StemCell Therapy

CLEARWATER, FL--(Marketwire -08/28/12)- Biostem U.S., Corporation (HAIR) (HAIR) (Biostem, The Company), a fully reporting public company in the stem cell regenerative medicine sector, announced today that, in response to overwhelming inquiries from hair clinics around the nation, it has completed preparation to allow for expansion of hair regrowth services throughout the United States.

According to Dwight Brunoehler, Chief Executive Officer of Bisotem, "On the heels of Dr. Marina Pizarro's initial hair replacement procedures using The Biostem Method, the Company is now fully prepared to offer and support turnkey operations that will provide its proprietary hair regrowth technology to qualified physicians and clinics in the U.S. This service provides equipment, on site set up, training, operational protocols, marketing assistance, a fully staffed training facility, and on-going support. Our intention is to make this as easy as possible for affiliates to become involved. After entering into an agreement, physicians will be able to offer Biostem services in their offices within 8 weeks. It is expected that hair replacement clinics in New York, California, Texas and other metropolitan centers known for the popularity of cosmetic procedures will be on board The Biostem Method before the end of the year."

Biostem U.S., Corporation has developed a hair restoration process known as The Biostem Method. This process, offered through Biostem affiliates and licensees, involves the use of platelet rich plasma injections, low level laser therapy, nutraceutical supplements to stimulate stem cell growth, and private labeled hair products. This combination has proven highly effective in restoring hair growth in men and women.

About Biostem U.S., CorporationBiostem U.S., Corporation is a fully reporting Nevada corporation with offices in Clearwater, Florida. Biostem is a technology licensing company with proprietary technology centered on providing hair regrowth using human stem cells. The company also intends to train and license selected physicians to provide Regenerative Cellular Therapy treatments to assist the body's natural approach to healing tendons, ligaments, joints and muscle injuries by using the patient's own stem cells. Biostem U.S. is seeking to expand its operations worldwide through licensing of its proprietary technology and acquisition of existing stem cell related facilities. The company's goal is to operate in the international biotech market, focusing on the rapidly growing regenerative medicine field, using ethically sourced adult stem cells to improve the quality and longevity of life for all mankind.

More information on Biostem U.S., Corporation can be obtained through http://www.biostemus.com, or by calling Fox Communications Group, 310-974-6821.

Read the original:
Biostem U.S., Corporation Opens National Affiliate Program for The Biostem Method(TM) of Hair Regrowth Treatments

A colony of human embryonic stem cells. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons]Stem cells are a miraculous cellular material that can be used to repair nerve damage, or even grow brand new organs. Researchers from John Hopkins Hospital may have discovered a new way to create stem cells using your very own blood cells. This newly developed method could actually revert adult red blood cells back into stem cells as though they came from a 6-day-old embryo.

Technically, scientists have developed reverted blood cells back into stem cells before by using viruses to deliver state-reverting genes. Such a process, however, can have disastrous side effects, like mutated genes or cancers.

The new process developed by the John Hopkins, as published in PLoS One, circumvents the risky need for viruses by using plasmids, rings of DNA that, according to Johns Hopkins, "replicate briefly inside cells and then degrade." To ready the blood cells for the plasmids implantation, the scientists treated them with an electrical pulse to make their surface more porous.

Once the plasmids attach themselves to the blood cells they insert four additional genes into the cell. These additional genes cause the blood cells to revert into a more primitive state called induced-pluripotent stem cells (iPS). The researchers left some of these iPS cells to grow on their own in a petri dish, and left others to cultivate with some irradiated bone-marrow cells.

In the end, the scientists discovered that the dish with bone-marrow cells produced the superior crop of iPS cells within 7 to 14 days. The John Hopkins researchers also say that they have had success in creating stem cells with blood cells from adult bone marrow and circulating blood.

The research sounds promising, to say the least. The availability of stem cells, which can become to whatever kind of cells you need, could one day lead to all new types of therapies. The team is continuing its studies into the science by testing the quality of its newly formed iPS cells and their ability to convert into other cell types.

[Check out GeekTech for more news on hacks, gadgets, and all things geek. And follow along on Twitter and Facebook.]

Link:
John Hopkins Researchers Make Stem Cells From Blood Cells

ROCKVILLE, Md., Aug. 27, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Neuralstem, Inc. (NYSE MKT: CUR) announced the completion of the Phase I trial of its NSI-566 spinal cord neural stem cells for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease), with the eighteenth patient treated. This patient, the third to return to the trial for an additional set of injections, is also the last in the Phase I portion of the trial as it is currently designed, which is scheduled to conclude six months after this final surgery.

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20061221/DCTH007LOGO )

"We are delighted to have completed Phase I in this groundbreaking trial, the first approved by the FDA to test neural stem cells in patients with ALS," said Karl Johe, PhD, Chairman of Neuralstem's Board of Directors and Chief Scientific Officer.

"There have been many firsts in this trial, including the first lumbar intraspinal injections, the first cervical region intraspinal injections, and the first cohort of patients to receive both," said Jonathan D. Glass, MD, Director of the Emory ALS Center. "This has required incredible effort from the Emory medical and support team and I wish to express my thanks to all of them, as well as to acknowledge the generosity and courage of the patients and their families."

"We have found the procedure to be extremely safe," said Eva Feldman, MD, PhD, Director of the A. Alfred Taubman Medical Research Institute and Director of Research of the ALS Clinic at the University of Michigan Health System. "In some patients, it appears that the disease is no longer progressing, but it is too early to know if the result from that small number of patients is meaningful." Dr. Feldman is the principal investigator (PI) of the trial and an unpaid consultant to Neuralstem.

About the Trial

The Phase I trial to assess the safety of Neuralstem's NSI-566 spinal cord neural stem cells and intraspinal transplantation method in ALS patients has been underway since January 2010. The trial was designed to enroll up to 18 patients, the last of which was just treated. The first 12 patients were each transplanted in the lumbar (lower back) region of the spine, beginning with non-ambulatory and advancing to ambulatory cohorts.

The trial then advanced to transplantation in the cervical (upper back) region of the spine. The first cohort of three was treated in the cervical region only. The last cohort of threereceived injections in both the cervical and lumbar regions of the spinal cord. In an amendment to the trial design, The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the return of previously treated patients to this cohort. The entire 18-patient trial concludes six months after the final surgery.

About Neuralstem

Neuralstem's patented technology enables the ability to produce neural stem cells of the human brain and spinal cord in commercial quantities, and the ability to control the differentiation of these cells constitutively into mature, physiologically relevant human neurons and glia. Neuralstem is in an FDA-approved Phase I safety clinical trial for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), often referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease, and has been awarded orphan status designation by the FDA.

Continue reading here:
Neuralstem Completes Phase I ALS Stem Cell Trial

MARLBOROUGH, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. (ACT)(ACTC), a leader in the field of regenerative medicine, today issued a statement on the U.S. Appeals Courts ruling, upholding a lower courts dismissal of the case, Sherley v. Sebelius, 11-5241, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Washington), on the permissibility of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

This court ruling should be of considerable benefit to ACT and our embryonic stem cell-based clinical programs, commented Gary Rabin, chairman and CEO. It effectively removes major speed bumps for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in terms of approving the several stem cell lines that we have submitted for their consideration for funding. With Fridays decisive ruling, we expect that a number of our embryonic stem cell lines will be approved for funding in coming months.

Sherley v. Sebelius had sought to block the United States Health and Human Services Department and the NIH from spending federal funds for research with hESCs, contending that doing so would violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, a short rider attached to legislation passed in 1996.

This ruling removes a great deal of the ambiguity that has hampered legislative attempts to provide an efficient mechanism for federal funding of hESC research, continued Mr. Rabin. The path for legislators to enact such legislation has now been cleared, and in that case we are optimistic that there could be encouraging new developments in the legislative arena, as well, in coming months. We would certainly hope that our patented, proprietary embryo-safe single-cell blastomere technique would be a part of any such conversation. We feel that if we could educate more Americans about this technique, and how directly and effectively it addresses the various ethical objections to hESC research, that broad support for the technique and the field overall would quickly fall into place.

More commentary on Fridays court ruling will be posted today on Mr. RabinsChairmans blog.

About Advanced Cell Technology, Inc.

Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. is a biotechnology company applying cellular technology in the field of regenerative medicine. For more information, visit http://www.advancedcell.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

Statements in this news release regarding future financial and operating results, future growth in research and development programs, potential applications of our technology, opportunities for the company and any other statements about the future expectations, beliefs, goals, plans, or prospects expressed by management constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Any statements that are not statements of historical fact (including statements containing the words will, believes, plans, anticipates, expects, estimates, and similar expressions) should also be considered to be forward-looking statements. There are a number of important factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements, including: limited operating history, need for future capital, risks inherent in the development and commercialization of potential products, protection of our intellectual property, and economic conditions generally. Additional information on potential factors that could affect our results and other risks and uncertainties are detailed from time to time in the companys periodic reports, including the report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011. Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, opinions, and expectations of the companys management at the time they are made, and the company does not assume any obligation to update its forward-looking statements if those beliefs, opinions, expectations, or other circumstances should change. Forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, opinions, and expectations of the companys management at the time they are made, and the company does not assume any obligation to update its forward-looking statements if those beliefs, opinions, expectations, or other circumstances should change. There can be no assurance that the Companys clinical trials will be successful.

Continued here:
ACT Comments on U.S. Appeals’ Court’s Dismissal Ruling in Case Challenging Federal Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell ...

“I wanted to comment on this piece
from the perspective of another patient advocate.  While I think
you know that I did not always agree with Bob Klein during his tenure
on the ICOC(the agency's governing board), I would strongly defend
his right to appear and give his opinions to the Board.  He is a
private citizen now, albeit one with considerable experience and
expertise, and I think his greatest vested interest in this case
stems (you should pardon the expression) from being the child of a
parent with Alzheimers.  As you point out, some eyebrows may be
raised, and I can imagine that some board members might be swayed in
either direction by his testimony, but  he is a passionate and
committed advocate, and he has the right to advocate before us.”

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

Bob Klein is nearly an icon in the
history of the $3 billion California stem cell. And when he appeared
before its governing board last month and aggressively touted a $20
million grant proposal already rejected by agency reviewers, his
actions raised eyebrows.

Robert Klein Elie Dolgin/Nature photo

Irv Weissman Stanford Photo

 “He has
considerable influence with the ICOC(the CIRM governing board), and
is closely associated with biotech in the Bay Area. Even if he
doesn't make a lot of money himself from this, then he certainly has
friends who will.  Irv Weissman would be one of those friends."

"StemCells Inc has been on the
stock market for 20 years, without producing anything of value for
the investors.  The stock price has been sinking fast:  it
was 60 cents this June; last year at this time, it was around $5 a
share.   

“On July 17, when the CIRM Disease
Team Award review results became available, the stock rose from 87
cents to $1.80 – a person who could anticipate the outcome of the
CIRM applications could have made considerable money in that 24 hour
period.”

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

Here is the text of Robert Klein's response today to the California Stem Cell Report concerning his appearance before the governing board of the California stem cell agency July 26, 2012. Klein, former chairman of the agency, real estate investment banker and attorney, promoted two applications seeking $20 million each from the agency. Both applications had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. Here is a link to an item on the subject.

"Dear David,
"You have posed two
questions related to my continuing role as a Patient Advocate in
contributing information to the Board of the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, in an effort to optimize decisions on medical
and scientific grants and loans for research that could mitigate
and/or cure chronic diseases or injuries. 

"Q: Do you have any sort
of financial ties to StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or
firms that would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC(the CIRM governing board)?
"A: I have no financial
interest in StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or firms that
would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC. In fact, I
have no financial interest in any biomedical research company.

"Q: Do you think it is
appropriate for the former chairman of the ICOC to lobby that body on
behalf of awards to specific companies or individuals?
"A: First, it is
fundamental that the terms be defined to properly respond to your
question. A “Patient Advocate” is a member of a patient family or
a medical/scientific care /support group who advocates for medical
and scientific advances that might potentially mitigate and/or cure a
patient’s chronic disease or injury. A “Patient Advocate” is
not paid for his/her advocacy, unless they are staff members of a
non-profit institution dedicated to a specific disease or group of
diseases or injuries. 

"Second, a “lobbyist”
is a paid representative of a company or a for-profit institution(s)
with a financial interest in the outcome of a governmental decision. 

"I am serving as a
Patient Advocate in my presentations to the Board of the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine. As the former Chairman of the
Board, I have a particular responsibility to contribute my background
knowledge and experience for the Board to consider, along with all
new information, in reaching their best decision. I hope other former
Board members, who possess a wealth of scientific, medical, and
institutional knowledge that can benefit the Board, would consider
the value they can contribute to future decisions. As Board terms
expire, it will be important not to lose that institutional knowledge
and medical/scientific expertise that has been built up over the last
seven plus years of the Agency’s existence. 

"In an outline format,
I would suggest the following areas where the knowledge of former
Board members can be especially valuable in optimizing the input for
Board decisions in the future. 

"A number of Board
members have participated in up to 20 or more Peer Review meetings,
some of which cover multiple days. Current grant or loan requests
represent the result of scientific and medical advancement that has
been intensely vetted in prior peer reviews; the information gained
in those peer reviews should not be lost, when a subsequent grant or
loan request – built on the earlier research outcomes – is
considered. Each peer review session has the benefit of different
specialists and scientists and/or biotech representatives with
unique backgrounds and areas of expertise. The value of the prior
contributions may be pivotal, in considering a later application,
developed from the earlier medical or research advances funded
through CIRM’s grants or loans. The current peer review,
scientific staff presentation, and Board expertise, is not the limit
of the Board’s information, in reaching the best current decision.
To the extent the Board can draw from prior peer reviews (unique
insights), prior scientific staff presentations, and prior Board
expertise, additional information that can enhance a potential
decision, the Board has the opportunity to optimize its decision
making process. This is particularly valuable, when there is a high
standard deviation – a substantial split – in the scoring
positions from the current peer review. 

"Beyond peer review
participation, Board members have intensely engaged in another 35
plus Working Group sessions on Facilities and Standards, in addition
to more than 70 Board meetings and over 125 Subcommittee meetings,
as of August 2012. Retiring Board members possess a treasury of
information on policy development, process, federal and state laws
and regulations, and the regulations of the agency, as well as in
depth information on research facilities and capabilities throughout
California, the nation, and the world. It takes a substantial length
of time for a new Board member to gain a comprehensive knowledge in
all of these areas and each Board member will develop unique
insights, which it would be a tragedy to lose. As Chairman, I
frequently reached back to consult with former Board members on
areas of their special expertise and I would hope that all current
and future Board members utilize the significant asset in developed
knowledge of the prior Board members. To the extent prior members
can be available for public meetings, this would be a substantial
benefit to the agency to broadly inform the Board, the scientific
staff, and the public. 

"The Board has a
unique contribution to make on programmatic resource allocations and
risk management of the research and clinical investments in each
disease area. The opportunities in some disease areas for major
advancement are numerous, whereas there are major diseases and/or
critical research areas where the potential, high-value advancement
options are relatively limited. For Board members who have
participated in over 20 peer reviews and 70 Board meetings, the
programmatic perspective on the opportunities in each disease area
has been highly developed. Concurrently, those Board members or
former Board members have substantial knowledge that is of critical
value in reaching programmatic decisions on the number of
opportunities for advancement in any specific disease area and the
relative risk that needs to be taken to accomplish meaningful
breakthroughs in advancing the research and clinical opportunities
in a disease and/or injury area. 

"I hope these examples
of how former Board members can contribute to the current Board’s
information in reaching decisions on the best medical/scientific
grants and loans are helpful. As I stated earlier, it would be a
tragedy if the expertise of Board members built up over six or more
years is lost. The field is extremely complicated and the Board needs
the opportunity to consider all of the information available. The
Board can choose to accept or reject any past advice or opinions
gained from prior peer review sessions or Board meetings, but the
Board should have access to the full spectrum of information and the
treasury of scientific and medical advice the agency has received
since its inception.

"There are areas that I
have not addresses in this short response, such as the institutional
value of applicants being able to rely upon prior scientific and/or
policy direction, in their current applications. From a historical
perspective, prior Board members and/or the Chairman can have
significant information that is relevant to these evaluations,
especially if the individual Board member served on a special Task
Force , Subcommittee or peer review. These more complicated areas of
individual contribution by former Board members I can address in a
future communication; but, this specific subject – alone – could
comprise several pages and I would like to obtain critical advice and
perspective from other former Board members and the scientific
community before discussing this area in greater detail.
"Bob Klein
"Chair Emeritus
"California Institute
for Regenerative Medicine"

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

Robert Klein, who served 6 ½ years as the first chairman
of the $3 billion California stem cell agency,  testified before the agency's board for the first time on July 26, 2012. Klein, a real
estate investment banker and attorney, spoke on behalf of two applicants whose
grants had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. The appearance
has raised questions about the propriety of Klein's actions.

Here is a link to an item on his appearance. Here is the text of
his comments as reported in the transcript of the meeting.

“As the board knows, I've never addressed any grant from the
floor. It is critical here to understand that we have here
StemCells, Inc., which is the only company in North America
and, for that matter, maybe in the world, that has had two stem cell
therapies in the brain with these specific neural stem cells. They
have a huge body of experience here. 

“Secondly, one of the fundamental issues here that it (the
company's grant application) was downgraded on was the issue of the
fundamental concept, the platform concept, of injecting two focal
injections in the brain, in the hippocampus of the brain. It's
important to note that I've sat on three (CIRM)peer reviews where the
scientists really affirmed this specific approach with extremely high
scores, three different views. All right.

“So it's very important to realize we have a standard deviation
here of 12 (on the review scores). These scientists were completely
split. With some recusals on that panel, if you have 12 or 13 that
can really vote, three or four very low scores can bring it out of
the funding category all the way down. It is in the region where
this board is looking where the other three peer reviews, right,
early translation, the one before that was the planning grant review,
that the hippocampus was a good platform.

“Then they said the key weakness was you can't show migration.
Dr. Laferla (a co-PI on the application) has told me that
today the Journal of Neuroscience accepted the publication of
the data demonstrating migration. It was stated previously in the
application, but it wasn't accepted for publication. It now is.
That is the fundamental weakness that they identified in this
approach.  

“So we have a reaffirmed approach to the hippocampus by three
different peer review groups and a substantial portion of these
reviewers along with data dealing with the weak point. I'm sorry it
happened today. The data was out there, accepted for publication
today, means that it should definitely fall into this category. And,
of course, Dr. (Alan) Trounson (president of CIRM) wouldn't
have been able to review that in process because he was recused from
this grant by his own voluntary recusal. So the progress of this
data being accepted for publication is new information today. 

“If I look at the entire history of CIRM, as Leeza (Gibbons,
a CIRM director) says, building up to this point, we have reaffirmed
this approach from the very beginning with Dr. Laferla, with multiple
scientific approvals, and board approval, and we have the best
company in North America with the greatest experience with these
neural stem cells, with the best researcher we have for the potential
to address this disease, and we have brand-new data that demonstrates
and totally contradicts the key weakness on which it was downgraded.”

“This is the only other disease team grant I will address. Very
specifically, this was a disease team grant that I was on the peer
review in the planning grant stage. There are some fundamental
issues here. Is the international company on which the one antibody
that's not coming from Stanford, the two for sorting are
coming from Stanford, is the other antibody coming from this
international company a commitment that you can rely on? 

“The reviewers said this was a showstopper. That's the word they
used. They made a decision this was a showstopper because they did
not believe the company because they thought that the documentation
was inadequate. You now have a letter that goes into great
proprietary depth about the depth of this company's commitments
written by the head of development and translation internationally
for the company. 

“If we cannot depend on company commitments of this type, and
you will review the letter in executive session, if you have one, I
will not understand how we'll be able to collaborate with companies
with proprietary products and processes where they're making
commitments to academic institutions of the highest standard. I
believe this company is going to perform. I was on an hour call to
confirm with eight members of that company their level of commitment,
and I am completely convinced by that point. 

“The review is completely factually wrong on this issue about
the other two antibodies for sorting this. Dr. (Irv) Weissman
has just said they have not only been developed, they have been used
in clinical trials. There's data on them. And they are, in fact,
being thawed under FDA direction to reuse in this trial. 

“So I believe there's a major factual difference. Remember with
Karen Aboody there was a major factual error that was pivotal
in elevating that, and we found tremendous performance on that grant
by Karen Aboody of City of Hope. 

“So you have a decision to make. As a risk issue, do we believe
this company? Finally, this is broader than SCID. 

“Donald Kohn has written a letter that's in the public
domain that I suggest you read. It makes it very clear that opening
the niche for repopulating the immune system without chemotherapy and
radiation is a key contribution to every form of genetically modified
stem cells for an entire range of childhood diseases and other
genetic diseases in addition to therapies like sickle cell or aids. 

“I suggest that that profound contribution that can be made to
the field is a risk that is worth taking early on because of his
contribution to so many other areas. You have 12 other letters from
North America's leading pediatric geneticists that fundamentally
provide extraordinary support for this position and this approach.”

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

“I wanted to comment on this piece
from the perspective of another patient advocate.  While I think
you know that I did not always agree with Bob Klein during his tenure
on the ICOC(the agency's governing board), I would strongly defend
his right to appear and give his opinions to the Board.  He is a
private citizen now, albeit one with considerable experience and
expertise, and I think his greatest vested interest in this case
stems (you should pardon the expression) from being the child of a
parent with Alzheimers.  As you point out, some eyebrows may be
raised, and I can imagine that some board members might be swayed in
either direction by his testimony, but  he is a passionate and
committed advocate, and he has the right to advocate before us.”

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

Bob Klein is nearly an icon in the
history of the $3 billion California stem cell. And when he appeared
before its governing board last month and aggressively touted a $20
million grant proposal already rejected by agency reviewers, his
actions raised eyebrows.

Robert Klein Elie Dolgin/Nature photo

Irv Weissman Stanford Photo

 “He has
considerable influence with the ICOC(the CIRM governing board), and
is closely associated with biotech in the Bay Area. Even if he
doesn't make a lot of money himself from this, then he certainly has
friends who will.  Irv Weissman would be one of those friends."

"StemCells Inc has been on the
stock market for 20 years, without producing anything of value for
the investors.  The stock price has been sinking fast:  it
was 60 cents this June; last year at this time, it was around $5 a
share.   

“On July 17, when the CIRM Disease
Team Award review results became available, the stock rose from 87
cents to $1.80 – a person who could anticipate the outcome of the
CIRM applications could have made considerable money in that 24 hour
period.”

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

Here is the text of Robert Klein's response today to the California Stem Cell Report concerning his appearance before the governing board of the California stem cell agency July 26, 2012. Klein, former chairman of the agency, real estate investment banker and attorney, promoted two applications seeking $20 million each from the agency. Both applications had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. Here is a link to an item on the subject.

"Dear David,
"You have posed two
questions related to my continuing role as a Patient Advocate in
contributing information to the Board of the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, in an effort to optimize decisions on medical
and scientific grants and loans for research that could mitigate
and/or cure chronic diseases or injuries. 

"Q: Do you have any sort
of financial ties to StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or
firms that would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC(the CIRM governing board)?
"A: I have no financial
interest in StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or firms that
would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC. In fact, I
have no financial interest in any biomedical research company.

"Q: Do you think it is
appropriate for the former chairman of the ICOC to lobby that body on
behalf of awards to specific companies or individuals?
"A: First, it is
fundamental that the terms be defined to properly respond to your
question. A “Patient Advocate” is a member of a patient family or
a medical/scientific care /support group who advocates for medical
and scientific advances that might potentially mitigate and/or cure a
patient’s chronic disease or injury. A “Patient Advocate” is
not paid for his/her advocacy, unless they are staff members of a
non-profit institution dedicated to a specific disease or group of
diseases or injuries. 

"Second, a “lobbyist”
is a paid representative of a company or a for-profit institution(s)
with a financial interest in the outcome of a governmental decision. 

"I am serving as a
Patient Advocate in my presentations to the Board of the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine. As the former Chairman of the
Board, I have a particular responsibility to contribute my background
knowledge and experience for the Board to consider, along with all
new information, in reaching their best decision. I hope other former
Board members, who possess a wealth of scientific, medical, and
institutional knowledge that can benefit the Board, would consider
the value they can contribute to future decisions. As Board terms
expire, it will be important not to lose that institutional knowledge
and medical/scientific expertise that has been built up over the last
seven plus years of the Agency’s existence. 

"In an outline format,
I would suggest the following areas where the knowledge of former
Board members can be especially valuable in optimizing the input for
Board decisions in the future. 

"A number of Board
members have participated in up to 20 or more Peer Review meetings,
some of which cover multiple days. Current grant or loan requests
represent the result of scientific and medical advancement that has
been intensely vetted in prior peer reviews; the information gained
in those peer reviews should not be lost, when a subsequent grant or
loan request – built on the earlier research outcomes – is
considered. Each peer review session has the benefit of different
specialists and scientists and/or biotech representatives with
unique backgrounds and areas of expertise. The value of the prior
contributions may be pivotal, in considering a later application,
developed from the earlier medical or research advances funded
through CIRM’s grants or loans. The current peer review,
scientific staff presentation, and Board expertise, is not the limit
of the Board’s information, in reaching the best current decision.
To the extent the Board can draw from prior peer reviews (unique
insights), prior scientific staff presentations, and prior Board
expertise, additional information that can enhance a potential
decision, the Board has the opportunity to optimize its decision
making process. This is particularly valuable, when there is a high
standard deviation – a substantial split – in the scoring
positions from the current peer review. 

"Beyond peer review
participation, Board members have intensely engaged in another 35
plus Working Group sessions on Facilities and Standards, in addition
to more than 70 Board meetings and over 125 Subcommittee meetings,
as of August 2012. Retiring Board members possess a treasury of
information on policy development, process, federal and state laws
and regulations, and the regulations of the agency, as well as in
depth information on research facilities and capabilities throughout
California, the nation, and the world. It takes a substantial length
of time for a new Board member to gain a comprehensive knowledge in
all of these areas and each Board member will develop unique
insights, which it would be a tragedy to lose. As Chairman, I
frequently reached back to consult with former Board members on
areas of their special expertise and I would hope that all current
and future Board members utilize the significant asset in developed
knowledge of the prior Board members. To the extent prior members
can be available for public meetings, this would be a substantial
benefit to the agency to broadly inform the Board, the scientific
staff, and the public. 

"The Board has a
unique contribution to make on programmatic resource allocations and
risk management of the research and clinical investments in each
disease area. The opportunities in some disease areas for major
advancement are numerous, whereas there are major diseases and/or
critical research areas where the potential, high-value advancement
options are relatively limited. For Board members who have
participated in over 20 peer reviews and 70 Board meetings, the
programmatic perspective on the opportunities in each disease area
has been highly developed. Concurrently, those Board members or
former Board members have substantial knowledge that is of critical
value in reaching programmatic decisions on the number of
opportunities for advancement in any specific disease area and the
relative risk that needs to be taken to accomplish meaningful
breakthroughs in advancing the research and clinical opportunities
in a disease and/or injury area. 

"I hope these examples
of how former Board members can contribute to the current Board’s
information in reaching decisions on the best medical/scientific
grants and loans are helpful. As I stated earlier, it would be a
tragedy if the expertise of Board members built up over six or more
years is lost. The field is extremely complicated and the Board needs
the opportunity to consider all of the information available. The
Board can choose to accept or reject any past advice or opinions
gained from prior peer review sessions or Board meetings, but the
Board should have access to the full spectrum of information and the
treasury of scientific and medical advice the agency has received
since its inception.

"There are areas that I
have not addresses in this short response, such as the institutional
value of applicants being able to rely upon prior scientific and/or
policy direction, in their current applications. From a historical
perspective, prior Board members and/or the Chairman can have
significant information that is relevant to these evaluations,
especially if the individual Board member served on a special Task
Force , Subcommittee or peer review. These more complicated areas of
individual contribution by former Board members I can address in a
future communication; but, this specific subject – alone – could
comprise several pages and I would like to obtain critical advice and
perspective from other former Board members and the scientific
community before discussing this area in greater detail.
"Bob Klein
"Chair Emeritus
"California Institute
for Regenerative Medicine"

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

Robert Klein, who served 6 ½ years as the first chairman
of the $3 billion California stem cell agency,  testified before the agency's board for the first time on July 26, 2012. Klein, a real
estate investment banker and attorney, spoke on behalf of two applicants whose
grants had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. The appearance
has raised questions about the propriety of Klein's actions.

Here is a link to an item on his appearance. Here is the text of
his comments as reported in the transcript of the meeting.

“As the board knows, I've never addressed any grant from the
floor. It is critical here to understand that we have here
StemCells, Inc., which is the only company in North America
and, for that matter, maybe in the world, that has had two stem cell
therapies in the brain with these specific neural stem cells. They
have a huge body of experience here. 

“Secondly, one of the fundamental issues here that it (the
company's grant application) was downgraded on was the issue of the
fundamental concept, the platform concept, of injecting two focal
injections in the brain, in the hippocampus of the brain. It's
important to note that I've sat on three (CIRM)peer reviews where the
scientists really affirmed this specific approach with extremely high
scores, three different views. All right.

“So it's very important to realize we have a standard deviation
here of 12 (on the review scores). These scientists were completely
split. With some recusals on that panel, if you have 12 or 13 that
can really vote, three or four very low scores can bring it out of
the funding category all the way down. It is in the region where
this board is looking where the other three peer reviews, right,
early translation, the one before that was the planning grant review,
that the hippocampus was a good platform.

“Then they said the key weakness was you can't show migration.
Dr. Laferla (a co-PI on the application) has told me that
today the Journal of Neuroscience accepted the publication of
the data demonstrating migration. It was stated previously in the
application, but it wasn't accepted for publication. It now is.
That is the fundamental weakness that they identified in this
approach.  

“So we have a reaffirmed approach to the hippocampus by three
different peer review groups and a substantial portion of these
reviewers along with data dealing with the weak point. I'm sorry it
happened today. The data was out there, accepted for publication
today, means that it should definitely fall into this category. And,
of course, Dr. (Alan) Trounson (president of CIRM) wouldn't
have been able to review that in process because he was recused from
this grant by his own voluntary recusal. So the progress of this
data being accepted for publication is new information today. 

“If I look at the entire history of CIRM, as Leeza (Gibbons,
a CIRM director) says, building up to this point, we have reaffirmed
this approach from the very beginning with Dr. Laferla, with multiple
scientific approvals, and board approval, and we have the best
company in North America with the greatest experience with these
neural stem cells, with the best researcher we have for the potential
to address this disease, and we have brand-new data that demonstrates
and totally contradicts the key weakness on which it was downgraded.”

“This is the only other disease team grant I will address. Very
specifically, this was a disease team grant that I was on the peer
review in the planning grant stage. There are some fundamental
issues here. Is the international company on which the one antibody
that's not coming from Stanford, the two for sorting are
coming from Stanford, is the other antibody coming from this
international company a commitment that you can rely on? 

“The reviewers said this was a showstopper. That's the word they
used. They made a decision this was a showstopper because they did
not believe the company because they thought that the documentation
was inadequate. You now have a letter that goes into great
proprietary depth about the depth of this company's commitments
written by the head of development and translation internationally
for the company. 

“If we cannot depend on company commitments of this type, and
you will review the letter in executive session, if you have one, I
will not understand how we'll be able to collaborate with companies
with proprietary products and processes where they're making
commitments to academic institutions of the highest standard. I
believe this company is going to perform. I was on an hour call to
confirm with eight members of that company their level of commitment,
and I am completely convinced by that point. 

“The review is completely factually wrong on this issue about
the other two antibodies for sorting this. Dr. (Irv) Weissman
has just said they have not only been developed, they have been used
in clinical trials. There's data on them. And they are, in fact,
being thawed under FDA direction to reuse in this trial. 

“So I believe there's a major factual difference. Remember with
Karen Aboody there was a major factual error that was pivotal
in elevating that, and we found tremendous performance on that grant
by Karen Aboody of City of Hope. 

“So you have a decision to make. As a risk issue, do we believe
this company? Finally, this is broader than SCID. 

“Donald Kohn has written a letter that's in the public
domain that I suggest you read. It makes it very clear that opening
the niche for repopulating the immune system without chemotherapy and
radiation is a key contribution to every form of genetically modified
stem cells for an entire range of childhood diseases and other
genetic diseases in addition to therapies like sickle cell or aids. 

“I suggest that that profound contribution that can be made to
the field is a risk that is worth taking early on because of his
contribution to so many other areas. You have 12 other letters from
North America's leading pediatric geneticists that fundamentally
provide extraordinary support for this position and this approach.”

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

By Kay Fate The Post-Bulletin, Austin MN

AUSTIN A five-year federal grant totaling more than $1.7 million has been awarded for skin cancer research led by Dr. Rebecca Morris, leader of the stem cells and cancer section at the Hormel Institute.

Morris, whose research uses adult, non-human stem cells, has been working to identify stem cell-regulating genes for 10 years. She now has found a gene that appears to be linked to stem cell numbers and helping to protect against skin tumor development.

The gene also might have an immune function in the skin that can fight bacteria and protect against environmental damage. As stem cell research leads to discoveries to improve health, these cells can be obtained through various ways such as from adult tissue stem cells or through bio-engineering to avoid the ethical issues of how to secure stem cells for treatment.

The new project, funded through 2017, will further Morris' research on that gene and the idea that, through using the gene, stem cells could be used to function as a way to protect the body.

The down side of stem cells is that they seem to be targets for cancer development, Morris said.

This is exciting for us because a gene whose function is to protect may do double duty by regulating stem cell activity related to the immune system, she said. If we can identify this gene, then maybe we could find a way to turn off the stem cells if theyre growing too fast, such as in cancer and other diseases involving too rapid cell growth.

With the title Identification of a Keratinocyte Stem Cell Regulatory Gene in the KSC2 Locus, the project is funded through the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health.

The key is to find the genes that control the number and growth potential of epidermal stem cells, Morris said. Then scientists could create more stem cells or make them grow faster, for example, to heal an ulcer or the thinning of skin from aging.

Morris, who joined the institute in 2008, focuses her research on stem cells responsible for healing wounds, maintaining normal tissue integrity and cancer. Her lab uses adult stems cells isolated from the skin through a technique Morris developed when she was a post-doctorate at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

See the rest here:
Hormel Institute receives $1.7 million for skin cancer study

TORONTO, ON Stem cells hold great promise for treating and curing numerous diseases; however, a major challenge facing scientists is how to produce stem cells in the massive quantities required for clinical use. The McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine (McEwen Centre) and the University of Toronto-based Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine (CCRM) are partnering to establish a fund that will drive research in this area. Several University of Toronto regenerative medicine scientists are affiliated with CCRM and the Scientific Director is Dr. Peter Zandstra of the Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering.

The McEwen Centre-CCRM Commercialization Impact Prize launches today, and will solicit innovative ideas from regenerative medicine scientists working in labs throughout the McEwen Centre. The winning team(s) will be awarded up to $600,000 to pursue research that will determine how to manufacture stem cells for clinical use and drug screening.

This private-public funding partnership is an important step forward to accelerating the advance of a discovery from a lab bench to the patient and onto the global market. Scientists at the McEwen Centre are making significant progress towards finding a cure for diseases such as Type 1 diabetes and heart disease. Collaborative partnerships are the key to discovering the cures sooner! says Rob McEwen, co-founder of the McEwen Centre, and Chief Owner, McEwen Mining.

Deadline for submissions is October 15, 2012. The Prize will fund up to two, 2-year projects that address the following challenges:

Making the transition from pre-clinical to clinical mass production; and, Scaling up stem cell manufacturing for high throughput drug screening.

Overcoming the scale-up and manufacturing challenge of stem cells would be a huge advancement for the regenerative medicine [RM] industry and this initiative fits in perfectly with our mandate to bridge the RM commercialization gap, explains Dr. Michael May, CEO of the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine. Were very pleased to be working with the McEwen Centre, already a partner of ours, to make this happen.

The Commercialization Impact Prize budget template and application form can be found here: http://ccrm.ca/Commercialization-Impact-Prize or http://mcewencentre.com/ccrm

About McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine The McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine was founded by Rob and Cheryl McEwen in 2003 and opened its doors in 2006. The McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine, part of Toronto-based University Health Network, is a world leading centre for stem cell research, facilitating collaboration between renowned scientists from 5 major hospitals in Toronto, the University of Toronto and around the world. Supported by philanthropic contributions and research grants, McEwen Centre scientists strive to introduce novel regenerative therapies for debilitating and life threatening illnesses including heart disease, spinal cord injury, diabetes, diseases of the blood, liver and arthritis.

About Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine (CCRM) CCRM, a Canadian not-for-profit organization funded by the Government of Canadas Networks of Centres of Excellence program and six institutional partners, supports the development of technologies that accelerate the commercialization of stem cell- and biomaterials-based technologies and therapies. A network of academics, industry and entrepreneurs, CCRM translates scientific discoveries into marketable products for patients. CCRM launched in Torontos Discovery District on June 14, 2011.

Read this article:
New partnership to drive mass production of life-saving stem cells - Commercialization Impact Prize is first of its ...

By Kay Fate The Post-Bulletin, Austin MN

A five-year federal grant totaling more than $1.7 million has been awarded for skin cancer research led by Dr. Rebecca Morris, leader of the stem cells and cancer section at the Hormel Institute.

Morris, whose research uses adult, non-human stem cells, has been working to identify stem cell-regulating genes for 10 years. She now has found a gene that appears to be linked to stem cell numbers and helping to protect against skin tumor development.

The gene also might have an immune function in the skin that can fight bacteria and protect against environmental damage. As stem cell research leads to discoveries to improve health, these cells can be obtained through various ways such as from adult tissue stem cells or through bio-engineering to avoid the ethical issues of how to secure stem cells for treatment.

The new project, funded through 2017, will further Morris' research on that gene and the idea that, through using the gene, stem cells could be used to function as a way to protect the body.

The down side of stem cells is that they seem to be targets for cancer development, Morris said.

This is exciting for us because a gene whose function is to protect may do double duty by regulating stem cell activity related to the immune system, she said. If we can identify this gene, then maybe we could find a way to turn off the stem cells if theyre growing too fast, such as in cancer and other diseases involving too rapid cell growth.

With the title Identification of a Keratinocyte Stem Cell Regulatory Gene in the KSC2 Locus, the project is funded through the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health.

The key is to find the genes that control the number and growth potential of epidermal stem cells, Morris said. Then scientists could create more stem cells or make them grow faster, for example, to heal an ulcer or the thinning of skin from aging.

Morris, who joined the institute in 2008, focuses her research on stem cells responsible for healing wounds, maintaining normal tissue integrity and cancer. Her lab uses adult stems cells isolated from the skin through a technique Morris developed when she was a post-doctorate at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Visit link:
Institute receives funding for skin cancer study

Sacramento, CA /PRNewswire/ Sutter Neuroscience Institute, a recognized Center of Excellence, andCBR(Cord Blood Registry), the worlds largest stem cell bank, are launching the firstFDA- approved clinical trial to assess the use of a childs own cord blood stem cells to treat select patients with autism. This first-of-its-kind placebo controlled study will evaluate the ability of an infusion of cord blood stem cells to help improve language and behavior. The study is in conjunction with the Sutter Institute for Medical Research.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, autism spectrum disorders impact one in 88 children in the U.S., and one in 54 boys.1The condition is thought to have multiple risk factors including genetic, environmental and immunological components.

This is the start of a new age of research in stem cell therapies for chronic diseases such as autism, and a natural step to determine whether patients receive some benefit from an infusion of their own cord blood stem cells, said Michael Chez, M.D., director of Pediatric Neurology with the Sutter Neuroscience and principal study investigator. I will focus on a select portion of children diagnosed with autism who have no obvious cause for the condition, such as known genetic syndromes or brain injury.

The study will enroll 30 children between the ages of two and seven, with a diagnosis of autism who meet theinclusion criteria for the study. Enrolled participants will receive two infusionsone of the childs own cord blood stem cells and one of a placeboover the course of 13 months. Both the participants and the lead investigators will be blinded from knowing the content of each infusion. To ensure the highest quality and consistency in cord blood stem cell processing, storage and release for infusion,CBRis the only family stem cell bank providing units from clients for the study.

For information on study, visithttp://www.cordblood.com/autism.

Study Rationale A newborns umbilical cord blood contains a unique population of stem cells that have been used for more than 20 years in medical practice to treat certain cancers, blood diseases and immune disorders. When patients undergo a stem cell transplant for these conditions, the stem cells effectively rebuild the blood and immune systems.

A focus of my research has been the complex relationship between a childs immune system and central nervous system. We have evidence to suggest that certain children with autism have dysfunctional immune systems that may be damaging or delaying the development of the nervous system, continued Dr. Chez. Cord blood stem cells may offer ways to modulate or repair the immune systems of these patients which would also improve language and some behavior in children who have no obvious reason to have become autistic. The study is similar to otherFDA-approved clinical trials looking at cord blood stem cells as a therapy for cerebral palsy.

Its exciting to partner with thought-leading medical researchers and clinicians, like Dr. Chez, who are pursuing a scientifically-sound approach in evaluating new therapeutic uses for cord blood stem cells for conditions that currently have no cures, said Heather Brown, vice president of scientific & medical affairs atCBR. Families who made the decision to bank their stem cells to cover the unknowns and what ifs in life are gaining access to this and other important clinical trials while playing an important role in the advancement of science.

The co-investigator of the study is Michael Carroll, M.D., medical director of the Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Hematological Malignancies Program at Sutter Medical Center, Sacramento.

There is a vast amount of unchartered territory when it comes to how stem cell therapies may help patients living with these conditions, said Dr. Carroll. Ive seen how stem cell therapy has changed my field of medicine and how I care for my blood cancer patients. I am eager to see how our work can open new doors for patients and families dealing with autism.

Excerpt from:
Autism And Cord Blood Stem Cells: FDA Gives Green Light For Groundbreaking Clinical Trial

ScienceDaily (Aug. 23, 2012) Cancer stem cells are defined by three abilities: differentiation, self-renewal and their ability to seed a tumor. These stem cells resist chemotherapy and many researchers posit their role in relapse. A University of Colorado Cancer Center study recently published in the journal Stem Cells, shows that melanoma cells with these abilities are marked by the enzyme ALDH, and imagines new therapies to target high-ALDH cells, potentially weeding the body of these most dangerous cancer creators.

"We've seen ALDH as a stem cell marker in other cancer types, but not in melanoma, and until now its function has been largely unknown," says the paper's senior author, Mayumi Fujita, MD, PhD, investigator at the CU Cancer Center and associate professor in the Department of Dermatology at the CU School of Medicine.

Fujita's group transplanted ALDH+ and ALDH- melanoma cells into animal models, showing the ALDH+ cells were much more powerfully tumorigenic. In the same ALDH+ cells, the group then silenced the gene that creates this protein, finding that with ALDH knocked down, melanoma cells died in cultures and lost their ability to form tumors in animal models. In cell cultures, silencing this ALDH gene also sensitized melanoma cells to existing chemotherapies. When the group explored human tumor samples, they found distinct subpopulations of these ALDH+ cells, which made up about 0.1-0.2 percent of patients' primary tumors. In samples of metastatic melanoma -- the most aggressive form of the disease -- the percentage of ALDH+ cells was greater, even over 10 percent in some tumors, further implying the powerful danger of these cells.

"In these same ALDH+ cells, we find the markers of stem cells are upregulated and those of cell differentiation are downregulated. In addition to these clues, ALDH+ cells generate the heterogeneous cell types seen in the original tumor," says Fujita, meaning that in addition to self-renewal and tumorigenesis, ALDH+ cells fulfill the third criteria for a cancer stem cell: the ability to differentiate.

The study also shows how the ALDH gene and its protein act to create a cell's stem-like properties.

"One way ALDH makes a cancer stem cell is through the retinoic acid signaling pathway," Fujita says. The protein ALDH leads to the overproduction of retinoic acid, which in turn binds to a cell's nuclear receptors and influences the expression of many of the cell's genes -- for example, genes involved in regulating cell survival, repair, and proliferation, all of which combine to confer chemoresistance. Target cells with high ALDH and you target all the downstream effects, including the retinoic acid signaling pathway.

"Our hope is that we can intervene in this signaling, either at the level of ALDH or elsewhere in the pathway, especially to re-sensitize cells to chemotherapy. Using a new drug to take away a melanoma stem cell's chemoresistance could boost the effectiveness of existing drugs," Fujita says.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

Story Source:

Read more here:
Human melanoma stem cells identified

24.08.2012 - (idw) University of Gothenburg

Researchers from the Laboratory of astrocyte biology and CNS regeneration headed by Prof. Milos Pekny just published a research article in a prestigious journal Stem Cells on the molecular mechanism that controls generation of new neurons in the brain. Astrocytes are cells that have many functions in the central nervous system, such as the control of neuronal synapses, blood flow, or the brains response to neurotrauma or stroke. Reduces brain tissue damage

Prof. Peknys laboratory together with collaborators have earlier demonstrated that astrocytes reduce the brain tissue damage after stroke and that the integration of transplanted neural stem cells can be largely improved by modulating the activity of astrocytes. Generation of new neurons

In their current study, the Sahlgrenska Academy researchers show how astrocytes control the generation of new neurons in the brain. An important contribution to this project came from bo Academy, one of Sahlgrenskas traditional collaborative partners.

In the brain, astrocytes control how many new neurons are formed from neural stem cells and survive to integrate into the existing neuronal networks. Astrocytes do this by secreting specific molecules but also by much less understood direct cell-cell interactions with stem cells, says Prof. Milos Pekny. Important regulator

Astrocytes are in physical contact with neural stem cells and we have shown that they signal through the Notch pathway to stem cells to keep the birth rate of new neurons low. We have also shown that the intermediate filament system of astrocytes is an important regulator of this process. It seems that astrocyte intermediate filaments can be used as a target to increase the birthrate of new neurons. Target for future therapies

The article Astrocytes Negatively Regulate Neurogenesis through the Jagged1-Mediated Notch Pathway is published in Stem Cells. function fbs_click() {u=location.href;t=document.title;window.open('http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u='+encodeURIComponent(u)+'&t='+encodeURIComponent(t),'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=626,height=436');return false;} html .fb_share_link { padding:2px 0 0 20px; height:16px; background:url(http://static.ak.facebook.com/images/share/facebook_share_icon.gif?6:26981) no-repeat top left; } Share on Facebook Weitere Informationen: http://bit.ly/NCJEdI - article

More:
Astrocytes control the generation of new neurons from neural stem cells

TORONTO, ONTARIO--(Marketwire -08/23/12)- Stem cells hold great promise for treating and curing numerous diseases; however, a major challenge facing scientists is how to produce stem cells in the massive quantities required for clinical use. The McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine (McEwen Centre) and the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine (CCRM) are partnering to establish a fund that will drive research in this area.

The McEwen Centre-CCRM Commercialization Impact Prize launches today, and will solicit innovative ideas from regenerative medicine scientists working in labs throughout the McEwen Centre. The winning team(s) will be awarded up to $600,000 to pursue research that will determine how to manufacture stem cells for clinical use and drug screening.

"This private-public funding partnership is an important step forward to accelerating the advance of a discovery from a lab bench to the patient and onto the global market. Scientists at the McEwen Centre are making significant progress towards finding a cure for diseases such as Type 1 diabetes and heart disease. Collaborative partnerships are the key to discovering the cures sooner!" says Rob McEwen, co-founder of the McEwen Centre, and Chief Owner, McEwen Mining.

Deadline for submissions is October 15, 2012. The Prize will fund up to two, 2-year projects that address the following challenges:

"Overcoming the scale-up and manufacturing challenge of stem cells would be a huge advancement for the regenerative medicine (RM) industry and this initiative fits in perfectly with our mandate to bridge the RM commercialization gap," explains Dr. Michael May, CEO of the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine. "We're very pleased to be working with the McEwen Centre, already a partner of ours, to make this happen."

The Commercialization Impact Prize budget template and application form can be found here: http://ccrm.ca/Commercialization-Impact-Prize or http://mcewencentre.com/ccrm.

About McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine

The McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine was founded by Rob and Cheryl McEwen in 2003 and opened its doors in 2006. The McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine, part of Toronto-based University Health Network, is a world leading centre for stem cell research, facilitating collaboration between renowned scientists from 5 major hospitals in Toronto, the University of Toronto and around the world. Supported by philanthropic contributions and research grants, McEwen Centre scientists strive to introduce novel regenerative therapies for debilitating and life threatening illnesses including heart disease, spinal cord injury, diabetes, diseases of the blood, liver and arthritis.

About Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine (CCRM)

CCRM, a Canadian not-for-profit organization funded by the Government of Canada's Networks of Centres of Excellence program and six institutional partners, supports the development of technologies that accelerate the commercialization of stem cell- and biomaterials-based technologies and therapies. A network of academics, industry and entrepreneurs, CCRM translates scientific discoveries into marketable products for patients. CCRM launched in Toronto's Discovery District on June 14, 2011.

Here is the original post:
New Partnership to Drive Mass Production of Life-Saving Stem Cells

Public release date: 23-Aug-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Hilary Glover hilary.glover@biomedcentral.com 44-020-319-22370 BioMed Central

Stem cells isolated from fat are being considered as an option for treating tissue damage and diseases because of their accessibility and lack of rejection. New research published in BioMed Central's open access journal Stem Cell Research & Therapy shows that this is not as straightforward as previously believed, and that fat-derived stem cells secrete VEGF and other factors, which can inhibit cartilage regeneration. However pre-treating the cells with antibodies against VEGF and growing them in nutrients specifically designed to promote chondrocytes can neutralize these effects.

Chondrocytes make and maintain healthy cartilage but damage and disease including osteoarthritis can destroy cartilage resulting in pain and lack of mobility. Stem cell therapy using cells isolated from adult tissue (such as fat) are being investigated as a way of repairing this damage. Stem cells have the ability to become many different types of tissue so the real trick is persuading them to become cartilage rather than bone, or blood vessels, for example.

Researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology found that adipose (fat) stem cells (ASCs) secrete large amounts of factors, especially the growth factor VEGF, which prevent cartilage regeneration and actually causes the death (apoptosis) of chondrocytes along with the formation of blood vessels. Treating ASCs with medium designed to encourage their differentiation into cartilage cells was able to reduce the amount of these secreted factors and also prevented the growth of blood vessels. Specifically, an antibody designed to neutralize VEGF prevented chondrocyte apoptosis.

Prof Barbara Boyan, who led this research, explained, "Non-treated ASCs actually impeded healing of hyaline cartilage defects, and although treating ASCs improved the situation they added no benefit to compared to cartilage allowed to heal on its own. However we only looked at cartilage repair for a week after treatment, and other people have shown that two to six weeks is required before the positive effect of ASCs on influence cartilage regeneration is seen."

So while stem cells from fat may be able to help repair damaged cartilage, careful handling and pre-treatment may be required to ensure a positive result.

###

Media contact

Dr Hilary Glover Scientific Press Officer, BioMed Central Tel: +44 (0) 20 3192 2370 Mob: +44 (0) 778 698 1967 Email: hilary.glover@biomedcentral.com

Read more here:
Repairing cartilage with fat: Problems and potential solutions