Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Researchers Extract Cells From Glandular Tissue That Have Similar Properties To Embryonic Stem Cells

  1. #1
    Banned Faye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    6,839

    Researchers Extract Cells From Glandular Tissue That Have Similar Properties To Embryonic Stem Cells

    German Doctors Say They Create New Stem-Cell Method

    Fri May 28, 2004


    BERLIN (Reuters) - German scientists said Friday they had developed a "pioneering" method of extracting stem cells from the human body that could render obsolete the controversial practice of harvesting the cells from embryos.

    Researchers at the Frauenhofer Institute and the University of Luebeck succeeded in extracting cells from human and rat glandular tissue that have similar properties to embryonic stem cells, the institute said in a statement. Researchers said they took cells from a 74-year-old person and a rat that were extremely stable, and easily multiplied them and conserved them by freezing.


    "An easily accessible source for the extraction of highly potent stem cells has been discovered, in almost any vertebrate but also in the human body, regardless of sex and age," the institute said.


    Stem cells are master cells in the body that have the capability to transform into new cells or tissue.


    They can be taken from adults and discarded umbilical cords but those from embryos are considered especially valuable as each one has the potential to become any sort of cell or tissue.

    Researchers believe they may offer a revolutionary way to repair diseased and damaged body tissues and could be used in the treatment of diseases such as cancer and Parkinson's.

    Source

    "I do not believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
    - Galileo Galilei

  2. #2
    Originally posted by Faye:

    Researchers at the Frauenhofer Institute and the University of Luebeck succeeded in extracting cells from human and rat glandular tissue that have similar properties to embryonic stem cells, the institute said in a statement. Researchers said they took cells from a 74-year-old person and a rat that were extremely stable, and easily multiplied them and conserved them by freezing.

    "An easily accessible source for the extraction of highly potent stem cells has been discovered, in almost any vertebrate but also in the human body, regardless of sex and age," the institute said.
    Now this is the type thing that can help. Go Germany!

    -Steven
    ...dear kindly judge, your honour, my parents treat me rough, with all their marijuana, they won't give me a puff, they didn't wanna have me, but somehow I was had, leapin' lizards, that's why I'm so bad

  3. #3
    If true, these results would be very significant. Basically, the difference between embryonic stem cell lines and most adult stem cells is the ability to grow them in culture. Embryonic stem cells are almost unique in that they can be grown indefinitely (for many years) in culture without changing their characteristics. Stem cells that one obtains from the brain or other parts of the body from fetus, neonates, or adults usally differentiate over time in culture and change their characteristics. That is why there are so few or no adult stem cell lines. It is possible to get adult stem cells to grow indefinitely by introducing oncogenes (cancer genes) but this is a little worrisome. So, most fetal or adult stem cells have to be obtained every time for transplantation whereas embryonic stem cells can be grown. Until this report, I believe that the only exceptions to the above are cancer cells and germ cells (the cells that make sperm and eggs). John Gearhart isolated germ cells from human fetuses and then grew stem cell lines that continued to grow indefinitely. So, if what this article describes is true and can be replicated by others, this would indeed suggest a new source of cells that can be grown in culture.

    Wise.

  4. #4
    stew how are things going let me know because im going to have it done soon think u for writeing each day good lucky 88times

  5. #5
    Senior Member Janet McDonald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Beverly Hills, Ca. 90212
    Posts
    231
    Yes, Dr. Young, we would not have to bother about immune reactions. To grow
    them in culture should not be difficult, the relevant point seems to me
    that they might persist if transplanted. If I understand it right, the
    problem with ES cells is, that they might just disappear after days or weeks
    due to phagocytosis. I am not sure what the reaction is in Germany.
    We'll keep an eye on further studies. In general, the Fraunhofer Institutes
    has a good reputation for research in Germany...I would assume that they would not
    release soap bubbles to catch media attention or investors.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Schmeky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    West Monroe, LA, USA
    Posts
    3,415
    . . . . and speaking of the Germans,

    I have e-mailed Neuraxo Biotec on different occassions, in German, inquiring about there supposed human trial using their Cordaneurin, have never gotten a reply.

  7. #7
    piela, I agree. When a source of cells becomes available for autograft, this takes the onus off embryonic stem cells and would allow clinical trials to go forward in the United States without all the political hassles. For this reason, I do not subscribe to the slippery slope theory of people who are afraid of embryonic stem cell research. In the future, we will not have "embyro factories". The moment effective autograft solutions become available, all cell transplants will be autografts.

    Let me comment here further on the difference between embryonic and adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells can be grown in culture for long periods of time without changing their characteristics. This means that a single culture can be used for many people. In contrast, very few adult stem cells can be grown for long periods without differentiating. This means that every time we want to transplant cells, we have to harvest the cells anew from a source. Whether this source is our bone marrow, peripheral nerve, brain, or blood, the harvesting and purification of these cells is expensive and time-consuming at the present. For example, culturing and expanding bone marrow stem cells may cost as much as $60,000. These costs are likely to fall as technology improves but this will hold back availability of therapies for people.

    If a method can be obtained for growing adult stem cell lines, this would transform the field. This means that insurance companies can invest one time in the production of stem cells from a person and the stem cells can then be expanded when needed for therapy during the life time of the person. This should attract industry investments. At the present, most therapeutic companies are reluctant to invest in stem cell research because they do not want to become a "service" company, like a blood bank. Companies want to be able to manufacture cells for therapy and gain profit from that.

    For some time now, I have been mulling over the possibility of forming a non-profit therapeutics company to develop therapies without the overhead of profit motivation. Having now gone through nearly a decade of working with for-profit companies, I have come to realize that capitalistic motivation may be inimical for therapeutic development. So many promising and important therapies have been abandoned due to the vagaries of capitalism and greed.

    Wise.

    [This message was edited by Wise Young on 06-01-04 at 09:44 AM.]

  8. #8
    Senior Member Janet McDonald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Beverly Hills, Ca. 90212
    Posts
    231
    Originally posted by Wise Young:

    piela, I agree. When a source of cells becomes available for autograft, this takes the onus off embryonic stem cells and would allow clinical trials to go forward in the United States without all the political hassles. For this reason, I do not subscribe to the slippery slope theory of people who are afraid of embryonic stem cell research. In the future, we will not have "embyro factories". The moment effective autograft solutions become available, all cell transplants will be autografts.
    Yes, Two problems would be solved, the moral and the immunological.
    Originally posted by Wise Young:
    If a method can be obtained for growing adult stem cell lines, this would transform the field. This means that insurance companies can invest one time in the production of stem cells from a person and the stem cells can then be expanded when needed for therapy during the life time of the person.
    I am not sure...cells in general have a limited capacity of dividing during their life span...the might have a much higher turn over rate in culture than physiologically... and after some time only tumor cells (permanent cell lines) would survive. A cell culture seems always to be a mixture of healthy and some tumor cells. It is not yet possible to distinguish them. To find the relevant marker in genes of stem cells that in the course of their life will develop to become 'permanent'.) So, I think, so far it would be wise to use 'fresh' cells...
    Originally posted by Wise Young:
    This should attract industry investments. At the present, most therapeutic companies are reluctant to invest in stem cell research because they do not want to become a "service" company, like a blood bank. Companies want to be able to manufacture cells for therapy and gain profit from that.
    I can imagine that they let the universities and research institutions, which are financed by taxes, do the expensive research work...as soon as the time will be mature for therapies they might jump in...it is a huge and profitable market.
    Originally posted by Wise Young:
    For some time now, I have been mulling over the possibility of forming a non-profit therapeutics company to develop therapies without the overhead of profit motivation. Having now gone through nearly a decade of working with for-profit companies, I have come to realize that capitalistic motivation may be inimical for therapeutic development. So many promising and important therapies have been abandoned due to the vagaries of capitalism and greed.
    And many wars have been fought...and will be in the future...

  9. #9
    Originally posted by Wise Young:

    This means that insurance companies can invest one time in the production of stem cells from a person and the stem cells can then be expanded when needed for therapy during the life time of the person. This should attract industry investments. At the present, most therapeutic companies are reluctant to invest in stem cell research because they do not want to become a "service" company, like a blood bank. Companies want to be able to manufacture cells for therapy and gain profit from that.

    For some time now, I have been mulling over the possibility of forming a non-profit therapeutics company to develop therapies without the overhead of profit motivation. Having now gone through nearly a decade of working with for-profit companies, I have come to realize that capitalistic motivation may be inimical for therapeutic development. So many promising and important therapies have been abandoned due to the vagaries of capitalism and greed.

    Wise.

    [This message was edited by Wise Young on 06-01-04 at 09:44 AM.]
    Wise,

    No truer words were ever spoken. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

    What we do in life echoes in eternity. Maximus - Gladiator

  10. #10
    Originally posted by Piela:


    Originally posted by Wise Young:
    If a method can be obtained for growing adult stem cell lines, this would transform the field. This means that insurance companies can invest one time in the production of stem cells from a person and the stem cells can then be expanded when needed for therapy during the life time of the person.
    I am not sure...cells in general have a limited capacity of dividing during their life span...the might have a much higher turn over rate in culture than physiologically... and after some time only tumor cells (permanent cell lines) would survive. A cell culture seems always to be a mixture of healthy and some tumor cells. It is not yet possible to distinguish them. To find the relevant marker in genes of stem cells that in the course of their life will develop to become 'permanent'.) So, I think, so far it would be _wise_ to use 'fresh' cells...
    • Piela, this is just a matter of technique. We should separate two aspects of growth: proliferation and differentiation. Proliferation is relatively straightforward to deal with. Adult cells have the capability of growing several weeks in culture (making perhaps several dozen divisions), compared to embryonic stem cells that can make hundreds of divisions. After a week or two, the cells simply stop growing. However, even 10 divisions can produce a lot of cells. If you start out with 1000 cells and each of the cells divided 10 times, this means that you have 2000 by the first division, 4000 by the 2nd, 8000 by the 3rd... to about a million cells by the 10th division. So, if you collect a million cells and then freeze down down 100 aliquots of 10,000 cells (assuming that 10% will survive freezing and thawing), that means you would be able to have enough cells of 100 treatments. Differentiation is more problematical. It means that as the cells are dividing, they are changing. By the end of the culture period, you may no longer have the cells that you started out with.


    Originally posted by Piela
    Originally posted by Wise Young:
    This should attract industry investments. At the present, most therapeutic companies are reluctant to invest in stem cell research because they do not want to become a "service" company, like a blood bank. Companies want to be able to manufacture cells for therapy and gain profit from that.
    I can imagine that they let the universities and research institutions, which are financed by taxes, do the expensive research work...as soon as the time will be mature for therapies they might jump in...it is a huge and profitable market.
    • Piela, this is a non-starter. You cannot use research to fund therapy. Research is best for determining the best methods but ultimately the method must be scaled and made economically feasible for therapy. If it takes 10 days of work to collect cells, grow them, purify them, characterize them, and then transplant them, this is what will cost $60,000. By the way, this is the estimated cost of getting bone marrow stem cells for the treatment of leukemia and other diseases. This is a well-established technique that has been carried out now for over a decade.

Posting Permissions

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