Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

For the Acell freaks


#1

you guys might enjoy this.


#2

Also, on the lines of stem cell research, why isn’t this being discussed more. I’m sure it has some bearing on the Follica approach…or am I missing something? The main point being:
“It could also allow scientists to tailor the cells to specific individuals, eliminating the possibility of rejection.”

Two teams of scientists have independently discovered a way to turn ordinary human skin cells into stem cells with the same characteristics as those derived from human embryos, a breakthrough that could open the door for advanced medical therapies.

If the work holds true to its promise, it would largely bypass ethical issues that have dogged research on human embryonic stem cells. It could also allow scientists to tailor the cells to specific individuals, eliminating the possibility of rejection.

The crux of the discovery, published online Tuesday by the journals Cell and Science, is a “direct reprogramming” technique that adds a cocktail of four genetic factors to run-of-the-mill human skin cells.

The Cell paper is from a team led by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University; the Science paper is from a team led by Junying Yu, working in the lab of stem-cell pioneer James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The discovery builds on work presented in 2006 by Yamanaka in which the same technique was demonstrated for skin cells from mice.

The two teams have been able to isolate cells that look and behave like embryonic stem cells. The researchers caution that there are still many steps to take before the cells are useful for human therapies.

Yamanaka said he knew that the real payoff would be if his work on mouse cells could be translated to human cells.

“We started working on human cells more than a year ago, but in the beginning, the four factors didn’t work,” he told NPR.

He said it was unclear whether the cells he produced from skin were identical to embryonic stem cells, but “all I can say is they are very similar.”

While Yamanaka was working on mice to find the critical factors for transforming skin cells to embryonic stem cells, Thomson was already working on human cells. His team also reports four factors that can transform skin cells, but two of them are different from those Yamanaka found.

“It does seem that there are multiple paths to the same outcome,” Thomson said. “How divergent those paths are remains to seen.”

Thomson, 48, made headlines in 1998 when he announced that his team had isolated human embryonic stem cells.

Since then, the research has pitted groups that question the ethics of harvesting stem cells from human embryos against those that hope the line of research could result in important medical breakthroughs. The latest announcement from the Japanese and American teams could skirt the controversy.

“It changes everything in that these are not cells derived from embryos anymore,” Thomson told NPR. But “we are back at the starting point now. These biologically … appear to be the same as embryonic stem cells, and we still have to figure out how to differentiate them into useful things.”

The whole idea of stem-cell based therapies is that the stem cells could be used to replace or repair cells damaged or destroyed by disease or injury, such as new heart cells for people who have had heart attacks or new neurons for patients with Alzheimer’s disease.

“This is a huge deal,” said Jose Cibelli, a researcher at Michigan State University.

“Anybody can do this procedure. It’s a very simple recipe,” he said. “A combination of three or four genes, and in a couple of weeks, you go from a skin cell to an embryonic stem cell. It’s remarkable.”


#3

It’s always nice to know the full story. Here’s what was left out of the former post about Dr. Yamanaka creating embryonic stem cells from adult stem cells:

“Despite the breakthrough, the procedure has shortcomings, including a tendency of the newly created stem cells to turn cancerous, a risk with stem cells in general but heightened because Dr. Yamanaka used a known tumor-causing gene. Cancer risk is one reason stem cell therapy still seems a distant possibility; stem cell research shows more immediate promise as a way to pursue basic science.”


#4

» It’s always nice to know the full story. Here’s what was left out of the
» former post about Dr. Yamanaka creating embryonic stem cells from adult
» stem cells:
»
» “Despite the breakthrough, the procedure has shortcomings, including a
» tendency of the newly created stem cells to turn cancerous, a risk with
» stem cells in general but heightened because Dr. Yamanaka used a known
» tumor-causing gene. Cancer risk is one reason stem cell therapy still seems
» a distant possibility; stem cell research shows more immediate promise as a
» way to pursue basic science.”
»
» http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/science/11prof.html?pagewanted=print

Is that right? Surely that is a hell of a risk then. I mean i want my hair back but not at that price!


#5

JB,

Are you aware of certain ‘juvenile’ stem cells that have hair inducing properties ?


#6

Bush is on the way out; obama is on the way in. Now there will be new rules for embryonic stem cell research. They no longer need to turn older cells backwards in time because Obama will aid the researchers who want to work with embryonic stem cells. Bush’s moritorium on embryonic stem cell research is toast.


#7

» It’s always nice to know the full story. Here’s what was left out of the
» former post about Dr. Yamanaka creating embryonic stem cells from adult
» stem cells:
»
» “Despite the breakthrough, the procedure has shortcomings, including a
» tendency of the newly created stem cells to turn cancerous, a risk with
» stem cells in general but heightened because Dr. Yamanaka used a known
» tumor-causing gene. Cancer risk is one reason stem cell therapy still seems
» a distant possibility; stem cell research shows more immediate promise as a
» way to pursue basic science.”
»
» http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/science/11prof.html?pagewanted=print

My intent was not to make this a moral issue JB. I personally am all in favor of embryonic stem cell research- if it can save lives or get our hair back. I guess my only point is that I wouldn’t want funding diverted from more extensive research into our own adult stem cells since they don’t seem to cause tumors and to my knowledge are already used in about 60 successful applications whereas embryonic stem cells are used in “0”.


#8

» Bush is on the way out; obama is on the way in. Now there will be new
» rules for embryonic stem cell research. They no longer need to turn older
» cells backwards in time because Obama will aid the researchers who want to
» work with embryonic stem cells. Bush’s moritorium on embryonic stem cell
» research is toast.

Good riddance, and my condolensces to the fading religious right poison that hijakced this country 8 years ago.
Time for the educated people to resurrect the countrys role in science and research embryonic stem cell treatment rather than throw these lifeless embryos into the waste basket because our leaders are on a mission from Gd


#9

» » Bush is on the way out; obama is on the way in. Now there will be new
» » rules for embryonic stem cell research. They no longer need to turn
» older
» » cells backwards in time because Obama will aid the researchers who want
» to
» » work with embryonic stem cells. Bush’s moritorium on embryonic stem
» cell
» » research is toast.
»
» Good riddance, and my condolensces to the fading religious right poison
» that hijakced this country 8 years ago.
» Time for the educated people to resurrect the countrys role in science and
» research embryonic stem cell treatment rather than throw these lifeless
» embryos into the waste basket because our leaders are on a mission from Gd

You got that right.


#10

» JB,
»
» Are you aware of certain ‘juvenile’ stem cells that have hair inducing
» properties ?

Hair cures will come from adult stem cells, as follicles are privileged structures due to the body constantly renewing them over the course of our lives. Thus, us baldies need not worry about the cancer risks associated with reverting adult stem cells to a ‘juvenile’ state. IOW, hair follicle stem cells have specialized knowledge of how to create new follicles.

OTOH, if you want to create a new heart from scratch, you start getting into the embryonic stem cell debate. From a scientific standpoint, most researchers have a vested interest in allowing embryonic stem cell research to be performed in parallel with their adult stem cell reversion efforts. This is because, even if they are able to safely make embryonic stem cells from adult cells, this will require decades of research. So they would rather have the research done on how to use the cells performed simultaneously to the research on how to create the cells rather than figuring out how to make the cells and then not being able to figure out how to use them during their lifetimes.

I often get a kick out of baldies who freak out on not having any hair and then predict when they get old and need a heart they’ll gracefully accept not being able to get one. If balding bothers a guy, wait until he gets a load of dying. I’ve been there, done that, and from my perspective, it’s not something people will easily accept. A whole lot of people are going to wish they could go back in time and do things differently. But, we’re always wishing that anyways so maybe we’ll just end up wishing it a little more as we age and begin to understand the implications surrounding our finality.


#11

» » Bush is on the way out; obama is on the way in. Now there will be new
» » rules for embryonic stem cell research. They no longer need to turn
» older
» » cells backwards in time because Obama will aid the researchers who want
» to
» » work with embryonic stem cells. Bush’s moritorium on embryonic stem
» cell
» » research is toast.
»
» Good riddance, and my condolensces to the fading religious right poison
» that hijakced this country 8 years ago.
» Time for the educated people to resurrect the countrys role in science and
» research embryonic stem cell treatment rather than throw these lifeless
» embryos into the waste basket because our leaders are on a mission from Gd

Out with the religious, in with the socialists. There was never a moratorium on embryonic stem cell research, only on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Yes, now that Obama is in, I’m so glad the federal government will increase its debt by spending on this stuff. I hope he pulls out of Iraq on Jan 21st and puts all the billions in extra cash we’ll get into hair research. That’ll be our only hope, because once the socialists get their hands on corporate profits, who will want to embark on risky ventures such as hair regeneration R&D?


