StemCell Therapy

Today in sports: The Wall Street Journal knows what the Patriots and Giants did last summer, the NFL is adding more Thursday night games, and Peyton Manning's doctor clears him to resume playing.

RELATED: Penn State's Recruiting Blues; Peyton Manning's Arm Reportedly Hasn't Healed

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell gave his annual "state of the league" address on Friday. Such speeches are usually perfunctory and kind of boring, but this one was full of actual news: Goodell's biggest revelation was that the league-owned NFL Network will air 13 games on Thursday night next season, up from eight this year. (Time Warner Cable subscribers, feel free to begin mumbling obscenities.) He also walked back comments he made to Bob Costas last night about the possibility of giving Los Angeles an expansion franchise, declaring -- somewhat unconvincingly -- "We want to keep our teams where they are." He wants to play an exhibition game in Mexico, and mustered a defense of the much-maligned London game, which he insists is part of a well-planned "global strategy," rather than an ingenious plot to inconvenience teams and turn the English off the idea of American football forever. [NFL.com]

RELATED: Rob Lowe Stands By His Reporting; Lacrosse is the Druggiest College Sport

RELATED: A Slightly Cheaper Super Bowl Ticket; Possible New Teams for Peyton Manning

Speaking of the London game: Wembley Stadium has halted ticket sales for the scheduled October game between the New England Patriots and St. Louis Rams, since the city of St. Louis is continuing to insist the Rams would be in violation of their lease if they played a "home" game anywhere but the Edward Jones Dome. The NFL UK Web site -- which is fantastic -- posted a statement insisting that the delay was would enable the league and St. Louis to "finalise the technical amendments to the lease required under the terms of the Rams' commitment to London," but Goodell seemed less optimistic. "We're going to play the London games," he said. 'We hope it will be with the Rams and Patriots next year."  [Sky Sports]

RELATED: Don't Tell Injured NFL Players Stem Cell Tourism Is a Bad Idea

New England Patriots tight end Rob Gronkowski killed any remaining will-he-or-won't-he-play Super Bowl drama when he forgot to wear his protective boot to media day. Now Patriots team sources are quietly saying, yes, the guy everyone expected to play will in fact play. [ESPN.com]

RELATED: Just How Great Was the Djokovic-Nadal Match?; A Super Bowl Box Pool Primer

The Wall Street Journal attributes the success of the Giants and Patriots this year to the way their respective front office staffs handled those first two weeks in July after the NFL lockout ended. The basic premise is that clubs with a disciplined approach to free agency are more consistently competitive than their free-spending rivals, but it's striking to learn how unprepared the majority of teams -- particularly the Philadelphia Eagles -- were to condense an offseason worth of roster moves into the space of several weeks last summer. New England and New York didn't make any earth-shattering football decisions during those two weeks: They just knew how to manage the workflow. [The Wall Street Journal]

ESPN reported last night that Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning has been "medically cleared by two doctors" to resume football activities, which was news to Colts owner Jim Irsay, who went on Twitter at 1:25 a.m. to inform the world that Manning "has not passed our physical nor has he been cleared to play for The Indianapolis Colts." What makes this all fantastically silly is that, according to the ESPN report, Colts neurosurgeon Dr. Hank Feuer was one of the two doctors who gave the quarterback a clean bill of health. But while a spokesman for Manning's surgeon issued a statement confirming that he'd cleared Manning, Feuer's diagnosis, according to a source who by process of elimination is either Manning or his agent Tom Condon, consisted of telling the quarterback during a recent meeting, "If you were my own son, I'd tell [you] to go play." That doesn't amount to "official" medical clearance (we don't think), but it's an effective way of putting Irsay on notice that the detente they agreed to last Friday is already over. [ESPN]

A British lady named Louise Neathway was arrested in New York City and booked on charges that she harassed and tried to extort cash from Yankees general manager Brian Cashman, who she say she had an affair with. According to a police source, Neathway -- who "also goes by the name Louise Meanwell," per the Daily News -- was arrested in Tribeca Wednesday afternoon after the diminutive general manager helped "lure [her] into a police dragnet." [New York Daily News]

Texas Rangers outfielder Josh Hamilton, who lost the first eight years of his career to alcohol and cocaine, fell off the wagon for the second time in three years earlier this week at a Dallas-area bar, downing -- by his count -- three of four drinks. For Hamilton, the timing couldn't have been worse -- he's entering the final year of his contract and is reportedly seeking a six-year extension worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $120 million. Nobody knows how this impacts the team's thinking, but it's worth noting that Hamilton was not joined by general manager Jon Daniels, club president Nolan Ryan, or the team's newly hired "accountability coach" at his Friday press conference. [The Dallas Morning News]

University of Connecticut men's basketball coach Jim Calhoun is taking an indefinite leave of absence after being diagnosed with spinal stenosis, a degenerative spine condition that leads to horrific lower-back problems. For what it's worth, we were 10 rows behind the UConn bench during their loss to Georgetown on Wednesday and Calhoun really, really looked like a guy with a bad back. [AP]

Read more:
Josh Hamilton Relapses; The Surprisingly Busy State of the NFL

ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2012) — Immune cells from healthy individuals can be the new immune cure for cancer. This treatment can kill cancer cells without destroying neighbouring cells. The hope is to eradicate cancer for ever. Today's cancer vaccines are unfortunately not a cure.

"The vaccines are based on stimulating the patient's own defence system to attack the tumour. In spite of the tremendous research efforts over the last decades by researchers all around the world, the results have been limited," comments Professor Johanna Olweus at the Immunology Institute at the University of Oslo. Together with her research team, she has found a completely new way to use the immune system to attack cancer.

"We have found a niche that few other people are aware of. In order to achieve effective treatment the immune system must react strongly. This is difficult with the patient's own immune system."

Instead of making a vaccine that builds up the patient's own immune system, the vaccine utilises a strong immune response from healthy individuals.

"Our studies show that the healthy immune cells attack and kill the cancer cells very effectively."

Own immune cells offer poor resistance to cancer

In order to understand the innovation, it is first necessary to understand why it has been so difficult to produce a vaccine against cancer.

Vaccination against infectious diseases is one of the greatest advances in the history of medicine. The immune system recognises a virus or bacteria as dangerous and foreign. When we vaccinate against a virus for example, a message is sent to the foot soldiers, the T cells, so that they are prepared. Then, any later viral infection can be knocked out by the immune system so quickly that we do not notice.

"However, we have not been able to successfully transfer this technique to cancer," states Olweus in the research magazine Apollon.

Once the cancer has gained a foothold, it lives a relatively peaceful co-existence with the immune system, even though it would desirable for the immune system to react aggressively.

Olweus believes this peaceful co-existence can be explained from an evolutionary perspective.

"The existence of the human race has always been dependent on an immune system that defeats infections. But in contrast to infections, cancer generally affects people after they have had children when survival of the human race is no longer dependent on cancer being defeated by the immune system.

Immune cells commit suicide

Neither is it enough that immune cells identify cancer cells as foreign. Cancer cells must also be recognised as being dangerous. Unfortunately, cancer cells do not give enough danger signals because they only cause slight inflammation. Inflammation is important if the immune system is to react.

"A cancer cell must be both foreign and somewhat dangerous if the T cells are to react. When the T cells do not recognise the cancer cells as dangerous, the T-cells kill themselves. This happens primarily with the T cells which could have given the most effective response."

The explanation is that our immune system tries to protect us against over-reaction to our own tissues. Over-reaction can cause autoimmune diseases such as arthritis and multiple sclerosis.

And as if this wasn't enough, the cancer cells have the abominable property of excreting substances that inhibit the T cells that have survived.

Moreover, most of today's vaccines aim at triggering an immune response against proteins that are present in higher numbers in cancer cells than in normal cells.

The problem is: these are normal proteins that are not normally recognised as foreign, even though there may be a particularly large number of them present in cancer cells.

Difficult mutations

A cancer cell can have hundreds of mutations. A mutation is a change in the DNA strand. These mutations can be recognised as foreign by the T cells.

The problem is that it is very difficult to find the mutations that are common to all patients with one particular type of cancer.

Mutations in cancer cells are generally specific for the individual patient. Thus it becomes difficult to know what to "target."

"However, if it is possible to direct many "weak" T cell responses to a large number of mutations, this could possibly have an effect. This may be the explanation why, in trials on treatment of melanomas, antibodies that remove the "brake" for all types of T cells appear to have a promising effect. But this form of treatment is highly risky because the immune system can run "out of control."

Immune response from healthy people

Today, two types of immunotherapy are used as part of the standard treatment for cancer. These are based on immune responses that are produced outside the patient. When you transfer an immune response to a patient, it's able to function independently of the patient's own weakened immune system.

This has resulted in a number of success stories.

The first type of treatment uses therapeutic antibodies that are made by vaccinating animals with human cells. The antibodies recognise the proteins that are only found on a certain cell type. This treatment is particularly effective in lymphatic cancer, even though the antibodies also kill a certain type of healthy immune cells called B cells. These B cells are an important part of the immune system.

The second type of treatment is a bone marrow transplant from healthy individuals to patients with leukemia or lymphatic cancer. This treatment is highly challenging and can be the patient's only chance of survival.

The transplanted bone marrow contains both blood stem cells and healthy T cells from the donor. These T cells can attack the cancer cells and in the best case cure the patient.

In contrast to the patient's own T cells which have been significantly weakened by the disease, the new and healthy T cells from the donor have not been exposed to "tolerance" over a long period of time. Therefore the T cells do not commit suicide. They react instantly to the foreign immune cells. The explanation is that the chemotherapy and radiotherapy have triggered the inflammation and the danger signals.

"The T cells will be able to recognise the cancer cells as both foreign and dangerous and attack them.

The treatment is effective, but is also so dangerous that it is normally only given to patients younger than 60 who are in good health.

The side effects are large. In three of four cases, the added T cells also attack normal cells in the skin, liver and intestines. In the worst case, the patient can die from the treatment."

Can remove undesired effects

The research group led by Olweus has managed to produce a method that distinguishes between desired and undesired effects.

The results have been published in a number of journals including Leukemia.

"Our method is now being used to produce T cells that kill certain types of cancer cells," researchers say.

In order to produce the desired T cells, they use cells from healthy volunteers. The T cells target a certain protein.

"Then we can use the same principle as that used so successfully in antibody therapy. We target the attack at a given cell type by making these T cells recognise parts of a protein that is only found in this cell type.

The T cells can then kill all cells that contain this protein, both healthy and sick. Normally, T cells do not react to these normal proteins.

"The reason that we can get T cells to recognise such proteins as foreign is our innovative trick: We combine the T cells with foreign tissue type molecules.

Tissue type molecules are found in nearly all cells. They are located on the surface and tell the immune system what is happening in the cell. Thus immune cells, just like the T cells, can receive a message that there is something foreign in the cell that must be killed.

If a patient has a type of lymphatic cancer called B cell cancer, prostate cancer or ovarian cancer, the patient can tolerate that the treatment also kills the healthy cells.

It is fully possible to continue living without B cells, a prostate or ovaries.

Prize-winning target-seeking missile

However, Olweus wants to take it a step further.

"T cells kill in a different way to antibodies or chemotherapy. T cells can thus be highly effective when antibody treatment or chemotherapy does not work. But all treatments involving cells have a high resource consumption. Another goal for our immunotherapy is therefore to use the T cell receptors that work as "Target-seeking missiles."

The research group led by Olweus has found a method to isolate the DNA code for the "target-seeking missiles" and produce them as soluble molecules. This means the treatment can be administered intravenously. A patent has been applied for, and last year the method was awarded the annual innovation prize from the Innovation company Invent2 from the UiO and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority.

T cells have the potential to be a far better attack weapon than antibodies. Treatment with antibodies primarily prolongs life expectancy. Few of them cure.

"Antibodies have a substantial limitation. They only recognise proteins on the cell surface. In contrast, T cells also recognise proteins inside the cells. The vast majority of proteins are found only inside the cells. The new therapy can be directed at the proteins inside the cells that are important for the survival of the cancer cells. This can be an important innovation in the battle against cancer.

Combined treatment

Johanna Olweus anticipates that this treatment can be given in combination with antibodies, chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

In order to determine which proteins the treatment has to attack, the research team has mined databases which compare protein collections in cancer cells and organs from thousands of patients.

"If there is a high concentration of one protein in the organ in which the cancer originates and the protein is practically absent from the other normal organs, we can use this protein as a target for the T cells.

Hope to eradicate cancer

The treatment could solve one of today's greatest problems in cancer therapies. After chemotherapy and radiotherapy, loose cancer cells continue to circulate around the body.

"This immune therapy offers the possibility to also destroy these cancer cells, without harming neighbouring cells. This is important. Our hope for the future is that cancer can be eradicated for good, but we must take this step by step. We anticipate that this treatment can be tailored for all types of cancers in organs that are not essential for us to live such as the prostate, ovaries and breasts. We also anticipate that the treatment can also work against cancer in those organs which today can be transplanted such as blood, kidneys and liver. The hope is that our new treatment can be trialled on patients within a few years," states Johanna Olweus.

Recommend this story on Facebook, Twitter,
and Google +1:

Other bookmarking and sharing tools:

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of Oslo, via AlphaGalileo. The original article was written by Yngve Vogt.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

Journal Reference:

I W Abrahamsen, E Stronen, S Wälchli, J N Johansen, S Kjellevoll, S Kumari, M Komada, G Gaudernack, G Tjonnfjord, M Toebes, T N Schumacher, F Lund-Johansen, J Olweus. Targeting B cell leukemia with highly specific allogeneic T cells with a public recognition motif. Leukemia, 2010; 24 (11): 1901 DOI: 10.1038/leu.2010.186

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

See the original post:
Can immune cells from healthy people pulverize cancer?

23-11-2011 02:11 For instance, neural cells in the brain and spinal cord that have been damaged can be replaced by stem cells. In the treatment of cancer, cells partially damaged by radiation or chemotherapy can be replaced with new healthy stem cells that adapt to the affected area, whether it be part of the brain, heart, liver, lungs, or wherever. Dead cells of almost any kind, no matter the type of injury or disease, can be replaced with new healthy cells thanks to the amazing flexibility of stem cells.

Read more from the original source:
stem cell therapy mexico, Successfully Results - Video

31-01-2012 18:50 http://www.singularityweblog.com This morning I interviewed Daniel Kraft for Singularity 1 on 1. I met Dr. Kraft at Singularity University where he is the Medicine and Neuroscience Chair and executive director of the FutureMed Program. Daniel is one of those people with an incredibly diverse spectrum of talents and interests for he is not only a medical doctor and oncologist but also an inventor, a technology and space enthusiast, an entrepreneur and an F-16 flight surgeon. During our conversation we discuss a variety of topics such as: Daniel's early interest and talent in technology and science; his original fascination with the Apollo Space program and eventual participation in International Space University; his passion for flying and being a pilot; his medical education and personal journey to becoming a faculty member at Singularity University; his desire to be an instigator, connector and motivator of innovation; the story behind as well as the purpose and structure of the FutureMed program; bone marrow harvesting, regenerative medicine and stem cell research; longevity and the future of medicine and health care; his greatest inspiration and concerns about the field of medicine and his belief that one doesn't have to be a doctor to improve health care.

View post:
Daniel Kraft on Singularity 1 on 1 (part 1) - Video

01-02-2012 14:59 Sridhar Ramaswamy, MD, Tucker Gosnell Investigator and Associate Professor of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, and Harvard Stem Cell Institute, discusses targeting dormant cancer cells and the possible role that they play in the development of drug resistance. Dormant cells appear in most patients with tumors. These cells are not rapidly proliferating and remain largely inactive. While these cells sleep, they are highly resistant to most types of therapy. Dormant cancer cells are intrinsically intriguing because the number of inherent mutations would denote that the cells should be rapidly proliferating. The mechanism that allows them to switch between dormant and active is yet unknown. The goal of the research is to discover the underlying cause of the dormancy, tumor progression, and the mechanism of resistance to various types of therapy.

Go here to see the original:
Dr. Ramaswamy on Targeting Dormant Cancer Cells - Video

Morning After The Morning's Trash

In my last post, I focused on flaws in the medical device approval process. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ “FDA at a Crossroads” meeting also covered problems with drug approval. This is perhaps no better illustrated than by the disappointing decision by Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebelius’ to deny the emergency contraceptive, Plan B, over-the-counter status for women under the age of 17. This was a particular disappointment to many because President Obama had promised that decisions at the FDA would be made based on science, rather than politics. Some of us, naively, hoped that “change we can believe in” was real, having forgotten that the Tooth Fairy wasn’t.

Two of the speakers at the recent FDA at a Crossroads meeting were formerly at the FDA; both left because of political pressures. Dr. David Ross, was an FDA reviewer for Ketek (an antibiotic). In a Congressional hearing, Dr. Ross testified that he had been pressured to soften his findings about liver toxicity due to the drug and threatened by FDA Commissioner von Eschenbach, who said, “If you don’t follow the team, if you don’t do what you’re supposed to do, the first time you’ll be spoken to, the second time you’ll be benched, and the third time, you’ll be traded,” according to Ross.

The other was Dr. Susan Wood, former assistant FDA commissioner for women’s health and director of the Office of Women’s Health, who resigned from the FDA after Plan B’s approval was initially denied.

The Tradition of Politics at the FDA

Before we delve into the specific discussion of Plan B, let’s look at the context of the politicization of the FDA, under the recent Bush administration in particular, which led to the characterization of the “broken FDA.” During that period access to healthcare information, health services, and medical research became limited by two growing trends: the infusion of increasingly restrictive religious doctrines and the implementation of ideology-driven—rather than scientific, evidence-based—public policies. Initially, access to science-based information was limited through censorship and even distortion in government sources (e.g., data regarding the efficacy of condoms in preventing HIV infections and STDs were removed from the CDC’s Web site). This neither helped reduce the teen birthrate nor STDs. They used the same misinformation tactic with the now discredited breast cancer-abortion link.

Ideologic shifts were also demonstrated by resource allocations. For example, HIV prevention programs at the CDC were reduced by $4 million while funding for abstinence-only programs rose from $20 million to $167 million, despite the lack of evidence of effectiveness, in contrast to the previous peer-review, scientific-merit-based process of NIH grant funding. No federal money is spent on comprehensive sex education. Even worse, since 1982, “Over $1 billion in government funding has been granted to abstinence-only programs…[which] are expressly forbidden from discussing contraception…and often contain factually inaccurate and distorted information. Those who design and operate these programs are often inexperienced, religiously-motivated and frequently have close ties to the anti-abortion movement.”

The trend away from evidence-based medicine affects healthcare practitioners in numerous areas, ranging from patient education and disturbingly eroding standards of medical care to selection of research topics, grant writing, and the research funding process. Upon her dismissal from the President’s Council on Bioethics in 2004 for disagreeing with the administration’s stance on stem cell research, Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn, a prominent cancer researcher and one of only three full-time biomedical researchers on the council, wrote, “When prominent scientists must fear that descriptions of their research will be misrepresented and misused by their government to advance political ends, something is deeply wrong.” Among her many honors, incidentally, is the 2009 Nobel Prize in Medicine.

A brief history of the FDA commissioners and other key persons over the past 20 years illustrates politics at work in the FDA.

David Kessler (commissioner,1990–1997) took a great deal of heat for trying to have the FDA regulate tobacco products and for trying to gain approval for RU-486 (mifepristone).(He lost on both counts.) He was also notable for being appointed by President George H. W. Bush and retained by President Clinton.

Jane Henney (commissioner, 1998–2001), also appointed by Clinton, authorized FDA approval of RU-486. She was, not surprisingly, ousted when George W. Bush took office. She also tried to change business as usual by filling positions with career appointees rather than political ones, actively demonstrating her goal of “leading policy and making enforcement decisions based on science, not on political whims.”

An infamous nominee for chairing Bush’s FDA advisory panel on women’s health policy was Dr. W. David Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist. He had helped prepare a “citizens’ petition” calling for the FDA to reverse its approval of RU-486. He was perhaps more widely known for his reported refusal to prescribe contraceptives to married women and as author of a book that “recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome.” After the outcry of critics, he was not appointed chair of the advisory panel but did serve on it in 2002–2005, despite bipartisan opposition.

Mark McClellan (commissioner, 2002–2004) was an economist appointed by George W. Bush. McClellan reportedly had decided against approving Plan B for emergency contraception even before his staff completed its analysis.

Lester Crawford (commissioner, July–September 2005) was a veterinarian also appointed by George W. Bush. His term is perhaps best remembered for three features: the audacity of a veterinarian making decisions about women’s health and reproduction, his vehement opposition to Plan B’s approval, and the criminal charges against him for false reporting about holdings relevant to his appointment (that he and his wife owned stocks in food, beverage, and medical device companies that he was in charge of regulating). He got off with probation and a fine.

Susan F. Wood was another casualty of Crawford’s brief and divisive tenure at the FDA. As noted, she resigned because of the politicization of the agency—specifically, having the approval of Plan B emergency contraception denied, despite scientific evidence of the pill’s safety and recommendations from the FDA’s own advisory committee.

Andrew C. von Eschenbach (commissioner, 2005–2009) had been the head of the National Cancer Institute before being appointed as FDA commissioner. He was also tied to the decision of the FDA to deny emergency contraceptives over-the-counter status, despite the recommendation of the FDA’s advisory group and its own staff members, as well as that of many medical organizations.17 The FDA had followed advisory committee recommendations in every other case in the past decade. He is also known for reportedly threatening FDA reviewers who disagreed with him. Von Eschenbach’s ideologic, rather than evidence- based, decisions were so egregious that on March 23, 2009, the U.S. District Court (Tummino v. Torti) ordered the FDA to reconsider its decision blocking access to Plan B. It also ordered the FDA to act within 30 days to extend over-the-counter access to 17-year-olds. The court’s conclusions about the FDA’s behavior were damning.

The FDA’s ability to function and its reputation have been seriously hurt in the past decade. In a 2006 survey of FDA scientists, about 18 percent responded that they had been asked to exclude or alter information or their report’s conclusions for nonscientific reasons. A further 60 percent were aware of cases where industry “inappropriately induced or attempted to induce the reversal, withdrawal or modification of FDA determinations or actions.” One-fifth (20 percent) said they had been “asked explicitly by FDA decision makers to provide incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information to the public, regulated industry, media, or elected/senior government officials.” Lest you think this survey was markedly biased, even Senator Chuck Grassley, a staunch Republican, commented on the survey report, “The responses of these scientists reinforce the findings of the independent Government Accountability Office, which said the process for reviewing drugs on the market is deeply flawed.”

