SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical : Stem Cell Research

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: Doc Bones8/27/2006 8:31:35 PM
   of 495
 
Maybe we don't need embryonic stem cells after all

arstechnica.com

August 25, 2006 @ 9:52AM - posted by John Timmer

Embryonic stem cells (ESCs) have the potential to develop into any tissue, and thus hold promise for repair of damaged organs. Part of that potential comes from being a perfect tissue match to the person in need of repair, but this assumes that ESCs can be made from adults, a process that currently requires using a process that's disturbingly close to human cloning. The alternatives, however, are also problematic. Human ESCs exist, but they will not be perfect matches to patients, and there are restrictions on working with them while using government funding and some ethical concerns regarding their creation. Although adult stem cells exist, they are partly specified, and may not be able to form every tissue that needs repair. In addition, some adult stem cells exist in small populations that reside in hard-to-reach locations—nobody's going to dig around in the heart or interior of the brain of a patient in order to pull out a few stem cells.

In an ideal world, we'd simply convert cells from adult patients directly into stem cells without doing anything resembling cloning along the way. Working in mouse cells, a pair of researchers from Kyoto have apparently done just that. The researchers built on the extensive characterization of stem cells, both human and mouse, that have been performed recently. They first dropped a drug resistance gene into a locus that's expressed in ESCs, so that when cells were cultured with the drug, only those with ESC-like gene expression would survive. Next, they scanned the literature for any gene that is expressed in ESCs, and chose a panel of 24 genes that were known regulators of stem cell formation or embryonic development.

They first introduced these genes individually into mouse cells, but none of the resulting lines were drug resistant. Dumping all 24 in at once, however, produced several cell lines, several of which appeared to be ESCs by a number of assays. The scientists then went through and eliminated one gene at a time from the pool, whittling it down to 10 genes. They repeated this Survivor-like process with the pool of 10, and eventually came up with four genes: Oct3/4, Klf4, Sox2, and c-Myc. Transfection of mouse cells with these four was sufficient to convert them to ESCs.

Gene expression analysis using DNA chips showed that the resulting cells were most similar to ESCs, and no longer resembled the parental cell line. In a number of culture systems, the cells could form a huge range of adult cell types, and could form embryoid bodies when injected into adult mice. But the key test came when they labelled these ESCs with a fluorescent tag and injected then into recently fertilized mouse embryos at a time when the embryos were a small cluster of cells. The progeny of the engineered ESCs glowed green, and were found in every tissue in these embryos as they developed, as well as throughout adults. There seems to be little that's different between regular ESCs and the engineered ESCs.

There are still some question as to what exactly is going on with these cells. The efficiency of conversion to ESCs is very low, but it is unclear what limits it. A second question is why, if these cells still carried the extra copies of these four genes, could they ever differentiate into normal cells? Shouldn't they remain ESCs? The technique is also not ready for use in humans, and not only because it's not been tried with human cells. The technique involved in introducing the genes used retroviruses that inserted randomly into the genome—not generally a safe technique. Still, this appears to be an important first step, and you can bet that many labs will be interested in following up on these results.

*************

cell.com

Cell, Vol 126, 663-676, 25 August 2006

Article
Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic and Adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors

Kazutoshi Takahashi1 and Shinya Yamanaka1,2,
1 Department of Stem Cell Biology, Institute for Frontier Medical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan
2 CREST, Japan Science and Technology Agency, Kawaguchi 332-0012, Japan


Summary

Differentiated cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic-like state by transfer of nuclear contents into oocytes or by fusion with embryonic stem (ES) cells. Little is known about factors that induce this reprogramming. Here, we demonstrate induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic or adult fibroblasts by introducing four factors, Oct3/4, Sox2, c-Myc, and Klf4, under ES cell culture conditions. Unexpectedly, Nanog was dispensable. These cells, which we designated iPS (induced pluripotent stem) cells, exhibit the morphology and growth properties of ES cells and express ES cell marker genes. Subcutaneous transplantation of iPS cells into nude mice resulted in tumors containing a variety of tissues from all three germ layers. Following injection into blastocysts, iPS cells contributed to mouse embryonic development. These data demonstrate that pluripotent stem cells can be directly generated from fibroblast cultures by the addition of only a few defined factors.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext