Monthly Archives: October 2012

Stem Cell Orthodoxy and Peer Review

Posted: October 14, 2012 at 4:01 pm


Going against the grain can be
difficult as UC Davis stem cell scientist Paul Knoepfler learned
again in connection with his research that dealt with similarities
between cancer and iPS cells.

His “unsettling” findings troubled
some scientists who reviewed his paper prior to its publication in
September in Stem Cells and Development. (See here and here.)
As many readers know, iPS or
reprogrammed adult cells are currently a hot research avenue in stem
cell research because they avoid many of the ticklish ethical and
political problems connected with human embryonic stem cells.
Knoepfler shared his thoughts on the
publication and peer review process on his blog last week. He wrote,

“Not surprisingly...there are certain
members of the stem cell field who would rather focus away from the
ideas that iPS cells are similar in some respects to cancer.”

Knoepfler, whose research was financed
in part by the California stem cell agency, wrote,

“Once we had a manuscript together
comparing iPS cells to cancer cells, we sent it to several high
profile journals without much luck. We thought that the fact that our
data indicated that iPS cells are similar to cancer cells might make
reviewers and editors excited. We thought that the paper was novel
and thought provoking in a number of ways. At the same time I
realized the theme of the paper would be controversial. 

“I would say two general things about
the review process at the two journals that turned down the paper.
First, the reviewers at these journals were enormously helpful with
their suggestions and helped us improve the paper substantially.
Second, they were clearly very uncomfortable with the notion that iPS
cells are related in some ways to cancer so unsettled in fact that I
believe it influenced their reviews.”

At one journal, a reviewer said the
findings were either “not sufficiently novel” or “trivial.”
“Little useful insights” said another. And a third said, “many
unsettling results....”
Knoepfler commented on this blog,

“Yeah, it may be unsettling that iPS
cells share traits with cancer cells, but if that is the reality,
isn’t it important that people know that and think about it, talk
about it, and address the issue with eyes open?”

Knoepfler's item and similar comments
from other researchers that can found elsewhere on the Internet
indirectly raise questions about the California stem cell agency's process
of peer review of applications for hundreds of millions of dollars in
funding, especially in the wake of this summer's unprecedented rash of appeals of decisions by grant reviewers.
The key question is whether the agency's closed-door process reinforces orthodoxy or, in fact, is all but controlled by what
amounts to scientific conventional wisdom. Obviously, no researcher
likes to see a paper rejected or a grant denied. But the record
number of appeals at CIRM and other private complaints could well indicate
that potentially profitable proposals are receiving a less than
welcome reception behind closed doors from agency reviewers.
The agency's board itself is
hard-pressed to make such determinations. It is hamstrung by
procedures that do not permit it to expand an application directly –
only a staff-written summary. Names of applicants and institutions
are censored, although the board is required by law to discuss in
public most aspects of a research proposal. Exceptions are permitted for proprietary information. Additionally, a handful of the 29 members of the governing board do participate in the reviews, which come before final action by the board. 
Currently the agency is pushing hard to
commercialize stem cell research and fulfill at least some of the
promises to voters that were made in 2004. To do that, the agency may
well have to step outside of the normal comfort zone of the good
burghers of stem cell science.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/LITB6cXS-ZM/stem-cell-orthodoxy-and-peer-review.html

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Stem Cell Orthodoxy and Peer Review

Cell therapy portfolio outperforms major indices year-to-date

Posted: October 14, 2012 at 4:00 pm



On August 10 we created a model portfolio in Google Finance of 29 public companies in the cell therapy sector then we compared how that portfolio was doing against the major indices year-to-date (Since 1 January 2012).  See that post here.  Bottom line: even though we are still in a relatively bullish market, the CT portfolio was doing better.  Significantly better.
So how is the sector portfolio doing now that we've been through three quarters?
CT model portfolio compared to 3 major indices YTD
In case you can't read the image above, the blue line represents the cell therapy portfolio and here are the stats on performance since 1 January 2012:
  • Cell Therapy Portfolio:  +24.44%
  • Dow Jones:  +4.5%
  • S+P 500:  +6.78%
  • Nasdaq:  +10.26%
The only change I've made to the portfolio of 29 companies listed in our August 10 post is to add Thermogenesis (KOOL).  Today its stock is at .968 up from .7 at the beginning of the year.
You do or should know, I'm no financial analyst.  I'm not entirely sure what assumptions are behind this 'model portfolio' or precisely what one should take from this snapshot but what is clear to me is that at least from one perspective the sector is treating investors fairly well.
I certainly welcome comments from more sophisticated investors or analysts.  In fact, if anyone with that kind of experience or expertise wants to write a guest post on this blog providing a more sophisticated commentary on what this all means, I would very much welcome the contribution.
In the meantime, I hope this helps.
_________________
Post-publication addition:
Carter Gould, Associate Biotech Analyst at Dawson James Securities emailed me to point out that the cell therapy portfolio is simply riding the bull wave of biotech in general and and the portfolio has not done even half as well as the broader biotech (BTK) index which is up 45% YTD.  All very true.  Here is a YahooFinance snapshot of the BTK performance vs the three major indices.















Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CellTherapyBlog/~3/ediPNE1NBDw/cell-therapy-portfolio-outperforms.html

Posted in Regenerative Medicine | Comments Off on Cell therapy portfolio outperforms major indices year-to-date

Yamanaka and the Frailty of Peer Review

Posted: October 14, 2012 at 4:00 pm


More than one back story exists on
Shinya Yamanaka and his Nobel Prize, but one that has received little
attention this week also raises questions about hoary practice of
peer review and publication of research – not to mention the
awarding of billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars.

The Yamanaka tale goes back to a 2010
article in the New Scientist magazine by Peter Aldous in which the
publication examined more than 200 stem cell papers published from
“2006 onwards.” The study showed an apparent favoritism towards
U.S. scientists. Also specifically reported were long delays in
publication of Yamanaka's papers, including in one case 295 days.
Here is part of what Aldous wrote,

“All's fair in love and war, they
say, but science is supposed to obey more noble ideals. New findings
are submitted for publication, the studies are farmed out to experts
for objective 'peer review' and the best research appears promptly
in the most prestigious journals. 

“Some stem cell biologists are crying
foul, however. Last year(2009), 14 researchers in this notoriously
competitive field wrote
to leading journals complaining of "unreasonable or
obstructive reviews". The result, they claimed, is that
'publication of truly original findings may be delayed or rejected.' 

“Triggered by this protest, New
Scientist scrutinised the dynamics of publication in the most
exciting and competitive area of stem
cell research, in which cells are 'reprogrammed' to
acquire the versatility of those of an early-stage embryo. In this
fast-moving field, where a Nobel prize is arguably at stake,
biologists are racing feverishly to publish their findings in top
journals. 

“Our analysis of more than 200
research papers from 2006 onwards reveals that US-based scientists
are enjoying a significant advantage, getting their papers published
faster and in more prominent journals (find
our data, methods and analyses here). 

“More mysterious, given his standing
in the field, is why two of Yamanaka's papers were among the 10 with
the longest lags. In the most delayed of all, Yamanaka reported that
the tumour-suppressing gene p53 inhibits the formation of
iPS cells. The paper took 295 days to be accepted. It was eventually
published by Nature in August 2009 alongside four similar
studies. 'Yamanaka's paper was submitted months before any of the
others,' complains Austin
Smith at the University of Cambridge, UK, who coordinated
the letter sent to leading journals. 

“Yamanaka suggests that editors may
be less excited by papers from non-US scientists, but may change
their minds when they receive similar work from leading labs in the
US. In this case, Hochedlinger submitted a paper similar to
Yamanaka's, but nearly six months after him. Ritu
Dhand, Nature's chief biology editor, says that each paper
is assessed on its own merits. Hochedlinger says he was unaware of
Yamanaka's research on p53 before publication.”

Last week, Paul Knoepfler of UC Davis
wrote of other issues dealing with peer review, but coincidentally
also dealing with iPS cells. What New Scientist and Knoepfler are
discussing is not an isolated situation. It is part of a continuum of
complaints, both serious and self-interested but exceedingly
pervasive. A Google search today on the term “problems with peer
review” turned up 10.1 million references.  Writing on Ars Technica last year, Jonathan Gitlin, science policy analyst at the National
Human Genome Research Institute,  summarized many of the issues, citing a “published” (our quotation marks)
study that said peer review doesn't work “any better than chance.”
Gitlin said,

“A common criticism is that peer
review is biased towards well-established research groups and the
scientific status quo. Reviewers are unwilling to reject papers from
big names in their fields out of fear, and they can be hostile to
ideas that challenge their own, even if the supporting data is good.
Unscrupulous reviewers can reject papers and then quickly publish
similar work themselves.” 

At the $3 billion California stem cell
agency, peer review is undergoing some modest, indirect examination
nowadays. The agency is moving towards tighter scrutiny of budgets
proposed by applicants. And, following a record wave of appeals this
summer by disgruntled applicants rejected during peer review, it is
also moving to bring the appeal process under more control.
As the agency tries to move faster and
more successfully towards development of commercial therapies, it may
do well to consider also the frailties of its peer review process and the
perils of scientific orthodoxy.   

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/lESi4gQF2IA/yamanaka-and-frailty-of-peer-review.html

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Yamanaka and the Frailty of Peer Review

Yamanaka: 'Rejected, Slow and Clumsy'

Posted: October 14, 2012 at 4:00 pm


This week's announcement of the Nobel
Prize for Shinya Yamanaka brought along some interesting
tidbits, including who was “snubbed” as well as recollections
from the recipient.

Jon Bardin of the Los Angeles Times
wrote the “snubbed” piece and quoted Christopher Scott of
Stanford and Paul Knoepfler of UC Davis about the selection issues.
Bardin's piece mentioned Jamie Thomson and Ian Wilmut as scientists
who also could have been considered for the award but were not named.
Ultimately, Bardin wrote that the award committee was looking for a
“singular, paradigm shifting discovery,” which he concluded was
not the case with Thomson or Wilmut.
How Yamanaka arrived at his research
was another topic in the news coverage, much of it dry as dust.
However, Lisa Krieger of the San Jose Mercury News began her story
with Yamanaka's travails some 20 years ago. At the time, no one was returning his phone
calls as he looked for work, and he was rejected by
50 apparently not-so-farsighted American labs.
But that job search in 1993 came only after Yamanaka
decided he was less than successful as an orthopedic surgeon,
according to an account in JapanRealTime. “Slow and clumsy” was
how Yamanaka described himself.
And so he moved on to research. But
again he reported stumbling. In this case, he found a way to reduce
“bad cholesterol” but with a tiny complication – liver cancer.
That in turn sent him on a journey to learn how cells proliferate and
develop, which led him to the work that won the Nobel Prize.
Yamanaka said his original interest in
orthopedic medicine was stimulated by his father along with the treatments
for injuries young Yamanaka received while playing rugby and learning judo. The JapanRealTime account continued,

“'My father probably still thinks in
heaven that I’m a doctor,' he said in the interview(with Asahi
Shimbun last April). 'IPS cells are still at a research phase and
have not treated a single patient. I hope to link it to actual
treatment soon so I will be not embarrassed when I meet my father
someday.'”

And then there was, of course, the much-repeated story from the researcher who shared the Nobel with Yamanaka, John Gurdon. He has preserved to this day a
report from a high school biology teacher that said the 15-year-old
Gurdon's desire to become a scientist was “quite ridiculous.”
The teacher, who is unnamed, wrote,

“If he can’t learn simple
biological facts he would have no chance of doing the work of a
specialist, and it would be a sheer waste of time, both on his part
and of those who would have to teach him.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/7J31SRIukpg/yamanaka-rejected-slow-and-clumsy.html

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Yamanaka: 'Rejected, Slow and Clumsy'

Tighter Controls on Stem Cell Grant Budgets Hits Quorum Bump

Posted: October 14, 2012 at 4:00 pm


SAN FRANCISCO – A move to tighten
budget controls on grants from the $3 billion California stem cell
agency stalled Monday, but it appears that the plan is headed for
ultimate approval.

The proposal was up for consideration
by the agency's directors' Science Subcommittee, which could not act
on it after it lost its quorum.
Members of the panel generally favored
the stronger budget controls, but had questions about the specifics
of implementing the plan during closed-door reviews of grant
applications. The proposal is likely to be altered to respond to
those concerns. It would then either come back to the Science
Subcommittee or go to the full board.
The plan would make it clear to
recipients of large grants that approval of an application by the
agency's governing board does not provide a carte blanche to
researchers. Ellen Feigal, senior vice president for research and
development, said it can be “extremely difficult” for CIRM staff
to deal with budget problems in grants following board approval.
The committee also approved a plan to
speed the application process on its next disease team round, which
is aimed at driving research into the clinic. The concept proposal
for that round is scheduled to come before directors later this
month. The round will be limited to “more mature stage” research
that is close to a clinical trial, if not in one. Feigal said 10 to
15 applications are expected.
Another proposal to add more millions
to CIRM's strategic partnership program was also approved.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/EqLIk55mLu4/tighter-controls-on-stem-cell-grant.html

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Tighter Controls on Stem Cell Grant Budgets Hits Quorum Bump

Yamanaka and the Golden State

Posted: October 14, 2012 at 4:00 pm


The iPierian biopharmaceutical company
in South San Francisco was quick to make a change in its web site
this morning after the Nobel Prize for medicine was announced.

Altered was the bio for one of its
scientific advisors, Shinya Yamanaka, to note that he had won the
Nobel. The bio is tucked away on the site, but it is likely that the
company, which specializes in iPS work, will figure out how to put
the news out front on its home page as well as issue a press release.
It was all part of the reaction today
in California to the Nobel for Yamanaka, who has substantial links to
the Golden State, including UCSF and the Gladstone Institutes.
Both enterprises moved with greater
deftness than iPierian. Yamanaka is a professor at UCSF and a senior
investigator at Gladstone, and the organizations quickly put together a news conference this morning that featured Yamanaka on a video
hook-up from Japan.
UCSF, which is allied with Gladstone,
issued a press release that quoted the president of Gladstone, R.
Sanders Williams, who also mentioned the California stem cell agency.
Williams said,

“Dr. Yamanaka’s story is a
thrilling tale of creative genius, focused dedication and successful
cross-disciplinary science. These traits, nurtured during Dr.
Yamanaka’s postdoctoral training at Gladstone, have led to a
breakthrough that has helped propel the San Francisco Bay Area to the
forefront of stem cell research. Dozens of labs — often supported
by organizations such as the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine (CIRM) and the Roddenberry Foundation–have adopted his
technology.” 

CIRM, which is the state's $3 billion
stem cell effort, published an item on its blog quoting CIRM
President Alan Trounson. He said,

"There are few moments in science
that are undisputed as genuine elegant creativity and simplicity.
Shinya Yamanaka is responsible for one of those. The induced
pluripotent stem cells he created will allow us to interrogate and
understand the full extent and variation of human disease, will
enable us to develop new medicines and will forever change the way
science and medicine will be conducted for the benefit of mankind. An
extraordinary accomplishment by a genuinely modest and brilliant
scientist. He absolutely deserves a Nobel award.”

The CIRM item by Amy Adams, the
agency's communications manager, said that just five years after
Yamanaka's research,

“CIRM alone is funding almost $190
million in awards developing better ways of creating iPS cells and
using those cells to develop new therapies (the
full list of iPS grants is on our website).”

One of the recipients of CIRM's iPS
cash is the well-connected iPierian, which has taken in $7.1 million.
Yamanaka, however, has never received a grant from the agency, and
it is not known whether he ever applied since CIRM releases only the
names of researchers whose applications were approved.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/RbQ09EsO8Qc/yamanaka-and-golden-state.html

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Yamanaka and the Golden State

Stem Cell Orthodoxy and Peer Review

Posted: October 14, 2012 at 4:00 pm


Going against the grain can be
difficult as UC Davis stem cell scientist Paul Knoepfler learned
again in connection with his research that dealt with similarities
between cancer and iPS cells.

His “unsettling” findings troubled
some scientists who reviewed his paper prior to its publication in
September in Stem Cells and Development. (See here and here.)
As many readers know, iPS or
reprogrammed adult cells are currently a hot research avenue in stem
cell research because they avoid many of the ticklish ethical and
political problems connected with human embryonic stem cells.
Knoepfler shared his thoughts on the
publication and peer review process on his blog last week. He wrote,

“Not surprisingly...there are certain
members of the stem cell field who would rather focus away from the
ideas that iPS cells are similar in some respects to cancer.”

Knoepfler, whose research was financed
in part by the California stem cell agency, wrote,

“Once we had a manuscript together
comparing iPS cells to cancer cells, we sent it to several high
profile journals without much luck. We thought that the fact that our
data indicated that iPS cells are similar to cancer cells might make
reviewers and editors excited. We thought that the paper was novel
and thought provoking in a number of ways. At the same time I
realized the theme of the paper would be controversial. 

“I would say two general things about
the review process at the two journals that turned down the paper.
First, the reviewers at these journals were enormously helpful with
their suggestions and helped us improve the paper substantially.
Second, they were clearly very uncomfortable with the notion that iPS
cells are related in some ways to cancer so unsettled in fact that I
believe it influenced their reviews.”

At one journal, a reviewer said the
findings were either “not sufficiently novel” or “trivial.”
“Little useful insights” said another. And a third said, “many
unsettling results....”
Knoepfler commented on this blog,

“Yeah, it may be unsettling that iPS
cells share traits with cancer cells, but if that is the reality,
isn’t it important that people know that and think about it, talk
about it, and address the issue with eyes open?”

Knoepfler's item and similar comments
from other researchers that can found elsewhere on the Internet
indirectly raise questions about the California stem cell agency's process
of peer review of applications for hundreds of millions of dollars in
funding, especially in the wake of this summer's unprecedented rash of appeals of decisions by grant reviewers.
The key question is whether the agency's closed-door process reinforces orthodoxy or, in fact, is all but controlled by what
amounts to scientific conventional wisdom. Obviously, no researcher
likes to see a paper rejected or a grant denied. But the record
number of appeals at CIRM and other private complaints could well indicate
that potentially profitable proposals are receiving a less than
welcome reception behind closed doors from agency reviewers.
The agency's board itself is
hard-pressed to make such determinations. It is hamstrung by
procedures that do not permit it to expand an application directly –
only a staff-written summary. Names of applicants and institutions
are censored, although the board is required by law to discuss in
public most aspects of a research proposal. Exceptions are permitted for proprietary information. Additionally, a handful of the 29 members of the governing board do participate in the reviews, which come before final action by the board. 
Currently the agency is pushing hard to
commercialize stem cell research and fulfill at least some of the
promises to voters that were made in 2004. To do that, the agency may
well have to step outside of the normal comfort zone of the good
burghers of stem cell science.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/LITB6cXS-ZM/stem-cell-orthodoxy-and-peer-review.html

Posted in Stem Cells, Stem Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Stem Cell Orthodoxy and Peer Review

Ricky Reyes to help set up Fresh Cell Therapy clinic in the Philippines

Posted: October 14, 2012 at 8:14 am

Hanggang ngayon ay usap-usapan pa rin ang Fresh Cell Therapy (FCT) o mas kilala natin bilang stem cell therapy lalo nat marami nang celebrities ang nahihikayat na sumailalim sa naturang medical procedure na nagpo-promote ng anti-aging at nakatutulong para labanan ang ilang serious health conditions.

Isa na nga rito ang sikat na hairstylist, beauty expert, philanthropist, businessman, at TV host na si Ricky Reyes o mas kilala bilang si Mother Ricky.

Sumailalim si Mother Ricky sa FCT noong Hunyo ng taong ito at ngayon nga ay ine-enjoy niya ang benepisyo nito sa kanyang kalusugan.

The fact that my arthritis is gone, Im very, very happy and Im thankful to Bobby [Kittichaiwong, Villa Medica CEO). And its just a two-shot on my back, gone instantly. You know, yung quality of life mo na hindi ka aray-aray-aray?

Tapos nagpunta ako sa Germany last June and its such a beautiful place. We even had meron ka pang tour sa Paris [France]. Very nice place, sabi ni Mother Ricky.

Nakausap ng PEP.ph (Philippine Entertainment Portal) si Mother Ricky sa presscon ng Villa Medica tungkol sa FCT na ginanap kaninang tanghali, Oktubre 13, sa Crowne Plaza sa Ortigas, Pasig City.

Hindi rin daw niya maitatanggi ang kabutihang naidulot ng FCT sa kanyang ina, na sumailalim din sa naturang therapy.

Oo naman, with my experience with my mom. Dati nakatungo na, ngayon nakataas na yung leeg na ganyan, paglalarawan pa ni Mother Ricky tungkol sa nagawa ng FCT sa kanyang ina.

Nai-stretch na yung mga kamay. Isang malaking utang na loob ko yun kay Bobby. It is a Christmas gift of Bobby to me to cure my mom.

Read the original:
Ricky Reyes to help set up Fresh Cell Therapy clinic in the Philippines

Posted in Cell Therapy | Comments Off on Ricky Reyes to help set up Fresh Cell Therapy clinic in the Philippines

Stem cells from muscle tissue 'may help cure neurodegenerative diseases'

Posted: October 13, 2012 at 8:21 pm

Washington, October 13 (ANI): In a new study, researchers have taken the first steps to create neural-like stem cells from muscle tissue in animals.

"Reversing brain degeneration and trauma lesions will depend on cell therapy, but we can't harvest neural stem cells from the brain or spinal cord without harming the donor," Osvaldo Delbono, lead author of the study from Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, said.

"Skeletal muscle tissue, which makes up 50 percent of the body, is easily accessible and biopsies of muscle are relatively harmless to the donor, so we think it may be an alternative source of neural-like cells that potentially could be used to treat brain or spinal cord injury, neurodegenerative disorders, brain tumours and other diseases, although more studies are needed," Delbono said.

In an earlier study, the Wake Forest Baptist team isolated neural precursor cells derived from skeletal muscle of adult transgenic mice.

In the current research, the team isolated neural precursor cells from in vitro adult skeletal muscle of various species including non-human primates and aging mice, and showed that these cells not only survived in the brain, but also migrated to the area of the brain where neural stem cells originate.

Another issue the researchers investigated was whether these neural-like cells would form tumours, a characteristic of many types of stem cells. To test this, the team injected the cells below the skin and in the brains of mice, and after one month, no tumours were found.

"Right now, patients with glioblastomas or other brain tumours have very poor outcomes and relatively few treatment options," Alexander Birbrair, first author of the study, said.

"Because our cells survived and migrated in the brain, we may be able to use them as drug-delivery vehicles in the future, not only for brain tumours but also for other central nervous system diseases," he added.

The findings of the study have been published online in the journals Experimental Cell Research and Stem Cell Research. ANI)

Read this article:
Stem cells from muscle tissue 'may help cure neurodegenerative diseases'

Posted in Stem Cell Videos | Comments Off on Stem cells from muscle tissue 'may help cure neurodegenerative diseases'

Stem cells from muscle tissue ‘may help cure neurodegenerative diseases’

Posted: October 13, 2012 at 2:19 pm

Washington, October 13 (ANI): In a new study, researchers have taken the first steps to create neural-like stem cells from muscle tissue in animals.

"Reversing brain degeneration and trauma lesions will depend on cell therapy, but we can't harvest neural stem cells from the brain or spinal cord without harming the donor," Osvaldo Delbono, lead author of the study from Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, said.

"Skeletal muscle tissue, which makes up 50 percent of the body, is easily accessible and biopsies of muscle are relatively harmless to the donor, so we think it may be an alternative source of neural-like cells that potentially could be used to treat brain or spinal cord injury, neurodegenerative disorders, brain tumours and other diseases, although more studies are needed," Delbono said.

In an earlier study, the Wake Forest Baptist team isolated neural precursor cells derived from skeletal muscle of adult transgenic mice.

In the current research, the team isolated neural precursor cells from in vitro adult skeletal muscle of various species including non-human primates and aging mice, and showed that these cells not only survived in the brain, but also migrated to the area of the brain where neural stem cells originate.

Another issue the researchers investigated was whether these neural-like cells would form tumours, a characteristic of many types of stem cells. To test this, the team injected the cells below the skin and in the brains of mice, and after one month, no tumours were found.

"Right now, patients with glioblastomas or other brain tumours have very poor outcomes and relatively few treatment options," Alexander Birbrair, first author of the study, said.

"Because our cells survived and migrated in the brain, we may be able to use them as drug-delivery vehicles in the future, not only for brain tumours but also for other central nervous system diseases," he added.

The findings of the study have been published online in the journals Experimental Cell Research and Stem Cell Research. ANI)

See the rest here:
Stem cells from muscle tissue 'may help cure neurodegenerative diseases'

Posted in Stem Cells | Comments Off on Stem cells from muscle tissue ‘may help cure neurodegenerative diseases’