Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Dr. Jane Roskams Allen Institute SCI Map New Discovered Cells!

  1. #1

    Exclamation Dr. Jane Roskams Allen Institute SCI Map New Discovered Cells!

    Professor, Dept. of Zoology @ UBC, Dr. Jane Roskams speaks about the discovery of a new type of spinal cord cell @ UBC. The cell could function as a stem cell with the ability to regenerate portions of the central nervous system in people with spinal cord injuries, MS, and ALS from the Allen Institute in Seattle with their new Spinal Cord Map! Jane is a fascinating researcher! www.zoology.ubc.ca

    Part 1.


    Be sure to watch Part 2!

    Last edited by GRAMMY; 12-17-2011 at 01:39 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member okwjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    wesley hills, new york
    Posts
    189
    Very Interesting indeed

  3. #3
    Here is the paper (very interesting IMMO):

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0024538

    Paolo
    In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

  4. #4
    Quirky lady. Mad accent. Cool line of research.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by kivi66 View Post
    Research provides new target for regenerating parts of the central nervous system
    "That is exactly where you would want these cells to be if you want to activate them with drugs while minimizing secondary damage," says Roskams, a member ICORD (International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries) and the Brain Research Center, both partnerships of UBC and the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute." (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0915163533.htm)
    New Class of Stem Cell-Like Cells Discovered Offers Possibility for Spinal Cord Repair
    "Identifying these cells and the genes relevant to activate them opens fresh new pathways to explore effective therapies to treat spinal cord injury and several types of neurodegenerative disease." (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0915114004.htm)

    jsilver, explain us, please, what we have here and what we may benefit from this. Of course, if it's not in areas of interests different from yours.
    jsilver, let me to ask more specifically: it's all about regeneration or it's mechanisms other than regeneration?

    Quote Originally Posted by kivi66 View Post
    jsilver, what do you think, is it possible to initiate the true and pure regeneration process replicating intrauterine spinal cord development that will patch it in the needed lesion sites? The "bridging the gap" conception to me looks outdated and misleading, admissible just as temporary interim solution.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by kivi66 View Post
    jsilver, let me to ask more specifically: it's all about regeneration or it's mechanisms other than regeneration?
    Dear Kivi 66

    Radial glia have been postulated to play a critical rode in regeneration in cold blooded species that have the capacity to restore severed connections and a remarkable degree of functional recovery after spinal cord injury. finding these cells in the adult mammal is indeed intersting but whether they can be harnessed to produce regeneration in the adult mammal is quite another question. Some people (Marty Grumet) have transplanted radial glia derived from a cell line into the injured spinal cord with minimal success. There are still lots of hurdles to overcome.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    17,427
    Professor Jerry Silver, I’ve followed you a bit here on CC. And thanks for you’re participating in debates. I understand the rationale on not to make humans guinea pigs, no harm, although that can be discussed too in places of the world where basically none tetras exists, but leave it at that. - then lets move on to the western spinal cord and the proactiviness in the west - what actually is that? - whom sci, scientists, neurosurgeons etc are putting up networks, for sci cures? Not many, - put injecting cell-trials aside - how much could such joint networks produce i.e. for acute surgical approaches, dti/mri new ways, decompression and so on? If joining in? Take also, if, what cells, or remedies, to be first tested, with basically good tracrecords with some theoretical theorems and empirical values to back it, - if wanting to move on chronics, maybe go for known remedies system and move slowly. Sure basic and what’s known as basal studies are important. But given, all we know, or better don’t know - do you feel that some studies on the human injured spinal cord on chronics should be cancelled? Tnx.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Leif View Post
    Professor Jerry Silver, I’ve followed you a bit here on CC. And thanks for you’re participating in debates. I understand the rationale on not to make humans guinea pigs, no harm, although that can be discussed too in places of the world where basically none tetras exists, but leave it at that. - then lets move on to the western spinal cord and the proactiviness in the west - what actually is that? - whom sci, scientists, neurosurgeons etc are putting up networks, for sci cures? Not many, - put injecting cell-trials aside - how much could such joint networks produce i.e. for acute surgical approaches, dti/mri new ways, decompression and so on? If joining in? Take also, if, what cells, or remedies, to be first tested, with basically good tracrecords with some theoretical theorems and empirical values to back it, - if wanting to move on chronics, maybe go for known remedies system and move slowly. Sure basic and what’s known as basal studies are important. But given, all we know, or better don’t know - do you feel that some studies on the human injured spinal cord on chronics should be cancelled? Tnx.
    Dear Leif,

    It is my belief that, at a minimum, any clinical trial that involves potential harm to people and especially those who are already at risk due to SCI, should be backed by solid, at least minimally effective, independently replicated pre-clinical data. I find the rationale untenable that we should go boldly forward into human clinical trials without even an attempt to have duplicated as best a possible in an animal model the proposed human strategy. Basic research helps us to show robustness of effect and helps shed light on the mechanisms at the heart of the recovery or the lack thereof. Ponder this scenario: several good labs independently combine X+ Y at a truly chronic stage ( eg minimum of 6 weeks post injury) in a contusive rat ( or better yet pig) model of SCI and report absolutely no improvement and , indeed some decrement in function. Results of x+y at acute stages has minimal bearing on what might happen at chronic stages. There are many known as well as unknown factors that change as time passes after a lesion. OK, so now we do go boldly forward even with concerns and a patient here or a patient there minimally or even remarkably improves after treatment. So now what do we do? Small n's are very confounding because we don't know at all what the mechanisms of recovery may have been nor have we the ability to logically tweak the treatment to improve function based on solid scientific rationale. More cells, less cells, different cells, different injection locations, different route of delivery, more/less X related to Y........ and yet you propose to experiment with these basic paramaters that are so easily examined in animal models , in people. So, my answer is YES definitely hold off ever "experimenting" in humans and for heaven sakes no money should ever be solicited from an already financially strapped and struggling SCI community to pay for such high risk experimentation. This is my opinion and mine alone. Frankly, I don't have a cord injury so I could never ever put myself in the place of all of you who do, so I can see where many wish for clinical trials ASAP no matter the cost. After so many years of hype and unfounded promises of "within 5 years" I can imagine the frustration. So we have now entered a period of stem cell feeding frenzy with clinical trails popping up everywhere. I have great hope that stem cells will offer benefit at acute stages. They have powerful neuroprotective effects, but I see nothing credible (except maybe for Anderson/Cummings, Stem Cells INC, I think) of their effect at chronic time points after SCI. If you learned that pre-clinical data using the very treatment that you are about to get was safe but totally ineffective would you still go ahead with that treatment? If so you have my blessings but I would like to first see a concerted effort in animal models to improve the odds.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    17,427
    Quote Originally Posted by jsilver View Post
    Dear Leif,

    It is my belief that, at a minimum, any clinical trial that involves potential harm to people and especially those who are already at risk due to SCI, should be backed by solid, at least minimally effective, independently replicated pre-clinical data. I find the rationale untenable that we should go boldly forward into human clinical trials without even an attempt to have duplicated as best a possible in an animal model the proposed human strategy. Basic research helps us to show robustness of effect and helps shed light on the mechanisms at the heart of the recovery or the lack thereof. Ponder this scenario: several good labs independently combine X+ Y at a truly chronic stage ( eg minimum of 6 weeks post injury) in a contusive rat ( or better yet pig) model of SCI and report absolutely no improvement and , indeed some decrement in function. Results of x+y at acute stages has minimal bearing on what might happen at chronic stages. There are many known as well as unknown factors that change as time passes after a lesion. OK, so now we do go boldly forward even with concerns and a patient here or a patient there minimally or even remarkably improves after treatment. So now what do we do? Small n's are very confounding because we don't know at all what the mechanisms of recovery may have been nor have we the ability to logically tweak the treatment to improve function based on solid scientific rationale. More cells, less cells, different cells, different injection locations, different route of delivery, more/less X related to Y........ and yet you propose to experiment with these basic paramaters that are so easily examined in animal models , in people. So, my answer is YES definitely hold off ever "experimenting" in humans and for heaven sakes no money should ever be solicited from an already financially strapped and struggling SCI community to pay for such high risk experimentation. This is my opinion and mine alone. Frankly, I don't have a cord injury so I could never ever put myself in the place of all of you who do, so I can see where many wish for clinical trials ASAP no matter the cost. After so many years of hype and unfounded promises of "within 5 years" I can imagine the frustration. So we have now entered a period of stem cell feeding frenzy with clinical trails popping up everywhere. I have great hope that stem cells will offer benefit at acute stages. They have powerful neuroprotective effects, but I see nothing credible (except maybe for Anderson/Cummings, Stem Cells INC, I think) of their effect at chronic time points after SCI. If you learned that pre-clinical data using the very treatment that you are about to get was safe but totally ineffective would you still go ahead with that treatment? If so you have my blessings but I would like to first see a concerted effort in animal models to improve the odds.
    Professor Jerry Silver, - thank you very much for you’re rationale and throughout thinking, and answering on this - much appreciated, off course. Thing is, as you by discussions know, I have a SCI, - aside, discussions are not for myself, I cope and have a good life, - but the question(s), is/are; as you explained, - more on how to fix SCI in general, cell biology etc., if. - And in that regard, not concerning myself much (again, not at all), still I have always been a die-hard supporter on what you say, namely a supporter of basic science (basal science). I understand you’re rationale, for sure, like more preclinical data, but some ppl in that waiting period, could be helped?, - like a quad perhaps gaining some torso-diagram for breathing, - or a para with constant uti‘s, helped, or for that matter pressure ulcers (as you in the sci field know all about). And in that regard, I see cures for SCI - mandatory for helping our fellow human beings. Still, like you say, the CNS is the most complicated frontier in medicine, and we need to approach it slowly, to not harm, but still, lets push it, and how can we do that? Thanks!

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-13-2008, 10:32 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-22-2008, 04:31 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-06-2003, 08:20 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-07-2003, 01:53 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2003, 02:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •