Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Ultimate Stem Cell Discovered

Posted by Hemos on Wed Jan 23, 2002 05:22 PM
from the more-research-needed dept.
bofh31337 writes "Newscientist is reporting that the University of Minnesota has discovered a new stem cell in adults. It is thought this stem cell will be able to turn into any single tissue in the body." The article is kinda breathy, especially for New Scientist - but if this is true, which needs to be studied more, this will dramatically alter the landscape for stem cell research.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Ultimate Stem Cell Discovered | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 320 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Patented ? by boaworm (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:26PM
    • Re:Patented ? by ocie (Score:3) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:31PM
      • Re:Patented ? by jayhawk88 (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:40PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Patented ? by ImaLamer (Score:3) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:56PM
        • What? by DapperDan (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @08:08PM
      • Re:Patented ? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) on Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:57PM (#2890920) Homepage Journal
        Although the majority of new drugs are indeed invented by drug companies looking for a profit, most of the basic science that goes into drug discovery is still done by university research laboratories that get their money from government grants.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Patented ? by koekepeer (Score:1) Thursday January 24 2002, @03:20AM
      • Re:Patented ? by cbrese (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:02PM
        • Re:Patented ? by Breakfast Pants (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:43PM
      • Re:Patented ? by shogun (Score:3) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:18PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Patented ? by Eslyjah (Score:3) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:36PM
    • Re:Patented ? by Psmylie (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:40PM
      • Re:Patented ? by hublan (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:05PM
    • Tough luck! by 2Bits (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:47PM
    • Re:Patented ? by strictnein (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @08:53PM
    • Re:Patented ? by Mercaptan (Score:1) Thursday January 24 2002, @02:20AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • ageless cells? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sebastopol (189276) on Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:27PM (#2890738) Homepage
    The cells seem to grow indefinitely in culture, like ESCs. Some cell lines have been growing for almost two years and have kept their characteristics, with no signs of ageing, she says.

    Two years? Damn, now that's an example careful experimentation. Although, I'd like to know what "aging" implies, and if she'd have to wait 80 or so years to see real human aging. Any biologists out there care to explain what aging looks like on the cellular level?
    • Re:ageless cells? by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:30PM
      • Re:ageless cells? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:38PM (#2890808)
        incidentally, this is what cancer does. it prevents the shortening of the telomeres, so cells that have turned cancerous don't "die".
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:ageless cells? by praedor (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @10:06PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:ageless cells? (Score:5, Informative)

      by boaworm (180781) <boaworm@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:37PM (#2890802) Homepage Journal
      Most cell knows when it is going to die. Our skincells for example are programmed to die after about 7 weeks, in this way, the skin does refresh itself and you have a nice healthy skin.
      So.. if you clone a cell that is already say 3 weeks old, all clones from that cell will start of at the age of 3 weeks, having only 4 weeks left to live until "terminated".
      This is what happened to Dolly, the cloned Sheep. Dolly's cells started of with the same biological clock as her "mother" (herself ? ;), so she is "ageing" very fast to catch up with herself.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:ageless cells? (Score:5, Informative)

      by myc (105406) on Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:43PM (#2890852) Journal
      aging in cells, at a molecular level, usuallly means a shortening of telomeres from one generation to the next. This typically has other consequences as well, such as cell cycle arrest.

      telomeres are special structures at the end of eukaryotic chromosomes that protect the ends and facilitate DNA replication of linear DNA. cells that have circular genomes (such as bacteria) do not have DNA ends and therefore do not have nor need telomeres. old cells have short telomeres and therefore have a harder time replicating their DNA. This is an overly simplified explanation, of course.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:ageless cells? by CodeShark (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:51PM
    • Re:ageless cells? by sean23007 (Score:3) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:54PM
    • ageless cells - old news: by ImaLamer (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:00PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:ageless cells? by Fragmented_Datagram (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:19PM
    • Re:ageless cells? by StaticEngine (Score:3) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:24PM
    • Re:ageless cells? by Isldeur (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:42PM
    • Re:ageless cells? by praedor (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @09:51PM
    • Re:ageless cells? by aswang (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @11:19PM
    • Re:ageless cells? by bonoboy (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @11:28PM
    • Re:ageless cells? by jabens (Score:1) Monday January 28 2002, @09:12AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Standard Fundie Alert! (Score:4, Troll)

    by Tackhead (54550) on Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:28PM (#2890739)
    > A stem cell has been found in adults that can turn into every single tissue in the body.

    Oh no! Extracting and growing these cells to cure diseases would be like killing millions and millions of clones of yourself! It's like having a million abortions, or even worse, committing suicide a million times over! We must ban research immediately! If God had wanted us to be healed, He wouldn't have let us get sick in the first place!

