header logo image


Page 80«..1020..79808182..90100..»

Archive for the ‘Stem Cell Therapy’ Category

Cedars-Sinai study sheds light on bone marrow stem cell therapy for pancreatic recovery

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012

Public release date: 2-Oct-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Sandy Van sandy@prpacific.com 808-526-1708 Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

LOS ANGELES (Oct. 2, 2012) Researchers at Cedars-Sinai's Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute have found that a blood vessel-building gene boosts the ability of human bone marrow stem cells to sustain pancreatic recovery in a laboratory mouse model of insulin-dependent diabetes.

The findings, published in a PLOS ONE article of the Public Library of Science, offer new insights on mechanisms involved in regeneration of insulin-producing cells and provide new evidence that a diabetic's own bone marrow one day may be a source of treatment.

Scientists began studying bone marrow-derived stem cells for pancreatic regeneration a decade ago. Recent studies involving several pancreas-related genes and delivery methods transplantation into the organ or injection into the blood have shown that bone marrow stem cell therapy could reverse or improve diabetes in some laboratory mice. But little has been known about how stem cells affect beta cells pancreas cells that produce insulin or how scientists could promote sustained beta cell renewal and insulin production.

When the Cedars-Sinai researchers modified bone marrow stem cells to express a certain gene (vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF), pancreatic recovery was sustained as mouse pancreases were able to generate new beta cells. The VEGF-modified stem cells promoted growth of needed blood vessels and supported activation of genes involved in insulin production. Bone marrow stem cells modified with a different gene, PDX1, which is important in the development and maintenance of beta cells, resulted in temporary but not sustained beta cell recovery.

"Our study is the first to show that VEGF contributes to revascularization and recovery after pancreatic injury. It demonstrates the possible clinical benefits of using bone marrow-derived stem cells, modified to express that gene, for the treatment of insulin-dependent diabetes," said John S. Yu, MD, professor and vice chair of the Department of Neurosurgery at Cedars-Sinai, senior author of the journal article.

Diabetes was reversed in five of nine mice treated with the injection of VEGF-modified cells, and near-normal blood sugar levels were maintained through the remainder of the six-week study period. The other four mice survived and gained weight, suggesting treatment was beneficial even when it did not prompt complete reversal. Lab studies later confirmed that genetically-modified cells survived and grew in the pancreas and supported the repopulation of blood vessels and beta cells.

Anna Milanesi, MD, PhD, working in Yu's lab as an endocrinology fellow, is the article's first author. The researchers cautioned that although this and other related studies help scientists gain a better understanding of the processes and pathways involved in pancreatic regeneration, more research is needed before human clinical trials can begin.

Insulin-dependent diabetes occurs when beta cells of the pancreas fail to produce insulin, a hormone that regulates sugar in the blood. Patients must take insulin injections or consider transplantation of a whole pancreas or parts of the pancreas that make insulin, but transplantation carries the risk of cell rejection.

Read the original here:
Cedars-Sinai study sheds light on bone marrow stem cell therapy for pancreatic recovery

Read More...

New study sheds light on bone marrow stem cell therapy for pancreatic recovery

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012

ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 2012) Researchers at Cedars-Sinai's Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute have found that a blood vessel-building gene boosts the ability of human bone marrow stem cells to sustain pancreatic recovery in a laboratory mouse model of insulin-dependent diabetes.

The findings, published in a PLoS ONE article of the Public Library of Science, offer new insights on mechanisms involved in regeneration of insulin-producing cells and provide new evidence that a diabetic's own bone marrow one day may be a source of treatment.

Scientists began studying bone marrow-derived stem cells for pancreatic regeneration a decade ago. Recent studies involving several pancreas-related genes and delivery methods -- transplantation into the organ or injection into the blood -- have shown that bone marrow stem cell therapy could reverse or improve diabetes in some laboratory mice. But little has been known about how stem cells affect beta cells -- pancreas cells that produce insulin -- or how scientists could promote sustained beta cell renewal and insulin production.

When the Cedars-Sinai researchers modified bone marrow stem cells to express a certain gene (vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF), pancreatic recovery was sustained as mouse pancreases were able to generate new beta cells. The VEGF-modified stem cells promoted growth of needed blood vessels and supported activation of genes involved in insulin production. Bone marrow stem cells modified with a different gene, PDX1, which is important in the development and maintenance of beta cells, resulted in temporary but not sustained beta cell recovery.

"Our study is the first to show that VEGF contributes to revascularization and recovery after pancreatic injury. It demonstrates the possible clinical benefits of using bone marrow-derived stem cells, modified to express that gene, for the treatment of insulin-dependent diabetes," said John S. Yu, MD, professor and vice chair of the Department of Neurosurgery at Cedars-Sinai, senior author of the journal article.

Diabetes was reversed in five of nine mice treated with the injection of VEGF-modified cells, and near-normal blood sugar levels were maintained through the remainder of the six-week study period. The other four mice survived and gained weight, suggesting treatment was beneficial even when it did not prompt complete reversal. Lab studies later confirmed that genetically-modified cells survived and grew in the pancreas and supported the repopulation of blood vessels and beta cells.

Anna Milanesi, MD, PhD, working in Yu's lab as an endocrinology fellow, is the article's first author. The researchers cautioned that although this and other related studies help scientists gain a better understanding of the processes and pathways involved in pancreatic regeneration, more research is needed before human clinical trials can begin.

Insulin-dependent diabetes occurs when beta cells of the pancreas fail to produce insulin, a hormone that regulates sugar in the blood. Patients must take insulin injections or consider transplantation of a whole pancreas or parts of the pancreas that make insulin, but transplantation carries the risk of cell rejection.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

Read more:
New study sheds light on bone marrow stem cell therapy for pancreatic recovery

Read More...

New Therapy May Help Burn Victims

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012

Lesley Kelly, 45, underwent stem cell therapy to repair scar tissue buildup in her right arm. (Cytori Therapeutics, Inc.)

By Lara Salahi, ABC News For more than 40 years, Lesley Kelly of Glasgow, Scotland, lived with third-degree burns that stretched over 60 percent of her body.

Kelly was 2 years old when she fell into a bathtub filled with hot water that scorched most of the right side of her body. She lost full range of motion around many of her joints.

"When you have bad scarring, the buildup is very thick and has no elasticity," said Kelly, 45, whose right elbow was most affected by the buildup of scar tissue. "The problem with thermal burn scarring [is that] it's hard to get the range of motion."

Kelly underwent numerous reparative surgeries through the years, but the scar tissue continued to grow back. The procedures did not lessen the look of her scars.

In 2011, Kelly underwent a new, experimental procedure that used stem cells from her own fat tissue to repair the buildup around her right elbow.

Surgeons cleaned the scar buildup around the elbow and used liposuction to pull fat from off Kelly's waist. They separated the fat cells from the stem and regenerative cells, which were then injected into the wound on Kelly's arm. The procedure took less than two hours.

Within months, Kelly was able to regain 40 degrees of motion that she had lost more than 40 years ago.

"If this technology was available earlier in my life, my scars would not have been as bad," said Kelly.

There are an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 burn cases each year in the U.S., according to the American Burn Association.

Read more here:
New Therapy May Help Burn Victims

Read More...

Houston Stem Cell Summit Announces Extraordinary Lineup of Keynote Speakers

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012

HOUSTON, Oct. 1, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --The Houston Stem Cell Summit will host an extraordinary lineup of keynote speakers who represent the most accomplished stem cell scientists, clinicians and entrepreneurs in the United States. Joining these distinguished speakers will be Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, consistent champion of adult stem cell therapies.

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20120831/NY66463LOGO )

The Houston Stem Cell Summit will be held October 26 27 in its namesake city and will highlight the latest therapeutic research regarding the use of adult stem and progenitor cell therapies. The Summit will also provide a forum for entrepreneurs to discuss their latest efforts to commercialize stem cell therapies, and to debate and discuss FDA and other legal and regulatory issues impacting stem cell research and commercialization.

Opening Keynote Address October 26, 2012 Arnold I. Caplan, PhD, Professor of Biology and Professor of General Medical Sciences (Oncology) Case Western Reserve University

Dr. Caplan has helped shape the direction and focus of adult stem cell research and commercialization. Virtually every adult stem cell company and literally tens of thousands of research papers are based on Dr. Caplan's original and ground breaking research. Professor Caplan is considered to be the "father" of the mesenchymal stem cell and first described this progenitor cell in his landmark paper; "Mesenchymal stem cells", Journal of Orthopaedic Research 1991;9(5):641-650. Since that foundational study, Dr. Caplan has published over 360 manuscripts and articles in peer reviewed journals. Dr. Caplan has been Chief Scientific Officer at OrthoCyte Corporation since 2010. In addition, Dr. Caplan co-founded Cell Targeting Inc. and has served as President of Skeletech, Inc. as its founder. He is the recipient of several honors and awards from the orthopedic research community. Dr. Caplan holds a Ph. D. from Johns Hopkins University Medical School and a B.S. in chemistry from the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Summit Keynote Address October 26, 2012 Texas Governor Rick Perry

Governor Perry is the 47th and current Governor of Texas. Governor Perry has long championed the role of medical technologies in building the future of not only Texas, but also the United States. In many ways, his strong advocacy on behalf of research and advanced medical technologies is one of his strongest and as yet underappreciated legacies. In addition to his service to the state of Texas, Governor Perry has also served as Chairman of the Republican Governors Association in 2008 and again in 2011. Despite a rigorous schedule, particularly in the teeth of this election season, Governor Perry has graciously made time to speak and encourage the researchers, patients, companies and physicians who form the fabric and future of the stem cell therapy community.

Texas Medical Center Keynote Address, October 27, 2012 James T. Willerson, MD

Over the course of his career, Dr. James T. Willerson has served as a medical, scientific and administrative leader for each of the major institutions that are the foundation of the Texas Medical Center. Dr. Willerson is currently President and Medical Director, Director of Cardiology Research, and Co-Director of the Cullen Cardiovascular Research Laboratories at Texas Heart Institute (THI). Dr. Willerson was appointed President-Elect of THI in 2004 and became President and Medical Director in 2008. He is also an adjunct professor of Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. He is the former chief of Cardiology at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital and the former chief of Medical Services at Memorial Hermann Hospital.

Dr. Willerson has served as a visiting professor and invited lecturer at more than 170 institutions.

Read the original:
Houston Stem Cell Summit Announces Extraordinary Lineup of Keynote Speakers

Read More...

$700,000 Blue-ribbon Study of CIRM All But Finished

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


The $700,000 study of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency is nearly concluded and is expected to be
released sometime in November.

A draft of the report has been sent out
for “peer review” and no additional public meetings are
scheduled, according to a spokeswoman for the Institute of
Medicine(IOM)
, which is conducting the study. The IOM did not respond
to questions from the California Stem Cell Report about the number of peer reviewers or how they were selected.
The study began last year under a contract with the stem cell agency, which commissioned the effort, in
part, because agency directors hoped the findings by the blue-ribbon
panel would bolster efforts to win voter approval of another multi-billion dollar state bond issue. More recently the agency has
explored the possibility of private financing to continue operations.
The agency is expected to run out of
funds for new awards in 2017. It currently has something in the
neighborhood of $700 million for awards that is not already committed
in one fashion or another.
Christine Stencel, senior media
relations officer for the IOM, said in an email,

There will be no
further information-gathering meetings. The committee members have
finished drafting their report and it is now undergoing peer review.
Reviewers are anonymous to study staff and committee members; they
will be listed in the front matter of the report when it’s finished
and released.”

She said the stem
cell agency will not be given an opportunity to comment further.
Stencel said,

Sponsors are not
treated as peer reviewers; that is, they’re not afforded an
opportunity to comment on IOM draft reports prior to public release.
IOM is aiming for a public release in November (the exact time frame
will hinge on the duration of the peer review, which is influenced by
people’s schedules and adherence to deadlines). IOM is looking at
options for how best to hold this release, whether there will be an
event of some sort. Once plans are set, they’ll be noted on the
project web pages and IOM will alert the various stakeholders and
interested parties of the plans. The study is moving along and we’re
looking forward to the report’s debut in the not too distant
future.”

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Fortune Magazine on California Stem Cell Agency: Warm, Personal and Favorable

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


California's $3 billion stem cell
research effort today garnered a handsome dollop of favorable
national news coverage– a lengthy piece in Fortune magazine that
spoke of looming stem cell cures and the leading role of the state
stem cell agency.

The article led the Fortune web page online at one point this morning and
likely will be read by tens of thousands of persons, although it was not the cover story on the print product. 
Written by a former senior editor of
the magazine, Jeffrey O'Brien of Mill Valley, Ca., the piece was warm
and personal. He began with the story of his 95-year-old
grandmother and her health issues, ranging from arthritis to macular
degeneration. And he wrote,

“The citizens of California have
spoken. If my grandmother and I had the power to get the rest of the
country to follow, we would.”

O'Brien also discussed the science and
finances of the stem cell business. He said,

“To be clear, the earliest stem cell
therapies are almost certainly years from distribution. But so much
progress has been made at venerable research institutions that it now
seems possible to honestly discuss the possibility of a new medical
paradigm emerging within a generation. Working primarily with rodents
in preclinical trials, MDs and Ph.D.s are making the paralyzed walk
and the impotent virile. A stem cell therapy for two types of macular
degeneration recently restored the vision of two women. Once they
were blind. Now they see!

“Some experts assert that AMD could
be eradicated within a decade. Other scientists are heralding a
drug-free fix for HIV/AIDS. Various forms of cancer, Parkinson's,
diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and ALS have already been eradicated
in mice. If such work translates to humans, it will represent the
type of platform advancement that comes along in medicine only once
in a lifetime or two. The effect on the economy would be substantial.
Champions of stem cell research say it would be on the order of the
Internet or even the transistor.”

O'Brien continued,

“The obstacles along the road from
lab rat to human patients are many, of course, but the biggest by far
is money. With the dramatic events in the lab, you might think that a
gold rush would be under way. That's far from true. Long time
horizons, regulatory hurdles, huge R&D costs, public sentiment,
and political headwinds have all scared financiers. Wall Street isn't
interested in financing this particular dream. Most stem cell
companies that have dared go public are trading down 90% or more from
their IPOs. Sand Hill Road is AWOL. The National Venture Capital
Association doesn't even have a category to track stem cell
investments.”

As for the California stem cell agency
itself, the article contained remarks from its Chairman J.T.Thomas,
President Alan Trounson and former chairman Robert Klein about the origins and progress of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).
O'Brien wrote, 

“The $1.7 billion awarded so far has made one obvious mark on the state: a dozen gleaming research institutions. CIRM has proved adept at getting billionaires to donate funds to the cause.”

O'Brien interviewed a several
prominent businessmen who have contributed tens of millions of
dollars to stem cell research “about the prospects of a legitimate industry emerging.” One was “bond genius” Bill Gross, who has
contributed to UC Irvine. Gross replied.

“Goodness, you're talking to the
wrong guy. Our donation had nothing to do with business.”

Eli Broad, another big stem cell donor,
said pretty much the same thing. And Andy Grove, the former chairman
of Intel, was “surprisingly full of doom and gloom.” O'Brien
wrote,

“For close to two hours, Grove argues
passionately about how the FDA is enabling predatory offshore
industries by impeding progress and the many reasons financiers want
no part of stem cells. "VCs aren't interested because it's a
shitty business," he says. Big Pharma? Forget it. CIRM? "There
are gleaming fucking buildings everywhere. That wasn't necessary."
When I press him to be constructive, he wearily offers one possible
solution. Rather than courting billionaires to put their names on
buildings, we need a system of targeted philanthropy in which the 99%
can sponsor the individual stem cell lines that matter to them.”

O'Brien said, however,

“It was clear during our talk that
Grove wants an economic model for stem cell research and development
to emerge, even if he's not willing to bet money on its happening.
And that puts him in good company.”

While the Fortune article has its
negative points about stem cell research, it is about as laudatory as
it is going to get at this point for the California stem cell agency.
The piece recognizes and even celebrates much of the work of the
agency. The article clearly details the void in financing
for commercialization of stem cell research, bolstering support for
efforts like those in California. Importantly, it also helps to push
the activities of the stem cell agency more fully into the national
discussion of stem cell research and its future. That should pay off
again and again in future news coverage and also benefit the stem
cell agency as it explores the possibility of additional funding –
either private or public – after the cash for new awards runs out
in 2017.

(The story is in the Oct. 8, 2012, edition of Fortune.)

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

October CIRM Board Meeting Moved to Burlingame

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


The location of the October meeting of
the governing board of the California stem cell agency has been
changed from Irvine to Burlingame, near San Francisco International
Airport, in an effort to save travel costs.  

CIRM Chairman J.T. Thomas said the
one-day meeting is being moved because the session will require the
attendance of a large number of CIRM staffers who are based in the
agency's San Francisco headquarters. They will be involved in
presentations involving the agency's new strategic partnership fund and other matters.
The date of the meeting remains
unchanged – Oct. 25. Look for posting of the agenda on the CIRM web
site on Oct. 15. The site of the meeting is the Hilton Bayfront
Hotel
, 600 Airport Blvd.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

CIRM Sponsoring Online Session with FDA on Thursday

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


One of the lesser known activities of
the California stem cell agency is webinars that put researchers
together with the folks who make the federal decisions about whether
stem cell research will be turned into therapies.

One of those sessions is coming up on Thursday, and it is not too late for scientists and other interested
parties to get on board.
Writing on the stem cell agency's blog,
Cynthia Schaffer, CIRM's contract administrator and compliance officer
had this to say today about the webinars.

“The FDA very graciously donates
their time to speak on these webinars because they too have pledged
to maintain an active dialogue with the industry and provide
education on their regulatory expectations for product development in
the regenerative medicine field. CIRM science officer Kevin
Whittlesey
 recently
wrote a paper
with Celia Witten of the FDA about the role of the
FDA in reaching out to regenerative medicine community, including
webinars such as these. 

“In that paper they point out that
the communication goes both ways:

“'Appropriate regulation requires a
strong understanding of the latest scientific developments to meet
current and future regulatory needs and challenges.'

“So the FDA benefits by learning from
the other speakers in the webinar – what is the current state of
the technology, what are investigator’s current thoughts on best
practices and the latest research findings, etc. They also learn what
the industry is facing by listening to the questions asked and the
discussion of the challenges during the Q&A sessions. A group of
FDA employees attend each of these CIRM sponsored webinars, and the
wide variety of other workshops and meetings that CIRM hosts
throughout the year.”  

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item incorrectly identified Cynthia Schaffer as Cynthia Adams.)

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

$1.5 Billion in Stem Cell Awards Goes to Directors’ Institutions

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


The Sacramento Bee today published an article that reported that $1.5 billion, more than 90 percent of the amount dispensed by the California stem cell agency, has gone to institutions linked to past and present directors of the agency.

The piece was carried on the front page of the newspaper's Sunday Forum section and was written by David Jensen, publisher-editor of the California Stem Cell Report.

The text of the Forum article is below. The Bee also carried a chart listing the top 10 recipient institution. The full text of the comments from Alan Trounson, president of the California stem cell agency,  and two other persons quoted in the article can be found here.

Stem cell cash mostly aids directors' interests

Special to The Bee

By David Jensen

With its latest round of awards earlier this month, California's stem cell agency has now handed out $1.5 billion to enterprises linked to its directors.

The figure amounts to 92 percent of the $1.7 billion awarded by the agency. The grants and loans range from $261 million to Stanford University, whose medical school dean, Philip Pizzo, sits on the agency's governing board, to $170,500 to Children's Hospital in Oakland, whose president, Bert Lubin, also is a member of the board.

The University of California, Davis, has received $128 million. Claire Pomeroy, chief executive officer of UC Davis Health System, is another one of the 29 board members. In all, 27 institutions with past or present representatives on the agency board have received funding.

None of this is illegal. And none of it is likely to change. The situation was created by Proposition 71, the 2004 ballot measure that established the state's $3 billion stem cell agency, formally known as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, or CIRM. The initiative was crafted so that virtually all of the institutions that stood to benefit from the state's largesse had seats at the table where the money is handed out.

The built-in conflicts of interest at CIRM have perturbed some experts in California government, but concerns have also reached into the scientific community. The prestigious journal Nature, in 2008, editorialized against what it called cronyism at CIRM. It said the agency "must fight the tendency of the academic institutions on the board to hoard dollars."

Some California scientists, wary of offending those who control the lifeblood of their research, privately grumble about an "old boys network."

Joe Mathews, co-author of "California Crackup," a study of major issues in state government, said last week: "California ballot initiatives are a terrible way to make public policy. And they are even worse as a method for making scientific policy."

The stem cell agency has a different view. Alan Trounson, president of the San Francisco-based enterprise, said: "There is no evidence that any of CIRM's funding decisions have been driven by conflicts of interest. Indeed, CIRM rigorously enforces its conflict of interest rules at each stage of the funding process to ensure that all decisions are made on the merits of the proposal for funding and not as a result of any conflicts of interest."

Mathews, California editor of Zocalo Public Square, and others point to the creation of the California stem cell agency as an example of abuse of the initiative process by special interests. The 10,000 words in Proposition 71 were written in private by Bay Area real estate investment banker Robert Klein and a handful of associates, who quietly determined the composition of the board. Klein later served six years as the first chairman of the stem cell agency, leaving in June 2011.

Klein later argued publicly that placing medical school deans and university and research institution executives on the board provided the expertise needed to make the decisions about how to spend the research money. However, the makeup of the board also served to win the support of institutions that envisioned the prospect of fresh cash – in this case money that the state borrows via bonds.

Mathews described the state's initiative process this way: "Essentially, to win the support of various groups whose money and backing is important to passage of a bond, a sponsor of an initiative bond will set up rules and include money specifically intended for each group. This is a form of pay-to-play. Agree to back the initiative, and you're in."

Bob Stern, who co-wrote the California Political Reform Act, said, "It would have been better had institutions receiving grants not to have had their representatives on the board awarding grants."

Trounson said the board follows "best practices" when it comes to grants and legal conflicts of interest. The agency has worked out an unusual procedure to prevent its directors from violating conflict of interest laws as they vote on applications that seek as much as $20 million each. Before each public session, agency attorneys determine which board members cannot vote on a proposal because of legal conflicts of interest. Applications to be approved are considered as a group. Each board member then votes on the entire group by saying, "Yes, on all those except with which I have a conflict."

No final tally is announced. The public can ferret out the overall vote a month or two later in the minutes of the meeting on the CIRM website (http://www.cirm.ca.gov). But the minutes do not list individual votes or conflicts of interest.

Domination of the board by academics and nonprofit institutions has led to bitter complaints from business. Less than 7 percent of all awards have gone to for-profit enterprises. Currently, however, the agency is embracing industry more warmly in an effort to commercialize stem cell research, which raises another set of coziness problems. They surfaced in July and again this month.

Klein, who led the stem cell ballot campaign before becoming chairman of the agency, appeared before his old board to lobby on behalf of a $20 million request from StemCells Inc. of Newark. The California firm was founded by the eminent Stanford stem cell scientist Irv Weissman. He sits on StemCells Inc.'s board, and he and his wife hold 273,821 shares of stock in the firm. Weissman was also an important backer of Proposition 71, working the "billionaire circuit" and raising more than $1 million for the campaign, according to an article in San Francisco magazine.

CIRM's reviewers had rejected StemCells Inc.'s application. After Klein made his pitch in July, the board sent the application back for re-review, an unusual procedure.

When the application returned to the board early this month, reviewers again rejected it. Klein again importuned his former colleagues, and – following a closed door session – the board approved the award, 7-5.

Eleven members were disqualified from voting because of legal conflicts of interest. It was the first time in the board's eight-year history that it approved an application twice rejected by reviewers.

Mathews said no likelihood exists of changing the board structure at CIRM. He said it is "baked in" by Proposition 71. That's because Klein and company wrote into the initiative a requirement for a super, super-majority vote – 70 percent – of each house of the Legislature to make any modifications.

Another initiative could be mounted, but that possibility is also exceedingly remote. 

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Text of Comments on Awards to Stem Cell Directors’ Institutions

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


Here is the full text of comments made
by the California stem cell agency, Joe Mathews, co-author of
California Crack-Up” and Bob Stern, former president of the
Center for Governmental Studies and co-author of the California
Political Reform Act
, in connection with the Sept. 23, 2012, article
in The Sacramento Bee headlined “Stem Cell Cash Mostly Aids Directors' Interests.” The comments were abbreviated for
publication in The Bee because of newspaper space constraints.

Comments by Alan Trounson, president of
CIRM:

“To make sure we do the best job of
managing taxpayer's money it's natural that we turn to people who
know most about stem cells and stem cell research. In fact, as the
state's own Little Hoover Commission reported in its analysis of
CIRM: “The fact that CIRM funding has gone largely to prestigious
California universities and research institutes is hardly surprising
and should be expected, given the goals of Proposition 71 and the
considerable expertise resident in these research centers.” But in
recruiting the best minds, we also adopt best practices to ensure
that there is no conflict of interest. Every board member has to
recuse themselves from voting on, or even being part of a discussion
on anything to do with their own institution, or to an institution or
company that they have any connections to. All this is done in
meetings that are open to the public. CIRM’s conflict of interest
rules have been subject to multiple reviews – by the Bureau of
State Audits, the Little Hoover Commission and the Controller – and
there is no evidence that any of CIRM’s funding decisions have been
driven by conflicts of interest. Indeed, CIRM rigorously enforces its
conflict of interest rules at each stage of the funding process to
ensure that all decisions are made on the merits of the proposal for
funding and not as a result of any conflicts of interest. 

“In addition all funding applications
are reviewed by an independent panel of scientists on our Grants
Working Groups, all of whom are out-of-state and meet strict conflict
of interest requirements, and it is their recommendations that help
guide the ICOC (CIRM governing board) on what to fund.”

Joe Mathews' comments:

“California ballot initiatives are a
terrible way to make public policy. And they are even worse as a
method for making scientific policy. 

“It's not merely that
this initiative was drafted in such a way as to benefit the
enterprises of its directors. It's that, under this initiative's own
provisions and the California constitution, it's so hard to change
Proposition 71 and fix what ails CIRM. Effectively, these provisions are
baked in, and nothing short of another vote of people can really make
the change. (Yes, there are provisions, as you know, that permit the
legislature by super-majority to do things, but supermajorities are
effectively out of reach in California). 

“Sadly, initiatives
like Proposition 71 are not uncommon. Many measures are drafted to benefit
the people who would support the measure, or oversee the program
established. This has been very common with bonds. Essentially, to
win the support of various groups whose money and backing is
important to passage of a bond, a sponsor of an initiative bond will
set up rules and include money specifically intended for each group.
This is a form of pay-to-play. Agree to back the initiative and
you're in. And it happens because there's no rule against it and
because passing initiatives in California require difficult,
expensive campaigns. 

“And this sort of thing will continue
to happen. There is no serious push to do anything about this.
Indeed, good government groups and reformers in California have
opposed changes to the initiative process -- because they want to use
the process for their own schemes.”

Bob Stern's comments:

“It would have been better had
institutions receiving grants not to have had their representatives
on the board awarding grants. On the other hand, we want to have the
most knowledgeable people on the board overseeing this very important
program. The question: Were these people the only qualified ones to
sit on the board?”

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

$700,000 Blue-ribbon Study of CIRM All But Finished

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


The $700,000 study of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency is nearly concluded and is expected to be
released sometime in November.

A draft of the report has been sent out
for “peer review” and no additional public meetings are
scheduled, according to a spokeswoman for the Institute of
Medicine(IOM)
, which is conducting the study. The IOM did not respond
to questions from the California Stem Cell Report about the number of peer reviewers or how they were selected.
The study began last year under a contract with the stem cell agency, which commissioned the effort, in
part, because agency directors hoped the findings by the blue-ribbon
panel would bolster efforts to win voter approval of another multi-billion dollar state bond issue. More recently the agency has
explored the possibility of private financing to continue operations.
The agency is expected to run out of
funds for new awards in 2017. It currently has something in the
neighborhood of $700 million for awards that is not already committed
in one fashion or another.
Christine Stencel, senior media
relations officer for the IOM, said in an email,

There will be no
further information-gathering meetings. The committee members have
finished drafting their report and it is now undergoing peer review.
Reviewers are anonymous to study staff and committee members; they
will be listed in the front matter of the report when it’s finished
and released.”

She said the stem
cell agency will not be given an opportunity to comment further.
Stencel said,

Sponsors are not
treated as peer reviewers; that is, they’re not afforded an
opportunity to comment on IOM draft reports prior to public release.
IOM is aiming for a public release in November (the exact time frame
will hinge on the duration of the peer review, which is influenced by
people’s schedules and adherence to deadlines). IOM is looking at
options for how best to hold this release, whether there will be an
event of some sort. Once plans are set, they’ll be noted on the
project web pages and IOM will alert the various stakeholders and
interested parties of the plans. The study is moving along and we’re
looking forward to the report’s debut in the not too distant
future.”

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Fortune Magazine on California Stem Cell Agency: Warm, Personal and Favorable

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


California's $3 billion stem cell
research effort today garnered a handsome dollop of favorable
national news coverage– a lengthy piece in Fortune magazine that
spoke of looming stem cell cures and the leading role of the state
stem cell agency.

The article led the Fortune web page online at one point this morning and
likely will be read by tens of thousands of persons, although it was not the cover story on the print product. 
Written by a former senior editor of
the magazine, Jeffrey O'Brien of Mill Valley, Ca., the piece was warm
and personal. He began with the story of his 95-year-old
grandmother and her health issues, ranging from arthritis to macular
degeneration. And he wrote,

“The citizens of California have
spoken. If my grandmother and I had the power to get the rest of the
country to follow, we would.”

O'Brien also discussed the science and
finances of the stem cell business. He said,

“To be clear, the earliest stem cell
therapies are almost certainly years from distribution. But so much
progress has been made at venerable research institutions that it now
seems possible to honestly discuss the possibility of a new medical
paradigm emerging within a generation. Working primarily with rodents
in preclinical trials, MDs and Ph.D.s are making the paralyzed walk
and the impotent virile. A stem cell therapy for two types of macular
degeneration recently restored the vision of two women. Once they
were blind. Now they see!

“Some experts assert that AMD could
be eradicated within a decade. Other scientists are heralding a
drug-free fix for HIV/AIDS. Various forms of cancer, Parkinson's,
diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and ALS have already been eradicated
in mice. If such work translates to humans, it will represent the
type of platform advancement that comes along in medicine only once
in a lifetime or two. The effect on the economy would be substantial.
Champions of stem cell research say it would be on the order of the
Internet or even the transistor.”

O'Brien continued,

“The obstacles along the road from
lab rat to human patients are many, of course, but the biggest by far
is money. With the dramatic events in the lab, you might think that a
gold rush would be under way. That's far from true. Long time
horizons, regulatory hurdles, huge R&D costs, public sentiment,
and political headwinds have all scared financiers. Wall Street isn't
interested in financing this particular dream. Most stem cell
companies that have dared go public are trading down 90% or more from
their IPOs. Sand Hill Road is AWOL. The National Venture Capital
Association doesn't even have a category to track stem cell
investments.”

As for the California stem cell agency
itself, the article contained remarks from its Chairman J.T.Thomas,
President Alan Trounson and former chairman Robert Klein about the origins and progress of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).
O'Brien wrote, 

“The $1.7 billion awarded so far has made one obvious mark on the state: a dozen gleaming research institutions. CIRM has proved adept at getting billionaires to donate funds to the cause.”

O'Brien interviewed a several
prominent businessmen who have contributed tens of millions of
dollars to stem cell research “about the prospects of a legitimate industry emerging.” One was “bond genius” Bill Gross, who has
contributed to UC Irvine. Gross replied.

“Goodness, you're talking to the
wrong guy. Our donation had nothing to do with business.”

Eli Broad, another big stem cell donor,
said pretty much the same thing. And Andy Grove, the former chairman
of Intel, was “surprisingly full of doom and gloom.” O'Brien
wrote,

“For close to two hours, Grove argues
passionately about how the FDA is enabling predatory offshore
industries by impeding progress and the many reasons financiers want
no part of stem cells. "VCs aren't interested because it's a
shitty business," he says. Big Pharma? Forget it. CIRM? "There
are gleaming fucking buildings everywhere. That wasn't necessary."
When I press him to be constructive, he wearily offers one possible
solution. Rather than courting billionaires to put their names on
buildings, we need a system of targeted philanthropy in which the 99%
can sponsor the individual stem cell lines that matter to them.”

O'Brien said, however,

“It was clear during our talk that
Grove wants an economic model for stem cell research and development
to emerge, even if he's not willing to bet money on its happening.
And that puts him in good company.”

