Using stem cells to spark the body's own repair system after a heart attack or stroke could be the fastest way to first accessing the cells' potential, researchers said Tuesday.
They gathered at Medical College of Georgia for the quarterly meeting of the 2-year-old Georgia Stem Cell Initiative, a consortium of researchers from the state's universities and biotech companies. Stem cells, whether derived from unwanted embryos or from bone marrow or umbilical cord blood, have long tantalized scientists because of their ability to replicate themselves and evolve into other cell types, and are seen as a potential source of cell repair.
Several early studies under way or planned, including a clinical trial in heart attack patients by Athersys of Cleveland, Ohio, use stem cells derived from bone marrow. The company has collaborated in the past with MCG, and David Hess, the chairman of the Department of Neurology, is hoping to get funding for an early study using those cells in stroke patients.
It appears that the cells' greatest effect comes not as replacement heart cells, however, but from releasing growth factors that seem to improve blood flow to the damaged area and may be rallying stem cells already in the body to help repair damage, said Anthony Ting, the director of regenerative medicine for Athersys.
"Basically, your heart wants to repair itself," Dr. Ting said, and there are mechanisms there to do it. "It's the (stem) cells telling the donor, hey, this is an area that's damaged; let's make new blood vessels."
The company is still in the first phase of showing that the MultiStem stem cells are not toxic but is hoping that if all goes well it can apply for approval from the Food and Drug Administration in 2011, Dr. Ting said. The cells have so far shown a few advantages -- they don't need to be tissue-matched with the recipient, don't require immunosuppression and so far have not produced a tumor.
Working with embryonic stem cells that can be induced to become progenitor cells for different cell types in the heart, University of Georgia researcher Stephen Dalton said they might prove useful in finding a drug that can work in a similar cell type that is already in place.
"We actually do have an adult stem cell population in the heart," Dr. Dalton said. "What if we could activate this adult stem cell to generate cardiomyocytes to do tissue repair?"
In fact, embryonic stem cells might first prove more useful in providing cellular models for high-volume testing for new drugs, said Steven L. Stice, the director of the Regenerative Bioscience Center at UGA .
"The lowest-hanging fruit is using stem cells to find" new drug treatments, Dr. Stice said.
Reach Tom Corwin at (706) 823-3213 or tom.corwin@augustachronicle.com.
WHAT STEM CELLS DO
Stem cells are active in development and in replacing cells in the adult body, and scientists are looking at using different kinds in repairing or even regenerating tissue. Many researchers work with adult stem cells, often derived from bone marrow, and early clinical trials are under way to test their ability to make repairs after a stroke, heart attack or traumatic brain injury.
FDA APPROVAL: The Food and Drug Administration recently approved the first trial in embryonic stem cell therapy. Embryonic cells are thought to have greater potential to replicate and generate new cell types, but they also are more likely to form a tumor. Embryonic stem cell lines, created from unwanted and unusable embryos, raise ethical and religious issues for many people.
FEDERAL FUNDING: President Bush limited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to those cell lines that were already created in August 2001, which left a limited pool available. That is likely to change under President Obama. As a U.S. senator, he was a co-sponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, according to the White House Web site. A policy paper posted there notes that both the president and Vice President Joe Biden "believe that we owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life-threatening diseases."
The Augusta Chronicle ©2010. All Rights Reserved.
Yes, we owe it to the American public in being the world healthcare leader, and not let Korea or China get the honors, because some ignorant backwater hick is crying of some embryos. You think they'll be more happy being Korean or Chinese from all their bellyaching. We have a medical college, we are THE healthcare center for over 100 miles, and this research can save millions of people a year -- your mom, dad, siblings and even children. Eight years of using only 24 cell lines, it's time to move forward and CURE some of these deadly diseases, time has already been wasted. Want to see insulin cells made to CURE diabetes; want heart cells made to repair hearts after MIs; want kidneys to be grown from a patient's own cells so never to use anti-rejection medication that can kill the very organ now. We have lives to save, and God gave us a brain and abilities to do so. Let's go!
Not much mention of embryonic stem cells Sandy. Most of the progress in research is with adult stem cells, as this article clearly states. Only the "kill a baby" freaks continue to focus solely on the embryonic cells. While there seems to be some potential with the embryonic stem cells, for right now, the progress is with the adult cells.
Nope, PT, you can drop the propaganda.... From the NIH Stem Cell FAQ page..... Why not use adult stem cells instead of using human embryonic stem cells in research? || Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent—that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent—restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be. ..... Secondly ...... There are currently several limitations to using adult stem cells. Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do. Finally, adult stem cells may contain more DNA abnormalities—caused by sunlight, toxins, and errors in making more DNA copies during the course of a lifetime.
For the PTs in the world, cancer is when DNA duplication goes nuts, that instead of developing cells the body recognizes as it's own, it makes cells that are abnormal that the body's immune system attacks as a foreign body. The last thing you want is an impure duplication of DNA, as this can be the reason stem cell research now causes these nasty cancers in test subjects. You need the most "untouched" cells you can find and replicate them, not aged cells, as it's well known the older a patient is the weaker the DNA replication can be with more sequencing errors. Comprende?
Sandy, stem cell research has been going on for a long time. The most usable progress (not potential progress) is with adult stem cells. Reality still is.
Patricia is an authority on everything, didn't you know that, Sandy?
yes, stem cell research has been going on for a while... but has been neutered because of the religious freaks who don't know what they're talking about. Now we can get back to work on trying to play catch-up to other countries. Apparently this is a common theme in America. We get started on something spectacular and the people who know nothing about it stick their nose in it and screw it all up.
Good Lord Sandy you are so ignorant-just like your knowledge of evolution. The Bush ban actually caused one of the largest increases by private funding, biotech, etc, Harvard and a number of other institutions and biotech comp snubbed Bush and made cell lines anyways. The issue also encouraged scientist to pursue other areas-like genetic reprogramming (which would still be needed in ESC). ESC are just a code word for big bucks in licensing fees for use of cell lines. Actuall ESC are prone to form cancers-that has been one of the greatest concerns is their instablity. Adult stem cells are already being used to treat a number of diseases-ESC none. It is a myth using frozen embryos-little success using them so it isn't a valuable resource. Genetic reprogramming of skin cells -the hair follicle generates stem cells (very much like an embryonic stem cell)or other cells is the way to go, but I agree the ESC will have function to test drugs. It wasn't neutered and it is documented fact that Bush actually precipitated a retaliatory increase (published in Science).
It is sad the issue has been politicized and some unethical researchers made fraudulent claims for "cures" to people like Michael J Fox when in reality all knew it would twenty years down the pike if at all. I am proud people like Dr. Hess have argued against ESC in favor of other strategies using stem cells or genetic reprogramming. What is really interesting is Morgan and Curan have cloned cancer cells in mice and they developed into normal mice despite still having the mutant cancer genes-it is hypothesized genetic reprogramming stopped the cancer formation. This genetic reprogramming will possibly cure diabetes, replace cardiac, skeletal muscles and nerve, turn off cancers, the potential to molecular medicine is just unbelievable.
I am assuming that no one posting thus far on this forum is actually a scientist; neither am I. So, like pretty much everyone else here, I am unable to speak from personal experience on stem cell research, having done none of it myself. Over the years I have spoken with scientists, medical researchers and doctors who have worked with stem cell technology and like many of the posters here, I have read articles and watched documentaries on the subject. They have all said basically the same thing: even in nations that have no restrictions on embryonic stem cell research and completely up-to-date facilities, the only significant progress made in beneficial stem cell technology has come from adult stem cells. There is a great deal of talk about "potential" but nothing practical has ever happened beyond the talk. But even if there were some good use for embryonic stem cells, the ethics in using DNA from the tiny bodies of unborn children forcibly extracted from their mothers' wombs would preclude any prolife scientist from continuing this line of research. The ends don't justify the means, and these children had no say in what would happen to their bodies after they were killed.
My statement about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research also extends to embryos that were conceived in a laboratory and "donated" to science, since these are human beings, not things, and they have rights too, and they were not given the right to choose whether to live or to be "donated."
Chuchi living in Augusta to assume no one posting is a scientist is kind of naive given several universities and a medical school. People like Pay and others who actively work at MCG don't announce it.
Bizarro: read my first paragraph and note that I said, "posting thus far." It's early yet; I'm sure someone involved in this kind of research will have something to say before the sun sets.
It would seem that sandy who seems to know everything about everything is going to userp PT's standing as our resident Prof...(just kidding PT)
I have stated I have a number of grad degrees but never stated in what. I find using the peer-reviewed published record substantiates my claims so it doesn't matter if I'm a car salesman or nobel laureate. I'm neither a car salesman or nobel laureate by the way.
This is not new; the body was designed to heal itself since God made it. NAET can do much more than any of this research or any drug.
Biz, would you go play in your own sandbox. Half the stuff you post is there as smoke and mirrors, especially junk like this.... "The Bush ban actually caused one of the largest increases by private funding, biotech, etc, Harvard and a number of other institutions and biotech comp snubbed Bush and made cell lines anyways." ..... The ban caused a flight of scientists to leave the country to work in other countries (the UK got some of our top geneticists) with lesser restrictions. You can't censor science, as someone somewhere is going to research what's forbidden and that person/country will get the tech advantage. To be a world leader you MUST be the tech leader. These pinheaded religious nuts don't understand that the USA won't remain the world leader just by an army and money alone, it needs tech or some other country will trump us. Science has to move on, or we'll be in the dust. Whatever country that finds the cure for cancer, for example, will be the next world leader as they'll have the power to cure death, let alone will profit from the patent and technology around the discovery.