  • by Therin (22398) <therin@bjmoos[ ]om ['e.c' in gap]> on Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:29PM (#2890747) Homepage
    One other very promising source of stem cells is from liposuction - check out StemSource [stemsource.com] for details
  • Yet to be Confirmed by The Raven (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:31PM
  • the best news is.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Restil (31903) on Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:33PM (#2890771) Homepage
    If you donate stem cells from willing adults, you don't have all the ethical arguments you get with harvesting human embryos. Not really sure which side of that argument I fall on, but if we can avoid the argument altogether and concentrate on the science instead, things would move along faster.

    Hopefully these stem cells are as useful as the embryonic ones are.

    -Restil
    • Re:the best news is.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Saige (53303) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .alegna.live.> on Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:44PM (#2890856) Homepage Journal
      Well, the big point from this research may be that the only person needed to "donate" the stem cells may be the exact person needing the treatment. If every adult human being has these stem cells, then there is the possibility for a person to grow cells (or organs or such) from their very own cells, with their very own DNA.

      This not only avoids most of the ethical problems completely, it should eliminate any worries about rejection of the new cells, since there isn't a difference between them and the ones already there.

      I hope this turns out to be true, this would be so huge for curing diseases, reparing damage caused by accidents or neglect, and in general really helping to increase human longevity.
      [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Patent? by crotherm (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:33PM
    • Re:Patent? by Dancin_Santa (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:36PM
    • Re:Patent? by Crosseyed & Painless (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:42PM
    • Re:Patent? by bravehamster (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:48PM
    • *cough* by ebbomega (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:59PM
    • Considerations, Offtopically by virg_mattes (Score:3) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:11PM
    • Re:Patent? by ArsonSmith (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:19PM
    • Re:Patent? by analog_line (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:41PM
    • Re:Patent? by MsWillow (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @07:15PM
    • Re:Patent? by mESSDan (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @08:47PM
  • One moral issue down, two to go. by eAndroid (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:34PM
  • This is very good news... by (H)elix1 (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:34PM
  • The social implications are sweet... by Rev.LoveJoy (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:35PM
  • Interesting by Ooblek (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:35PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Finally! by Noodlenose (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:35PM
  • Ban this research by Sprunkys (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:38PM
  • Patent Granted by heretic108 (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:41PM
  • Link to the researcher (Score:4, Informative)

    by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:42PM (#2890833) Homepage Journal
    http://www.micab.umn.edu/faculty/Verfaillie.html

    and an abstract of one stem cell paper is at
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cm d= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11458512&dopt=Abstrac t
  • by Cy Guy (56083) on Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:42PM (#2890836) Homepage Journal
    "others think the selection process actually creates the MAPCs.

    I don't think there is 'a cell' that is lurking there that can do this. I think that Catherine has found a way to produce a cell that can behave this way," says Neil Theise of New York University Medical School.


    If this turns out to be the case rather than the cell naturally occurring in bone marrow, it has tremendous implications from a patent perspective. Since you cannot patent a naturally occuring object, anyone who could reverse engineer the selection process would be able to produce these cells. But if it is the process itself that transforms otherwise non stem-cell behaving cells into MAPC's then process itself would be patentable and I believe even if you reverse engineered it you would be expected pay royalties. Since claims like "cell lines have been growing for almost two years . . .with no signs of ageing" could herald this find as biomedical fountain of youth, the raoyalties could be astronomical, especially when used for non-life-threatening conditions.

    WOW, who would have thought that the fountain of youth, and a source of infinite free power [cnn.com] would be announced on the same day?
  • Patented me???? by 3seas (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:42PM
  • by Peridriga (308995) on Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:45PM (#2890857)
    A stem cell has been found in adults that can turn into every single tissue in the body. It might turn out to be the most important cell ever discovered.

    Until now, only stem cells from early embryos were thought to have such properties. If the finding is confirmed, it will mean cells from your own body could one day be turned into all sorts of perfectly matched replacement tissues and even organs.

    If so, there would be no need to resort to therapeutic cloning - cloning people to get matching stem cells from the resulting embryos. Nor would you have to genetically engineer embryonic stem cells (ESCs) to create a "one cell fits all" line that does not trigger immune rejection. The discovery of such versatile adult stem cells will also fan the debate about whether embryonic stem cell research is justified.

    "The work is very exciting," says Ihor Lemischka of Princeton University. "They can differentiate into pretty much everything that an embryonic stem cell can differentiate into."

    Remarkable findings

    The cells were found in the bone marrow of adults by Catherine Verfaillie at the University of Minnesota. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and though the team has so far published little, a patent application seen by New Scientist shows the team has carried out extensive experiments.

    These confirm that the cells - dubbed multipotent adult progenitor cells, or MAPCs - have the same potential as ESCs. "It's very dramatic, the kinds of observations [Verfaillie] is reporting," says Irving Weissman of Stanford University. "The findings, if reproducible, are remarkable."

    At least two other labs claim to have found similar cells in mice, and one biotech company, MorphoGen Pharmaceuticals of San Diego, says it has found them in skin and muscle as well as human bone marrow. But Verfaillie's team appears to be the first to carry out the key experiments needed to back up the claim that these adult stem cells are as versatile as ESCs.

    Verfaillie extracted the MAPCs from the bone marrow of mice, rats and humans in a series of stages. Cells that do not carry certain surface markers, or do not grow under certain conditions, are gradually eliminated, leaving a population rich in MAPCs. Verfaillie says her lab has reliably isolated the cells from about 70 per cent of the 100 or so human volunteers who donated marrow samples.

    Indefinite growth

    The cells seem to grow indefinitely in culture, like ESCs. Some cell lines have been growing for almost two years and have kept their characteristics, with no signs of ageing, she says.

    Given the right conditions, MAPCs can turn into a myriad of tissue types: muscle, cartilage, bone, liver and different types of neurons and brain cells. Crucially, using a technique called retroviral marking, Verfaillie has shown that the descendants of a single cell can turn into all these different cell types - a key experiment in proving that MAPCs are truly versatile.

    Also, Verfaillie's group has done the tests that are perhaps the gold standard in assessing a cell's plasticity. She placed single MAPCs from humans and mice into very early mouse embryos, when they are just a ball of cells. Analyses of mice born after the experiment reveal that a single MAPC can contribute to all the body's tissues.

    MAPCs have many of the properties of ESCs, but they are not identical. Unlike ESCs, for example, they do not seem to form cancerous masses if you inject them into adults. This would obviously be highly desirable if confirmed. "The data looks very good, it's very hard to find any flaws," says Lemischka. But it still has to be independently confirmed by other groups, he adds.

    Fundamental questions

    Meanwhile, there are some fundamental questions that must be answered, experts say. One is whether MAPCs really form functioning cells.

    Stem cells that differentiate may express markers characteristic of many different cell types, says Freda Miller of McGill University. But simply detecting markers for, say, neural tissue does not prove that a stem cell really has become a working neuron.

    Verfaillie's findings also raise questions about the nature of stem cells. Her team thinks that MAPCs are rare cells present in the bone marrow that can be fished out through a series of enriching steps. But others think the selection process actually creates the MAPCs.

    "I don't think there is 'a cell' that is lurking there that can do this. I think that Catherine has found a way to produce a cell that can behave this way," says Neil Theise of New York University Medical School.

    19:00 23 January 02
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Forever young? by OuD (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:48PM
  • Premature (Cold fusion?) by kenneth_martens (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:48PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Moral clarity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DaoudaW (533025) on Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:51PM (#2890889)
    The article is kinda breathy, especially for New Scientist - but

    I hate to disillusion you, but New Scientist is well-known for their sensationalism. If this were Nature, Science, or even Scientific American, Hemo's comment would make sense. Don't take me wrong I've enjoyed reading New Scientist for a number of years, but its niche is tabloid-style, scientific journalism. It is not a scientific journal.

    If this research is valid, it is a huge breakthrough. But it means that human cloning will have to be argued for its own sake, rather than it somehow being necessary for growing spare kidneys. My concern with this is that Bush, et al, will use it to shut down cloning research altogether; they've never seemed to have any other use for cloning. On the other hand, it may allow clarity on the morality of cloning.
  • Immortality in our lifetime? by Steveftoth (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:51PM
  • Thanks Hemos by ImaLamer (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:51PM
  • And now for another.. Southpark Moment by WndrBr3d (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:52PM
  • And who you can thank... by Reality Master 101 (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:53PM
  • Now that pigs are obsolete... by ebbomega (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:56PM
  • End of debate by $pacemold (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:56PM
  • Moral Quandry by syphax (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:03PM
  • Let them charge whatever they wish by jamesmartinluther (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:06PM
  • Adult Stem Cells by flogger (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:11PM
  • This is GOOD NEWS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcrbids (148650) on Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:15PM (#2891009) Homepage Journal
    One of my sons has type 1 diabetes, heretofore an incurable disease. We have to test his blood at least 3-4 times per day, and continuously administer injections. It's a hassle, it's expensive, and despite our best efforts we know that the inevitable swings of blood sugar can shorten his life, and lead to severe health complications.

    There IS a cure for type 1 diabetes - recently in Edmonton, CA they "cured" about a dozen people by injecting islet cells (those that produce insulin) into the liver, along with some mild anti-immune drugs.

    The anti-immune drugs are needed because the islet cells implanted are foreign.

