stem cell article, seattle times [Archive]

Wise Young

02-26-2004, 06:23 PM

cass, thanks for posting this. It is unfortunate that many companies are thinking that stem cells are a risky and long-term business. This will tend to restrict investment in the field. On the other hand, it provides an opportunity for brave and visionary entrepreneurs to invest in new ideas and approaches.

It is amazing how a few small discoveries can completely transform a field. For the longest time, everybody knew that there must be "stem cells" in the embryo and fetus but nobody knew how to grow them reliably and well. It took essentially three discoveries. The first was stem cells possess fibroblast growth factor (FGF) receptors and that FGF will stimulate them to grow. The second was that stem cells can be prevented from differentiating (becoming other cells) by leukemia inhibiting factor (LIF). The third was that some stem cells need as yet unidentified factors that could be provided by so-called feeder cells.

Once these three discoveries were known, the first stem cell lines, including embryonic stem cell lines were, developed. For example, Thomsom in Wisconsin was the first to grow human embryonic stem cells by growing the cells on mouse feeder cells. It turns out the fetal stem cells (obtained from fetuses rather than blastocysts) are relatively easy to grow and only need to be grown in serum-free medium containing FGF. The omission of serum is important because it prevents the cells from differentiating.

One of the scientists interviewed for the article pointed out how laborious it is to grow stem cells, feeding them and keeping them alive. This is true as long as one is manually changing solutions and feeding the cells by hand. There are now, however, robots that can do most of this stuff automatically and with greater precision and reliability that any human. Such robots can automatically test thousands of culture media to optimize survival, growth, and purification of stem cell populations.

Much progress is being made in identifying genes that are expressed by stem cells. By knowing the genes and receptors expressed by stem cells, it is now possible to achieve rational design (instead of trial-or-error) of cell culture conditions that maximize the likelihood of stem cells surviving. Many laboratories around the world are searching for the "stemness" genes. Several such genes have already been found and I don't think that it will be long before we will find the genes that can transform any cell into a stem cell.

The article starts by saying "Whoever learns to control embryonic stem cells that can morph into healthy human cells could be standing on a gold mine". I would like to modify this by saying that whoever learns to make any cell into a stem cell will have the Midas touch of turning any metal into gold. The company that achieves this goal will be able to produce an unending supply of stem cells for therapeutic purposes, to circumvent the need for cloning or use of embryos, and dominate the field.

Companies that are short-sighted (incapable of seeing more than 3 years down the road), risk-averse (unwilling to invest in anything but a slam-dunk), or willing to believe that the current technology is all that will be will surely lose. Companies that have vision, that are willing to take risks, and have the ability to develop new technologies will win in this Darwin race of companies.

The stem cell industry is struggling out of a period of severe political oppression and being held back by federal funding limitations. The situation is akin to saying that we will cure cancer without NIH spending $4.3 billion on cancer research. Industry can only do so much. They are good at taking discoveries and converting thme to products. In general, they have not had a good track record at discovery. Without university research (which is mostly funded by NIH). However, NIH funded research is not particularly good at moving discoveries to products. Each is necessary for each other.

Wise.