StemCell Therapy

CIRM: “To support and advance stem cell research and regenerative medicine under the highest ethical and medical standards for the discovery and development of cures, therapies, diagnostics and research technologies to relieve human suffering from chronic disease and injury.”

CIRM: For-profit entities have been and currently are eligible for CIRM funding covering stages of research which range from basic biology programs (in which industry has shown little interest) through Phase II clinical trials. Of these programs, 13% have been awarded to companies thus far. Having built 12 state of the art stem cell facilities and having seeded  the field with training and other types of grants of similar purpose, CIRM is now focusing on funding translational and clinical programs.  

This is where companies' primary interests are and we expect greater company participation in our translation and clinical Request for Application. The translation and clinical awards programs provide for much larger awards as compared to the basic research and the overall amount of later stage funding is significantly larger than the earlier basic research awards. The number of awards made in the translational and clinical development funding rounds is much less than in the basic science area. 

CIRM’s Strategic Partnership Funding Program is a cornerstone of our efforts to fund industry.   We expect to make awards through this program approximately every six months to assist companies whose financing demands is frequently at shorter intervals than academic institutions. These awards will be made following a robust peer review process ensuring that awards are made to projects that are based on sound scientific data and have a reasonable chance of success.

CIRM: Four clinical trials that were fostered by CIRM funds are already in clinical trials for cancer and blood disorders. We expect one or more CIRM-funded projects to join that list in the next year. This includes projects that are in clinical trial already for which we have funded and are funding the follow on studies.

CIRM: Yes, we have recently held the first round of applications for our Strategic Partnership Awards that are designed specifically to attract applications from industry and include significant leveraged funding from multinational biopharmaceutical companies and/or venture capital. The first of these awards will be announced at an upcoming meeting of our governing board, the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee. Industry also accesses CIRM funding through the Disease Team awards, which include teams comprised of both academic researchers and industry as partners, consultants and advisors. 

CIRM: No. We have awarded more basic research grants in numbers, but those grants are much smaller in dollars than those in our translational portfolio. That translational portfolio includes 75 projects that have been awarded nearly $600 million, well over half of the research dollars committed.

When CIRM funding was initiated in late 2006, there was a need to build intellectual and facility capacity because doubts about support from federal sources had limited the entry of scientists into the field and there was a need for “safe harbor facilities. “ Research into stem cells was also at an early stage and so it made sense for us to focus on the discovery phase of basic biology and pre-clinical work to enable more effective utilization of the potential that was evident.

Increasingly however we are moving towards clinical science, to enable a proper assessment of the value of cell therapies and related approaches for advancement of human medicine.

Our focus has always included all stem and progenitor cells. Pluripotential stem cells are immortal and develop into all cells of the body, so the potential is large and the available funding outside CIRM has been modest. We have concentrated on human rather than animal model cells because this is where the need has been greatest. Our goal is to fund transformational research with the highest potential benefit to patients, regardless of the stem cell type they utilize.

As for infrastructure, we spent $271 million in major facilities grants to help create new, state-of-the-art safe harbor research facilities in California which are essential for  delivering  the goals of CIRM. That investment was used to leverage almost $900 million in additional funds from private donors and institutions to help pay for those facilities. Each facility  attracted new researchers to the state,  employed local construction workers  and created expanded research facilities that will now be able to offer long-term employment for the high tech innovators in stem cell research, transformative new medicines  for intractable disease and deliver economic benefit for Californians.

CIRM: Yes, our focus in our new Strategic Plan does just that, emphasizing the increased focus on translation and clinical trials. As described above, we are investing strongly in this sector. But we firmly believe that advancement in medicine is dependent on the science that underpins the medical strategies. We will also  continue to support high quality basic science that can transform medical opportunities.  

CIRM: We are required by our statute to fund in those areas that are under-invested. Otherwise we are agnostic to cell type. We expect a mixture of embryonic (induced pluripotent stem cells as well when they are ready for clinical studies), fetal, adult, cancer stem and progenitor cells, as well as small molecules, biologics and other approaches, evolving from stem cell assays and research. We are most concerned with the ability to produce results for patients.

Yes, we have appointed a Vice President with business development responsibilities and are further strengthening this capacity with key staff. We are actively working with industry to develop sustainable partnerships in research, we hold webinars and face to face meetings with the FDA to better equip industry with the tools that can aid in their investigational new drug (IND) submissions . We also assist industry to better understand what they need to do to successfully apply for CIRM funding.

We have also made changes to our intellectual property regulations and loan regulations to make it even more attractive for companies  to partner with us in research.

Our focus has been in moving promising research through the "Valley of Death" phase, from the lab through Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. We are working with major industry and financial institutions to inform them of our developing portfolio with the belief that they will be interested in taking many of these products to the market place. We are probably unable to afford to do these late stage clinical trials alone and feel it is likely that commercial interests will provide the follow on funding. 

CIRM: We are always interested in proposals that will enhance our mission. While this hypothetical has not been put to us we would have to assess the proposal on its merits and our available finances. 

CIRM:  In our RFA’s we have provided guidance as to what entities qualify for CIRM funding.  Future requirments  are presently under review by our General Counsel. Certainly, companies will need to show genuine steps at the time of application  towards relocation of a significant component of their research activities to California in addition to establishing a California operation with California employees. CIRM funding would be largely limited to in-state  activities.

http://www.celltherapyblog.com hosted by http://www.celltherapygroup.com

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CellTherapyBlog/~3/wzhx7dkP3vk/cirm-addresses-some-tough-questions-is.html

The Press Release from the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institute

[More]

Source:
http://rss.sciam.com/click.phdo?i=6788ede4839af4e8ca0056aad8727cf9

Biotime, Inc., and two men who were
leading players in history of Geron Corp. today made a surprise,
public bid for the stem cell assets of their former firm.

Michael West West photo

Tom Okarma AP file photo

“Geron would transfer its stem cell
assets to BAC(a new subsidiary of Biotime headed by Okarma), in
exchange for which you along with the other Geron shareholders would
receive shares of BAC common stock representing approximately 21.4%
of the outstanding BAC capital stock. BioTime would contribute to BAC
the following assets in exchange for the balance of outstanding BAC
capital stock:

• “$40 million in BioTime common
  shares;
• “Warrants to purchase BioTime
  common shares (“BioTime Warrants”);
• “Rights to certain stem cell
  assets of BioTime, and shares of two BioTime subsidiaries engaged in
  the development of therapeutic products from stem cells.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/v1bas6eGZF0/biotime-makes-bid-for-gerons-stem-cell.html

Directors of the California stem cell
agency are set to give away $20 million next Thursday and authorize
a handsome addition to their signature disease team effort, bringing
its total to $543 million.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/1gFmBSDEYCU/california-stem-cell-agency-boosting.html

The Los Angeles Times this
morning carried a column about the “charmed relationship” between
StemCells, Inc., its “powerful friends” and the $3 billion
California stem cell agency.

“What was the company's
secret? StemCells says it's addressing 'a serious unmet medical need'
in Alzheimer's research. But it doesn't hurt that the company also
had powerful friends going to bat for it, including two guys who were
instrumental in getting CIRM off the ground in the first place.”

“But private enterprise
is new territory for CIRM, which has steered almost all its grants
thus far to nonprofit institutions. Those efforts haven't been
trouble-free: With some 90% of the agency's grants having gone to
institutions with representatives on its board, the agency has long
been vulnerable to charges of conflicts of interest. The last thing
it needed was to show a similar flaw in its dealings with private
companies too.”

“(Weissman) has also
been a leading beneficiary of CIRM funding, listed as the principal
researcher on three grants worth a total of $24.5 million. The agency
also contributed $43.6 million toward the construction of his
institute's glittering $200-million research building on the Stanford
campus.”

“The problem is that
StemCells doesn't have $20 million in spare funds. Its quarterly
report for the period ended June 30 listed about $10.4
million in liquid assets, and shows it's burning about $5 million per
quarter. Its prospects of raising significant cash from investors
are, shall we say, conjectural.

“As it happens, within
days of the board's vote, the
firm downplayed any pledge 'to raise a specific amount of
money in a particular period of time.' The idea that CIRM 'is
requiring us to raise $20 million in matching funds' is a
'misimpression,' it said. Indeed, it suggested that it might count
its existing spending on salaries and other 'infrastructure and
overhead' as part of the match. StemCells declined my request that it
expand on its statement. 

“CIRM spokesman Kevin
McCormack says the agency is currently scrutinizing StemCells'
finances 'to see what it is they have and whether it meets the
requirements and expectations of the board.' The goal is to set
'terms and conditions that provide maximum protection for taxpayer
dollars.' He says, 'If we can't agree on a plan, the award will
not be funded.'"

“The agency shouldn't be
deciding on the spot what does or doesn't qualify as matching funds.
It should have clear guidelines in advance.

“Nor should the board
overturn the judgment of its scientific review panels without
clear-cut reasons....The record suggests that the handling of the
StemCells appeal was at best haphazard and at worst redolent of
cronyism.” 

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/6qvBfSLP3RE/los-angeles-times-stemcells-inc-award.html

The move by the $3 billion California
stem cell agency to curtail its free-wheeling grant appeal process
will undergo its first public hearing next week.

“A material dispute of fact should
meet five criteria:(1) An applicant disputes the accuracy of a
statement in the review summary;(2) the disputed fact was significant
in the scoring or recommendation of the GWG(grant review group); (3) the dispute pertains
to an objectively verifiable fact, rather than a matter of scientific
judgment or opinion;(4) the discrepancy was not addressed through the
Supplemental Information Process and cannot be resolved at the
meeting at which the application is being considered; and
(5) resolution of the dispute could affect the outcome of the board’s
funding decision."

“New information should: (1)be
verifiable through external sources; (2) have arisen since the
Grants Working Group(grant review group) meeting at which the application
was considered; (3) respond directly to a specific criticism or
question identified in the Grants Working Group’s review; and (4)
be submitted as part of an extraordinary petition filed five business
days before the board meeting at which the application is
being considered."

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/6sbxGqQJ77Y/researcher-alert-stem-cell-agency-to.html

CIRM: “To support and advance stem cell research and regenerative medicine under the highest ethical and medical standards for the discovery and development of cures, therapies, diagnostics and research technologies to relieve human suffering from chronic disease and injury.”

CIRM: For-profit entities have been and currently are eligible for CIRM funding covering stages of research which range from basic biology programs (in which industry has shown little interest) through Phase II clinical trials. Of these programs, 13% have been awarded to companies thus far. Having built 12 state of the art stem cell facilities and having seeded  the field with training and other types of grants of similar purpose, CIRM is now focusing on funding translational and clinical programs.  

This is where companies' primary interests are and we expect greater company participation in our translation and clinical Request for Application. The translation and clinical awards programs provide for much larger awards as compared to the basic research and the overall amount of later stage funding is significantly larger than the earlier basic research awards. The number of awards made in the translational and clinical development funding rounds is much less than in the basic science area. 

CIRM’s Strategic Partnership Funding Program is a cornerstone of our efforts to fund industry.   We expect to make awards through this program approximately every six months to assist companies whose financing demands is frequently at shorter intervals than academic institutions. These awards will be made following a robust peer review process ensuring that awards are made to projects that are based on sound scientific data and have a reasonable chance of success.

CIRM: Four clinical trials that were fostered by CIRM funds are already in clinical trials for cancer and blood disorders. We expect one or more CIRM-funded projects to join that list in the next year. This includes projects that are in clinical trial already for which we have funded and are funding the follow on studies.

CIRM: Yes, we have recently held the first round of applications for our Strategic Partnership Awards that are designed specifically to attract applications from industry and include significant leveraged funding from multinational biopharmaceutical companies and/or venture capital. The first of these awards will be announced at an upcoming meeting of our governing board, the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee. Industry also accesses CIRM funding through the Disease Team awards, which include teams comprised of both academic researchers and industry as partners, consultants and advisors. 

CIRM: No. We have awarded more basic research grants in numbers, but those grants are much smaller in dollars than those in our translational portfolio. That translational portfolio includes 75 projects that have been awarded nearly $600 million, well over half of the research dollars committed.

When CIRM funding was initiated in late 2006, there was a need to build intellectual and facility capacity because doubts about support from federal sources had limited the entry of scientists into the field and there was a need for “safe harbor facilities. “ Research into stem cells was also at an early stage and so it made sense for us to focus on the discovery phase of basic biology and pre-clinical work to enable more effective utilization of the potential that was evident.

Increasingly however we are moving towards clinical science, to enable a proper assessment of the value of cell therapies and related approaches for advancement of human medicine.

Our focus has always included all stem and progenitor cells. Pluripotential stem cells are immortal and develop into all cells of the body, so the potential is large and the available funding outside CIRM has been modest. We have concentrated on human rather than animal model cells because this is where the need has been greatest. Our goal is to fund transformational research with the highest potential benefit to patients, regardless of the stem cell type they utilize.

As for infrastructure, we spent $271 million in major facilities grants to help create new, state-of-the-art safe harbor research facilities in California which are essential for  delivering  the goals of CIRM. That investment was used to leverage almost $900 million in additional funds from private donors and institutions to help pay for those facilities. Each facility  attracted new researchers to the state,  employed local construction workers  and created expanded research facilities that will now be able to offer long-term employment for the high tech innovators in stem cell research, transformative new medicines  for intractable disease and deliver economic benefit for Californians.

CIRM: Yes, our focus in our new Strategic Plan does just that, emphasizing the increased focus on translation and clinical trials. As described above, we are investing strongly in this sector. But we firmly believe that advancement in medicine is dependent on the science that underpins the medical strategies. We will also  continue to support high quality basic science that can transform medical opportunities.  

