Health & Medicine - Posted by Charles Casey-UC Davis on Wednesday, August 17, 2011 15:04 - 1 Comment 
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5) Loading ...Skin cells bypass embryo cell obstacles
Using cells from a patient's own skin has the potential to treat many diseases as an alternative or adjuvant therapy to drugs or surgery, according to new research that says questions about their immunological safety should not be seen as a roadblock to their use. (Credit: iStockphoto)
UC DAVIS (US) — Stem cells from a patient’s own skin may be effective in treating a variety of health conditions and at the same time would avoid the controversy of using stem cells from human embryos.
Share this article
Email
Republish this article
The text of this article by Futurity is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License.
Questions about the immunological safety of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) should not be viewed as a roadblock in advancing research into their use, according to a new study published in the journal Cell Stem Cell.
“iPSCs offer the potential to treat many diseases as an alternative or adjuvant therapy to drugs or surgery,” says Paul Knoepfler, associate professor of cell biology and human anatomy at University of California, Davis.
“Problems that have been identified with their use likely can be overcome, allowing iPSCs to jump from the laboratory dish to patients who could benefit from them.”
iPSCs were first produced in 2006 from mouse cells and in 2007 from human cells and have many of the same regenerative properties as human embryonic stem cells, but are derived in a lab from adult cells, such as skin cells, by inducing or forcing them to express specific genes that are normally dormant.
In theory, a person’s skin cells could be induced to make neurons that produce the neurotransmitter dopamine, for example, and be delivered to brain regions where it is lacking in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Similarly, cells could be induced to regenerate heart muscle and blood vessels after a heart attack, or neurons following a spinal cord injury.
Problems of rejection due to immunological differences between the donor (the embryo) and the patient would be eliminated, because the iPSCs would be derived from each individual patient.
A recent study using iPSCs in mice found that tissue rejection may, in fact, occur in some cases, but Knoepfler believes that particular study was conducted in the context of tumors, which tend to be highly immunogenic and not be applicable for human use.
Another concern with using either iPSCs or embryonic stem cells is that cells with the ability to turn into many different cell types may grow out of control, producing cancerous tumors. Those studies involved implanting large numbers of undifferentiated stem cells into mice that were treated with immunosuppressant drugs to reject transplants, making the conditions ideal for cancers to arise, Knoepfler says.
That scenario is unlikely to be applicable when treating humans for actual diseases. In such cases, the stem cells would be induced to have a specific function, and the body’s natural immune defenses would be present.
The “pluripotent” nature of stem cells, which potentially allow their use to repair almost any tissue, is only beginning to be harnessed for human therapies. Stem cell therapy has already been successfully used for years to treat leukemia and related bone and blood cancers and the use of iPSCs could vastly increase the spectrum of disease that might be treated with stem cells, without the safety and ethical concerns inherent in using embryonic stem cells, Knoepfler says.
“Future studies of iPSCs should increasingly focus on issues most relevant to the eventual clinical use of the cells, offering the fastest pathway to treating patients with this potentially powerful therapeutic tool.”
Funding was provided by a grant from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.
More news from UC Davis: http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/
Please wait
1 Comment
Kev
This sort of research should be funded to the hilt, it can’t come soon enough, it’s not until some of these
do-gooders, politicians pushing their own agendas or mega wearlthy so wrapped up in making more money then they can spend in a life time at the sacrifice of everything else, only when they end up with one of he many life long chronic illness, neurodegenerative disease etc…that they will truly understand the urgency of such research, which will be way to late. Should these in a posistion to make things happen have they the insight on top of human side, if they care to look at the big picture there’s huge economic gains to made in such an investment once the advancements come and they will no doubt but it’s like anything it takes time and investment.
Lets face it there are litterally millions of people suffering constantly and it’s not going to stop, these suffers and their families and friends would pay enormous amounts or money to be rid of these rotten illnesses, many that ultimately lead to unimaginable life long surffering not only for the person with the disease but for their family and freinds.
As they say, “you’ve really got nothing unless you’ve got your health” and while everyone has heard of this saying, not everyone will fully understand it, until they’re up against the wall, with life altering and progresive diseases, but it will be too late to do anything about it by then.
Kev