover the bases given the very basic genetic code.
This last example was given to show the tremendous alteration that can occur in the genomes of certain cell lines, never to come back home to a stem cell.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by pgardn

There is a danger to this also. It is pretty clear that all cells are programmed to die or reproduce more. Cancer might really be defined as defects in the genes that control cell death or regeneration. These retroviral genes are playing with this basic concept. I dont see it as simple as sticking some genes into cells to make them act like cells that regenerate (stem cells). It just cant be that easy with all the modifications that occur to DNA when cells differentiate for specific function. Look closely into how are immune system works. The cells functioning here can make a huge array of proteins to attack foreign bodies just by snipping and splicing bits of DNA here and there. Its amazing stuff. But the DNA is altered for good.
For a long time we had no idea how our bodies could make antibodies to chocolate, diff types of perfume, and bacteria and viruses. We now know. Alteration of coding sequences in a random way to produce a huge array of cells that can recognize the most unique conformation of chemicals in invading organisms. Quite a hit and miss way, but a beautiful way to cover the bases given the very basic genetic code.

Wow Pgardn,
You put out a lot of different ideas in this thread.
Yes, cells are preprogammed to die. It varies but mitosis is limited.
White cells (immune system) are still a puzzle. If we could understand T connects, HIV-Aids would have a cure. We're not there yet.
Anti bodies and encoding for them is something I don't know much about.
My interest is in "triggering" genes like fgf 15, fgf 8, and others that program the cell for development after the stem stage. White cells are much further along, like other differentiated cells.
It's interesting to me that some of the same triggering genes play a role in cancers (retinal, and neural) as cardio. At this point, it's good that the markers exist to track them. Beyond that, it's a long way to organ production. Imagine if one's own skin cells could be used to regenerate a heart or liver, or any diseased organ. There would be no need for anti-immune therapy. One's replacement organ could be grown and implanted without the risk of rejection.
We have a long way to go. Seems to me that creating stem cells from skin cells is a huge step forward. New findings will be realized soon.

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Wow Pgardn,
You put out a lot of different ideas in this thread.
Yes, cells are preprogammed to die. It varies but mitosis is limited.
White cells (immune system) are still a puzzle. If we could understand T connects, HIV-Aids would have a cure. We're not there yet.
Anti bodies and encoding for them is something I don't know much about.
My interest is in "triggering" genes like fgf 15, fgf 8, and others that program the cell for development after the stem stage. White cells are much further along, like other differentiated cells.
It's interesting to me that some of the same triggering genes play a role in cancers (retinal, and neural) as cardio. At this point, it's good that the markers exist to track them. Beyond that, it's a long way to organ production. Imagine if one's own skin cells could be used to regenerate a heart or liver, or any diseased organ. There would be no need for anti-immune therapy. One's replacement organ could be grown and implanted without the risk of rejection.
We have a long way to go. Seems to me that creating stem cells from skin cells is a huge step forward. New findings will be realized soon.

I am always hopeful and skeptical in medicine. So many times in my life we have found an all encompassing cure. I will never forget interferon. When I was late in my studies at UT everyone was saying interferon was it. We found the magic bullet. Going on 30 years later...

Part of the reason I decided to teach classical Physics. Biology is so damned hard. Its is so incredibly complicated. One really has to make it a thematic class, or take the easy way out and just have kids memorize a whole new vocabulary and pretend like you have taught them something.

Classical Physics is as beautiful and clean as it gets.

[Mortimer]

Hmmm...that was an interesting advance in stem cell research .

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by mortimerdexterfoxworthy

Hmmm...that was an interesting advance in stem cell research .

Morty,
Nice that you found it to be of interest. This is a positive development.

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Morty,
Nice that you found it to be of interest. This is a positive development.

I can't tell you how intrigued I am.




But paramecium are way ahead of us.