CIRM: We are required by our statute to fund in those areas that are under-invested. Otherwise we are agnostic to cell type. We expect a mixture of embryonic (induced pluripotent stem cells as well when they are ready for clinical studies), fetal, adult, cancer stem and progenitor cells, as well as small molecules, biologics and other approaches, evolving from stem cell assays and research. We are most concerned with the ability to produce results for patients.

Yes, we have appointed a Vice President with business development responsibilities and are further strengthening this capacity with key staff. We are actively working with industry to develop sustainable partnerships in research, we hold webinars and face to face meetings with the FDA to better equip industry with the tools that can aid in their investigational new drug (IND) submissions . We also assist industry to better understand what they need to do to successfully apply for CIRM funding.

We have also made changes to our intellectual property regulations and loan regulations to make it even more attractive for companies  to partner with us in research.

Our focus has been in moving promising research through the "Valley of Death" phase, from the lab through Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. We are working with major industry and financial institutions to inform them of our developing portfolio with the belief that they will be interested in taking many of these products to the market place. We are probably unable to afford to do these late stage clinical trials alone and feel it is likely that commercial interests will provide the follow on funding. 

CIRM: We are always interested in proposals that will enhance our mission. While this hypothetical has not been put to us we would have to assess the proposal on its merits and our available finances. 

CIRM:  In our RFA’s we have provided guidance as to what entities qualify for CIRM funding.  Future requirments  are presently under review by our General Counsel. Certainly, companies will need to show genuine steps at the time of application  towards relocation of a significant component of their research activities to California in addition to establishing a California operation with California employees. CIRM funding would be largely limited to in-state  activities.

http://www.celltherapyblog.com hosted by http://www.celltherapygroup.com

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CellTherapyBlog/~3/wzhx7dkP3vk/cirm-addresses-some-tough-questions-is.html

The Press Release from the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institute

[More]

Source:
http://rss.sciam.com/click.phdo?i=6788ede4839af4e8ca0056aad8727cf9

Biotime, Inc., and two men who were
leading players in history of Geron Corp. today made a surprise,
public bid for the stem cell assets of their former firm.

Michael West West photo

Tom Okarma AP file photo

“Geron would transfer its stem cell
assets to BAC(a new subsidiary of Biotime headed by Okarma), in
exchange for which you along with the other Geron shareholders would
receive shares of BAC common stock representing approximately 21.4%
of the outstanding BAC capital stock. BioTime would contribute to BAC
the following assets in exchange for the balance of outstanding BAC
capital stock:

• “$40 million in BioTime common
  shares;
• “Warrants to purchase BioTime
  common shares (“BioTime Warrants”);
• “Rights to certain stem cell
  assets of BioTime, and shares of two BioTime subsidiaries engaged in
  the development of therapeutic products from stem cells.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/v1bas6eGZF0/biotime-makes-bid-for-gerons-stem-cell.html

The Los Angeles Times this
morning carried a column about the “charmed relationship” between
StemCells, Inc., its “powerful friends” and the $3 billion
California stem cell agency.

“What was the company's
secret? StemCells says it's addressing 'a serious unmet medical need'
in Alzheimer's research. But it doesn't hurt that the company also
had powerful friends going to bat for it, including two guys who were
instrumental in getting CIRM off the ground in the first place.”

“But private enterprise
is new territory for CIRM, which has steered almost all its grants
thus far to nonprofit institutions. Those efforts haven't been
trouble-free: With some 90% of the agency's grants having gone to
institutions with representatives on its board, the agency has long
been vulnerable to charges of conflicts of interest. The last thing
it needed was to show a similar flaw in its dealings with private
companies too.”

“(Weissman) has also
been a leading beneficiary of CIRM funding, listed as the principal
researcher on three grants worth a total of $24.5 million. The agency
also contributed $43.6 million toward the construction of his
institute's glittering $200-million research building on the Stanford
campus.”

“The problem is that
StemCells doesn't have $20 million in spare funds. Its quarterly
report for the period ended June 30 listed about $10.4
million in liquid assets, and shows it's burning about $5 million per
quarter. Its prospects of raising significant cash from investors
are, shall we say, conjectural.

“As it happens, within
days of the board's vote, the
firm downplayed any pledge 'to raise a specific amount of
money in a particular period of time.' The idea that CIRM 'is
requiring us to raise $20 million in matching funds' is a
'misimpression,' it said. Indeed, it suggested that it might count
its existing spending on salaries and other 'infrastructure and
overhead' as part of the match. StemCells declined my request that it
expand on its statement. 

“CIRM spokesman Kevin
McCormack says the agency is currently scrutinizing StemCells'
finances 'to see what it is they have and whether it meets the
requirements and expectations of the board.' The goal is to set
'terms and conditions that provide maximum protection for taxpayer
dollars.' He says, 'If we can't agree on a plan, the award will
not be funded.'"

“The agency shouldn't be
deciding on the spot what does or doesn't qualify as matching funds.
It should have clear guidelines in advance.

“Nor should the board
overturn the judgment of its scientific review panels without
clear-cut reasons....The record suggests that the handling of the
StemCells appeal was at best haphazard and at worst redolent of
cronyism.” 

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/6qvBfSLP3RE/los-angeles-times-stemcells-inc-award.html

Directors of the California stem cell
agency are set to give away $20 million next Thursday and authorize
a handsome addition to their signature disease team effort, bringing
its total to $543 million.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/1gFmBSDEYCU/california-stem-cell-agency-boosting.html

The move by the $3 billion California
stem cell agency to curtail its free-wheeling grant appeal process
will undergo its first public hearing next week.

“A material dispute of fact should
meet five criteria:(1) An applicant disputes the accuracy of a
statement in the review summary;(2) the disputed fact was significant
in the scoring or recommendation of the GWG(grant review group); (3) the dispute pertains
to an objectively verifiable fact, rather than a matter of scientific
judgment or opinion;(4) the discrepancy was not addressed through the
Supplemental Information Process and cannot be resolved at the
meeting at which the application is being considered; and
(5) resolution of the dispute could affect the outcome of the board’s
funding decision."

“New information should: (1)be
verifiable through external sources; (2) have arisen since the
Grants Working Group(grant review group) meeting at which the application
was considered; (3) respond directly to a specific criticism or
question identified in the Grants Working Group’s review; and (4)
be submitted as part of an extraordinary petition filed five business
days before the board meeting at which the application is
being considered."

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/6sbxGqQJ77Y/researcher-alert-stem-cell-agency-to.html

By Barbara Bronson Gray HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, Oct. 17 (HealthDay News) -- For people whose bone marrow has been destroyed by chemotherapy, radiation or disease, stem cell transplants offer a potential lifeline back to health.

But a key question has remained unanswered: Is it better to get the stem cells from a donor's blood or from bone marrow?

Now, a new study evaluates the pros and cons of harvesting stem cells from bone marrow rather than blood and suggests there are benefits to both approaches, but no survival differences between the two methods. The research was published Oct. 18 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study found that while peripheral blood stem cells may reduce the risk of graft failure, bone marrow may cut the chances of developing chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a complication that is frequently debilitating.

Over the past 10 years, 75 percent of stem cell transplants from unrelated adult donors have used peripheral blood stem cells rather than those harvested from bone marrow, according to study background information.

Some studies have suggested that using peripheral blood cells rather than bone marrow was associated with more severe GVHD. Other research has found that some people with transplants from peripheral blood stem cells had a lower relapse rate and improved survival.

Bone marrow offers the same chances of survival as does peripheral blood but tends to be associated with more severe side effects of treatment, explained study author Dr. Claudio Anasetti, a professor of medicine at the University of South Florida.

"With bone marrow, you have the same survival, but less long-term morbidity," Anasetti said.

Anasetti said the research shows that both approaches are acceptable, but "it's not a one-choice-for-all situation."

Read more:
Blood or Bone Marrow Better for Stem Cell Transplants?

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

Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. (ACT; OTCBB: ACTC), a leader in the field of regenerative medicine, today announced treatment of the fifth patient, the second in the second patient cohort, in its U.S. clinical trial for Stargardts Macular Dystrophy (SMD). The patient was injected with 100,000 human embryonic stem cell-derived retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells, as compared with the 50,000 cell dose used in the three patients of the first cohort. The patient successfully underwent the outpatient transplantation surgery yesterday, and is recovering uneventfully.

We continue to make steady progress in our ongoing clinical trials, commented Gary Rabin, chairman and CEO. We look forward to completing the third and final patient in this cohort in the U.S. clinical trial for SMD in the near future, which will mark the halfway point. We have now mapped out the series of patients to complete this cohort and the second cohort in the European trial, and have done the same in the US AMD trial, pending DSMB review. With all four trial centers in the US and both trial centers in the UK now trained and ready to treat patients, combined with the streamlined process in the European trial protocol, we anticipate an accelerated pace of generating patient data.

Initiated in July of last year, the Phase I/II trial is designed to determine the safety and tolerability of hESC-derived RPE cells following sub-retinal transplantation in patients with SMD at 12 months, the studys primary endpoint. It will involve a total of 12 patients, with cohorts of three patients each in an ascending dosage format. The company is concurrently conducting a second trial for SMD in Europe and another for dry age-related macular degeneration in the U.S.

We continue to be very encouraged with how this clinical trial is progressing, said Robert Lanza, M.D., chief scientific officer. We are confident of continued momentum in our other two trials, as well.

Further information about patient eligibility for ACTs SMD study and the concurrent studies in the U.S. and Europe (for dry age-related macular degeneration and SMD, respectively) are available at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, with the following Identifiers: NCT01345006 (U.S. SMD), NCT01344993 (dry AMD), and NCT01469832 (E.U. SMD).

About Stargardts Disease

Stargardts disease or Stargardts Macular Dystrophy is a genetic disease that causes progressive vision loss, usually starting in children between 10 to 20 years of age. Eventually, blindness results from photoreceptor loss associated with degeneration in the pigmented layer of the retina, called the retinal pigment epithelium, which is the site of damage that the company believes the hESC-derived RPE may be able to target for repair after administration.

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.

Continued here:
ACT Announces Second Stargardt’s Disease Patient Treated with Higher Dosage of Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Retinal ...

WASHINGTON, DC--(Marketwire - Oct 17, 2012) - The Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM), the international organization representing the interests of the regenerative medicine community, announced the publication today of an article on FDA communications to help companies developing cell-based therapies by clarifying the development pathway. The article, entitled "Communications with the FDA on the Development Pathway for a Cell-Based Therapy: Why, What, When, and How?" will be published in the journal Stem Cells Translational Medicine. It is co-authored by representatives from ARM, Janssen R&D, GE Healthcare and Life Technologies, with the lead author from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).

"There are a number of ways cell-based therapy companies can communicate with FDA that will help them navigate the road from the bench to a regulatory submission," said Michael Werner, Executive Director of ARM. "We hope that our combined experience as co-authors, and our attempt to create a single source of guidance on the regulatory process, will help companies bring new cell-based therapies through clinical trials and the regulatory review process more quickly so they can reach patients faster," added Mr. Werner.

Lead author Ellen Feigal, MD, Senior Vice President for Research and Development at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) commented, "Cell-based therapies represent a fundamentally new way to treat or cure disease, but developing a new therapy is costly, time consuming and fraught with uncertainty. Our paper takes a practical approach to clarifying the path to market."

"Communications with the FDA on the Development Pathway for a Cell-Based Therapy: Why, What, When, and How?" provides detailed information on options for communicating with the FDA at different stages; the official communications tied to each stage of development; and the most common reasons regulatory applications are delayed. The article can be accessed at: http://stemcellstm.alphamedpress.org/content/early/recent

About CIRM: CIRM was established in November 2004 with the passage of Proposition 71, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act. The statewide ballot measure, which provided $3 billion in funding for stem cell research at California universities and research institutions, was overwhelmingly approved by voters, and called for the establishment of an entity to make grants and provide loans for stem cell research, research facilities, and other vital research opportunities. A list of grants and loans awarded to date may be seen here: http://www.cirm.ca.gov/for-researchers/researchfunding.

About ARM: The Alliance for Regenerative Medicine is a Washington, DC-based multi-stakeholder advocacy organization that promotes legislative, regulatory and reimbursement initiatives necessary to facilitate access to life-giving advances in regenerative medicine. ARM also works to increase public understanding of the field and its potential to transform human healthcare, providing business development and investor outreach services to support the growth of its member companies and research organizations. Prior to the formation of ARM in 2009, there was no advocacy organization operating in Washington, DC to specifically represent the interests of the companies, research institutions, investors and patient groups that comprise the entire regenerative medicine community. Today ARM has more than 120 members and is the leading global advocacy organization in this field. In March 2012, ARM launched a sister organization in Europe -- the Alliance for Advanced Therapies. For more information go to http://www.alliancerm.org.

Read the original:
Journal Stem Cell Translational Medicine to Publish Article on FDA Communications and the Regulatory Pathway for Cell ...

Nobel Prizes take pro-life turn

WASHINGTON (BP)A Japaneseresearcher who discovered a way to produce stem cells that act likeembryonic ones without their lethal consequences has won a Nobel Prize.

The Nobel Foundation awarded its 2012 prize in physiology or medicine to Shinya Yamanaka, who was able to reprogram adult skin cells into cells that have virtually the identical properties of embryonic ones, which have the ability to change into any cell or tissue in the body. In the Oct. 8 announcement, Yamanaka, 50, shared the Nobel Prize with British scientist John Gurdon, 79, whose work in 1962 paved the way for the Japanese researchers breakthrough.

Unlike embryonic stem cells,reprogrammed cellsalso known as induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cellsdo not cause harm to a donor. The extraction of embryonic stem cells, however, results in the destruction of a days-old human embryo.

The life issue also was a theme in the awarding of this years Nobel Prize for literature. Chinese writer Mo Yan, a critic of his countrys coercive population control policy, received the award Oct. 11 from the Nobel Foundation, which is based in Stockholm, Sweden.

Yans most recent novel, Wa, illuminates the consequences of Chinas imposition of a single-child policy, according to the Nobel news release.

Leave a Comment:

You must be login before you can leave a comment. Click here to Register if you are a new user.

See the original post:
Nobel Prizes take pro-life turn

The nuclei of brain stem cells in some Parkinson's patients become misshapen with age. The discovery opens up new ways to target the disease.

Nubby nucleus: Brain cells from a deceased Parkinsons patient have deformed nuclei (bottom) compared with normal brain cells from an individual of a similar age. Merce Marti and Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte

Stem cells in the brains of some Parkinson's patients are increasingly damaged as they age, an effect that eventually diminishes their ability to replicate and differentiate into mature cell types. Researchers studied neural stem cells created from patients' own skin cells to identify the defects. The findings offer a new focus for therapeutics that target the cellular change.

The report, published today in Nature, takes advantage of the ability to model diseases in cell culture by turning patient's own cells first into so-called induced pluripotent stem cells and then into disease-relevant cell typesin this case, neural stem cells. The basis of these techniques was recognized with a Nobel Prize in medicine last week.

The authors studied cells taken from patients with a heritable form of Parkinson's that stems from mutations in a gene. After growing several generation of neural stem cells derived from patients with that mutation, they saw the cell nuclei start to develop abnormal shapes. Those abnormalities compromise the survival of the neural stem cells, says study coauthor Ignacio Sancho-Martinez of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California.

Today's study "brings to light a new avenue for trying to figure out the mechanism of Parkinson's," says Scott Noggle of the New York Stem Cell Foundation. It also provides a new set of therapeutic targets: "Drugs that target or modify the activity [of the gene] could be applicable to Parkinson's patients. This gives you a handle on what to start designing drug screens around."

The strange nuclei were also seen in patients who did not have a known genetic basis for Parkinson's disease. The authors suggest this indicates that dysfunctional neural stem cells could contribute to Parkinson's. While that conclusion is "highly speculative," says Ole Isacson, a neuroscientist at Harvard Medical School, the study demonstrates the "wealth of data and information that we now can gain from iPS cells."

See original here:
Parkinson's cells

October 17, 2012

Michael Harper for redOrbit.com Your Universe Online

Stem cell research, as promising as it may be, has always run into some controversial matters of ethics. As such, research into these stem cells and their relatively untapped potential could be hampered by these legal and political roadblocks. Now new research has discovered a method of harvesting pockets of cells from the scalps and brain linings of recently deceased humans then repurposing them as stem cells. With this new method, stem cells could only be a trip to the morgue away.

Armed with these stem cells, scientists could develop new cell therapies as well as gain a better understanding of developmental disorders such as autism, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. The trouble now, according to Ronald D.G. McKay of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, is knowing which stem cells come from embryos and which come from adult, mature human cells. Speaking with ABC News, McKay explained that there are big differences between the stem cells and so far scientists dont know enough about the two to accurately distinguish them.

Fred H. Gage of the Salk Institute in LaJolla, California, who led the research, agrees.

We cant look in a dish at a mixed population [of cells] and say That is a stem cell, he said, also speaking with ABC News. Different people have different ideas.

One broadly accepted definition of stem cells, according to Ira Black with the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, is an immature cell that can duplicate itself into different types of mature cells.

By using growth factors linked with stem cell growth, Gage and team were able to collect cells from 146 brain donors and grow other, mature stem cells from them.

We were able to culture living cells from deceased individuals on a larger scale than ever done before, said researcher Thomas Hyde, a neuroscientist, neurologist and chief operating officer at the Lieber Institute for Brain Development in Baltimore, speaking with LiveScience.

Previous studies had only been able to grow these mature stem cells from about 6 cadavers. When the scientists began their attempts to harvest and repurpose these cells from the donors, the bodies had been dead for nearly 2 days. To preserve the still-living cells, these cadavers were kept cool in a morgue, but not frozen, according to LiveScience.

View post:
New Method Harvests Stem Cells From Cadavers

Public release date: 17-Oct-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Dean Forbes dforbes@fhcrc.org 206-667-2896 Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

SEATTLE One of the world's leading bone marrow transplant experts is recommending a significant change to current transplant practice for patients who need marrow or adult stem cells from an unrelated donor to treat hematologic malignancies. Fred Appelbaum, M.D., director of the Clinical Research Division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, asserts that bone marrow not circulating, peripheral blood, which is the current norm should be the source for unrelated donor adult stem cells for most patients who require a transplant. The reason: because there is less incidence of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), which can be a debilitating side effect of transplantation.

Appelbaum called for the change in an Oct. 18 editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine in response to a new study, published in the same issue, which compared survival rates and side effects of treating patients with hematopoietic adult stem cells derived from bone marrow versus circulating peripheral blood. The study found a higher incidence of chronic GVHD 53 percent when peripheral blood was the source of stem cells for transplant versus 41 percent when bone marrow is the source.

"For the majority of unrelated transplants following a standard high-dose preparative regimen, bone marrow should be used since survival is equivalent with the two sources but the incidence of chronic graft-versus-host disease, which can be a debilitating complication, is significantly less with marrow," Appelbaum wrote.

GVHD is a common side effect in people who receive cells from an unrelated donor. It occurs when the transplanted cells recognize the recipient's tissues as foreign and attack the tissues. This can cause a variety of problems, including skin rashes, liver problems and diarrhea. Chronic GVHD can develop any time between three months and three years after the transplant and can range from mild to serious in intensity.

Appelbaum said that stem cells derived from peripheral blood should only be used for the minority of patients in whom the benefits outweigh the risks. These include patients in need of rapid engraftment, such as those with life-threatening infections, or patients at high risk for graft rejection, such as those who receive reduced-intensity conditioning that does not include intensive chemotherapy.

For the past 10 years peripheral blood has been the norm as a source of matched related and matched unrelated adult stem cells for transplant because, despite the higher risk of GVHD, they are easier to harvest from the donor, they can be stimulated to grow in large numbers prior to harvesting, and they engraft, or set up shop, quickly inside the recipient's body.

The potential impact if such a practice change were widely implemented is large. Currently, about 75 percent of unrelated donor transplants are done using stem cells that are collected from the peripheral blood of donors. About 70 percent of all patients who undergo a life-saving transplant to treat blood cancers such as leukemia require an unrelated donor. Collecting adult stem cells from bone marrow is a more invasive process than collecting them from the bloodstream.

According to Appelbaum, about 5,500 unrelated donor transplants were performed in the United States last year. More than 20 million potential unrelated donors are typed and listed in registries in the Americas, Europe and Asia.

Read the original post:
Leading bone marrow transplant expert recommends significant change to current practice

The nuclei of brain stem cells in some Parkinson's patients become misshapen with age. The discovery opens up new ways to target the disease.

Nubby nucleus: Brain cells from a deceased Parkinsons patient have deformed nuclei (bottom) compared with normal brain cells from an individual of a similar age. Merce Marti and Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte

Stem cells in the brains of some Parkinson's patients are increasingly damaged as they age, an effect that eventually diminishes their ability to replicate and differentiate into mature cell types. Researchers studied neural stem cells created from patients' own skin cells to identify the defects. The findings offer a new focus for therapeutics that target the cellular change.

The report, published today in Nature, takes advantage of the ability to model diseases in cell culture by turning patient's own cells first into so-called induced pluripotent stem cells and then into disease-relevant cell typesin this case, neural stem cells. The basis of these techniques was recognized with a Nobel Prize in medicine last week.

The authors studied cells taken from patients with a heritable form of Parkinson's that stems from mutations in a gene. After growing several generation of neural stem cells derived from patients with that mutation, they saw the cell nuclei start to develop abnormal shapes. Those abnormalities compromise the survival of the neural stem cells, says study coauthor Ignacio Sancho-Martinez of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California.

Today's study "brings to light a new avenue for trying to figure out the mechanism of Parkinson's," says Scott Noggle of the New York Stem Cell Foundation. It also provides a new set of therapeutic targets: "Drugs that target or modify the activity [of the gene] could be applicable to Parkinson's patients. This gives you a handle on what to start designing drug screens around."

The strange nuclei were also seen in patients who did not have a known genetic basis for Parkinson's disease. The authors suggest this indicates that dysfunctional neural stem cells could contribute to Parkinson's. While that conclusion is "highly speculative," says Ole Isacson, a neuroscientist at Harvard Medical School, the study demonstrates the "wealth of data and information that we now can gain from iPS cells."

More:
Stem Cells Reveal Defect in Parkinson's Cells