Well soldout God changed it-remember SIN. Christians believe all disease is the result of sin (generic sin from the fall not personal sins). So we lost our perfection and communion with God to become scourged-so your argument is antithetical to christian ideology.
Sandy, you don't seem to understand the medical literature very well. Googling medical terms does not give you the grey matter (brain power) to play scientist, researcher, or physician. Good luck scamming someone else.
Bizarro Chirist restored that relationship with God and the spirit within each Christian is the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead. Our spirit does not sin and knows all things and is full of joy and peace. Our job is to renew our mind to match our spirit and then our flesh is out-numbered two to one and we walk in victory. Life is just math and relationships. Relationships are all we carry to heaven so that is what we develop here and the math keeps us out of big messes.
By the way; some folks claim they have cured cancer using the tooth/tumor connection. Some folks knew this a 100 years ago but was forgotten because there was no big money in it. If you have an interest you can check it out at http://www.breastcancercured.com/index.html
this is also available locally
Back with the smoke and mirrors and never answering a direct question as I answered yours and you just crumbled on evolution. Face it you will lose this argument as the last. The U.K. now doesn't have the funds to pursue their interests in ESC. The state of California is backing ESC research as are other states I believe. Bush didn't stop federal funding just stated funding would be applied only to already established cell lines. The problem with hese cell lines is that few are characterized so the govt is funding ESC research-I am sure MCG would have several grants. It isn't a pinhead religious argment but a medical ethics issue which all scientist have strong feelings independent of any faith. Read the literature it is ripe with pros and cons on the ethics and lack of ethics in some instances with donor oocyte legalities. I take back my apology from the other day because you are an ignorant imbecile.
Souldout: you can also cure cancer by standing in front of an oncoming freight train.
Standing Tall, that train would be a good pain reliever for sure
Soldout, Christ renewed our Spirit but our bodies are still diseased. Remember we will be getting a new one with a new name. Our bodies and Spirit still sin. It is only by grace and Christ is in us that any good can come from us-if not then we wouldn't need Christ and we could be good without anyone.
Amen Bizarro but I think we sin in our mind and flesh but the Spirit of Christ which is the spirit we have does not sin. That is the part that is changed and the body and mind can be renewed and restored.
Everyone is going to die some way or the other eventually unless Jesus comes before then. The question is, "are you ready?" Have you repented and turned to God for salvation? Those who have Jesus as their savior by faith and faith alone will live forever in God's presence. Those who reject His salvation will live eternally in a devil's hell, in torment. Will you come to Jesus in faith today?
Really much of this research while well intended is misguided. Diseases evolved just like aging evolved (sickle cell disease evolved protective against malaria, etc). We strive to defeat what nature deems biologically sound-we grow old and often have diseases and we die. The naked mole rat is a unique rodent research model for aging that unlike most which are short-lived the naked mole rat can live upto twenty years. If we do solve the riddle of aging and cure all diseases that would in itself create new bigger problems. I empathize and sympathize but we are fighting our biology, evolution, and nature. Basically humans have evolved to live healthy till about fifty (many aging-telomere researchers propose this) then we go downhill in a hurry. Living longer doesn't equate to living well. What I find hypocritical and paradoxical is this notion about respect for life and sanctity of life regarding those inflicted but many of these same people will then turn around and show none for the unborn healthy fetus.
I noted Dr. Ting mentioned the heart wants to heal itself. This is true just as nerves want to regenerate and repair themselves it is just other mechanisms inhibit the process. But there is more than one way to skin a cat. Most heart muscle damage isn't from a lack of oxygen (although if long enough it will kill the tissue) but occurs when blood reperfuses the area and free radical damage initates apoptosis. There are already several strategies published which mitigate this damage so no need for stem cells to repair the area. Almost every single disease or defect proposed to be cured with ESC already have numerous strategies far more advanced and closer to cure than stem cell.
While I profess that I have little knowledge of the science or mechanisms discussed in this issue I do find that the three learned contributors to the discussion have captured my interest unequivocally. Thank you! My only exception to the above concerns the occasional interjection of a religious concept here and there, both by the intellects and more so, by the outsiders that seem to have no other "intellect" other than their own religious philosophies. Is it any wonder that Atheists are constantly baffled at the blind faith in an omnipresent nothing that cannot and will not be proven as fact not matter the reasons (creation or intelligent design) given by either group, the fanatics and the intellects? But again, BIZ, SANDY and PAT, a great topic and very interesting responses. GGpap