Dr. Neil Riordan, Cell Therapy Expert – Stem Cell Treatment …

Neil Riordan, PA, PhD is one of the early pioneers and experts in applied stem cell research. Dr. Riordan founded publicly traded company Medistem Laboratories (later Medistem Inc.) which was acquired by Intrexon in 2013.

He is the founder and chairman of Medistem Panama, Inc., a leading stem cell laboratory and research facility located in the Technology Park of the prestigious City of Knowledge in Panama City, Panama. Medistem Panama (est. 2007) is at the forefront of research on the effects of adult stem cells on the course of several chronic diseases and conditions. The stem cell laboratory at Medistem Panama is fully licensed by the Ministry of Health of Panama.

Human umbilical cord tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hUCT-MSCs) that were isolated and grown at Medistem Panama to create master cell banks are currently being used in the United States. These cells serve as the starting material for cellular products used in MSC clinical trials for two Duchennes muscular dystrophy patients under US FDAs designation of Investigational New Drug (IND) for single patient compassionate use. (IND 16026 DMD Single Patient) These trials are the first in the United States to use hUCT-MSCs. Translational Biosciences, a fully-owned subsidiary of Medistem Panama is currently conducting phase I/II clinical trials for multiple sclerosis, autism and rheumatoid arthritis.

Dr. Riordan is founder, chairman and chief science officer of the Stem Cell Institute in Panama, which specializes in the treatment of human diseases and conditions with adult stem cells, primarily human umbilical cord tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Established in 2007, Stem Cell Institute is one of the oldest, most well-known and well-respected stem cell therapy clinics in the world.

He is co-founder and chief science officer of the Riordan Medical Institute (RMI). Located in the Dallas-Fort Worth area city of Southlake, Texas, RMI specializes in the treatment of orthopedic conditions with autologous bone marrow-derived stem cells combined with amniotic tissue products developed by Dr. Riordan.

He is also the founder of Aidan Products, which provides health care professionals with quality nutraceuticals. Dr. Riordans team developed the product Stem-Kine, the only nutritional supplement that is clinically proven to increase the amount of circulating stem cells in the body for an extended period of time. Stem-Kine is currently sold in 35 countries.

Dr. Riordan has published more than 70 scientific articles in international peer-reviewed journals. In the stem cell arena, his colleagues and he have published more than 20 articles on multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, heart failure, rheumatoid arthritis, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, autism, and Charcot-Marie-Tooth syndrome. In 2007, Dr. Riordans research team was the first to discover and document the existence of mesenchymal-like stem cells in menstrual blood. For this discovery, his team was honored with the Medical Article of the Year Award from Biomed Central. Other notable journals in which Dr. Riordan has published articles include the British Journal of Cancer, Cellular Immunology, Journal of Immunotherapy, and Translational Medicine.

In addition to his scientific journal publications, Dr. Riordan has authored two books about mesenchymal stem cell therapy: Stem Cell Therapy: A Rising Tide: How Stem Cells Are Disrupting Medicine and Transforming Lives and MSC (Mesenchymal Stem Cells): Clinical Evidence Leading Medicines Next Frontier. Dr. Riordan has also written two scientific book chapters on the use of non-controversial stem cells from placenta and umbilical cord.

Dr. Riordan is an established inventor. He is the inventor or co-inventor on more than 25 patent families, including 11 issued patents. His team collaborates with a number of universities and institutions, including National Institutes of Health, Indiana University, University of California, San Diego, University of Utah, University of Western Ontario, and University of Nebraska.

He has made a number of novel discoveries in the field of cancer research since the mid-1990s when he collaborated with his father, Dr. Hugh Riordan, on the effects of high-dose intravenous vitamin C on cancer cells and the tumor microenvironment. This pioneering study on vitamin Cs preferential toxicity to cancer cells notably led to a 1997 patent for the treatment of cancer with vitamin C. In 2010, Dr. Riordan was granted an additional patent for a new cellular vaccine for cancer patients.

Neil Riordan, PA, PhD earned his Bachelor of Science at Wichita State University and graduated summa cum laude. He received his Masters degree at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Dr. Riordan completed his education by earning a Ph.D. in Health Sciences at Medical University of the Americas.

Continued here:
Dr. Neil Riordan, Cell Therapy Expert - Stem Cell Treatment ...

Stem Cell Therapy Tulsa OK | Broken Arrow | Jenks

Stem Cell Therapy in Tulsa, Oklahoma Our physicians utilize stem cell therapy in treating Stem Cell Injections for Arthritis, Tendonitis, Knee Pain & More

As an alternative to surgery, our patients can now benefit from injections of platelet rich plasma, amniotic, bone marrow or adipose stem cells to treat chronic orthopaedic conditions. These treatments can reduce pain and provide long lasting relief from chronic tendinitis, early arthritis and cartilage damage in the joint.

Our surgeons offer these fairly new treatment options; PRP, amniotic membrane stem cell, bone marrow stem cell as well as adipose stem cell injections to successfully treat patients with knee, hip or shoulder osteoarthritis, rotator cuff tendonitis, Achilles tendonitis, chronic bursitis, meniscal tears and degenerative arthritis. (For clarification, amniotic stem cells comes from the amniotic sac not an embryo. While some people may have ethical issues with embryonic stem cell therapy, most people agree the use of amniotic tissue productraises no ethical or moral questions.)

Why do I have chronic pain in my joints and tendons?

As we age, our bodies undergo wear and tear from previous injuries, exercising, playing sports or arthritis. We do not repair these injures as well as we did when we were young. We produce less of our repair cells (mesenchymal stem cells) as we get older so it takes longer to recover.

How can Amniotic tissue injections help me?