As a result of the politicization, the FDA staff has reportedly become greatly demoralized, interfering with its ability to function and protect the public. FDA whistle-blowers have testified that the agency considers the drug companies its clients, and its decision-making furthers the interests of those clients.

Many experienced and valuable clinicians have left the agency, leaving a void. Equally importantly, the FDA has lost considerable respect and authority in the eyes of both the public and important members of Congress.

From 2001 to 2009, the most obvious politicization at the FDA was related to women’s health issues, and especially access to contraception.

In March 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum on scientific integrity. A further encouraging sign of change was the May 2009 appointment of two well-respected physicians to lead the FDA, Drs. Margaret Hamburg and Joshua Sharfstein. Dr. Sharfstein has since left. Dr. Hamburg, the opening speaker at the UCS conference, noted that it was imperative to build trust in FDA’s integrity, and that it is science-based. Dr. Hamburg concluded that “I agree with the Center [for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)] that there is adequate and reasonable, well-supported, and science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and should be approved for nonprescription use for all females of child-bearing potential.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Hamburg—and all women—just had the rug pulled out from them by Sebelius’ overtly political, evidence-be-damned stance.

Plan B Perspective

The irrational decision to overrule the recommendation of numerous experts appears based on the idea that young girls would be buying the pill without parental consent, and that such girls could not do so safely. They ignore that kids can readily buy Tylenol, which has significant liver toxicity and is often a component of deadly drug overdoses. Plan B is far safer—and also unlikely to be used routinely because, at ~$50, it is relatively expensive.

Even the conservative American Academy of Pediatrics urged approval of the morning-after pill for young teens, recognizing Plan B as being a safer alternative to abortions or unwanted pregnancies.

Plan B has the same hormone found in birth control pills, progestin, but in a larger dose. It works primarily by preventing ovulation. In contrast, mifepristone, or RU-486, is used to induce a medical abortion in a process similar to a miscarriage.

What were the arguments against Plan B this time? President Obama expressed his concern as a parent, that his daughters must not have access to such a medicine without adult guidance. His personal preferences are not “evidence-based science”. And he is deluding himself. We can guide our children, but we cannot control their behavior. My hope has been to educate my kids and offer them counsel knowing that, for better or worse, they will make many mistakes along the way. Prevention of pregnancy through ready access to contraceptives is far safer than an abortion or unwanted pregnancy. . .which may doom a teen to a lifetime of poverty and misery. There is a superb cartoon capturing the debate, Matt Davies,’ “Which of these responsibilities is a 15 year old too young to be handed?”—a screaming baby or Plan B pill.

Even the digital world seems to be biased, as now even Siri is getting into the act. Siri conveniently can direct you where to buy Viagra, but feigns ignorance when asked to direct to a reproductive health center offering abortion counseling or services.

The Plan B Decision has been characterized as “Sacrificing ‘Change We Can Believe In’ for Expediency?” “Only half of the nation’s teen moms ever earn a diploma; more than half go on welfare; and more than half of the families started by teens live in poverty.” The Ft. Wayne paper has it right stating, “Plan B politics ignore human toll.” I have never understood how many conservatives can demand censorship, restriction of contraceptives, and control of women’s bodies, all in the name of being “pro-life.” Fetal rights trump a woman’s…but then these people take no responsibility for the care, feeding, and education of these unwanted children. The sanctity of life ends at the womb. A life sentence is a huge price for a moment’s mistake.

Mechai Viravaidya

Even Thailand, which many US citizens likely would (erroneously) consider to be a third-world country, is more enlightened in some health-related ways. For example, Mechai Viravaidya, a former Thai senator and founder of the Population and Community Development Association (PDA), and enormously successful family planning NGO, made a brilliant educational campaign focused on reducing both the birthrate and the AIDS epidemic, by making sex education fun and promoting condoms to be as readily available as cabbages. He even has a restaurant and resort known as “Cabbages and Condoms.” It was a wonderful place to visit. (insert pic)

So why did Obama and Sebelius kill OTC Plan B—the first time that the Health and Human Services Commission has ever overruled the FDA? Only two reasons come to mind. The first is that Obama is overtly campaigning for the conservative vote. The second is similar, but a bit less overt—that OTC Plan B was sacrificed to take a firmer stance on having contraceptive coverage as part of all insurance plans.

And Plan B’s got it right, too, in their ad: “I chose a condom but it broke. Now I Have A Second Chance.”

Why don’t the politicians get it?

~~~

Images: Morning After The Morning’s Trash, from waltarrrrr on Flickr; pictures of condom bouqets and t-shirt by the author; Mechai Viravaidya holding a t-shirt, from Gates Foundation on Flickr;

Previously in this series:

Molecules to Medicine: Clinical Trials for Beginners
Molecules to Medicine: From Test-Tube to Medicine Chest
Lilly’s Shocker, or the Post-Marketing Blues
Molecules to Medicine: Pharma Trumps HIPAA?
Molecules to Medicine: Should pepper spray be put on (clinical) trial?
Molecules to Medicine: FDA at a Crossroads—a Tough Place to Be

Original post:
Molecules to Medicine: Plan B: The Tradition of Politics at the FDA

23-11-2011 02:11 For instance, neural cells in the brain and spinal cord that have been damaged can be replaced by stem cells. In the treatment of cancer, cells partially damaged by radiation or chemotherapy can be replaced with new healthy stem cells that adapt to the affected area, whether it be part of the brain, heart, liver, lungs, or wherever. Dead cells of almost any kind, no matter the type of injury or disease, can be replaced with new healthy cells thanks to the amazing flexibility of stem cells.

Go here to see the original:
stem cell therapy mexico, Successfully Results - Video

31-01-2012 21:38 http://www.StemCellTreatment.org Jaime Chiriboga was an active adult and ended up in a motorcycle accident and left a quadriplegic. Before receiving stem cell treatment he could not move his limbs. After his stem cell therapy he was able to move his limbs and got back almost 100% sensitivity in his body! We are very happy with the results and even more important Jaime is happy with his results! Please look at our website for more information!

Read more:
Stem Cell Treatment Paraplegic - Video

Christina Blouvan-Cervantes had been battling aggressive leukemia when her blood count plummeted and she landed in the emergency room in Fresno. Her doctors told her a blood transfusion was her only hope. But her faith wouldn't allow her to receive one.

So she turned to one of the only doctors who could possibly keep her alive: a committed atheist who views her belief system as wholly irrational.

Dr. Michael Lill, head of the blood and marrow transplant program at Cedars-Sinai's Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, is a last recourse for Jehovah's Witnesses with advanced leukemia.

PHOTOS: Doctor treats Jehovah's Witnesses

They arrive at Lill's door out of desperation and a desire to live. Many specialists decline to treat them because of their biblically centered refusal to accept blood transfusions, a mainstay of conventional care for the cancer.

Lill thinks their refusal is risky and illogical but nevertheless has devised a way to treat them that accommodates their religious convictions.

Despite his belief that God doesn't exist, he has become a hero to many devout believers.

"We don't care if he believes in God or not," said David Goldfarb, chairman of the Los Angeles-area Hospital Liaison Committee for the Jehovah's Witnesses. "What we really believe in is, 'Are you a skilled and great doctor … and can you respect our belief system?'"

Lill, a 52-year-old Australian native, said ideological differences between doctor and patient are beside the point.

"Just because someone makes a decision which I would view as the wrong decision … doesn't mean at that point in time I say, 'No, I am not going to look after you anymore,' " he said. "I try and treat people's religious beliefs with respect."

::

Leukemia, a disease of the blood and bone marrow, produces cancerous blood cells. Treatment involves chemotherapy to destroy the cancerous cells, sometimes followed by transplants of stem cells that develop into healthy blood cells.

Blood transfusions are usually required, because both the cancer and the treatment suppresses the body's production of blood cells. Without transfusions, the risk of death from anemia or bleeding is significantly higher.

Jehovah's Witnesses draw their beliefs about blood from a literal interpretation of the Bible, which repeatedly warns against its consumption. Among the passages often cited by adherents: "You must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water."

It is a violation of God's command for a Jehovah's Witness to accept whole blood, red or white blood cells, platelets or plasma, Goldfarb said. It is left to patients to decide individually whether they are comfortable accepting stem cells.

Lill, who received his medical training in Australia, came to the United States in 1989 to work in the bone marrow transplant program at UCLA Medical Center. He accepted a position at Cedars-Sinai in 1997. He and his wife, a stem cell researcher, have two children.

He stumbled into the niche of treating Jehovah's Witnesses with leukemia after getting his first referral about 15 years ago. He saw both a professional challenge and an unmet need. Since then, about 50 Witnesses from around the world have come to his team for help, including 35 who have received stem cell transplants.

"People have the right to make their own decisions," he said. Before treating the patients, Lill has a candid discussion about religion and medicine, freely using words like "death" and "dying."

About four years ago, Lill himself was treated for cancer of the appendix. The experience, he said, helped him better understand his patients' fears.

Read more here:
A meeting of hearts if not minds

MINNEAPOLIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Please replace the release dated January 23, 2012 with the following corrected version due to multiple revisions.

The corrected release reads:

LEADING GLOBAL CELL THERAPY ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPEAL OF RULING ON DONOR COMPENSATION

Coalition says PBSC donor compensation poses health risks to patients and donors

A coalition of eight leading international health organizations today issued a statement supporting the U.S. Department of Justice’s appeal of the Ninth Circuit Court ruling that allows certain marrow donors to be compensated. Filed Jan. 17, the Justice Department’s appeal cites the potential for serious health risks to patients and donors if the ruling stands.

Approximately 5,000 patients each year in the United States receive marrow transplants from unrelated donors to treat leukemia, lymphoma and a number of other diseases. The marrow is a source of stem cells that are critical to restoring the immune system for these patients. Two techniques are used to extract these stem cells. The first draws marrow directly from the donor’s hip bone and the second moves the stem cells out of the bone marrow and into the bloodstream using a stimulating hormone, and then collects peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) in a procedure similar to the collection of platelets from blood donors.

Since 1984, the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) has banned payment for all marrow stem cell donations. However, a Dec. 1, 2011, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling legalized compensation for PBSC donations, but upheld the ban on compensation for marrow donation through aspiration.

“The world’s leading cell therapy organizations oppose compensating people who sell their stem cells, however collected, and believe the Ninth Circuit made an erroneous distinction between marrow stem cells extracted directly from bone or from blood,” said Jeffrey W. Chell, M.D., chief executive officer of the National Marrow Donor Program® (NMDP), a coalition member that operates the Be The Match Registry®, the world’s largest listing of volunteer marrow donors. “We fully support the Justice Department’s decision to protect patients and their donors by challenging the ruling. Those motivated by self-gain are more likely to withhold health information that would make them unsafe donors. The blood banking experience in the United States shows that this results in donations that are unacceptable from a clinical standpoint.”

The coalition includes the nonprofit NMDP, the World Marrow Donor Association, America’s Blood Centers, AABB, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, International Society of Cellular Therapy and The Transplantation Society. Those seeking to overturn the ban against selling stem cells argue that payment for donors might increase patients’ access to bone marrow; however, the coalition asserts the opposite is true.

Paying for stem cells also would mean the U.S. no longer follows standards recognized throughout developed countries in Europe and Asia, which use volunteer donors in cell therapies. As a result, patients may not be able to use the worldwide search process. These international partnerships are vital to helping increase patients’ access to potential donors. In 2011, nearly half of the transplants facilitated by the NMDP involved either an international donor or patient.

The coalition cites the following reasons in its position against donor compensation:

Protecting Recipient and Donor Safety
A complete and truthful health history is critical to ensure that individuals are eligible to donate and that donated cells are free from infectious diseases. There is substantial scientific evidence that people wanting to sell their blood or body parts are more likely to withhold medical details and information that could harm patients. Ensuring Physicians’ Ability to Provide Quality Care
The decision of whether the donation occurs through the traditional method of bone marrow extraction or PBSC donation should be based on the best clinical judgment of the patient’s physician and will vary from patient to patient. While the donor always has the last say on whether and how to donate, PBSCs may not be in the best interests of the patient in many cases. Paying for PBSCs may cause donors to choose this method instead of a marrow extraction recommended by the recipient’s physician. Maintaining Altruistic Motivations
Compensating donors could deter those who are willing to donate for purely altruistic reasons. The more than 9.5 million members of the Be The Match Registry, as well as an additional 9 million potential donors available on international registries, are proof positive that people do not need financial incentive to save a life. Avoiding the Creation of Markets in Marrow Donation
Patients may promote donor drives with the promise of compensation, appealing to those with financial need, and not fully disclose the risks associated with the donation. For profit organizations also have an incentive to exploit their donors over a patient’s unique needs. In addition, markets put physicians in the morally dubious position of carrying out medical procedures solely for monetary profit.

For these reasons, the members of the coalition remain opposed to the selling of stem cells.