While the Fortune article has its
negative points about stem cell research, it is about as laudatory as
it is going to get at this point for the California stem cell agency.
The piece recognizes and even celebrates much of the work of the
agency. The article clearly details the void in financing
for commercialization of stem cell research, bolstering support for
efforts like those in California. Importantly, it also helps to push
the activities of the stem cell agency more fully into the national
discussion of stem cell research and its future. That should pay off
again and again in future news coverage and also benefit the stem
cell agency as it explores the possibility of additional funding –
either private or public – after the cash for new awards runs out
in 2017.

(The story is in the Oct. 8, 2012, edition of Fortune.)

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

October CIRM Board Meeting Moved to Burlingame

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


The location of the October meeting of
the governing board of the California stem cell agency has been
changed from Irvine to Burlingame, near San Francisco International
Airport, in an effort to save travel costs.  

CIRM Chairman J.T. Thomas said the
one-day meeting is being moved because the session will require the
attendance of a large number of CIRM staffers who are based in the
agency's San Francisco headquarters. They will be involved in
presentations involving the agency's new strategic partnership fund and other matters.
The date of the meeting remains
unchanged – Oct. 25. Look for posting of the agenda on the CIRM web
site on Oct. 15. The site of the meeting is the Hilton Bayfront
Hotel
, 600 Airport Blvd.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

$1.5 Billion in Stem Cell Awards Goes to Directors’ Institutions

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


The Sacramento Bee today published an article that reported that $1.5 billion, more than 90 percent of the amount dispensed by the California stem cell agency, has gone to institutions linked to past and present directors of the agency.

The piece was carried on the front page of the newspaper's Sunday Forum section and was written by David Jensen, publisher-editor of the California Stem Cell Report.

The text of the Forum article is below. The Bee also carried a chart listing the top 10 recipient institution. The full text of the comments from Alan Trounson, president of the California stem cell agency,  and two other persons quoted in the article can be found here.

Stem cell cash mostly aids directors' interests

Special to The Bee

By David Jensen

With its latest round of awards earlier this month, California's stem cell agency has now handed out $1.5 billion to enterprises linked to its directors.

The figure amounts to 92 percent of the $1.7 billion awarded by the agency. The grants and loans range from $261 million to Stanford University, whose medical school dean, Philip Pizzo, sits on the agency's governing board, to $170,500 to Children's Hospital in Oakland, whose president, Bert Lubin, also is a member of the board.

The University of California, Davis, has received $128 million. Claire Pomeroy, chief executive officer of UC Davis Health System, is another one of the 29 board members. In all, 27 institutions with past or present representatives on the agency board have received funding.

None of this is illegal. And none of it is likely to change. The situation was created by Proposition 71, the 2004 ballot measure that established the state's $3 billion stem cell agency, formally known as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, or CIRM. The initiative was crafted so that virtually all of the institutions that stood to benefit from the state's largesse had seats at the table where the money is handed out.

The built-in conflicts of interest at CIRM have perturbed some experts in California government, but concerns have also reached into the scientific community. The prestigious journal Nature, in 2008, editorialized against what it called cronyism at CIRM. It said the agency "must fight the tendency of the academic institutions on the board to hoard dollars."

Some California scientists, wary of offending those who control the lifeblood of their research, privately grumble about an "old boys network."

Joe Mathews, co-author of "California Crackup," a study of major issues in state government, said last week: "California ballot initiatives are a terrible way to make public policy. And they are even worse as a method for making scientific policy."

The stem cell agency has a different view. Alan Trounson, president of the San Francisco-based enterprise, said: "There is no evidence that any of CIRM's funding decisions have been driven by conflicts of interest. Indeed, CIRM rigorously enforces its conflict of interest rules at each stage of the funding process to ensure that all decisions are made on the merits of the proposal for funding and not as a result of any conflicts of interest."

Mathews, California editor of Zocalo Public Square, and others point to the creation of the California stem cell agency as an example of abuse of the initiative process by special interests. The 10,000 words in Proposition 71 were written in private by Bay Area real estate investment banker Robert Klein and a handful of associates, who quietly determined the composition of the board. Klein later served six years as the first chairman of the stem cell agency, leaving in June 2011.

Klein later argued publicly that placing medical school deans and university and research institution executives on the board provided the expertise needed to make the decisions about how to spend the research money. However, the makeup of the board also served to win the support of institutions that envisioned the prospect of fresh cash – in this case money that the state borrows via bonds.

Mathews described the state's initiative process this way: "Essentially, to win the support of various groups whose money and backing is important to passage of a bond, a sponsor of an initiative bond will set up rules and include money specifically intended for each group. This is a form of pay-to-play. Agree to back the initiative, and you're in."

Bob Stern, who co-wrote the California Political Reform Act, said, "It would have been better had institutions receiving grants not to have had their representatives on the board awarding grants."

Trounson said the board follows "best practices" when it comes to grants and legal conflicts of interest. The agency has worked out an unusual procedure to prevent its directors from violating conflict of interest laws as they vote on applications that seek as much as $20 million each. Before each public session, agency attorneys determine which board members cannot vote on a proposal because of legal conflicts of interest. Applications to be approved are considered as a group. Each board member then votes on the entire group by saying, "Yes, on all those except with which I have a conflict."

No final tally is announced. The public can ferret out the overall vote a month or two later in the minutes of the meeting on the CIRM website (http://www.cirm.ca.gov). But the minutes do not list individual votes or conflicts of interest.

Domination of the board by academics and nonprofit institutions has led to bitter complaints from business. Less than 7 percent of all awards have gone to for-profit enterprises. Currently, however, the agency is embracing industry more warmly in an effort to commercialize stem cell research, which raises another set of coziness problems. They surfaced in July and again this month.

Klein, who led the stem cell ballot campaign before becoming chairman of the agency, appeared before his old board to lobby on behalf of a $20 million request from StemCells Inc. of Newark. The California firm was founded by the eminent Stanford stem cell scientist Irv Weissman. He sits on StemCells Inc.'s board, and he and his wife hold 273,821 shares of stock in the firm. Weissman was also an important backer of Proposition 71, working the "billionaire circuit" and raising more than $1 million for the campaign, according to an article in San Francisco magazine.

CIRM's reviewers had rejected StemCells Inc.'s application. After Klein made his pitch in July, the board sent the application back for re-review, an unusual procedure.

When the application returned to the board early this month, reviewers again rejected it. Klein again importuned his former colleagues, and – following a closed door session – the board approved the award, 7-5.

Eleven members were disqualified from voting because of legal conflicts of interest. It was the first time in the board's eight-year history that it approved an application twice rejected by reviewers.

Mathews said no likelihood exists of changing the board structure at CIRM. He said it is "baked in" by Proposition 71. That's because Klein and company wrote into the initiative a requirement for a super, super-majority vote – 70 percent – of each house of the Legislature to make any modifications.

Another initiative could be mounted, but that possibility is also exceedingly remote. 

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

CIRM Sponsoring Online Session with FDA on Thursday

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


One of the lesser known activities of
the California stem cell agency is webinars that put researchers
together with the folks who make the federal decisions about whether
stem cell research will be turned into therapies.

One of those sessions is coming up on Thursday, and it is not too late for scientists and other interested
parties to get on board.
Writing on the stem cell agency's blog,
Cynthia Schaffer, CIRM's contract administrator and compliance officer
had this to say today about the webinars.

“The FDA very graciously donates
their time to speak on these webinars because they too have pledged
to maintain an active dialogue with the industry and provide
education on their regulatory expectations for product development in
the regenerative medicine field. CIRM science officer Kevin
Whittlesey
 recently
wrote a paper
with Celia Witten of the FDA about the role of the
FDA in reaching out to regenerative medicine community, including
webinars such as these. 

“In that paper they point out that
the communication goes both ways:

“'Appropriate regulation requires a
strong understanding of the latest scientific developments to meet
current and future regulatory needs and challenges.'

“So the FDA benefits by learning from
the other speakers in the webinar – what is the current state of
the technology, what are investigator’s current thoughts on best
practices and the latest research findings, etc. They also learn what
the industry is facing by listening to the questions asked and the
discussion of the challenges during the Q&A sessions. A group of
FDA employees attend each of these CIRM sponsored webinars, and the
wide variety of other workshops and meetings that CIRM hosts
throughout the year.”  

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item incorrectly identified Cynthia Schaffer as Cynthia Adams.)

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Text of Comments on Awards to Stem Cell Directors’ Institutions

Sunday, September 30th, 2012


Here is the full text of comments made
by the California stem cell agency, Joe Mathews, co-author of
California Crack-Up” and Bob Stern, former president of the
Center for Governmental Studies and co-author of the California
Political Reform Act
, in connection with the Sept. 23, 2012, article
in The Sacramento Bee headlined “Stem Cell Cash Mostly Aids Directors' Interests.” The comments were abbreviated for
publication in The Bee because of newspaper space constraints.

Comments by Alan Trounson, president of
CIRM:

“To make sure we do the best job of
managing taxpayer's money it's natural that we turn to people who
know most about stem cells and stem cell research. In fact, as the
state's own Little Hoover Commission reported in its analysis of
CIRM: “The fact that CIRM funding has gone largely to prestigious
California universities and research institutes is hardly surprising
and should be expected, given the goals of Proposition 71 and the
considerable expertise resident in these research centers.” But in
recruiting the best minds, we also adopt best practices to ensure
that there is no conflict of interest. Every board member has to
recuse themselves from voting on, or even being part of a discussion
on anything to do with their own institution, or to an institution or
company that they have any connections to. All this is done in
meetings that are open to the public. CIRM’s conflict of interest
rules have been subject to multiple reviews – by the Bureau of
State Audits, the Little Hoover Commission and the Controller – and
there is no evidence that any of CIRM’s funding decisions have been
driven by conflicts of interest. Indeed, CIRM rigorously enforces its
conflict of interest rules at each stage of the funding process to
ensure that all decisions are made on the merits of the proposal for
funding and not as a result of any conflicts of interest. 

“In addition all funding applications
are reviewed by an independent panel of scientists on our Grants
Working Groups, all of whom are out-of-state and meet strict conflict
of interest requirements, and it is their recommendations that help
guide the ICOC (CIRM governing board) on what to fund.”

Joe Mathews' comments:

“California ballot initiatives are a
terrible way to make public policy. And they are even worse as a
method for making scientific policy. 

“It's not merely that
this initiative was drafted in such a way as to benefit the
enterprises of its directors. It's that, under this initiative's own
provisions and the California constitution, it's so hard to change
Proposition 71 and fix what ails CIRM. Effectively, these provisions are
baked in, and nothing short of another vote of people can really make
the change. (Yes, there are provisions, as you know, that permit the
legislature by super-majority to do things, but supermajorities are
effectively out of reach in California). 

“Sadly, initiatives
like Proposition 71 are not uncommon. Many measures are drafted to benefit
the people who would support the measure, or oversee the program
established. This has been very common with bonds. Essentially, to
win the support of various groups whose money and backing is
important to passage of a bond, a sponsor of an initiative bond will
set up rules and include money specifically intended for each group.
This is a form of pay-to-play. Agree to back the initiative and
you're in. And it happens because there's no rule against it and
because passing initiatives in California require difficult,
expensive campaigns. 

“And this sort of thing will continue
to happen. There is no serious push to do anything about this.
Indeed, good government groups and reformers in California have
opposed changes to the initiative process -- because they want to use
the process for their own schemes.”

Bob Stern's comments:

“It would have been better had
institutions receiving grants not to have had their representatives
on the board awarding grants. On the other hand, we want to have the
most knowledgeable people on the board overseeing this very important
program. The question: Were these people the only qualified ones to
sit on the board?”

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Cytori’s Stem Cell Therapy for Burns Wins U.S. Contract

Friday, September 28th, 2012

By Ryan Flinn - 2012-09-28T16:23:41Z

Cytori Therapeutics Inc. (CYTX), a biotechnology company with $10 million in annual revenue, rose the most in more than a year after the company won a $4.7 million U.S. government contract to develop a stem cell therapy to treat burns caused by thermal or radioactive bombs.

Cytori jumped 19 percent to $4.58 at 12:11 p.m. New York time, after earlier reaching $4.93 for the biggest intraday increase since August 2011. The shares of the San Diego-based company rose 75 percent this year through yesterday.

Were seeing a lot of momentum, Chief Executive Officer Christopher Calhoun said today in an interview with Bloomberg Television. This contract is one more major thing that we are delivering on, and there is more to come. This is an important year for us.

The two-year contract with the Department of Health and Human Services Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority may be worth $106 million over five years if certain milestones are met, Cytori said today in a statement. The company had a net loss last year of $32 million, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Cytoris experimental therapy takes adipose tissue, or body fat, from a patient and through its device separates the adult stem and regenerative cells before transferring them to a burn wound. Money from the contract will be used to develop the device and take it through the U.S. regulatory approval process with the Food and Drug Administration, Calhoun said.

These cells help to facilitate the healing of the injury, he said in a telephone interview earlier this week. They release growth factors that stimulate new blood flow.

Testing the technology in a clinical trial and getting approval may take five years, Calhoun said. The company is currently testing its therapy for other soft tissue damage, as well as cardiovascular disease.

Once approved, the device will be deployed in hospitals across the country, and can be used for routine burns as well as a treatment for patients in wake of a mass casualty event that could injure 10,000 people, Cytori said in the statement.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ryan Flinn in San Francisco at rflinn@bloomberg.net

Read the rest here:
Cytori’s Stem Cell Therapy for Burns Wins U.S. Contract

Read More...

Mayo Clinic finds way to weed out problem stem cells, making therapy safer

Friday, September 28th, 2012

Public release date: 27-Sep-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Jennifer Schutz newsbureau@mayo.edu 507-284-5005 Mayo Clinic

ROCHESTER, Minn. -- Mayo Clinic researchers have found a way to detect and eliminate potentially troublemaking stem cells to make stem cell therapy safer. Induced Pluripotent Stem cells, also known as iPS cells, are bioengineered from adult tissues to have properties of embryonic stem cells, which have the unlimited capacity to differentiate and grow into any desired types of cells, such as skin, brain, lung and heart cells. However, during the differentiation process, some residual pluripotent or embryonic-like cells may remain and cause them to grow into tumors.

"Pluripotent stem cells show great promise in the field of regenerative medicine; however, the risk of uncontrolled cell growth will continue to prevent their use as a therapeutic treatment," says Timothy Nelson, Ph.D., M.D., lead author on the study, which appears in the October issue of STEM CELLS Translational Medicine.

Using mouse models, Mayo scientists overcame this drawback by pretreated stem cells with a chemotherapeutic agent that selectively damages the DNA of the stem cells, efficiently killing the tumor-forming cells. The contaminated cells died off, and the chemotherapy didn't affect the healthy cells, Dr. Nelson says.

"The goal of creating new therapies is twofold: to improve disease outcome with stem cell-based regenerative medicine while also ensuring safety. This research outlines a strategy to make stem cell therapies safer for our patients while preserving their therapeutic efficacy, thereby removing a barrier to translation of these treatments to the clinic," says co-author Alyson Smith, Ph.D.

Stem cell therapies continue to be refined and improved. Researchers are finding that stem cells may be more versatile than originally thought, which means they may be able to treat a wider variety of diseases, injuries and congenital anomalies. Stem cell therapy is an emerging regenerative strategy being studied at Mayo Clinic.

"By harnessing the potential of regenerative medicine, we'll be able to provide more definitive solutions to patients," says Andre Terzic, M.D., Ph.D., co-author and director of Mayo Clinic's Center for Regenerative Medicine.

###

Other members of the Mayo research team included Clifford Folmes, Ph.D., Katherine Hartjes, Natalie Nelson and Saji Oommen, Ph.D. The research was supported by the Todd and Karen Wanek Family Program for Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome, National Institutes of Health New Innovator Award OD007015-01, and a Mayo Clinic Center for Regenerative Medicine accelerated research grant.

Here is the original post:
Mayo Clinic finds way to weed out problem stem cells, making therapy safer

Read More...

Stem cells revolutionizing veterinary medicine

Monday, September 24th, 2012

(WGBA/NBC) - It is a story that gives hope to pet owners all over the country stem cell therapy for animals suffering from problems like arthritis or hip displaysia.

Stem cells are taken out of the dog's fatty tissue are harvested then injected into problem areas leaving the dogs completely healed.

"We couldn't take him on walks, he just laid around a lot," said Keith Nosowiak, Deniro's owner.

"We'd hear whimpering overnight, she'd take a few steps and she would sit down," said Luther Kortbein, Shadow's owner.

Until two months ago, Deniro suffered from severe arthritis, Shadow from hip displaysia.

Deniro's owner thought he may even have to put his German shepherd down.

"We felt we had a decision to make with his quality of life and being in pain we didn't want him to be in pain," Noskowiak said.

Shadow's owner was willing to try anything to cure her.

"Whatever the cost needed to get this done we were willing to do," Kortbein said.

Then Packerland Veterinary Center offered them stem cell therapy by using the dogs own stem cells and then injecting them back into the bloodstream joints.

See more here:
Stem cells revolutionizing veterinary medicine

Read More...

Reproducing Research Results: Removing a Scientific Roadblock

Sunday, September 23rd, 2012


The California stem cell agency faces
no easy task in trying to translate basic research findings into
something that can be used to treat patients and be sold commercially.

Even clinical trials, which only begin
long after the basic research is done and which involve more ordinary
therapeutic treatments than stem cells, fail at an astonishing rate.
Only one out of five that enter the clinical trial gauntlet
successfully finish the second stage, according to industry data
cited last spring by Pat Olson, executive director of scientific activities at the stem cell agency. And
then come even more challenges.
But at a much earlier stage of
research there is the “problem of irreproducible results,” in the
words of writer Monya Baker of the journal Nature. Baker last month reported on
moves by a firm called Science Exchange in Palo Alto, Ca., to
do something to ease the problem and speed up preclinical research.
The effort is called the Reproducibility Initiative and also involves
PLOS and figshare, an open science Internet project.
Elizabeth Iorns
Science Exchange Photo
Science Exchange is headed by Elizabeth
Iorns
, a scientist and co-founder of the firm. She wrote about  test-tube-to-clinic translation issues in a recent article in New
Scientist
that was headlined, “Is medical science built on shaky
foundations?”
Iorns said,

“One goal of scientific publication
is to share results in enough detail to allow other research teams to
reproduce them and build on them. However, many recent reports have
raised the alarm that a shocking amount of the published literature
in fields ranging from cancer biology to psychology is not
reproducible.”

Iorns cited studies in Nature that
reported that Bayer cannot “replicate about two-thirds of published
studies identifying possible drug targets” and that Amgen failed at
even a higher rate. It could not “replicate 47 of 53 highly
promising results they examined.”
The California Stem Cell Report earlier
this week asked Iorns for her thoughts on the implications for the
California stem cell agency, whose motto is "Turning stem cells into cures." Here is the full text of her response.

“First, I think it is important to
accept that there is a crisis affecting preclinical research. Recent
studies estimate that 70% of preclinical research cannot be
reproduced. This is the research that should form the foundation upon
which new discoveries can be made to enhance health, lengthen life,
and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. The
irreproducibility of preclinical research is a significant impediment
to the achievement of these goals. To solve this problem requires
immediate and concrete action. It is not enough to make
recommendations and issue guidelines to researchers. Funders must act
to ensure they fund researchers to produce high quality reproducible
research. One such way to do so, is to reward, or require,
independent validation of results. The reproducibility initiative
provides a mechanism for independent validation, allowing the
identification of high quality reproducible research. It is vital
that funders act now to address this problem, to prevent the wasted
time and money that is currently spent funding non-reproducible
research and to prevent the erosion of public trust and support for
research.”

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Read More...

Page 80«..1020..79808182..90100..»


2025 © StemCell Therapy is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS) | Violinesth by Patrick