    The problem is that there aren't enough extractable islet cells in all viable cadavers in this country to cure even 1% of the diabetic population.

    Under our current conservative presidency, stem-cell research involving embryos is at a near stand-still. (Only existing lines can be used, new ones cannot be created)

    But if these stem cells can be trained to behave as islet cells, then my 13 year old son may well be effectively cured before he turns 20.

    This is good news!

  • This is excellent science journalism. I'm glad to see the concerns of more skeptical scientists covered in such a balanced fashion. Most of the time, journalists, including those at the New Scientist, breeze past highly important caveats in favor of sensationalism - I'm sure we'll see this story repeated in Pro Life literature, for example, without qualifications. Kudos to Sylvia Westphal (author of the article.)

    The fact that the claims being made appear on a patent application instead of in peer-reviewed research makes me extremely skeptical. Showing such a patent application to a member of the press - but not publishing - make me even more so. A great many people (I resist the temptation to post links) involved in Biotech make grandiose claims that they cannot really back up; the huge potential rewards have certainly led to compromises of scientific ethics in the past.

    Just because a scientist is fishing for venture captialists does NOT mean that she is doing bad science; it does raise legitimate suspicion about her (Dr. Catherine Verfaillie [umn.edu], who did the work) research.

    The "agelessness" and expression of unusual combinations of extracellular markers mentioned in the article are also features common to cancer cells. It is entirely possible that the process of extracting the bone marrow has merely selected out non-tumerogenic, precancerous cells. Such cells, which may very well substitute for stem cells anyway, but probably don't, might also spread through a mouse embryo into which they were injected.
  • And No Murder Required by Bob Uhl (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:25PM
  • More Hype by HarderDeeperFaster (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:28PM
  • Arm and a leg by kenneth_martens (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:28PM
  • This creates an interesting senario by Dr. Bent (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:29PM
  • Finally! by Zen Mastuh (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:33PM
    • Re:Finally! by PaganRitual (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @07:01PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • by XBL (305578) on Wednesday January 23 2002, @06:56PM (#2891179)
    I think it's rather obvious that stel cells are eventually going to be conquered and put to wide usage in medicine... maybe in the near future, or maybe in the far future.

    Right now I am 22.. going on 80. In my lifetime, I think that it will be possible for people to extend their lives out as far as they want to, if they have the money.

    Basically, I see a time where the rich people will be able to remain ageless, living possibly hundreds of years. Meanwhile, average people would live a normal human life span.

    Can you imagine what a social conflict something like this would make? In the past, there have been some very large social class differences, but imagine a gap where one group remains ageless, and another is jealously ageing and dying.

    I think that I'm going to start saving my money now...
  • Wild coincidence (Score:3, Informative)

    by rw2 (17419) on Wednesday January 23 2002, @07:04PM (#2891238) Homepage
    I just got out of a colloqium presented by one of the researchers and she was careful to point out that they do not have cells that can fully differentiate, just that they have cells that they have *so far* been able to turn into anything they want. They haven't tried everything yet.
  • Yeah right... by ruiner13 (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @08:03PM
  • Isn't it sometimes true by xg0blin (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @08:39PM
  • not to troll excessively.... by evilpaul13 (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @09:15PM
  • Eh? by p3d0 (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @09:26PM
    • Re:Eh? by p3d0 (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @09:30PM
  • Multipotent Cells a Matter of Process (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bonoboy (98001) on Wednesday January 23 2002, @11:37PM (#2892562) Homepage Journal
    It states in the article that certain people believe the cells are produced by the process, not that they already exist and are simply refined.

    Is it just me, or was there news in the past year or so from people that had found that making cells dormant on minimal media (the same way they prepare cells for cloning) actually made them multipotent anyway? Does anyone else remember this?
  • Ultimate Stem Cell ===Ultimate Steak by Sean Clifford (Score:2) Wednesday January 23 2002, @11:46PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • stem cell theory by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday January 24 2002, @02:36AM
  • sperm + egg? by peter303 (Score:2) Thursday January 24 2002, @08:51AM
  • My God.....Thank-you!!!! by the_2nd_coming (Score:1) Thursday January 24 2002, @09:02AM
  • Rats of NIMH by elmer-12 (Score:1) Thursday January 24 2002, @02:45PM
  • God Bless the U.S. by Snover (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @01:05AM
  • NYTimes picked it up by TheGreatGraySkwid (Score:1) Friday January 25 2002, @02:38PM
  • Re:more killings? by Totonic (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:26PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:more killings? by pclminion (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:28PM
  • Re:more killings? by jsprat (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @05:48PM
  • Re:Sorry, not on the list... by compupc1 (Score:1) Wednesday January 23 2002, @08:08PM
  • 28 replies beneath your current threshold.