Heart Valves May One Day be Made From Umbilical Cord Blood Stemcells
The Bush embryonic stem cell funding limitations will be histoire as of January 20, 2009. But the advances in ethical stem cell research, that I believe his policy did much to promote, will not abate. Now, umbilical cord blood stem cells have been used to create rudimentary heart valves. From the story:
Lest we hype the science like the ESCR advocates have so shamelessly, it is important to understand there is much work to do with no guarantees:Stem cells collected at birth from the umbilical cord may help doctors fashion new heart valves for children born with heart valve defects.
The tissue-engineered valves would have the advantage of growing with the child, the German researchers said. "If we replace a valve in a child, they will need surgery several times in their lifetime, because they will grow out of the devices, so the ultimate goal is to have a construct which is able to grow with the child and only have to do the surgery once," said study author Dr. Ralf Sodian, a cardiac surgeon at University Hospital of Munich. "Earlier is better, if it's possible."
Presenting Monday at the American Heart Association's annual scientific sessions in New Orleans, Sodian reported that his team took stem cells from umbilical cord blood, stored them for 12 weeks, then seeded them on to eight heart valve scaffolds.
The stem cells went on to form a layer of tissue which included several characteristics of the "extracellular matrix," or the section of tissue outside of cells.The engineered valves had almost 78 percent as much collagen as human tissue from pulmonary heart valves; 85 percent as much glycosaminoglycan as human tissue; and 67 percent as much elastin. Collagen and elastin are proteins in connective tissue, and glycosaminoglycan is a carbohydrate in connective tissue.
"I don't think anyone has any idea if [these valves] would grow," Luepker said. "One may not know until it is put into a child, and the child grows. There are obviously a lot of hurdles to overcome."...There is also a possibility that the child's body will reject the artificial valve, although this is not so common, Luepker said.This much is sure: The old meme that "embryonic stem cells are the only hope" for regenerative treatments is as dead as the Bush funding policy.
A bigger issue is the sheer work that a heart valve has to perform. "The stresses on a heart valve are enormous," Luepker said. "They have to hold the blood back with each beat. The wear and tear on them which we see with metal and plastic valves is an issue, and those are fairly hard substances."
Labels: ESCR. Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cells. Regenerative Medicine. Bush ESCR Funding Policy.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:18 AM
12 Comments
12 Comments:
"Lest we hype the science like the ESCR advocates have so shamelessly,...The old meme that "embryonic stem cells are the only hope" for regenerative treatments is as dead"
Usually if you quote something you attribute the quote to someone. Who said this Wesley? Or are you just setting up another strawman to knock down?
Time and again you Fail to acknowledge that it is not one cell type pitted against another cell type that determines a victory in disease research. The fact that you continually refuse to accept this and keep attempting to divide research for your political agenda is what is shameless and harmful.
ESCr is not HYPE as you repeatedly suggest, it is real and it is progressing rapidly. Soon enough you will be proven very very wrong. Clinical trials using ESCs in human to treat spinal injury are scheduled to begin shortly after the federal ban Bush signed which has prolonged human suffering is lifted by Obama's pen. Funny thing, that will be one of his first actions as President.
I know you will often pine for the horror of the Bush years, but Obama is the one opening the door for productive research soon enough. It is so pleasing that political agendas and hostile social maneuvering is becoming marginalized to the lunatic fringe of society where it belongs.
Since you're unable to speak equitably about ESCr and ASCr it will be shown that you are not a credible source on the subject of stem cell research.
If I were you, I'd quit while I was not so far behind. Somehow I think your not capable though.
DS: As usual, you mix apples and oranges, making it hard to ignore you, since I don't want anyone to receive factually false information on this site. You said: "ESCr is not HYPE as you repeatedly suggest, it is real and it is progressing rapidly. Soon enough you will be proven very very wrong. Clinical trials using ESCs in human to treat spinal injury are scheduled to begin shortly after the federal ban Bush signed which has prolonged human suffering is lifted by Obama's pen."
The human trials are not yet scheduled. Geron has been promising human trials for that product "next year" for about five years now, as I have noted at SHS. The FDA has not yet agreed. It might happen, but it might not happen.