About the Coalition
The coalition includes the NMDP, America’s Blood Centers, AABB, the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, International Society of Cellular Therapy, The Transplantation Society, and the World Marrow Donor Association.

About the National Marrow Donor Program®(NMDP)
The National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) is the global leader in providing marrow and umbilical cord blood transplants to patients with leukemia, lymphoma and other diseases. The nonprofit organization matches patients with donors, educates health care professionals and conducts research so more lives can be saved. The NMDP also operates Be The Match®, which provides support for patients, and enlists others in the community to join the Be The Match Registry® – the world’s largest listing of potential marrow donors and donated cord blood units – contribute financially and volunteer. For more information, visit marrow.org or call 1 (800) MARROW-2.

Read more from the original source:
CORRECTING and REPLACING Leading Global Cell Therapy Organizations Support U.S. Department of Justice Appeal of Ruling ...

In recent court filings, the Food and Drug Administration has asserted that stem cells—you know, the ones our bodies produce naturally—are in fact drugs and subject to its regulatory oversight. So does that make me a controlled substance?

The bizarre controversy revolves around the FDA's attempt to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Clinic in Colorado that performs a nonsurgical stem-cell therapy called Regenexx-SD. It is designed to treat moderate to severe joint, tendon, ligament, and bone pain using only adult stem cells. Doctors draw your blood, spin it through a centrifuge, extract the stem cells and re-inject them into your damaged joints. It uses no other drugs. No drugs means no FDA oversight and that does not sit well with the administration.

The FDA has since argued that a) stem cells are drugs and b) they fall under FDA regulation because the clinic is engaging in interstate commerce. That's right, a process performed at the clinic using the patient's own bodily fluids constitutes interstate commerce because, according to the administration, out-of-state patients using Regenexx-SD would "depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by FDA."

Funny, that sounds less like the FDA protecting the health of the country's citizens and more like the FDA defending its enforcement turf. The two parties have been at odds for over four years now, so we may have a while until we know if every American has in fact become a regulatable good subject to government regulation. [ANH-USA via Slash Gear]

Image via the AP

See the rest here:
According to the FDA, Your Stem Cells Are Now Drugs [Fda]

The Hindu Shinya Yamanaka, Centre for iPS Cell Research and Application, Japan delivering a lecture in Chennai on Thursday. Photo: V. Ganesan

Many more diseases can be targeted, says expert

While applications of induced pluripotent stem cells in stem cell therapy may be limited to a few diseases, its applications in drug discovery are wide-ranging, and many more diseases can be targeted, Shinya Yamanaka, Director, Centre for iPS Cell Research and Application, Japan, has said.

The Japanese scientist, whose breakthrough was the creation of embryonic-like stem cells from adult skin cells, believes that the best chance for stem cell therapy lies in offering hope to those suffering from a few conditions, among them, macular disease, Type 1 Diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.

On the other hand, there were multiple possibilities with drug discovery for a range of diseases, and Prof. Yamanaka was hopeful that more scientists would continue to use iPS for studying this potential.

He currently serves as the Director of the Center for iPS Cell Research and Application and as Professor at the Institute for Frontier Medical Sciences at Kyoto University. He is also a Senior Investigator at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) - affiliated J. David Gladstone Institutes.

An invited speaker of the CellPress-TNQ India Distinguished Lectureship Series, co-sponsored by Cell Press and TNQ Books and Journals, Prof. Yamanaka spoke to a Chennai audience on Tuesday evening about those “immortal” cells, that he originally thought would take “forever” to create, but actually took only six years.

“My fixed vision for my research team was to re-programme adult cells to function like embryonic-like stem cells. I knew it could be done, but just didn't know how to do it,” Prof. Yamanaka said.

Embryonic stem cells are important because they are pluripotent, or possess the ability to differentiate into any other type of cell, and are capable of rapid proliferation. However, despite the immense possibilities of that, embryonic cells are a mixed blessing: there are issues with post-transplant rejection (since they cannot be used from a patient's own cells), and many countries of the world do not allow the use of human embryos.

Dr. Yamanaka's solution would scale these challenges if only he and his team could find a way to endow non-embryonic cells with those two key characteristics of embryonic stem cells.

In 2006, he and his team of young researchers — Yoshimi Tokuzawa, Kazutoshi Takahashi and Tomoko Ishisaka — were able to show that by introducing four factors into mouse skin cells, it was possible to generate ES-like mouse cells. The next year, they followed up that achievement, replicating the same strategy and converted human skin cells into iPS cells. “All we need is a small sample of skin (2-3millimetres) from the patient. This will be used to generate skin fibroblasts, and adding the factors, they can be converted to iPS cells. These cells can make any type of cell, including beating cardiac myocytes (heart cells), Prof.Yamanaka explained.

iPS cells hold out for humanity a lot of hope in curing diseases that have a single cell cause. Prominent among them are Lou Gehrig's Disease or Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neuron disease. Motor neurons degenerate and die, and no effective treatment exists thus far. One reason is that there have not been good disease models for ALS in humans. It is difficult to get motor neuron from human patients and motor neurons cannot divide.

“Now, iPS cells can proliferate and can be differentiated to make motor neurons in large numbers,” he explained. Already a scientist in Japan has clarified motor neuron cells from iPS. “We are hoping that in the near future we would be able to evolve drug candidates that will be useful for ALS patients.” Treatment of spinal cord injuries using iPS cells has showed good results in mice and monkey specimens, and it is likely that in two or three years, scientists will be ready to start treatment for humans.

Toxicology, or drug side effects, is another area where iPS cells can be of use. Testing drug candidates directly on patients can be extremely dangerous. However, iPS cells can be differentiated into the requisite cell type, and the drugs tested on them for reactions. And yet, as wonderful as they may seem, iPS cells do have drawbacks, and there are multiple challenges to be faced before the technology can be applied to medicine. Are they equivalent and indistinguishable from ES cells? For a technology that has been around for only five years, the questions remain about safety. Also to derive patient-specific iPS cells, the process is time, and money-consuming, Prof. Yamanaka pointed out.

There are however, solutions in the offing, for the man who made the world's jaw drop with his discovery. One would be to create an iPS cell bank, where iPS cells could be created in advance from healthy volunteers donating peripheral blood, and skin fibroblasts, apart from frozen cord blood. The process of setting a rigorous quality control mechanism to select the best and safest iPS clones is on and would be complete within a year or two. “Many scientists are studying iPS cells across the world, and I'm optimistic that because of these efforts, we can overcome the challenges of iPS, and contribute to newer treatments for intractable diseases,” Prof. Yamanaka said.

N. Ram, Director, Kasturi & Sons Limited, introduced the speaker. Mariam Ram, managing director, TNQ India; and Emilie Marcus, executive editor, Cell Press, spoke.

Go here to see the original:
“Wide-ranging applications for pluripotent stem cells”

30-01-2012 06:10 Professor Michael Schneider of Imperial College tells Alan Keys about how stem cell research is leading to treatments for heart disease. Michael describes how the availability of stem cells allows his team to determine the molecules involved in heart cell death and also how to protect those cells from death during a heart attack. Michael foresees a near future where stem cells are combined with other therapies to both repair hearts and enable hearts to self-repair. Alan Keys had his own heart repaired during an operation some years ago and currently chairs a British Heart Foundation patients committee. The British Heart Foundation part-fund the work of Michael's team at Imperial College. This interview was edited down from the original 35 minutes conversation. Read the transcript here: bit.ly Read more about Michael here: bit.ly and here: bit.ly

Go here to read the rest:
Stem cells and heart repair - Video

Home > News > technology-news

Washington, Feb 1 : Scientists have successfully converted mouse skin cells directly into cells that become the three main parts of the nervous system, bypassing the stem cell stage, throwing up many new possibilities in the medical world.

This new study is a substantial advance over the previous paper in that it transforms the skin cells into neural precursor cells, as opposed to neurons.

While neural precursor cells can differentiate into neurons, they can also become the two other main cell types in the nervous system: astrocytes and oligodendrocytes.

The finding is an extension of a previous study by the same group from the Stanford University School of Medicine, showing that mouse and human skin cells can be turned into functional neurons or brain cells.

The multiple successes of the direct conversion method overrides the idea that pluripotency (the ability of stem cells to become nearly any cell) is necessary for a cell to transform from one type to another, the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports.

"We are thrilled about the prospects for potential medical use of these cells," said Marius Wernig, study co-author and assistant professor of pathology and member, Stanford's Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, according to a Stanford statement.

