In the latest Nature, a group of scientists at Kyoto University claims to have made true embryonic stem cells out of ordinary adult cells by switching off four genes.
In theory, embryonic stem cells can propagate themselves indefinitely and are able to become any type of cell in the body. But so far, the only way to obtain embryonic stem cells involves destroying an embryo, and to get a genetic match for a patient would mean, in effect, cloning that person — all of which raise difficult ethical questions.
[…] Last year, [Shinya] Yamanaka introduced a system that uses mouse fibroblasts, a common cell type that can easily be harvested from skin, instead of eggs4. Four genes, which code for four specific proteins known as transcription factors, are transferred into the cells using retroviruses. The proteins trigger the expression of other genes that lead the cells to become pluripotent, meaning that they could potentially become any of the body’s cells. Yamanaka calls them induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells). “It’s easy. There’s no trick, no magic,” says Yamanaka.The results were met with amazement, along with a good dose of scepticism. Four factors seemed too simple. And although the cells had some characteristics of embryonic cells — they formed colonies, could propagate continuously and could form cancerous growths called teratomas — they lacked others. Introduction of iPS cells into a developing embryo, for example, did not produce a ‘chimaera’ — a mouse carrying a mix of DNA from both the original embryo and the iPS cells throughout its body. “I was not comfortable with the term ‘pluripotent’ last year,” says Hans Schöler, a stem-cell specialist at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine in Münster who is not involved with any of the three articles.
This week, Yamanaka presents a second generation of iPS cells1, which pass all these tests. In addition, a group led by Rudolf Jaenisch2 at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a collaborative effort3 between Konrad Hochedlinger of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Kathrin Plath of the University of California, Los Angeles, used the same four factors and got strikingly similar results.
Assuming that the work translates to humans, which seems likely, the ethical logjam over stem cell research has been definitively broken. Drawing on my own relevant work I can say that the techniques used here are surprisingly simple and easy to translate into a therapy. If so, and plenty of hurdles always lie between proof-of-principle and usable applications, we can soon have a near-endless supply of stem cell lines that carry no more ethical taint than the thousands of ordinary cell lines in common use. Tissue-matching embryonic cells to a patient could prove as simple as a minor skin biopsy. It is not an exaggeration to say that many see the adult-to-stem cell conversion as the Grail of stem cell research.
***
Breaking the political logjam could prove as important as the technical advances, although it annoys me immensely that we had one in the first place. Neither scientists, doctors nor sick patients owe any thanks to religious hypocrites and craven politicians who attack stem cell research while giving IVF clinics a pass. More than that, the stem cell issue just helps illustrate the way that the christianist lobby sees human health as a pawn in their ideological agenda. The same activists fought a near-100% effective HPV vaccine because cancer discourages unmarried sex. They primarily support a pointless ban on an abortion procedure because more young women will die of complications. Frankly, pleasing people like that is near the last of my priorities. But if the adult-stem cell conversion technique will advance medical science and also make them go away then consider me doubly pleased.
***Update***
The New York Times report is now online.
Rome Again
But, see, if God didn’t want us to use stem cells, he would have never allowed this discovery at all! ;)
Sstarr
Any bets on how quickly the movement to “adopt” the snowflake babies dies out now that there won’t be any political points to make from it? I think it’s never heard from again.
tBone
If this method passes muster, it’s a great development. I’m going to have to suppress my gag reflex when anti-science nitwits claim it as a victory, though.
You just know Paul L is going to show up here with some variation on “See? I was right! Adult stem cells DO have more potential than embryonic stem cells!”
tBone
Clean up on former potential snow babies in Aisle 6! Bring a mop.
Rome Again
Oh, just let them rot already, they served their purpose.
Jackmormon
Holy shit, this is a huge breakthrough.
Jake
Yeah, I’m still waiting for a reasonable explanation of that one. I expect I’ll get it right after Lucky the Leprechaun drops off that pot o’ gold.
Good point. And I’ll pass on that bet. Looks like they’ll have to go back to offering to adopt babies of pregnant women and then scampering off into the long grass once she gives birth.
Paul L.
I did not know if embryonic stem cells had more potential than Adult stem cells.
I was saying that money would be better spent on Adult stem cells research instead of embryonic stem cells research based on the number of cures created.
The question is will induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) will be able to create cures to warrant research funds?
Tim F.
…which you must realize is an entirely specious argument. There are more cures discovered from adult stem cells because there are far more labs working on adult stem cells. More labs work on adult stem cells because current laws make it prohibitively difficult to work on embryonic stem cells. Then you justify those laws based on the observation that there have been fewer advances using embryonic stem cells. It is a perfect example of self-justifying circularity.
tBone
Well gee, I guess we’ll find out, won’t we?
Paul L.
I am unaware that there are any laws preventing private embryonic stem cells research. Can you link to a story/website that documents these laws?