But carry on with your obfuscations. I believe in free speech.
Thanks for your clarification, Wesley.
Well quite simply lets wait till spring and see if it happens or not.
A lot of people are talking about it
http://www.promedbilling.com/blog/2008/10/21/geron-initiates-clinical-trial-of-grn163l-in-combination-with-bortezomib-and-dexamethasone-in-patients-with-multiple-myeloma
investors are perking up
http://www.yourtradingstock.com/2008/11/geron-corporation-gern-stock-pick-111108/
The baptists are concerned
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=29224&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed1029
and so is Illinois right to life
http://ifrl-blog.blogspot.com/2008/10/fda-may-allow-embryonic-stem-cells.html
somehow I doubt if you ignore it, it will go away.
If it doesn't happen in the US because of federal restriction being imposed, it will happen somewhere in the world, possibly Australia
http://pensionpulse.blogspot.com/2008/10/age-of-biotech.html
We shall see.. I'm optimistic
I believe in free speech.
Freedom of choice is another good one.
WJS: "Lest we hype the science like the ESCR advocates have so shamelessly,...The old meme that 'embryonic stem cells are the only hope' for regenerative treatments is as dead."
dark swan: "Usually if you quote something you attribute the quote to someone. Who said this Wesley? Or are you just setting up another strawman to knock down?"
I wish I had a dollar for every time I asked dark swan "Are you joking?", but here goes: are you joking? Were you in the bathroom every time some politician or advocacy group treated ESCR as though it were the holy grail of medicine, and said that no other type of treatment could ever compare?
dark swan: "Clinical trials using ESCs in human to treat spinal injury are scheduled to begin shortly after the federal ban Bush signed which has prolonged human suffering is lifted by Obama's pen."
I guess if you keep saying something, eventually it will come true. Geron has, many times, announced that its clinical trials were "right around the corner," and then people waited, waited, waited...there's a chance it could be true this time, but, as we've pointed out before, non-embryonic therapies are already treating people with spinal-cord injuries.
I also find it borderline-humorous that you have both of these statements in your post:
"Time and again you Fail to acknowledge that it is not one cell type pitted against another cell type that determines a victory in disease research."
...and...
"I know you will often pine for the horror of the Bush years, but Obama is the one opening the door for productive research soon enough."
That would suggest that we haven't HAD "productive research" up to now, which any of the thousands of patients successfully treated with adult stem cells would consider laughable.
DarkSwan, have you ever commented on Dr. James Thomson's remark that if you aren't the least bit troubled by ESCR you haven't thought about it enough? How about the fact that his two companies are merging and moving AWAY from ESCR, since other avenues of research are less ethically troubling and more promising?
"Are you joking? Were you in the bathroom every time some politician or advocacy group treated ESCR as though it were the holy grail of medicine"
All I asked for was an instance that no one has provided. Pardon me
for asking a valid source for Wesley's unsubstantiated assertion. Used to be you had to actually backup what you say with facts.
Not here apparently.
Maybe you like to hang out in bathrooms with your Republican politicians, but I haven't heard any scientist present their research the slanted way Wesley presents it.
"and said no other type of treatment could ever compare?"
Scientist must conduct research on BOTH ASC and ESC as they are two sides of the same coin,
or maybe an analogy you can relate to, its like the OLD and NEW Testament.
One without the other is an incomplete story and leaves unacceptable void in the pursuit of research.
Treatments for complex disease may in some cases be figured out by reprogramming them in an embryonic state and maturing them to an adult state for therapy. In other instances the pluripotent cells themselves may be used primarily.
But to foolishly say that pluripotent embryonic research is just hype is incredibly ignorant and in your case since you've been informed and you still refute shows your politics are more important than the truth of why research is focused on ESCs.
ALL forms of stem cell research will now be opened for federal funding and research will accelerate in a less hostile environment. That is the productivity I speak of so stop trying to put your words in my statements. Speak for yourself BM, however irrelevant that may be.
"or maybe an analogy you can relate to, its like the OLD and NEW Testament."
What on earth makes you think I can "relate to" that analogy? Are you injecting religion into science again, DS?
"One without the other is an incomplete story and leaves unacceptable void in the pursuit of research."
One form of research currently requires the destruction of human beings; the other one does not. I would have thought that spending so much time here would have caused you to pick up on that.
"ALL forms of stem cell research will now be opened for federal funding..."
Just as they were under President Bush, you mean...
"That is the productivity I speak of so stop trying to put your words in my statements. Speak for yourself BM, however irrelevant that may be."
I need not put my words into your statements. Your words are quite enough.
"ALL forms of stem cell research will now be opened for federal funding..."
Just as they were under President Bush, you mean...
BM you're just as disingenuous as ever. Why would you not acknowledge that Bush placed serious Federal Restrictions on ESCr?
When you misrepresent an issue long enough you start to believe your own propaganda.
OF COURSE Bush had a severely restricted policy towards ESCr.
The few lines that were already created, that he said could be used were contaminated and of minimal use to science. His restriction of new lines is what has been slowing research for nearly a decade.
For you to argue that Bush openly supported ESCr shows you are not concerned about the reality of his oppression of ESCr.
n 2001, President Bush limited federal funding of ESC research to the few existing registered cell lines. Since then, domestic ESC research has stagnated because fewer cell lines are available than were originally announced, cell lines have been contaminated with mouse cells and genetic diversity within lines is lacking. The National Institutes of Health estimated 60-75 cell lines were available for research at the time of Bush’s decision, a figure it later revised downward. Currently, only 22 lines are available.
“Since Bush’s policy, the field has changed remarkably,” said Neal Lane, the Malcolm Gillis (Rice) University Professor, senior fellow in science and technology at the Baker Institute and professor of physics and astronomy. “Researchers in other countries have moved forward while the U.S. has stalled. This issue is too promising to be stuck in a political quagmire.”
http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=8343&SnID=2
I say ESCr does not require the destruction of human beings. So does the majority of our leaders not named Bush, repeatedly.
For your dastardly president to restrict funding and impede research, and then the zombies to perpetually say look how slow research is for ESCr is idiotic.
Progress will be apparent when Obama takes the govt's foot off the neck of ESC researchers in a few months and we'll see how a fair and ethical society operates. IPSCs are already a positive result of ESCr, regardless of how much Wesley want to attribute scientific success to George Bush. Watch the world celebrate the idealogical shift from Bush's tyrannical actions to ones of productive change for the good of man.
"BM you're just as disingenuous as ever. Why would you not acknowledge that Bush placed serious Federal Restrictions on ESCr?"
Bush has very sensible restrictions on ESCR, yes. You, Oh Mendacious One, suggested that all avenues of stem cell research weren't "open for federal funding." They were. You lied. See?
"When you misrepresent an issue long enough you start to believe your own propaganda."
Ah, the sweet irony of being called a propagandist by a propagandist...
"His restriction of new lines is what has been slowing research for nearly a decade."
Whatever are you going to do in a few months, DarkSwan, when you can no longer blame all the world's problems on George W. Bush? What slows progress on embryonic stem cells is the fact that they don't work and cause tumors. I notice you never responded to my comments about Dr. James Thomson, who's moving away from ESCR and towards IPSCs, in part because he has ethical reservations about the destruction of human embryos.
"Since then, domestic ESC research has stagnated because fewer cell lines are available than were originally announced, cell lines have been contaminated with mouse cells and genetic diversity within lines is lacking. The National Institutes of Health estimated 60-75 cell lines were available for research at the time of Bush’s decision, a figure it later revised downward. Currently, only 22 lines are available."
...and those are the ones being used, yes.
“Researchers in other countries have moved forward while the U.S. has stalled. This issue is too promising to be stuck in a political quagmire.”
In every country where ESCR is taking place or is being discussed, its advocates are claiming that their nation is "falling behind" the rest of the world. Even Tony Blair made that claim while he was prime minister, and the United Kingdom has, perhaps, the most permissive policy on ESCR IN THE WORLD.
Ours is close. Did you know that Germany banned the destruction of human embryos for research? Did you know that the EU recently voted to continue funding of ESCR -- but only on those embryos already destroyed? Do you notice that this is exactly the same as Bush's policy?
"I say ESCr does not require the destruction of human beings. So does the majority of our leaders not named Bush, repeatedly."
We KNOW what YOU say. Dictionaries, science textbooks, and encyclopedia entries say something entirely different. By the way, is Dr. James Thomson named "Bush"? Are the people who write science textbooks all named "Bush"?
"IPSCs are already a positive result of ESCr, regardless of how much Wesley want to attribute scientific success to George Bush."
President Bush encouraged more ethical alternatives to ESCR, and his policy led to results. The connection really isn't all that hard to find, ds. And, again, Obama voted AGAINST ethical alternatives. Millions of Americans support stem cell research unless embryos are destroyed. Apparently, Obama supports stem cell research ONLY IF embryos are destroyed. That's not a "pro-science" or "pro-cure" position, ds. THAT'S ideology.
"BM you're just as disingenuous as ever. Why would you not acknowledge that Bush placed serious Federal Restrictions on ESCr?"
Bush has very sensible restrictions on ESCR, yes. You, Oh Mendacious One, suggested that all avenues of stem cell research weren't "open for federal funding." They were. You lied. See?
"When you misrepresent an issue long enough you start to believe your own propaganda."
Ah, the sweet irony of being called a propagandist by a propagandist...
"His restriction of new lines is what has been slowing research for nearly a decade."
Whatever are you going to do in a few months, DarkSwan, when you can no longer blame all the world's problems on George W. Bush? What slows progress on embryonic stem cells is the fact that they don't work and cause tumors. I notice you never responded to my comments about Dr. James Thomson, who's moving away from ESCR and towards IPSCs, in part because he has ethical reservations about the destruction of human embryos.
"Since then, domestic ESC research has stagnated because fewer cell lines are available than were originally announced, cell lines have been contaminated with mouse cells and genetic diversity within lines is lacking. The National Institutes of Health estimated 60-75 cell lines were available for research at the time of Bush’s decision, a figure it later revised downward. Currently, only 22 lines are available."
...and those are the ones being used, yes.
“Researchers in other countries have moved forward while the U.S. has stalled. This issue is too promising to be stuck in a political quagmire.”
In every country where ESCR is taking place or is being discussed, its advocates are claiming that their nation is "falling behind" the rest of the world. Even Tony Blair made that claim while he was prime minister, and the United Kingdom has, perhaps, the most permissive policy on ESCR IN THE WORLD.
Ours is close. Did you know that Germany banned the destruction of human embryos for research? Did you know that the EU recently voted to continue funding of ESCR -- but only on those embryos already destroyed? Do you notice that this is exactly the same as Bush's policy?
"I say ESCr does not require the destruction of human beings. So does the majority of our leaders not named Bush, repeatedly."
We KNOW what YOU say. Dictionaries, science textbooks, and encyclopedia entries say something entirely different. By the way, is Dr. James Thomson named "Bush"? Are the people who write science textbooks all named "Bush"?
"IPSCs are already a positive result of ESCr, regardless of how much Wesley want to attribute scientific success to George Bush."
President Bush encouraged more ethical alternatives to ESCR, and his policy led to results. The connection really isn't all that hard to find, ds. And, again, Obama voted AGAINST ethical alternatives. Millions of Americans support stem cell research unless embryos are destroyed. Apparently, Obama supports stem cell research ONLY IF embryos are destroyed. That's not a "pro-science" or "pro-cure" position, ds. THAT'S ideology.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/fda-approves-em.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012302168.html
Whatever are you going to do in a few months, DarkSwan, when you can no longer blame all the world's problems on George W. Bush?
Well the entire world is going to step out of the Dark Age and look here, Geron is now proceeding with Human ESCr on spinal cord victims, just as I said.
Get used to it folks, time will expose your viewpoints you've so passionately blogged about so many years, that all the world needs is ASCr, as a relic of ignorance past.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home