Houston Chronicle article

[rickrick]

Glad to see the ripple is still moving across the pond

Stem cell therapy: Restoring sight to the blind | Baker Institute Blog | a Chron.com blog

[DonV]

I love the comments about the article, well educated responses.

[rickrick]

I love the comments about the article, well educated responses.

Yes they were. The last comment had valid points about cell comparisons. I was glad to see a positive article in such 'hostile' territory , may be one reason the author didn't mention our name.

[AMGuy]

I was pleased to see such a good article from the James Baker Institute at Rice University in Houston with a slant towards public policy. Hope this kind of support continues. And in their backyard is the Houston Medical Center complex which is world class in terms of medical treatment attracting patients from all over the world.

[pm1469]

"As a strong pro-life proponent I support the use of embryonic stem cell research. An embryo in a petri dish cannot live and develop as can an embryo in a womb. Therefore, I do not believe that it can be described as human “life.”"


Yay, a great comment by a very knowledgable "pro life" person.

Not to mention discarded embryos by couples, what a sin to destroy it without using it to help people -- like organ donors.....

[pm1469]

Another comment after the article: Can someone comment on his statement "trials with as good or better results with autologous stem cells?" Thanks -- pm

Mr. Horton: First let me thank you for bringing the highly promising field of research in treatment of retinal damage to our attention. Now for feedback: You should have clearly cited the link to the Lancet paper (Schwartz S, et al., Lancet 2012, PMID: 22281388) as the primary source, not TIME magazine summaries that are secondary, as well as naming the biotech company, ACT. Secondly, don’t you believe it exaggerates the researchers’ success to describe it as “life-changing” if the best outcome was improvement of vision from finger counting to only 20/800 – still legally blind? Thirdly, you should have compared the eSC-derived RPE cell data to results from patient-derived (autologous) RPE-choroid grafts (Van Zeeburg VJ, et al., Amer. Journal of Ophthalmology 2012, 153:120), now with 7-year follow-up. Also autologous RPE cells (e.g., Binder S, et al., Invest. Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2004; Ma et al., Invest. Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2009) as well as other sources such as marrow. All of these are in ongoing clinical trials, *with similar or better results.*
-
Mr. Horton, you have an ethical duty to research your material thoroughly before making policy statements based on same. Contrary to the implications of your post, there is nothing magical about embryonic stem cells, as opposed to adult-derived stem cells, tissue grafts or genetically modified cell transplants. If the results of the Schwartz et al. study are interesting but not spectacular, other cell therapies so far indicate equivalent or better results over longer times, and you present no biologically compelling hypothesis as to why eSC-derived RPE cells might be superior to autologous RPE cells or grafts, why is this – scientifically – more than just another study with interesting results? Please defend your research and your claims.

[michaelbrom]

goo Houston

pm1469, haven't adult stem cells been around MUCH longer than hESCs? and adult stem cells have had millions more in research grants as well...

Dr Thompson first developed a technique to isolate and grow human embryonic stem cells in cell culture in ONLY 1998...


we haven't even given hESCs (and the single-blastomere method) a chance

[pm1469]

I guess my question is, why the need to use hESCs if adult stem cells work (I'm sure that is what many are asking) to avoid the controversy surrounding hESC, if as the article quoted they are "as or more successful." So also asking is this true, that those results are just as successful. I must admit, I am cheating here picking your brain to avoid the time it takes to read all the articles myself, so feel free to answer "Do your own DD" (haha).

Thanks Bill.

[michaelbrom]

pm, Dr Knopfler blogs about embryonic vs adult vs ipsc etc on his blog. I was trying to find the exact posts but there are just too many to go through. He pretty much sums it up, that we need to explore all of our options currently, as the field is just too young and we don't know which type are most effective yet.
Knoepfler Lab Stem Cell Blog | Advancing knowledge and cures
https://www.ipscell.com/2012/02/the-...urts-everyone/

[red1]

thank you pm1469.
I have been searching for information on the use for choroidal repair and you just gave me a lead.I have a nephew who is blind in one eye because of blunt force.In your comments being well written and and backed up by by credible references you have done everyone a great service.
Once again I thank you for giving me another starting point. My nephew wont have children because if he loses the other eye he would not be a capable father.
thanks again. Red1.

