Cyndi Loo wrote:Are not stem cells for medical purposes now being harvested from sources other than embryos?
It seems like I have read stem cells are being harvested from a patient's own body. Would this be a better way to harvest stem cells?
If a person was receiving stem cells from their own body, wouldn't this mean they would be less likely to experience rejection?
While I understand stem cells must have a molecular structure, it never occurred to me genes could be a factor in stem cell research. This is truly remarkable. Thank you for posting it, Bio.
BioWizard wrote:Oh, the specialists dont yet know how stem cells work and how these programs are initiated, let alone a clueless PhD student like myself :]
But I think we are on the verge of making important breakthroughs with the advent of interactomics, within the few coming years *crossing fingers*.
MrMistery wrote:reagrding no2,
Are you referring to immune rejection? And what people do neglect to see sometimes is that we are getting closer to solving the immune rejection problem. CD3 inhibitors administered in hemophilic mice with the first few doses of recombinant clotting have produced long-term immune tolerance to what is effectively a foreign protein for the organisms, so a few extra epitopes may not be the end of the world in the future.
And may I ask where exactly have you gotten the idea that the DNA would be mutated? I mean, sure, there's always that chance, but i don't think stem cell therapy involves directed mutagenesis in the stem cells performed by the doctor.
The DNA isn't use to cure the patient, the stem cells are. The reason why you want stem cells with DNA that is identical to that of the patient is because you don't want these stem cells expressing alien surface proteins that might cause the body to reject them. You want them to express the same proteins that the patient's cells express, which is why you want to use cells that contain his/her DNA.
Any cells in the body has the potential to mutate. In fact, about 200 cells pick up a mutation somewhere in your body every minute or so. Most of them however end up dead or removed by the immune system. It is those few ones that manage to escape all checkpoints that acquire the potential to become malignant.
MrMistery wrote:Mind though, just because it is not possible to cure this kind of thing doesn't mean you can't develop a strategy that makes the patient have a totally normal life (even though his molecular defect is still there)
MrMistery wrote:I don't know about that... http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 07314.html
MrMistery wrote:by the way, dove, for that particular kind of disorder (i can only speculate, you provided no details about it) you might want to look into siRNA and morpholino treatments. Morpholinos are small peptides that inhibit expression of specific genes by binding the mRNA and downregulating transcription.
BioWizard wrote:I don't think it's conceptually impossible, just impratical (assuming there's no genomic rearrangement as in the case of B cells for example). Cells in complex multicellular organisms undergo extensive genomic and epigenomic remodelling as the cell differentiates, and it might just be technically impractical to obtain useful ES cells from cells that have been set in their somatic ways. The more we research this, the more we realize that might be the case.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests