Signs of Life
EmailMight there be a way around that titanic debate over where to get stem cells? Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University, a veteran of the stem-cell research wars, heads a team that reports they’ve isolated stem cells from the amniotic fluid of pregnant women. They may not turn out to be "pluripotent"–able to turn into any specialized cell in the way it’s believed embryonic stem cells can–but the key is that no embryos were destroyed to get them. More HERE from Wake Forest’s Institute for Regenerative Medicine; Atala came there from Harvard Med School a few years ago. The abstract of their paper, in NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY, says the cells are "broadly multipotent"–probably capable of turning into many kinds of specialized body tissue, though perhaps not as easily as embryonic stem cells. Still, they sound more versatile than adult stem cells, which have been used in some experiments. A few lines from the NATURE release: "AFS [short for Amniotic Fluid-derived Stem] cells share properties of both embryonic and adult stem cells and may represent a developmental intermediate between these two types of stem cell. When cultured under the right conditions, AFS cells can be differentiated towards cell types such as fat, bone, muscle, blood vessel, nerve and liver cells. Once the methods for culturing and differentiating AFS cells have been optimized, the cells may be useful in therapies designed to regenerate damaged organs and tissues." More HERE. (AP photo)
Space Station Flies Over Eastern U.S. at Night 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
I was heartened to hear of this discovery, and sincerely hope that it can push research forward without the bitter divisiveness involving embryonic stem cells.
Posted by: chuck | January 8, 2007, 8:29 am 8:29 am
Let’s hear it for science! Please keep us informed on this possibility. Thanks, Ned.
Posted by: Wes | January 8, 2007, 5:22 pm 5:22 pm
From what I understand, this research was rejected by 4 medical journals who were uninterested in publishing any research that might offer an alternative to embryonic stem cell research.
Posted by: Marie | January 11, 2007, 11:01 am 11:01 am
Hello, Marie.
I found one reference to what you suggest in Catholic News. They talked to Paolo De Coppi, Anthony Atala’s co-author. Here’s a link….
http://www.cathnews.com/news/701/44.php
…and here’s an excerpt:
“While stressing that he himself opposes research with embryos, De Coppi said he and Atala “certainly do not wish to hinder other types of research”.
However, he disclosed that he had the impression since 2001, when he first started presenting his work at conferences, that the scientific establishment, which has invested heavily in embryo research, was resistant to the prospect of amniotic stem cells proving useful.
“It took seven years to get our paper published … it was rejected four times.
“We had the impression that many of the criticisms raised (in rejecting the paper) were motivated by a resistance to the idea of finding an alternative to embryonic stem cells because the American scientific community fears restrictions on research with embryos.
“We could have had the discovery published sooner by opting to send our results to a less prestigious journal,” De Coppi said.
“But that way we would have lost credibility with the scientific community.
“Therefore, we decided to overcome the hostility”.
The publication of the paper in Britain’s leading stem-cell journal has electrified the research community.”
That’s all I know about it. Atala, at Wake Forest, didn’t say anything to us about this.
–Ned
Posted by: Ned Potter | January 11, 2007, 12:35 pm 12:35 pm
The news is interesting but Dr. Atala is not the only researcher to discover non-embryonic, human stem cells – so the discover is great news but the news is not necessarily “new”. Researchers using umbilical cord blood have made equally impressive advances and are a year or two ahead of Dr. Atala. I am not a stem cell guru, but I am all for supporting research using non-embryonic, human stem cells. Dr. Atala’s discovery and BioE’s Multi-Lineage Progenitor Cell™ (from umbilical cord blood) are heading in the right direction and both deserve considerably more attention from the scientific community.
Posted by: Todd | January 16, 2007, 1:14 am 1:14 am