[Regenofix]

I remember reading that Lanza said that the embryonic stem cells "have the magic" that none other seem to have.

[michaelbrom]

also.... in another thread that very young cells had some other certain properties that they used to ........arg i cant remember exactly but maybe that broken sentence will jog someone elses (better) memory and post a link..
sorry.. bad post hah..

[hophead]

The adult vs. embryonic debate has been covered many times on this board. Adult have many limitations compared to embryonic. Not sure where that guy found "successful" adult rpe clininical trials but it would be new to me...

[bo-bo241]

Lanza wrote a paper about how adult stem cells have an early death code. Lanza also stated his (ACT) NED lines of hesc are 5 times more robust than other lines in use. Whats old is not new again.

[pm1469]

Thanks all. I appreciate the references. I was quite certain it had all been covered here before and as I said, I was "cheating" by asking instead of doing my own DD, but you have helped me and exactly as I suspected that adult and hESC is comparing apples to oranges....

Red, I cannot take credit for that article, I copied it from the Yahoo article and comments. But I am SOOO glad it helps you with reference material for your nephew's vision.

Patti

[rickrick]

I guess my question is, why the need to use hESCs if adult stem cells work (I'm sure that is what many are asking) to avoid the controversy surrounding hESC, if as the article quoted they are "as or more successful." So also asking is this true, that those results are just as successful. I must admit, I am cheating here picking your brain to avoid the time it takes to read all the articles myself, so feel free to answer "Do your own DD" (haha).

Thanks Bill.

Adult stem cells have had a decent track record, mainly due to what michael said of their longer run time in the field. But, I've asked myself many times after reading all the 'success' stories that have come out "Self.. (that's me ) if adult stem cells are as great as they say, why don't we already have FDA approved therapies".

So, for as many successes as they have had over the years what they haven't been able to accomplish is a steady track record for these successes. They are only 'more' successful because they have 10 more years of research. And what I don't care for is how adult advocates use these success stories as if hESC's had run just as long and are lagging behind in successes.

I don't believe the AMD and SMD patients would agree with the last comment after the article about it not being life changing.

[saxxie]

pm1469,

Please refer to my last hESC review thread!

Adult stem cells are derived from non-embryonic tissues and typically reside in their tissue of origin. Similar to hESCs, adult stem cells are capable of self-renewal. However, unlike hESCs, they have restricted potential and are able to differentiate only into cells from the tissue of origin. In some cases, adult stem cells are not able to generate all cell types of the tissue of origin, nor can they sustain growth over time. The latter problem has been encountered specifically in stem cells obtained from aging individuals.

[ablidy]

one word telomere


Telomeres are structures found at the ends of chromosomes in the cells of eukaryotes stem cells . Telomeres function by protecting chromosome ends from recombination, fusion to other chromosomes, or degradation by nucleases. They permit cells to distinguish between random DNA breaks and chromosome ends. They also play a significant role in determining the number of times that a normal cell can divide.

Human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) are unique in that they can proliferate indefinitely in culture in an undifferentiated state as well as differentiate into any somatic cells. Undifferentiated hESCs do not appear to undergo senescence and remain nontransformed over multiple passages. Culture hESCs maintain telomere length and exhibit high telomerase activity after prolonged in vitro culture. The ability of hESCs to bypass senescence is lost as hESCs differentiate into fully differentiated somatic cells. This loss of immortality upon differentiation may be due to a variety aging related factors such as reduction in telomere length, alteration of telomerase activity, changes in cell cycle regulation and decrease in DNA repair ability.

vs.

The novel finding of adult stem cells and aging when reverting from differentiated cells back to adult stem cells the telomeres are shorten with age in different stem cell compartments, which parallels a decline in stem cell functionality, suggesting that telomere loss may contribute to stem cell dysfunction with age.

hESC Lanza' s magic cells