Thursday, March 26, 2009

Lead Into Gold: No Thanks to Obama, Another IPSC Breakthrough

Meanwhile back on the ranch, scientists continue to progress with the development of induced pluripotent stem cells, an ethical "alternative" to ESCR--because no human life is destroyed in the derivation of the cells. Now, using human tissues, IPSCs were created without potentially dangerous viruses and genes by none other than James Thomson, the first scientist to derive human embryonic stem cells. From the story:

By reprogramming skin cells to an embryonic state using a plasmid rather than a virus to ferry reprogramming genes into adult cells, the Wisconsin group's work removes a key safety concern about the potential use of iPS cells in therapeutic settings.

The new method, which is reported in today's (March 26) online issue of the journal Science, also removes the exotic reprogramming genes from the iPS equation, as the plasmid and the genes it carries do not integrate into an induced cell's genome and can be screened out of subsequent generations of cells. Thus, cells made using the new method are completely free of any genetic artifacts that could compromise therapeutic safety or skew research results, according to the Science report...

The resulting cells, says Thomson, are remarkably similar to embryonic stem cells and show the same capacity to proliferate indefinitely in culture and diversify into all the cell types of the human body.

Under President Bush's 2007 executive order, this type of research was required to be federally funded as a way to surmount the bitter cultural divides over biotechnology and its impact on the intrinsic importance of human life. In other words it was pro ethics and pro science. This is the very kind of policy President Obama promised that he would pursue as president--but instead, he stealthily broke that promise by revoking the Bush order.

Human IPSCs were only announced in November 2007. The advances made since then have been breathtaking, with some of the most notable scientists in biotechnology--Thomson, Ian Wilmut (of Dolly the sheep fame), Yamanaka--in the field. Let's hope they and/or other alternatives someday render ESCR scientifically superfluous.

Here's a link to the Abstract of the paper.

Labels:

3 Comments:

At March 26, 2009 , Blogger Dark Swan said...

Yes, what great news.

Progress in IPs is and will continue to be a primary goal of genetic research for many reasons, Bush's EO or lack thereof amongst the least of them.

IPs can be created rapidly in the lab inexpensively and efficiently and can be customized for specific disease, and that is the driving force in their research.

IPs has little to do with Obama or Bush, it has everything to do with legitimate scientific advancement and yes it is breathtaking.

 
At March 26, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

This is great news and exciting research. Honestly, I personally would not call this work breathtaking. I think the exciting part of stem cell research is yet to come, and this stuff will look like child's play. We ain't seen nothing yet.

I'm looking forward to reading this paper on Monday in full press. My concerns are as follows: how efficient is this process of transformation and how stable are the cell lines? These were/are MAJOR obstacles in iPSC research (It's unclear what Thomson meant when he mentioned removing but "one" obstacle in the abstract). Perhaps this alternative approach eliminates these obstacles.

Just to clarify: though not stated in the abstract, these plasmids (non-viral episomal vectors) most likely, I would guess, contained the required the genes needed for induction of pluripotent stem cells - therefore, these cells most likely did contain one/some of these "dangerous" genes (such as oct4, myc, sox2 for examples, maybe), albeit in a different mode of containment than previous work. Additionally, because of the usage of a non-integrating plasmid, these genes were not incorporated into the genome - a major problem in previous models to do a variety of issues (where integrated, perhaps # of integrations, genetic control elements, etc). Additionally, once such cell lines are stable, it may be possible to continue without the need of such vectors and genetic elements.

Also, this is actually the fourth time this month (March 2009) researchers have announced the generation of iPSCs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19269371?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19281326?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19299331?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

And careful analysis will determine which approaches are best and when: ESCs vs. iPSCs. We truly are only in the embryonic stage of development with this research.

As for the Bush-Obama thing, given Obama's other directive concerning science policy (in a memo), consistency with this memo would suggest that funding follow good hypotheses and promising preliminary results centered on asking the right questions. I do not think that a blanket wipe out (the easy way to go) of a previous EO will therefore eliminate federal funding of iPSC research. Quite the opposite may actually happen now. Should the NIH budget become a little larger and given the promising results of March '09, don't be surprised if more money is sent toward iPSC work.

 
At March 26, 2009 , Blogger SAFEpres said...

YAY!!!!!!!!

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home