UW-Madison reports another stem cell breakthrough
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — University of Wisconsin-Madison scientists have made another breakthrough in stem cell research.
Stem cell pioneer James Thomson and his colleagues have developed a safer way of turning cells from newborns' foreskins into something similar to human embryonic stem cells.
Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells in 1998.
Previous efforts to convert cells left behind viruses and outside genes, possibly leading to mutations, impairing the cells' growth or creating tumors.
Thomson and his team reported Thursday in the journal Science that they solved this problem by delivering special genes with a plasmid, which is a small, stable circle of DNA. This material reprogrammed the skin cells before it was removed. Cells that appear to have embryonic stem cells' healing potential remained.
Stephen Duncan, a stem cell researcher at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said the technique holds promise because any basic molecular biology lab can use it. He was not involved in the UW-Madison research but has been working along similar lines.
"I think we're getting to a position where we can start to think about using these cells therapeutically," Duncan said.
Alan Trounson, president of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, predicted the new method "will be recognized as another important step forward on reprogramming cells."
Cell reprogramming has proved one of the most dynamic areas of biology in recent years as a growing number of researchers pursue alternatives to using human embryonic stem cells.
Some people object to using those cells because human embryos are destroyed in their production.
Thomson and other scientists have returned cells to an embryonic state, offering a potential solution to the controversy. However, their methods rendered the cells unsafe for use in humans.
That led to a stream of research on improving the safety and efficiency of reprogramming. Several methods have been developed.
"At this point, there is no way to see which one is going to be superior over the others," said Andras Nagy, a senior scientist at Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital. "Most likely there will be no single winner of this race."
Nagy developed a method that delivers reprogramming genes with a mobile genetic element called piggyBac, which can be popped out of a cell's genome when its work is done.
Thomson said the method used to send the cells back to their embryonic state matters less than how normal the cells are when they get there.
He said his lab will now analyze the reprogrammed cells carefully to determine how closely they match human embryonic stem cells. So far, there appear to be subtle differences between the two, he said.
Mar 28, 2009 at 6:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
science will ALWAYS trump religion and ethics. sooner or later.
Mar 28, 2009 at 11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
There is a group of physicians, patients and other interested people working together to get treatment with adult stem cells legalized in the U.S. as it should be. Please ask your family and friends to sign up ("JOIN"), and get as many doctors to sign up as well. See The American Stem Cell Therapy Association site at
http://www.stemcelldocs.org
Mar 28, 2009 at 10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
billnewbie, whatever respectability he may have is damaged by your attribution: "the christian world gave birth to the experimental method of science." Not true, the scientific method had its origins in Iraq by an Iraqi about a thousand years ago.
And "faith in an orderly universe" caused the scientific method? not true. The first effort to see what is true with the anticipation of proving something is true is not faith in the sense that faith in a cruel, totalitarian god is faith. You believers have a problem with an orderly understanding of the denotative and connotative meanings of words.
And talk about orderly, your post is a disorderly mess of mish-mash.
What does it mean to say that something came out of the christian world? What is the christian world? It's that part of the world where there are a lot christians, churches, and christian clergy. It says nothing about the value of belief in god and scripture and Christ to say that something came out of the christian world.
Why didn't you counter my post with scripture? Oh, yeah, that's a big problem, isn't it. There's nothing in scripture that has anything to do with free inquiry at all, let alone anything that has to do with science.
Scripture depends on supernatural occurrences to make its points. Science has never found anything supernatural to be true. The laws of the universe have never been violated. The scientific method is antithetical to god and Christ and religion and scripture.
That's right, there isn't anything in scripture that will help the claim that the scientific method came from christianity.
Yes, I will continue to denounce nonsense. I denounce your concession that it is OK to stone to death an "adult" (actually a child) for overeating and alcohol abuse (Deuteronomy).
What exactly are you saying is going on with stem cell research that is comparable to dismembering a human body? You kill thousands of times more cells when you scratch your nose than when cells are acquired for stem cell research as stated in the story.
As for how those cells are acquired per the story, you might want to stay away from that subject. It is god and scripture that orders the genital mutilation of boys with circumcision. Compare the pain of lopping off a foreskin with acquiring a few cells from that foreskin.
You just dig you hole deeper and deeper.
Mar 27, 2009 at 8:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
I suppose this discovery, indeed one which owes to faith based arguments, allows us to end this debate and move towards the use of stem cells to discover if they hold any potential. Debate over. And to suggest that science owes its legitimacy to religion, because someone wrote it in a book is ridiculous. Religion was spawned to answer questions that, at one time, seemed unanswerable. Science is illuminating the the "magic" behind once inexplicable events, and to suggests that it is any more rational than believing in a sun god is ridiculous. I'm not bashing religion, even to an atheist, they can see the value and comfort it gives people, who seek it.
Mar 27, 2009 at 7:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
It’s been stated here by that notorious historian, Gazettefan, that Christianity has been a hindrance of scientific discovery. Unfortunately for Gazettefan real scientific historians with verifiable credentials such as Dr. Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), a Professor of anthropology, a science history writer and evolutionist come to quite different conclusion that Gazettefan, a person known to make unsupportable claims of himself. Dr. Eiseley concluded that the birth of modern science was mainly due to the creationist convictions of its founders in his book titled “Darwin’s Century” of 1961. “It is the CHRISTIAN world which finally gave birth in a clear articulated fashion to the experimental method of science itself ... It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor inference with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man’s wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.” But I’m sure that faced with this contrary opinion by a respected source, Gazettefan will still find some way to denounce it.
.
How does one obtain stem cells from a human embryo if not by dissection preceded by execution or perhaps it is execution by dissection. Either way, dissection is just another name for dismemberment. That is the practice that was banned by President Bush, not the method for obtaining stem cells described by this story which are proving that embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary aside from its inherent immorality.
Mar 27, 2009 at 5:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Befferer,
Bush never said he wouldn't allow stem cell reserach, he was against FEDERAL AID for stem cell research
Mar 27, 2009 at 5:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Not only do you misstate what stem cell research is, you do it a day or so after condoning the preachment of a biblical Deuteronomy verse that orders people to deal with overeating, alcoholic "adults" by stoning them to death.
Stem cells are hollow microscopic balls of cells grown in a culture disk. They are not extracted from a woman's body. No limbs or whatever are ripped off of anything, let alone a human being.
Your thinking here is on the continuum of thousands of years of theists who opposed, in the name of god, thousands of scientific medical advancements. This practice has set the quality of human health care back centuries and centuries.
Mar 27, 2009 at 5:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bush's reasoning was that human life should not be "harvested" for its parts. Many people think that stem cell research is worth it as that research holds so much promise, but those people are not the ones being forced into death and dismemberment for the sake of this research. Isn't it strange how many people get upset at the use of animals for medical research yet have no problem with the forfeiting of human life for the same purpose?
Mar 27, 2009 at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
beeferer - Bush didn't not allow this, he didn't allow embryonic stem cell research. The type of stem cell research in the story is using skin from a newborn child, not an embryo. Either way, it's nice to see all the possible advances in the medical field from this research.
Mar 27, 2009 at 2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
What was Bush's reasoning for not allowing this?
Mar 27, 2009 at 12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
This is just an incredible area of research right now.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.