I was under the impression that the debate was whether the government should increase funding for embryonic stem cells research
You could argue that government funds are needed to “prime the pump” for private research but I would need to see the amount of government funding for Adult stem cells research vs. Embryonic stem cells research to be convinced.
Tim F.
You misunderstand the nature of the ban. Labs are prohibited from using any federally provided resource for stem cell work. That means that any lab which works on multiple grants at once cannot do stem cell work. It means that any lab that uses common facilities cannot do stem cell work. It means that a lab that bought most of its equipment using an earlier federal grant cannot do stem cell work.
The net effect is that unless you create a new facility from scratch and share nothing with any other labs, which is both vanishingly rare and prohibitively difficult, then you cannot do stem cell work.
Rome Again
But, of course, the whole purpose of these regulations was to prohibit these activities, although Paul L. doesn’t want to admit that, does he?
Tim F.
I would call it progress if Paul L can come clean about the effect of the ban. We can get to the intent later.
DER
Pluripotent stem cells can eventually specialize in any bodily tissue, but they cannot themselves develop into a human being
Jake
It helps if you live in a magical world where everything is an either/or proposition. Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting “LALALALA! I can’t heaaaar yooooooou!” is also useful.
Paul L.
Maybe the embryonic stem cell advocates should point this out and work to overturn this instead of screaming for more government funding. It would be a effective talking point.
But that is not as easy to demagogue as being “anti-science”.
I was under the impression that the government currently funds some embryonic stem cell work.
Does the prohibition from using any federally provided resource apply to the existing stem cell lines?
ImJohnGalt
Oh fer chrissakes, not the “60 stem cell lines” canard again from 5 years ago.
I swear, do you just throw these arguments up (that you HAVE to know are specious just based on prior discussions on this site) like so much flak, hoping that we’ll spend so much time responding to them that you won’t actually have to be intellectually honest?
http://tinyurl.com/2skqfn
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/04.22/99-StemOver.html
http://oversight.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/example_stem_cells.htm
I swear, what’s the point of engaging when you routinely ignore what people write in response?
Tim F.
No it does not. Problem is that the existing lines have limited utility for research (most have picked up artifacts from extended culture) and none at all for therapeutic trials.
Well, I can’t speak for the other screamers but that has been my point all along. If you want to make the general point that leftwing ideologues need to work on their messaging, well, get in line.
les
Shorter Paul L.: Oh. Never mind!
demimondian
What cell lines? There are no effectively human embryonic stem cell lines available to labs accepting federal funds.
I’m quite skeptical of this result, by the way — immortality is a long shot from totipotence. If I were already dying, I’d certainly be willing to have a culture of modified cells of this type injected into me as a research subject. If I weren’t in my last couple of weeks, though…no way.
ImJohnGalt
I hate moderation.
Jay C
On the first point, I’ll be pleased too: on the latter: Fugeddaboudit! The religious-crank anti-science fringe isn’t going to “go away”: they’ll just find something else to stoke their self-righteous frothing over. Probably outrage over the fact that “heretical” theories about the world being “spherical” are being promulgated in schools: or something equally dire.
tBone
OK, I’ll admit it – I was wrong about Paul L. Instead of rejecting embryonic stem cell research on dubious scientific grounds, he’s rejecting embyonic stem cell research on dubious financial grounds. Is this progress?
ConservativelyLiberal
While some may think that this is good news, I am not so sure about it. After all, in the land of pharmaceuticals we have generics and name-brand. Obviously they may have come up with a generic form of stem-cells, and if I need curing I better damn well get the top-notch stuff! None of that generic stuff for me! ;)
“One gallon of embryonic stem cells to go please! Do I need ice and a straw? Sure, why not…”
Actually, this is great news as long as they are as viable as embryonic cells. This sounds like the guy who found the cause of the most common form of ulcers. I think he discovered it was caused by H. Pylori bacteria, and when he discovered this he was openly ridiculed by the medical community. In their opinion, the answer could not have been that simple.
It was.
Regarding the HPV vaccine, remember that you are dealing with people who, in the most part, are bible thumpers. All they need to know about science is in the good book. Of course, if they were dying then that would be a whole ‘nother situation. If science can keep a corpse alive (think Terry Schiavo), then there is nothing wrong with that, right? Gotta preserve life, except if it has anything to do with making sex safer for minors. Can’t cross that line!
*barf*
Andrew
The only real question is if these new stem cells have the same delicious taste as normal embryonic stem cells.
Parker
I hope this pans out – it looks like a ‘best of both worlds’ answer.
Sort of mind bending to think that this would take adult cells and transform them to the equivalent of pluripotent embryonic stem cells – as if they had come from the embryo that a person used to be! I have to think that will help resolve any issues of tissue matching and rejection.
That this would seem to make the embryonic stem cell debate(s) moot is icing on the cake – although some people seem bound and determined to ‘win’ those debates, even if it becomes irrelevant.
Blue Jean
I certainly hope the research pans out. That’s great news, Tim. Thanks for posting this.