![]() |
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: maryland
Posts: 212
|
stem cells
I know that we have not reached the point where human/clinical trials are happening. Yet, I was wondering has there been any literature on the benfit of using or trying to use the embillical cord for this purpose? I know that embryonic stem cells are the way to go, so to speak, but what about the embellical cord? Does the embellical cord contain the "right" type of stem cells to be used for trials? Any info appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Senior Member
|
Survivor go here:
http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthr...t=68259&page=2 Poast # 13 should help answer your question |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: maryland
Posts: 212
|
Thanks. Also, has anyone tried to use their "own"embillical cord, say from a pregnancy after SCI? Should you try to save the cord?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: somerset. ca.95684
Posts: 32
|
multi stem cells
my plan is to find a mad researcher to mix all different types to current self embryonic type that match best a combo anti regejction ,growth boost, netrulize inhibiters
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Posts: 37,975
|
Quote:
Several laboratories have reported that umbilical cord blood is beneficial in rats after spinal cord injury. Unfortunately, without clinical trials to show that the treatment is safe and effective, a number of clinics around the world have been giving human umbilical cord blood (HUCB) to people with spinal cord injury, telling them that it may cure them and charging them for the therapy. On the surface, it may seem reasonable to give people a chance to try this treatment that has been used to treat other conditions. Why not allow people to try the treatment? The problem is that none of these places are carefully evaluating the patients before and after the treatment, nor are they comparing the recovery of treated patients against against patients who did not receive the treatment. Thus, despite several years of using umbilical cord blood in hundreds of patients, we currently do not know that umbilical cord blood cells have any benefit in humans. They are also not reporting complications that the patients are having and thus we don't know whether the treatment is safe. One company that is treating patients with human umbilical cord blood is called Beike Biotechnology. Located in Shenzhen, this company gives human umbilical cord blood to people with many neurological diseases, ranging from spinal cord injury to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. This is done in several hospitals in different parts of China. They are apparently charging patients $20,000-$30,000 for the treatment, hospitalization, and various other services that are being delivered. The company will not divulge details of the treatment but, based on the information that people have described on this web site, they appear to be treating patients with CD34+ cells that are isolated and grown from fresh umbilical cord blood units. They inject the cells intravenously or intrathecally (into the cerebrospinal fluid surrounding the spinal cord). The cells are not HLA-antigen matched to the patients (which is normally done whenever umbilical cord blood is used) because the company believes that the cells are not rejected. They have claimed that the treatment is 100% safe and 80% effective. I have been critical of Beike for three reasons. First, the company does not follow up the patients carefully and has never published any of its findings, other than to encourage the patients to report their impressions on a web site. Second, in my opinion, there is no evidence that the umbilical cord blood cells are immune privileged. Many years of using human umbilical cord blood for treating hematopoietic disorders indicate that cells that do not match at least 4/6 HLA antigens are usually rejected. Third, the company is providing what I consider to be misleading information concerning the efficacy and safety of the treatment for spinal cord injury. There are several other clinics that are treating patients with spinal cord injury with human umbilical cord blood. For example, the Tijuana clinic that has long treated spinal cord injury patients with so-called shark embryos has now turned to transplanting human umbilical cord blood cells into patients with spinal cord injury. I don't know whether they use HLA-matched cells or not. I have heard that there is a center in Monterey, Mexico that apparently has transplanted umbilical cord blood cells to people with spinal cord injury. I have heard that there are also some places in the Caribbean. All the above does not mean that umbilical cord blood cells are ineffective. The truth is that we don't know and these groups are taking advantage of desperate people, asking them to pay large sums for cells of unknown quality and efficacy, often without doing HLA-matching of the cells and through routes that are very unlikely to get the cells into the spinal cord. They make unsubstantiated claims for the efficacy and safety of the treatment. Worse, they are not following up the patients to assess the outcomes. In short, they are scamming people, using a promising