Category Archives: Stem Cell Research

President Barack Obama said Monday he is allowing federal taxpayer dollars to fund significantly broader research on embryonic stem cells because "medical miracles do not happen simply by accident," and promised his administration would make up for the ground lost under his predecessor.

Fulfilling a campaign promise, Mr. Obama signed an executive order expected to set in motion increased research that supporters believe could uncover cures for serious ailments from diabetes to paralysis.

Mr. Obama's action, before a packed East Room audience, reverses former President George W. Bush's policy on stem cell research by undoing a 2001 directive that banned federal funding for research into stem lines created after that date.

Mr. Bush limited the use of taxpayer money to only the 21 stem cell lines that had been produced before his decision. He argued he was defending human life because days-old embryos - although typically from fertility clinics and already destined for destruction - are destroyed to create the stem cell lines.

The Obama order reverses that without addressing a separate legislative ban, which precludes any federal money paying for the development of stem cell lines. The legislation, however, does not prevent funds for research on those lines created without federal funding. (Read more about what this Executive Order will do -- and won't do.)

Researchers say the newer lines created with private money during the period of the Bush ban are healthier and better suited to creating treatment for diseases. Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases - such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics, cells that could help those with Parkinson's disease or maybe even Alzheimer's, or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.

Mr. Obama called his decision a "difficult and delicate balance," an understatement of the intense emotions generated on both sides of the long, contentious debate. He said he came down on the side of the "majority of Americans" who support increased federal funding for the research, both because strict oversight would prevent problems and because of the great and lifesaving potential it holds.

CBS News polling on the topic shows that Americans do support medical research using embryonic stem cells. In 2007, the last time CBS News asked the question, sixty-five percent said they approved compared to twenty-five percent who disapproved. The number of those who approved had gone up steadily since the 2004 when fifty percent approved. (Read more about the polling.)

"Rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Mr. Obama said. "In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly." (Read all of Mr. Obama's remarks.)

Mr. Obama warned against overstating the eventual benefits of the research. But he said his administration "will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research," taking a slap at his predecessor in the process.

"I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No president can promise that. But I can promise that we will seek them actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground."

It's a matter of competitive advantage globally as well, the president argued.

"When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives," Mr. Obama said.

Early Show medical contributor Dr. Holly Phillips pointed out that such research was never banned or illegal. "The question that we're addressing today is what role, if any, federal funding should have" in this research.

"Many scientists for the last eight years have been complaining that they're spending more time trying to find funding for their research than actually doing their research. So for them this will really have a profound effect," Phillips said. "Certainly on an international level in medicine we're so excited about this research and the potential for healing that it has. So I think less red tape will have a profound effect."

Of the diseases or conditions that may be most affected by the end of the federal ban, Phillips said, "People are most excited about the neurological illnesses, things like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. A group in California will start using embryonic stem cells in humans to hopefully cure spinal cell injuries for people who have been paralyzed from the waist down. We're also seeing some hope in treating diabetes, heart disease and even strokes. So really, millions of people could be affected by this research."

"We've got eight years of science to make up for," said Dr. Curt Civin, whose research allowed scientists to isolate stem cells and who now serves as the founding director of the University of Maryland School of Medicine's Center for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. "Now the silly restrictions are lifted."

Mr. Bush and his supporters said they were defending human life; days-old embryos - typically from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away - are destroyed for the stem cells.

Family Research Council, which advocates for a "Judeo-Christian worldview" and warns against the reproductive cloning of a human being, opposes the use of embryonic stem cells, promoting instead adult stem cells as being superior.

Of Mr. Obama's new order, FRC's Dr. David Prentice told CBS' The Early Show, "In terms of scientific advances I don't think we are going to see anything for this. This is more of an ideological move."

House Republican Leader John Boehner said the president's repeal of the ban, "runs counter to President Obama's promise to be a president for all Americans. For a third time in his young presidency, the president has rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us." (Read more about Republican reaction to the move.)

The president was insistent that his order would not open the door to human cloning.

"We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse," Mr. Obama said. "And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society."

Mr. Obama also issued a memo promising to restore "scientific integrity to government decision-making." That policy change was aimed more broadly than the stem cell debate, to reach into areas such as climate change as well.

"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources it is also about protecting free and open inquiry," Mr. Obama said. "It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.

Mr. Obama said the presidential memorandum was the beginning of a process that would ensure that his administration: bases its decision "on the soundest science," appoints scientific advisers based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology, and is "open and honest" about the science behind its decisions.

"We view what happened with stem cell research in the last administration is one manifestation of failure to think carefully about how federal support of science and the use of scientific advice occurs," said Harold Varmus, chairman of the White House's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology.

2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

View original post here:
Obama Ends Stem Cell Research Ban - CBS News

Toggle: English / Spanish

A stem cell is a generic cell that can make exact copies of itself indefinitely. A stem cell has the ability to make specialized cells for various tissues in the body, such as heart muscle, brain tissue, and liver tissue. Stem cells can be saved and usedlater to make specialized cells, when needed.

There are two basic types of stem cells:

Potential uses for stem cells

There are many areas in medicine in which stem cell research could have a significant impact. For example, there are a variety of diseases and injuries in which a patient's cells or tissues are destroyed and must be replaced by tissue or organ transplants. Stem cells may be able to make brand new tissue in these cases, and even cure diseases for which there currently is no good therapy. Diseases that could be helped by stem cells include

Stem cells could also be used to gain a better understanding of how genetics work in the early stages of cell development. This can help scientists understand why some cells develop abnormally and lead to medical problems such as birth defects and cancer. This might help scientists learn how to prevent some of these diseases.

Finally, stem cells may be useful in the testing and development of drugs. Because stem cells can be used to create unlimited amounts of specialized tissue, such as heart tissue, it may be possible to test how drugs react onsuch tissues before testing the drugs on animals and humans. Drugs could be tested for effectiveness and side effects more rapidly.

Controversy about stem cell research

In August 2001, President George W. Bush approved limited federal funding for stem cell research. While stem cell research has the potential to provide major medical advances, including cures for many diseases, stem cell research is controversial.

The stem cell controversy is based on the belief by opponents that a fertilized egg is fundamentally a human being with rights and interests that need to be protected. Those who oppose stem cell research do not want fetuses and fertilized eggs used for research purposes. However, a team of scientists have developed a technique that was successful in generating mouse stem cells without destroying the mouse embryo. This technique has not yet been attempted on human embryonic tissue. Many other scientists are attempting to create more universally accepted forms of human embryonic stem cells, as well as other types of adult stem cells.

Supporters of stem cell research argue that the fertilized eggs are donated with consent from each couple and would be discarded anyway. Therefore, there is no potential for those fertilized eggs to become human beings. Fertilized eggs are not (at this time) being created specifically for stem cell research.

As with any moral and ethical issue, the controversy surrounding stem cell research will likely continue for quite some time.

The U.S. government released new stem cell guidelines in 2009. The new guidelines cover issues such as informed consent of donors and the wording of consent, as well as the issue of financial gain. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) maintains a register of stem cells, including human embryonic lines, that are eligible for government funding.

Okie S. Stem-cell research--signposts and roadblocks. N Engl J Med.2005 Jul 7;353(1):1-5.

Lindvall O, Kokaia Z. Stem cell therapy for human brain disorders. Kidney Int. 2005 Nov;68(5):1937-9.

Fukuda H, Takahashi J. Embryonic stem cells as a cell source for treating Parkinson's disease. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2005 Oct;5(10):1273-80.

Green R. Can we develop ethically universal embryonic stem-cell lines? Nature Genet Rev. June 2007;8:480-485.

Lougheed T. New US guidelines for research on human embryos. CMAJ.2005 Jun 21;172(13):1672.

Zwillich T. Guidelines set ethical bar for US stem cell research. Lancet. 2005 May 7-13;365(9471):1612.

A.D.A.M., Inc. is accredited by URAC, also known as the American Accreditation HealthCare Commission (www.urac.org). URAC's accreditation program is an independent audit to verify that A.D.A.M. follows rigorous standards of quality and accountability. A.D.A.M. is among the first to achieve this important distinction for online health information and services. Learn more about A.D.A.M.'s editorial policy, editorial process and privacy policy. A.D.A.M. is also a founding member of Hi-Ethics and subscribes to the principles of the Health on the Net Foundation (www.hon.ch)

The information provided herein should not be used during any medical emergency or for the diagnosis or treatment of any medical condition. A licensed medical professional should be consulted for diagnosis and treatment of any and all medical conditions. Call 911 for all medical emergencies. Links to other sites are provided for information only -- they do not constitute endorsements of those other sites. 1997-2013 A.D.A.M., Inc. Any duplication or distribution of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited.

Original post:
Stem cell research | University of Maryland Medical Center

Stem cell research has become one of the biggest issues dividing the scientific and religious communities around the world. At the core of the issue is one central question: When does life begin? At this time, to get stem cells that are reliable, scientists either have to use an embryo that has already been conceived or else clone an embryo using a cell from a patient's body and a donated egg. Either way, to harvest an embryo's stem cells, scientists must destroy it. Although that embryo may only contain four or five cells, some religious leaders say that destroying it is the equivalent of taking a human life. Inevitably, this issue entered the political arena.

In 1996, Congress passed a rider to the federal appropriations bill called the Dickey-Wicker amendment. Representatives Jay Dickey and Roger Wicker proposed banning the use of federal monies for any research in which a human embryo is created or destroyed. Federal monies are a primary source of funding for stem cell research. The amendment has been renewed every year since that time.

In 2001, President George W. Bush further restricted federal stem cell research. In an executive order, Bush stated that federal funds could only be used for research on human embryonic stem cell lines that had already been established (only 22 cell lines). This prevented researchers from creating more embryonic stem cell lines for research.

In 2009, President Barack Obama issued an executive order to expand embryonic stem cell research. Obama's administration allowed federal funding of embryonic stem cell research if the following conditions applied:

According to the administration, the new policy did not violate the Dickey-Wicker amendment because the money did not finance the creation of new embryos (they had already been created by private means) and did not finance the destruction of them.

In 2009, two researchers from Boston, Dr. James Sherley of the Boston Biomedical Research Institute and Dr. Theresa Deisher of the Ava Maria Biotechnology Company, and other agencies filed a lawsuit against the government. Initially, the lawsuit was dismissed because the judge ruled that the plaintiffs had no legal standing (i.e. they were not affected materially by the new rules). However, a court of appeals overturned the initial ruling. The two scientists remained plaintiffs. The scientists claimed that, because they used adult stem cells exclusively in their research, the new rules would increase competition for federal research dollars, thereby affecting their ability to obtain funding. Federal Judge Royce Lamberth upheld the appeals court ruling. He placed an injunction preventing the new rules from going into place. He claimed that the rules violated the Dickey-Wicker amendment because embryos must be destroyed in the process of creating embryonic stem cell lines.

In September 2010, The New York Times reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that federal funding of embryonic stem cell research could continue under the new rules while the court considers Judge Lamberth's ruling [source: New York Times]. This ruling allows researchers to continue feeding embryonic stem cell cultures, experimenting with mice, and other research activities until this court rules, the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in, or Congress passes legislation that clarifies the issues. In the meantime, stem cell research and the careers of stem cell researchers hang on a legal roller coaster. Although stem cells have great potential for treating diseases, much work on the science, ethical and legal fronts remains.

For more on stem cells, investigate the links on the following page.

See original here:
Stem Cell Research Controversy - HowStuffWorks

Quick links:

Stem cells are cells that have the ability to divide for indefinite periods in culture and give rise to multiple specialized cell types. They can develop into blood, bone, brain, muscle, skin and other organs.

Stem cells occur naturally, or they can be created from other kinds of cells. Stem cells form during development (embryonic stem cells). They are also present in small numbers in many different tissues (endogenous adult stem cells). Most significantly, stem cells can be created from skin cells (induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS cells).

iPS cells have emerged in recent years as by far the most significant source of stem cells for ALS research. A simple skin biopsy provides the skin cells (fibroblasts). These cells are treated in a lab dish with a precise cocktail of naturally occurring growth factors that turns back the clock, transforming them back into cells much like those that gave rise to themstem cells.

Embryonic stem cells can be isolated from fertilized embryos less than a week old. Before the development of iPS cells, human embryos were the only source of human stem cells for research or therapeutic development. The ethical issues involved hindered development of this research. Most stem cell research in ALS is currently focused on iPS cells, which are not burdened with these issues.

Stem cells are being used in many laboratories today for research into the causes of and treatments for ALS. Most commonly, iPS cells are converted into motor neurons, the cells affected in ALS. These motor neurons can be grown in a dish and studied to determine how the disease develops. They can also be used to screen for drugs that can alter the disease process. The availability of large numbers of identical neurons, made possible by iPS cells, has dramatically expanded the ability to search for new treatments.

Because iPS cells can be made from skin samples of any person, researchers have begun to make individual cell lines derived from dozens of individuals with ALS. Comparing the motor neurons derived from these cells lines allows them to ask what is common, and what is unique, about each case of ALS, leading to further understanding of the disease process.

Stem cells may also have a role to play in treating the disease. The most likely application may be to use stem cells or cells derived from them to deliver growth factors or protective molecules to motor neurons in the spinal cord. Clinical trials of such stem cell transplants are in the early stages, but appear to be safe.

While the idea of replacing dying motor neurons with new ones derived from stem cells is appealing, there are multiple major hurdles that must be overcome before it is a possibility. Perhaps the most challenging is coaxing the implanted cells to grow the long distances from the spinal cord, where they would be implanted, out to the muscle, where they cause contraction. While work is ongoing to overcome these challenges, it is likely that providing support and protection to surviving neurons represents a more immediate possible form of stem cell therapy.

The presence of endogenous stem cells in the adult brain and spinal cord may provide an alternative to transplantation, eliminating the issues of tissue rejection. If there were a way to stimulate resident stem cells to replace dying cells the limitations of transplantation could be overcome. Small biotech companies are pursuing this direction in the hope of finding therapeutic compounds that will do this. Further research into molecules and genes that govern cell division, migration and specialization is needed, ultimately leading to new drug targets and therapies for ALS.

The mechanism of motor neuron death in ALS remains unclear. It is not certain that transplanted stem cells would be resistant to the same source(s) of damage that causes motor neurons to die and stem cells may need to be modified to protect against the toxic environment. There is also the potential that cultured stem cells used in transplant medicine could face rejection by the body's immune system.

The NeuralStem trial demonstrated the safety of transplanting human embryonic stem cells into the spinal cord of people with ALS. As of late 2014, a larger trial of the same technique is underway, to determine whether treatment can improve function or slow decline. More information can be found here: http://www.alsconsortium.org/news_neuralstem_phaseII_first_patient.php

The BrainStorm trial is underway as of late 2014, examining the safety and efficacy of transplantation of autologous mesenchymal stem cells secreting neurotrophic factors. These stem cells are extracted from the patients own bone marrow, then treated to increase their production of protective factors, and then injected into muscle and the region surrounding the spinal cord. More information can be found here: http://www.alsconsortium.org/

Read The ALS Associations Statement on Stem Cell Research.

Last update: 08/26/14

More here:
stem cell research - The ALS Association

Although cancer cell lines provide information about cancer biology, their adaptation to the in vitro environment often results in biological properties that differ in crucial ways from de novo cancer cells. Members of this Research Program have developed a novel mouse model system that reliably permits individual cancer cells isolated directly from patients tumors to be transplanted orthotopically to the same organ or tissue in immunodeficient mice; cells are assayed for the ability to form a new tumor. Members of the program have prospectively identified a minority population of cancer cells in epithelial and hematopoietic malignancies, called cancer stem or initiating cells. The cancer stem cells have the unique ability to drive the growth (through self-renewing cell divisions) and spread of a malignancy in the mouse model system. The prospective isolation of cancer stem cells enables critical regulatory processes of these cells to be studied directly. This should result in the discovery of new therapeutic targets that can be exploited to develop novel and more effective cancer treatments. The specific goals of the Program and how the expertise of the Program members will facilitate their achievement are listed below.

Goal 1. To investigate potential pathways critical for self renewal, spread and survival of normal and cancer stem cells.

Self-renewal is the critical process by which stem cells regenerate themselves. In the absence of cancer stem cell self-renewal, tumor growth would eventually cease. If we can identify differences in self-renewal pathways in normal and malignant stem cells, these differences could be exploited to eliminate cancer stem cells. Thus, understanding self-renewal pathways should lead to elucidation of new drug targets.

Goal 2. To develop new therapies directed against cancer stem cells.

One of the major goals of this Program is to translate significant advances in our knowledge of cancer stem cell biology gained from basic bench research to the bedside in innovative clinical trials. The discovery of cancer stem cells has implications for the diagnosis, prognosis and therapy of cancer. We envision unique clinical studies that will exploit all of these possibilities. This aim will be informed by the progress on previous aims as novel cancer stem cells are identified and it is determined what distinguishes them from their normal tissue counterparts. The isolation and characterization of cancer stem cells together with the xenograft models of human cancers will allow us to investigate potential novel therapies against these cells.

Michael Clarke, MD

Roeland Nusse, PhD

View original post here:
Cancer Stem Cell Research Program - Stanford Cancer ...

Stem Cell Research is dedicated to publishing high-quality manuscripts focusing on the biology and applications of stem cell research. Submissions to Stem Cell Research, may cover all aspects of stem cells, including embryonic stem cells, tissue-specific stem cells, cancer stem cells, developmental studies, stem cell genomes, and translational research. Stem Cell Research publishes 6 issues a year.

The journal publishes

Original articles Short reports Review articles Communications Methods and reagents articles Lab Resource: Stem Cell Line

Stem Cell Research collaborates with journals published by Cell Press. Our editorial board is happy to consider submissions reviewed at Cell Stem Cell or other Cell Press journals which are considered to be scientifically sound, but not impactful enough for the readership of Cell Press journals. Authors should include their Cell Press reviews (which will be confirmed by Cell Press) for fast-track consideration. In SCR's fast track system, the SCR office will inform you within 3-5 days if the manuscript warrants further consideration for publication. The editors reserve the right to (a) reject the manuscript, (b) accept the manuscript with no further review, (c) send the manuscript out for further review, (d) require revisions based on the Cell Press or further reviews.

Hide full aims and scope

Link:
Stem Cell Research - Journal - Elsevier

ORLANDO, Fla. (CNS) Declaring that stem-cell research does not present a conflict between science and religion, the U.S. bishops overwhelmingly approved a statement June 13 calling the use of human embryos in such research "gravely immoral" and unnecessary.

In the last vote of the public session of their June 12-14 spring general assembly in Orlando, the bishops voted 191-1 in favor of the document titled "On Embryonic Stem-Cell Research: A Statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops."

"It now seems undeniable that once we cross the fundamental moral line that prevents us from treating any fellow human being as a mere object of research, there is no stopping point," the document said. "The only moral stance that affirms the human dignity of all of us is to reject the first step down this path."

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., introduced the document on behalf of Philadelphia Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, who was not at the Orlando meeting.

Consideration of the stem-cell document came after an intense and complicated debate at the meeting over a 700-page liturgical translation. Archbishop Naumann thanked those involved in the liturgical debate for "making stem-cell research seem simple," which drew laughs from the other bishops.

The seven-page policy statement was approved with little debate and few amendments.

Archbishop Naumann said it would be issued in an "attractive educational brochure" intended for the "broadest possible distribution."

Also coming out this summer, he said, are three educational resources on the medical advances being made with adult stem cells: a 16-minute DVD called "Stem-Cell Research: Finding Cures We Can All Live With"; an updated parish bulletin insert on the topic; and a brochure on "Stem Cells and Hope for Patients," which will be part of the bishops' annual Respect Life observance.

Although the U.S. bishops have been active in the national debate on stem cells, individually and collectively, this marks the first time they have addressed the issue in a document "devoted exclusively" to that topic, Archbishop Naumann said.

Go here to see the original:
Stem-cell Research and the Catholic Church

As you may know, Im trying to capture all stem cell products available on a market worldwide. I realized that there are two groups of such products the first is the products, approved by governmental regulatory agencies (usually considered drugs) and the second is so-called self-launched not approved cell/ tissue products. Today, Id like to discuss some issues, related to second group of commercial stem cell products.

Examples of self-launched cell/tissue products:

Common features of these products:

Regulatory compliance As I noted above, self-proclaimed regulatory compliance of these product turns out to be a false. In the last 5 years FDA inspected these companies and issued a number of quite similar letters. Some of these letters:

These letters indicate to non-compliant marketing of the products, which misclassified by companies as 361 HCT/P, instead of drugs (351). Interestingly, most of these products stayed on a market (AlloStem, Ovation/ BIO4), despite FDAs warnings.

Business model Despite FDA early letters (from Parcell and AlloSource in 2011), the companies continued to do the same thing over and over again in 2013 (Osiris) and in 2014 (RTI Surgical). Very recent deal between Stryker and Osiris on transformation of Ovation into BIO4 is an example of continuing trend. Why didnt they learn? Did they miss those FDA letters? Did they consult with FDA on classification of their products? Do they actually care at all about FDAs current thinking? NO, NO and NO! It indicates that self-launch and self-claims are working well for a profit. It seem to me, their regulatory compliance people did not do homework or were asked to follow the scheme: - dont consult with FDA! - self-launch it with fancy label stem cell! - pitch it to surgeons they like to be innovative and push an envelope! - enjoy a ride $$$ until FDA will crack down on you. Why this business model is still thriving? Well, first of all, FDA may never come to you (they have limited resources) if you dont kill any patient. Second, if FDA will sniff you, it may take 1-2 years before audit, months for report, 1 year for responses and so on. Third, companies may get away with it by pleasing or negotiating with FDA (Osiris did it for Grafix) changing marketing language (Biomet removed all osteogenic cells/ MSC-related language from description of Cellentra as advertised earlier in 2012) , narrowing down therapeutic indications, promise to do some post-marketing studies. Another possible model is divesting a product (Osiris sold Osteocel to NuVasive), partnership with big players (Osiris Stryker deal).

Id like to give one more example of changing a marketing language about products in order to become pseudo-compliant. Nutech widely advertised their product Nucel as containing amniotic (stem) cells along with amniotic membrane (examples here and here). However, watching FDA cracking down on some 361 products and reading FDA updates (see the first update of 2012 from FDA Tissue Reference Group), they decided to tune up language and removed a mention of cells from their web site. Compliance is done? Very simple fix remove word cells from everywhere!

Therapeutic efficacy There are very little good published clinical data available about efficacy of these products. If we look at orthobiologics, things are not so positive as one may think. For example, the recent report on efficacy of Osteocel (NuVasive) in matched cohort spinal fusion, was negative:

This is the first non-industry sponsored study to analyze a matched cohort assessing the one-year arthrodesis rates associated with a non-structural MSC allograft in one and two-level ACDF procedures. There were no statistically significant differences in fusion rates between the two cohorts.

The recent overview (highly recommended!) of commercially available cellular bone matrices in spinal surgery, came up with the following conclusions:

See the rest here:
Stem Cell Assays Reproducible Research on Stem Cells

Abstract Introduction

Aromatic (ar-) turmerone is a major bioactive compound of the herb Curcuma longa. It has been suggested that ar-turmerone inhibits microglia activation, a property that may be useful in treating neurodegenerative disease. Furthermore, the effects of ar-turmerone on neural stem cells (NSCs) remain to be investigated.

We exposed primary fetal rat NSCs to various concentrations of ar-turmerone. Thereafter, cell proliferation and differentiation potential were assessed. In vivo, nave rats were treated with a single intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.) injection of ar-turmerone. Proliferative activity of endogenous NSCs was assessed in vivo, by using noninvasive positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and the tracer [18F]-fluoro-L-thymidine ([18F]FLT), as well as ex vivo.

In vitro, ar-turmerone increased dose-dependently the number of cultured NSCs, because of an increase in NSC proliferation (P<0.01). Proliferation data were supported by qPCR-data for Ki-67 mRNA. In vitro as well as in vivo, ar-turmerone promoted neuronal differentiation of NSCs. In vivo, after i.c.v. injection of ar-turmerone, proliferating NSCs were mobilized from the subventricular zone (SVZ) and the hippocampus of adult rats, as demonstrated by both [18F]FLT-PET and histology (P<0.05).

Both in vitro and in vivo data suggest that ar-turmerone induces NSC proliferation. Ar-turmerone thus constitutes a promising candidate to support regeneration in neurologic disease.

Curcumin and ar-turmerone are the major bioactive compounds of the herb Curcuma longa. Although many studies have demonstrated curcumin to possess antiinflammatory and neuroprotective properties (reviewed by [1]), to date, the effects of ar-turmerone remain to be elucidated. For example, antitumor properties, exerted via the induction of apoptosis [2] and inhibition of tumor cell invasion [3], have been attributed to ar-turmerone. Park et al. [4,5] recently suggested that ar-turmerone also possesses antiinflammatory properties resulting from the blockade of key signaling pathways in microglia. Because microglia activation is a hallmark of neuroinflammation and is associated with various neurologic disorders, including neurodegenerative diseases [6,7] and stroke [8,9], ar-turmerone constitutes a promising therapeutic agent for various neurologic disorders.

The regenerative potential of endogenous neural stem cells (NSCs) plays an important role in neurodegenerative disease and stroke. Endogenous NSCs are mobilized by cerebral ischemia [10] as well as by various neurodegenerative diseases [11,12], although their intrinsic regenerative response is insufficient to enable functional recovery. The targeted (that is, pharmacologic) activation of endogenous NSCs has been shown to enhance self-repair and recovery of function in the adult brain in both stroke [13,14] and neurodegeneration [15]. Importantly, NSCs and microglia relevantly interact with each other, thereby affecting their respective functions [16,17].

Thus, with the perspective of ar-turmerone as a therapeutic option in mind, we investigated the effects of ar-turmerone on NSCs in vitro and in vivo.

NSCs were cultured from fetal rat cortex at embryonic day 14.5, as described previously [18]. Cells were expanded as monolayer cultures in serum-free DMEM/F12 medium (Life Technologies, Darmstadt, Germany) with N2 supplement (Gibco, Karlsruhe, Germany) and fibroblast growth factor (FGF2; 10ng/ml; Invitrogen, Karlsruhe, Germany) for 5days and were replated in a 24-well plate at 10,000 cells per cm2. FGF2 was included throughout the experiments.

Ar-turmerone (Fluka, Munich, Germany) was added to cultures at replating at concentrations of 0, 1.56, 3.125, 6.25, 12.5, and 25g/ml. All experiments were performed in triplicate. After 72hours, representative pictures were taken by using an inverted fluorescence phase-contrast microscope (Keyence BZ-9000E). Three images were taken per well, and cells were counted by using the software ImageJ with a threshold of 20 px (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA, Version 1.47k).

Original post:
Stem Cell Research & Therapy | Full text | Aromatic ...

Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Research - What are Stem Cells? There has been much controversy in the press recently about the pros and cons of stem cell research. What is the controversy all about? "Stem" cells can be contrasted with "differentiated" cells. They offer much hope for medical advancement because of their ability to grow into almost any kind of cell. For instance, neural cells in the brain and spinal cord that have been damaged can be replaced by stem cells. In the treatment of cancer, cells destroyed by radiation or chemotherapy can be replaced with new healthy stem cells that adapt to the affected area, whether it be part of the brain, heart, liver, lungs, or wherever. Dead cells of almost any kind, no matter the type of injury or disease, can be replaced with new healthy cells thanks to the amazing flexibility of stem cells. As a result, billions of dollars are being poured into this new field.

Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Research - Where Do They Come From? To understand the pros and cons of stem cell research, one must first understand where stem cells come from. There are three main sources for obtaining stem cells - adult cells, cord cells, and embryonic cells. Adult stem cells can be extracted either from bone marrow or from the peripheral system. Bone marrow is a rich source of stem cells. However, some painful destruction of the bone marrow results from this procedure. Peripheral stem cells can be extracted without damage to bones, but the process takes more time. And with health issues, time is often of the essence. Although difficult to extract, since they are taken from the patient's own body, adult stem cells are superior to both umbilical cord and embryonic stem cells. They are plentiful. There is always an exact DNA match so the body's immune system never rejects them. And as we might expect, results have been both profound and promising.

Stem cells taken from the umbilical cord are a second very rich source of stem cells. Umbilical cells can also offer a perfect match where a family has planned ahead. Cord cells are extracted during pregnancy and stored in cryogenic cell banks as a type of insurance policy for future use on behalf of the newborn. Cord cells can also be used by the mother, the father or others. The more distant the relationship, the more likely it is that the cells will be rejected by the immune system's antibodies. However, there are a number of common cell types just as there are common blood types so matching is always possible especially where there are numerous donors. The donation and storage process is similar to blood banking. Donation of umbilical cells is highly encouraged. Compared to adult cells and embryonic cells, the umbilical cord is by far the richest source of stem cells, and cells can be stored up in advance so they are available when needed. Further, even where there is not an exact DNA match between donor and recipient, scientists have developed methods to increase transferability and reduce risk.

Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Research - Embryonic Cells The pros and cons of stem cell research come to the surface when we examine the third source of stem cells - embryonic cells. Embryonic stem cells are extracted directly from an embryo before the embryo's cells begin to differentiate. At this stage the embryo is referred to as a "blastocyst." There are about 100 cells in a blastocyst, a very large percentage of which are stem cells, which can be kept alive indefinitely, grown in cultures, where the stem cells continue to double in number every 2-3 days. A replicating set of stem cells from a single blastocyst is called a "stem cell line" because the genetic material all comes from the same fertilized human egg that started it. President Bush authorized federal funding for research on the 15 stem cell lines available in August 2001. Other stem cell lines are also available for research but without the coveted assistance of federal funding.

So what is the controversy all about? Those who value human life from the point of conception, oppose embryonic stem cell research because the extraction of stem cells from this type of an embryo requires its destruction. In other words, it requires that a human life be killed. Some believe this to be the same as murder. Against this, embryonic research advocates argue that the tiny blastocyst has no human features. Further, new stem cell lines already exist due to the common practice of in vitro fertilization. Research advocates conclude that many fertilized human cells have already been banked, but are not being made available for research. Advocates of embryonic stem cell research claim new human lives will not be created for the sole purpose of experimentation.

Others argue against such research on medical grounds. Mice treated for Parkinson's with embryonic stem cells have died from brain tumors in as much as 20% of cases.1 Embryonic stem cells stored over time have been shown to create the type of chromosomal anomalies that create cancer cells.2 Looking at it from a more pragmatic standpoint, funds devoted to embryonic stem cell research are funds being taken away from the other two more promising and less controversial types of stem cell research mentioned above.

Learn More Now!

What is your response?

Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus

Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus

Read this article:
Pros And Cons Of Stem Cell Research - Popular Issues