#12

» I often get a kick out of baldies who freak out on not having any hair and
» then predict when they get old and need a heart they’ll gracefully accept
» not being able to get one. If balding bothers a guy, wait until he gets a
» load of dying. I’ve been there, done that, and from my perspective, it’s
» not something people will easily accept.

There is NO comparison between natural death and psychological trauma (hairloss) at young age. Most people with heart diseases asked for it, we didn’t! In my entire family, I was the most health conscious person in that I used to eat healthy food (poultry, nuts, dairy products, vegetables & fruits) - basically an overall balanced diet alongwith regular exercise. And then I got mpb, the amount of stress that I have gotten from this miserable disease probably has decreased my life by 5-10 years easily, I am a NW6 btw.

I’d rather live 60 years of healthy happy life than 100 years of miserable bald, multiple-heart bypass life. But ironically, if you are happy at 60 you wouldn’t want to die anyway but at least if you are on the death bed you won’t feel sorry for your own miserable existance.


#13

» » » Bush is on the way out; obama is on the way in. Now there will be new
» » » rules for embryonic stem cell research. They no longer need to turn
» » older
» » » cells backwards in time because Obama will aid the researchers who
» want
» » to
» » » work with embryonic stem cells. Bush’s moritorium on embryonic stem
» » cell
» » » research is toast.
» »
» » Good riddance, and my condolensces to the fading religious right poison
» » that hijakced this country 8 years ago.
» » Time for the educated people to resurrect the countrys role in science
» and
» » research embryonic stem cell treatment rather than throw these lifeless
» » embryos into the waste basket because our leaders are on a mission from
» Gd
»
» Out with the religious, in with the socialists. There was never a
» moratorium on embryonic stem cell research, only on federal funding for
» embryonic stem cell research. Yes, now that Obama is in, I’m so glad the
» federal government will increase its debt by spending on this stuff. I
» hope he pulls out of Iraq on Jan 21st and puts all the billions in extra
» cash we’ll get into hair research. That’ll be our only hope, because once
» the socialists get their hands on corporate profits, who will want to
» embark on risky ventures such as hair regeneration R&D?

Obama gets into office = no investment into hairloss…give me a break! you sound like a bush supporter and you really don’t know just how d-u-m-b you truly are. Embryonic stem cell research at its’ fundamental stage is going to be funded by the government or it isn’t going to get much funding. Private industry doesn’t want to risk its’ own money on a gamble of this magnitude so the US govt has to get the ball rolling with the cash. If either gore or kerry had been elected you would either have your hair back by now or be very very close. Bush hamstrung scientific research in general, and emb stem cell research in particular, and that has inhibited progress on a lot of health issues, including the regrowth of lost hair. He and his religious ilk have been at war with science, hence they inhibited science, hence you stayed bald longer than you needed to. You voted to be bald longer than you needed to be bald and you did it over taxes…you don’t want to provide a safety net for the disabled, the elderly, the children, and the victims of insurmountable discrimination. You would have paid a few more dollars in taxes (to help the injurred, elderly, children and the victims of discrimination) under Kerry or Gore but you would have your hair back and there would also be more cures for other medical problems avail, but you were more interested in saving a few bucks on your taxes, because you don’t want to help others in need financially, then saving your hair. this is why it is said that republicans have no social conscience - you guys simply do not care about anyone but yourself and you guys are actually mad about having to help the elderly, the children, the disabled, and the victims of discrimination. get lost rightwinger, your time is done for awhile because if the dems save the economy then they’ll be running the show for a decade or more. Americans are not going to turn the government over to repubs if dems are making progress in the fight against economic disaster.

You call dems socialists because they want to use tax dollars to financially protect the disabled, the elderly, the children, and the victims of discrimination and yet you have no answer for what to do with these people in financial crisis i guess that means your answer is to let them end up on the streets and we will fill up our sidewalks 100% with homeless humans all over the place. if we pull the plug on the safety net then we will have 10 times as many homeless as we do now. it won’t be safe out there. there will be too many desperate people everywhere.

And while you hate helping other americans in need you war-monger republicans have no problem throwing away huge amounts of money on making war that doesn’t need to be made and is in no way justified. we spend a huge amount of money on iraq and we didn’t need to spend any of it. you guys are war-mongering fascists who have run up our country’s debt, and put us so far in the hole that we may never be able to get out of it, and then you get mad about the money dems spend to protect people who can’t fend for themselves. Give me a break!!!

Why is our national debt so high? It isn’t because of the money used to help struggling americans it’s because of money needless thrown away on excessive military spending and who spent all that money:

  1. George Bush

  2. Ronald Regan.