source of cells but for which there is currently no credible data of efficacy for spinal cord injury. So, what is known about umbilical cord blood cells and their effect on spinal cord injury? Let me review some of the key reports on this subject (the references and abstracts are listed at the end of this post): • In 2004, Saporta, et al. reported that infusing human umbilical cord blood (hUCB) improve neurological recovery in rats that have had spinal cord injury from clip compression. They claim that the treatment apparently works when given as late as 5 days after spinal cord injury. To my knowledge, this study has never been replicated by any other laboratory. • In 2004, Zhao, et al. transplanted human CD34+ cells into hemisected rat spinal cords and reported that rats treated with CD34+ cells achieved better improvement in functional scores than those that received bone marrows stromal cells. They report that BrdU-labeled CD34+ cells survived and migrated into the injury site. CD34 is generally thought to be a marker of hematopoietic stem cells. In our experience, human cells are immune-rejected by rat spinal cord, usually within 3-4 weeks. By the way, hemisected rats always recover walking. It is possible that the treatment enhanced recovery rate of the rats. • In 2005, Kuh, et al. transplanted hUCB cells into the spinal cord of rats, using our spinal cord contusion model. In one treatment group, they gave a neurotrophic factor (BDNF) alongside the cells. They showed that the rats treated with hUCB and BDNF showed significantly better locomotor scores than those treated with hUCB alone or control untreated rats. • In 2006, Nishio, et al. transplanted hUCB enriched for CD34+ cells in matrigel at one week after spinal cord contusion while they transplanted only matrigel in control rats. Immunohistological examination of the spinal cords revealed that human CD34+ cells survived for about 3 weeks and all were gone by 5 weeks after injury. The treated rats had smaller lesions and walked better. • In 2007, Dasari, et al. published two papers on the subject. One reported the results of transplanting hUCB into spinal cord of rats at one week after spinal cord contusion. They found that the hUCB cells formed myelin around axons, survived at least two weeks, and claimed that he cells differentiated into neurons and oligodendroglia. They report that the treated rats walked better than controls. In the second paper, they report that hUCB reduces expression of FAS, an inflammatory cytokine that contributed to apoptosis or programmed cell death. They propose that this is the mechanism by which the hUCB may work in subacute spinal cord injury. In 2008, Dasari, et al. published a third paper in which they claimed that there were substantial number of surviving hUCB cells in injured spinal cord as long as 5 weeks after transplantation. • In 2008, Kao, et al. reported that hUCB CD34+ cells attenuate spinal cord injury when transplanted into rat spinal cord that were compressed for 1 minute with an aneurysm clip. They report beneficial effects of the transplants and upregulation of VEGF and GDNF expression in the spinal cord, suggesting that the HUCB cells stimulated the production of these two growth factors and they may be responsible for the beneficial effects. In summary, several independent laboratories have reported that hUCB cells are beneficial in rat spinal cord injury models. The initial studies by Saporta, et al. and Zhao, et al. are significantly flawed and left many unanswered questions. However, the subsequent studies by Kuh, Nishio, and Dasari, et al. are more credible. In these studies, cells were transplanted a week after contusion injury. Since all three groups used our spinal cord injury model and I trained people in the laboratories, I have greater confidence in the injuries and outcome measures. Basically the three studies (in Korea, Japan, and the USA) reported that transplanted hUCB cells survive only several weeks. None of the groups used immunosuppression to prevent rejection of the cells. Xenografts (cross-species, e.g. human to rat) into the spinal cord usually survive for 3-4 weeks and are gone by 5 weeks. I am not convinced that any of the groups showed that the transplanted cells themselves produced neurons or myelinating cells. Two of the groups reported that hUCB cell transplants alone improved locomotor recovery. One group reported better recovery only with hUCB plus BDNF. Dasari, et al. reported in 2008 that cells survived in the spinal cord for up to 5 weeks. They, however, used BrdU labelling of cells which can give misleading impressions of surviving cells. In any case, I believe that it is important to carry out rigorous clinical trials to assess the risk and benefits of human umbilical cord blood cells transplants in people. Hundreds of patients are now receiving these treatments around the world. We are currently organizing clinical trials in China to test the effects of umbilical cord blood cells. We are focusing on people with chronic spinal cord injury (>1 year and stable neurological function for at least 6 months). We will use HLA-matched hUCB cells (to reduce rejection), transplant the cells directly into the spinal cord, and carefully assess the recovery of people for a year