Beside their greater versatility, the newly derived neural precursor cells offer another advantage over neurons because they can be cultivated in large numbers in the lab, a feature critical for their long-term usefulness in transplantation or drug screening.

"We've shown the cells can integrate into a mouse brain and produce a missing protein important for the conduction of electrical signal by the neurons," said Wernig, who co-authored the study with graduate student Ernesto Lujan. (IANS)

Share this article at

Yearly Horoscope of 2012 for the Zodiac Sign:

Sagittarius     Scorpio     Libra    Virgo    Leo     Cancer     Gemini     Taurus     Aries     Pisces     Aquarius     Capricon

TOP READ ARTICLES:

'Skyfall' to hit Indian screens Nov 2
Kate Middleton cried watching 'War Horse'
Doubts cast on Winehouse inquest over coroner's qualifications
Kate Winslet says family always comes first
Isabella Cruise sparks rumours of engagement
UK box office earned over GBP 1bn in 2011
Ashley Greene reveals struggle to find roles post-Twilight
Lovelace biopic producer shocked by Moore's exit
Madonna breaks silence on Guy Ritchie split
ScarJo goes public with hunky new man
Chris Noth wants 'porn scene' with Sarah Jessica Parker
Katherine Heigl found nude shower scene 'uncomfortable'
Rachel Weisz's 'exaggerated' L'Oreal ad banned
Jennifer Lopez admits it gets difficult working with ex hubby Marc on reality show
Demi Moore on the mend from 'exhaustion'

The rest is here:
Some nerve! Now bypass stem cells

ScienceDaily (Feb. 1, 2012) — Experiments in brain-injured rats show that stem cells injected via the carotid artery travel directly to the brain, where they greatly enhance functional recovery, reports a study in the February issue of Neurosurgery, official journal of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. The journal is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a part of Wolters Kluwer Health.

The carotid artery injection technique -- along with some form of in vivo optical imaging to track the stem cells after transplantation -- may be part of emerging approaches to stem cell transplantation for traumatic brain injury (TBI) in humans, according to the new research, led by Dr Toshiya Osanai of Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan.

Advanced Imaging Technology Lets Researchers Track Stem Cells

The researchers evaluated a new "intra-arterial" technique of stem cell transplantation in rats. Within seven days after induced TBI, stem cells created from the rats' bone marrow were injected into the carotid artery. The goal was to deliver the stem cells directly to the brain, without having them travel through the general circulation.

Before injection, the stem cells were labeled with "quantum dots" -- a biocompatible, fluorescent semiconductor created using nanotechnology. The quantum dots emit near-infrared light, with much longer wavelengths that penetrate bone and skin. This allowed the researchers to noninvasively monitor the stem cells for four weeks after transplantation.

Using this in vivo optical imaging technique, Dr Osanai and colleagues were able to see that the injected stem cells entered the brain on the "first pass," without entering the general circulation. Within three hours, the stem cells began to migrate from the smallest brain blood vessels (capillaries) into the area of brain injury.

After four weeks, rats treated with stem cells had significant recovery of motor function (movement), while untreated rats had no recovery. Examination of the treated brains confirmed that the stem cells had transformed into different types of brain cells and participated in healing of the injured brain area.

Further Progress toward Stem Cell Therapy for Brain Injury in Humans

Stem cells are likely to become an important new treatment for patients with brain injuries, including TBI and stroke. Bone marrow stem cells, like the ones used in the new study, are a promising source of donor cells. However, many questions remain about the optimal timing, dose, and route of stem cell delivery.

In the new animal experiments, stem cell transplantation was performed one week after TBI -- a "clinically relevant" time, as it takes at least that long to develop stem cells from bone marrow. Injecting stem cells into the carotid artery is a relatively simple procedure that delivers the cells directly to the brain.

The experiments also add to the evidence that stem cell treatment can promote healing after TBI, with significant recovery of function. With the use of in vivo optical imaging, "The present study was the first to successfully track donor cells that were intra-arterially transplanted into the brain of living animals over four weeks," Dr Osanai and colleagues write.

Some similar form of imaging technology might be useful in monitoring the effects of stem cell transplantation in humans. However, tracking stem cells in human patients will pose challenges, as the skull and scalp are much thicker in humans than in rats. "Further studies are warranted to apply in vivo optical imaging clinically," the researchers add.

Recommend this story on Facebook, Twitter,
and Google +1:

Other bookmarking and sharing tools:

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Wolters Kluwer Health: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, via Newswise.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

Journal Reference:

Toshiya Osanai, Satoshi Kuroda, Taku Sugiyama, Masahito Kawabori, Masaki Ito, Hideo Shichinohe, Yuji Kuge, Kiyohiro Houkin, Nagara Tamaki, Yoshinobu Iwasaki. Therapeutic Effects of Intra-Arterial Delivery of Bone Marrow Stromal Cells in Traumatic Brain Injury of Rats—In Vivo Cell Tracking Study by Near-Infrared Fluorescence Imaging. Neurosurgery, 2012; 70 (2): 435 DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e318230a795

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

See the original post:
Encouraging results with stem cell transplant for brain injury

Scientists believe that if they could study liver cells from different people in the lab, they could determine how genetic differences produce these varying responses. However, liver cells are difficult to obtain and notoriously difficult to grow in a lab dish because they tend to lose their normal structure and function when removed from the body.

Now, researchers from MIT, Rockefeller University and the Medical College of Wisconsin have come up with a way to produce liver-like cells from induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPSCs, which are made from body tissues rather than embryos; the liver-like cells can then be infected with hepatitis C. Such cells could enable scientists to study why people respond differently to the infection.

This is the first time that scientists have been able to establish an infection in cells derived from iPSCs — a feat many research teams have been trying to achieve. The new technique, described this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, could also eventually enable “personalized medicine”: Doctors could test the effectiveness of different drugs on tissues derived from the patient being treated, and thereby customize therapy for that patient.

The new study is a collaboration between Sangeeta Bhatia, the John and Dorothy Wilson Professor of Health Sciences and Technology and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT; Charles Rice, a professor of virology at Rockefeller; and Stephen Duncan, a professor of human and molecular genetics at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

Stem cells to liver cells

Last year, Bhatia and Rice reported that they could induce liver cells to grow outside the body by growing them on special micropatterned plates that direct their organization. These liver cells can be infected with hepatitis C, but they cannot be used to proactively study the role of genetic variation in viral responses because they come from organs that have been donated for transplantation and represent only a small population.

To make cells with more genetic variation, Bhatia and Rice decided to team up with Duncan, who had shown that he could transform iPSCs into liver-like cells.

Such iPSCs are derived from normal body cells, often skin cells. By turning on certain genes in those cells, scientists can revert them to an immature state that is identical to embryonic stem cells, which can differentiate into any cell type. Once the cells become pluripotent, they can be directed to become liver-like cells by turning on genes that control liver development.

In the current paper, MIT postdoc Robert Schwartz and graduate student Kartik Trehan took those liver-like cells and infected them with hepatitis C. To confirm that infection had occurred, the researchers engineered the viruses to secrete a light-producing protein every time they went through their life cycle.

“This is a very valuable paper because it has never been shown that viral infection is possible” in cells derived from iPSCs, says Karl-Dimiter Bissig, an assistant professor of molecular and cellular biology at Baylor College of Medicine. Bissig, who was not involved in this study, adds that the next step is to show that the cells can become infected with hepatitis C strains other than the one used in this study, which is a rare strain found in Japan. Bhatia’s team is now working toward that goal.

Genetic differences

The researchers’ ultimate goal is to take cells from patients who had unusual reactions to hepatitis C infection, transform those cells into liver cells and study their genetics to see why they responded the way they did. “Hepatitis C virus causes an unusually robust infection in some people, while others are very good at clearing it. It’s not yet known why those differences exist,” Bhatia says.

One potential explanation is genetic differences in the expression of immune molecules such as interleukin-28, a protein that has been shown to play an important role in the response to hepatitis infection. Other possible factors include cells’ expression of surface proteins that enable the virus to enter the cells, and cells’ susceptibility to having viruses take over their replication machinery and other cellular structures.

The liver-like cells produced in this study are comparable to “late fetal” liver cells, Bhatia says; the researchers are now working on generating more mature liver cells.

As a long-term goal, the researchers are aiming for personalized treatments for hepatitis patients. Bhatia says one could imagine taking cells from a patient, making iPSCs, reprogramming them into liver cells and infecting them with the same strain of hepatitis that the patient has. Doctors could then test different drugs on the cells to see which ones are best able to clear the infection.

Provided by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (news : web)

This story is republished courtesy of MIT News (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/), a popular site that covers news about MIT research, innovation and teaching.

Go here to see the original:
Stem cells could drive hepatitis research forward

OTTAWA , Feb. 1, 2012 /CNW/ - The following is a statement by Russell Williams , President of Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D) on the announcement by the Government of Canada today to ensure that personalized medicine will allow for more effective treatments, thus supporting our Canadian health care system in a more sustainable way.

"Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies welcome this commitment by the Government of Canada to establish personalized medicine as the way to transform the delivery of health care to patients.

"At Rx&D, we believe that providing the right medicine with the right dose to the right patient at the right time is crucial to improving health outcomes for Canadians. With the rise of chronic disease and an aging population, all governments are grappling with unprecedented demand for health care services. It is clear that we face a collective challenge to sustain and improve our health care system where traditional approaches are no longer efficient.

"We commend the Government of Canada's commitment to engage in this work. Pharmaceutical innovation is a proven tool to help Canadians live longer, healthier, more productive lives. It is critical to the future productivity of our country, our workplaces, our communities and our citizens. Innovation is essential for "patient-centered" care.

"The development of new and more effective medicines and vaccines continues to change the face of health care in Canada . Canadians now survive life threatening illnesses and live with chronic conditions in ways not possible for previous generations.

"We applaud the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Genome Canada and the Cancer Stem Cell Consortium for their vision and leadership to develop and implement a scientific innovation that will result in better health for Canadians."

About Rx&D

Rx&D is the association of leading research-based pharmaceutical companies dedicated to improving the health of Canadians through the discovery and development of new medicines and vaccines. Our community represents 15,000 men and women working for 50 member companies and invests more than $1 billion in research and development each year to fuel Canada's knowledge-based economy. Guided by our Code of Ethical Practices, our membership is committed to working in partnership with governments, healthcare professionals and stakeholders in a highly ethical manner.

Go here to read the rest:
Statement - Rx&D Applauds Government of Canada for Investing in Personalized Medicine

UT Arlington engineer developing Biomask to aid soldiers recovering from facial burns

1/24/2012 6:05 PM EST

UT Arlington engineers working with Army surgeons are developing a pliable, polymer mask embedded with electrical, mechanical and biological components that can speed healing from disfiguring facial burns and help rebuild the faces of injured soldiers.

The Biomask project is led by Eileen Moss, an electrical engineer and research scientist based at the UT Arlington Automation & Robotics Research Institute in Fort Worth. Project partners include the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio and Northwestern University in Chicago. The work is funded through a $700,000 research grant from the U.S. Army Medical Research & Materiel Command.

"This gives our wounded warriors hope," said Col. Robert G. Hale, commander of the U.S. Army Dental and Trauma Research Detachment in San Antonio, which is part of the Institute of Surgical Research. "That's what it's all about. We're improving their quality of life."

Northwestern University and the Institute of Surgical Research in San Antonio are currently involved in researching wound healing, while Moss and her UT Arlington team are focused on developing Biomask prototypes that will be tested by the other collaborators. They will be able to provide Moss with feedback to improve the device.

Hale expects Moss's device to be in use at military medial centers within five years. The device also may aid in stem cell regeneration to regrow missing tissue where the Biomask is placed, he said.

Moss began her work toward the Biomask as a doctoral student at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her dissertation focused on research into polymer-based microfluidic systems for biomedical applications. She joined UT Arlington in 2007 to continue the research.

Current burn treatment typically involves removing damaged areas followed by grafting. The outcomes may be good, but the procedures also may result in deformities, speech problems and scarring.

To aid burn victims, Army physicians have used polyethylene foam on damaged tissue that applies a vacuum to promote healing in the wounds, Hale said.

"We couldn't use that on the face because topographically the face is very complex," he said. "We couldn't get a good seal."

Plastic surgeons had shown Hale a three-dimensional, clear silicone mask that compressed the burns slightly to avoid lumpy scars. Engineers were called on to mesh the technologies and develop a better device.

"We wanted something that blended restorative medicine and tissue engineering," Hale said. "That's where UT Arlington came in. Engineers are problem-solvers, and they're solving this one right now."

The Biomask will be embedded with arrays of sensing and treatment components. The components will allow localized monitoring and localized activation of treatment that can be applied to different parts of the wound as needed, Moss said. The sensors will provide physicians feedback about the healing process and help them direct appropriate therapy to different tissues.

"We think the Biomask will become the ultimate tool for treating burns," Moss said. "It's a thinking device. As the wounds heal, the Biomask will be able to adjust treatment to provide faster and better results."

Moss said she and members of her team have traveled to San Antonio where Hale has shared the stories of soldiers with traumatic injuries that may benefit from her work.

"That really put the research into perspective," Moss said. "It helps us keep focused on the goal, that of improving these soldiers' lives."

Moss's work is representative of the groundbreaking research under way at The University of Texas at Arlington, a comprehensive research institution of 33,439 students in the heart of North Texas. Visit http://www.uta.edu to learn more.

Read more from the original source:
Biomask project could regrow burn victims' faces

31-01-2012 15:24 MDA Vice President of Research Sanjay Bidichandani explains the promising research being done in neuromuscular disease research using adult stem cells.

See more here:
Stem Cell Therapy in Neuromuscular Disease Research - Video

WEDNESDAY, Feb. 1 (HealthDay News) -- Treating stroke patients with stem cells taken from their own bone marrow appears to safely help them regain some of their lost abilities, two small new studies suggest.

Indian researchers observed mixed results in the extent of stroke patients' improvements, with one study showing marked gains in daily activities, such as feeding, dressing and movement, and the other study noting these improvements to be statistically insignificant. But patients seemed to safely tolerate the treatments in both experiments with no ill effects, study authors said.

"The results are encouraging to know but we need a larger, randomized study for more definitive conclusions," said Dr. Rohit Bhatia, a professor of neurology at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi, and author of one of the studies. "Many questions -- like timing of transplantation, type of cells, mode of transplantation, dosage [and] long-term safety -- need answers before it can be taken from bench to bedside."

The studies are scheduled to be presented Wednesday and Thursday at the American Stroke Association's annual meeting in New Orleans.

Stem cells -- unspecialized cells from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood or human embryos that can change into cells with specific functions -- have been explored as potential therapies for a host of diseases and conditions, including cancer and strokes.

In one of the current studies, 120 moderately affected stroke patients ranging from 18 to 75 years old were split into two groups, with half infused intravenously with stem cells harvested from their hip bones and half serving as controls. About 73 percent of the stem cell group achieved "assisted independence" after six months, compared with 61 percent of the control group, but the difference wasn't considered statistically significant.

In the other study, presented by Bhatia, 40 patients whose stroke occurred between three and 12 months prior were also split into two groups, with half receiving stem cells, which were dissolved in saline and infused over several hours. When compared to controls, stroke patients receiving stem cell therapy showed statistically significant improvements in feeding, dressing and mobility, according to the study. On functional MRI scans, the stem cell recipients also demonstrated an increase in brain activity in regions that control movement planning and motor function.

Neither study yielded adverse effects on patients, which could include tumor development.

But Dr. Matthew Fink, chief of the division of stroke and critical care neurology at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, said that the therapy's safety is the only thing the two studies seemed to demonstrate.

"The thing to keep in mind is that these are really phase one trials," said Fink, also a professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College. "I'm concerned that people get the idea that now stem cell treatment is available for stroke, and that's not the case."

Fink noted that the cells taken from study participants' hip bones can only be characterized as "bone marrow aspirates" since the authors didn't prove that actual stem cells were extracted.

"They haven't really analyzed if they're stem cells and what they turn into when they go into circulation," he added. "The best way to look at this is, it's very preliminary . . . when patients come to me to talk about it, I'm going to tell them it's years away before we know if this is going to work."

Studies presented at scientific conferences should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

More information

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has more information on stem cells.

See the original post:
Stem Cell Therapy Shows Promise for Stroke, Studies Say