afterward. Recently, we found that lithium stimulates hUCB cells to produce neurotrophins. We have consequently proposed to combine lithium and HLA-matched hUCB cell transplantation. One unanswered question is whether we should use mononuclear cells or CD34+ cells. While some investigators have used CD34+ enriched hUCB cells, others have used just hUCB mononuclear cells. Mononuclear cells include all the stem cells in the cord blood. About 2% of mononuclear cells are CD34+. CD34 is believed to be a marker of hematopoietic stem cells but this is controversial. Lithium stimulates mononuclear cells to produce neurotrophins, not necessarily CD34+. In any case, since we don't know whether the beneficial effect is coming from CD34+ cells or other mononuclear cells, we decided to start with mononuclear cells. We have organized the ChinaSCiNet to carry out the trials. The phase 1 and 2 lithium trials have started, assessing the safety and efficacy of lithium alone. We will be submitting the application for the phase 2 trial to assess HLA-mached hUCB cell transplants in people with chronic spinal cord injury, to find out the best and safest cell dose to use. In 2009, depending on the results of the phase 2 hUCB transplant trial, we hope to initiate the phase 3 hUCB plus lithium trial, testing the combination of hUCB mononuclear cells and lithium In clinical trial, where all the patients would get the transplant and half would get lithium in addition. If the hUCB alone or with lithium is not beneficial in restoring function, we can say that the treatment is ineffective and recommend against its use. If hUCB plus lithium is effective, i.e. improves function compared to pre-treatment and compared to hUCB alone, then we can recommend the use of hUCB plus lithium. If hUCB transplantation is effective both with and without lithium, we would need to do a further clinical trial to confirm that the treatment effect is not due to the transplantation procedure alone. We are currently raising funds to initiate similar trials In the U.S. Wise. References Cited
Last edited by Wise Young; 03-23-2008 at 01:40 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: maryland
Posts: 212
|
Thank you Dr. Young for your response and info. I take it that there has not been an incidence where women use their own embillical cord for the stem cell extracts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Posts: 37,975
|
Quote:
Wise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: maryland
Posts: 212
|
Thank you for the response and clarification Dr. Young.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 61
|
And as of right now there is no proof that these treatments work at all.There have always been people willing to take advantage of those who are looking for hope wherever they can find it. The biggest mistake, as Dr. Young has often said, is having the attitude that you have "nothing to lose". First of all there's the money. Money is clearly not everything and a cure would be invaluable, but you'd be paying a ton of cash for something that might not even work. Then there's the fact that you're letting someone inject "something" into you. What is it, really? You have no way of knowing for sure. Look at the medical standards in some of the countries where these treatments are taking place. You have a lot to lose. Depending on what is actually being put into your body and whether or not the doctor even knows how to properly execute the procedure, you could end up in an even worse state of health than you started. Doing research is definitely a good thing. More people should be wary of these experimental "treatments". I mean, they're not EVEN a clinical trial and they want YOU to pay THEM?? Your money would be far better spent if you donated it to legitimate researchers who are actually logging data and looking for actual effective treatments.
In America it's the drug companies that scare me. Let me rephrase that: it's our ATTITUDE toward drugs that scares me. I think many of us put too much faith in anyone who happens to be wearing a white lab coat. Once upon a time clinical drug trials used to seem like a fairly risky thing. These research companies would pay people quite a bit of money to participate in their experiments. Now I see commercials on TV all the time advertising these same types of trials and making a big deal about getting "free drugs!". Like you should be thanking them for putting experimental chemicals in your body. Like they're doing YOU a favor instead of the other way around. Ahh but I'm off on a tangent now... anyway... Keep doing research, keep your skeptisicm, and, most of all, keep your hope. Some truly amazing, legitimate research is being done right now. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Embryonic versus Adult Stem Cells and other spinal cord injury therapies | Wise Young | Cure | 90 | 04-18-2013 09:13 AM |
| A new lecture of stem cell biology that I have been giving | Wise Young | Cure | 13 | 07-14-2008 10:47 PM |
| Exciting Strides Being Made in Stem Cell Research | Leif | Cure | 0 | 12-12-2005 07:25 PM |
| The Controversy About Adult Stem Cells over how they provide observed benefits | Faye | Cure | 0 | 07-20-2004 09:13 PM |
| LANCET´S ARTICLE | KIM | Cure | 2 | 10-04-2002 09:52 AM |