Stem cell treatment takes advantage of the bodys ability to repair itself. With amniotic tissue product, the physician injects cells from amniotic tissues into your body. These stem cells have anti-inflammatory properties, similar to steroid and cortisone shots. Whats great is stem cell therapy can go beyond the benefits of standard injection therapy. Stem cells can actually restore degenerated tissue while providing pain relief. The growth factors in amniotic stem cells may replace damaged cells in your body. Stem cell injections also contain hyaluronic acid which lubricates tendons and joints which eases pain and helps to restore mobility.

How are Bone Marrow stem cells obtained?

One of the richest sources of stem cells is bone marrow, and the hip (pelvis) is one of the best and most convenient locations for obtaining bone marrow. During the harvesting procedure, the doctor removes (or aspirates) your cells from the pelvis. A trained nurse or technician then uses specifically designed equipment to concentrate the stem cells in the bone marrow and provides the cells back to the surgeon for implantation at the site of injury. This technique can be performed in one of our procedure rooms at the clinic.

How are Adipose stem cells obtained?

A small sample of Adipose tissue (fat) is removed from above the Superior Iliac spine (love handles) or abdomen under a local anesthetic. Then a trained nurse or technician uses specifically designed equipment to concentrate the adipose stem cells and provides the cells back to the surgeon for implantation at the site of injury. This technique can be performed in one of our procedure rooms at the clinic.

What are the benefits of Stem Cell injections?

Amniotic Stem Cell injections provide patients with a non-surgical treatment option to reduce various types of musculoskeletal pain. The injections are performed under Ultrasound guidance to ensure proper placement of the stem cells. With amniotic stem cells, there is no threat of patient rejection and amniotic fluid is highly concentrated source of stem cells, which makes this type of stem cell injection preferable.

Are Stem Cell injections safe?

Yes, more than 10,000 injections have been performed without a single reported adverse side effect. The use of amniotic stem cells is well researched, safe and effective, plus they have been used by ophthalmologists and plastic surgeons for around 20 years.

Is PRP the same as Stem Cell Therapy?

No, PRP is the injection or addition of blood platelets to enhance or jump-start the healing of soft tissue. Stem cell therapy is the process of using stem cells to create new cells to promote damaged or lost cells. They are different treatments but fall in the category of regenerative medicine.

How is PRP obtained?

To develop a PRP preparation, blood must first be drawn from a patient. The platelets are separated from other blood cells and their concentration is increased during a process called centrifugation. The increased concentration of platelets is then injected back into the region of the body being treated. This technique can also be performed in one of our clinic procedure rooms.

Does insurance cover these regenerative procedures?

While PRP and stem cell therapy has been used for years to treat a multitude of injuries, their application is fairly new to orthopaedics. Due to this, some insurance companies may deny coverage making these procedures self-pay. In most cases its close to the amount of your deductible if you did in fact have a surgery. Our business office will be happy to work with you to obtain alternative payment arrangements prior to scheduling any procedure.

Am I a candidate for these regenerative treatment options?

If you are suffering from any kind of joint, tendon or ligament pain and most other conservative treatments arent alleviating it then you may be a candidate for amniotic tissue product. However if you have severe degenerative osteoarthritis you may not be eligible. If you believe you are a candidate then please fill out the form to the right to schedule a consultation appointment with one of our surgeons. They will look at your X-rays and examine you to determine if you are a candidate for one of these regenerative treatments.

Post-Procedure Instructions for Joints

Immediately After Your Cell Transplant Procedure: The stem cell injection includes producing a micro injury in the joint. As a result, expect the joint to be sore. This can be everything from minimally sore to very sore. Activity: The goal is to allow the stem cells to attach and then to protect them while they differentiate into cartilage. For this reason, youll be asked to keep the joint as still as possible for 30-60 minutes after the procedure. Do not take a bath for three days, but a shower 12 hours after the procedure is fine. 1st 3rd Day: For the first day, you should limit activity on the joint. If you have post-op soreness this may be easy to do, as you may have a natural limp or antalgic gait (your body does this to reduce pressure on the area to allow healing). If you dont have this, then simply, naturally taking a bit of weight off this area as you walk is a good idea this first day. Avoid all contact sports as well as jogging, running, or sports that involve impact on that joint. 4th Day 2nd Week: You can start to walk normally, no more than 30-60 minutes a day. Avoid all contact sports as well as jogging, running, or sports that involve impact on that joint. Bike riding is fine as are stationary bikes (no up/downs), elliptical machines, and swimming (no breast stroke). 3rd 6th Week: Avoid all contact sports as well as jogging, running, or sports that involve impact on that joint. You can walk as much as you like. Bike riding is fine, as are stationary bikes, elliptical machine, and swimming. Stem Cell Therapy Testimonials

Visit link:
Stem Cell Therapy Tulsa OK | Broken Arrow | Jenks

Stem Cell FAQ – Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA

Why are doctors and scientists so excited about stem cells?

Stem cells have potential in many different areas of health and medical research.

Adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the type of cells that they can develop into embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body (they arepluripotent). Adult stem cells are found in mature tissues (bone marrow, skin, brain, etc.) and give rise to other cell types from their tissue or origin (they are are multipotent). For example, adult blood stem cells give rise to red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets.

Adult stem cells are thought to exist in every type of tissue in the body. But, to date, the isolation of many types of adult stem cells has been limited. Hematopoietic (blood) stem cells are readily available via bone marrow aspiration. But stem cells for solid organs such as liver or brain have proven more difficult to identify and derive. The hope is that hESCs can be used to derive every type of adult stem cell in the body and allow research that is currently not possible.

Embryonic stem cells are isolated from 3 to 5 day old human embryos at the blastocyst stage. The blastocyst is a hollow microscopic cluster of several hundred undifferentiated cells.

This is a culture of hESCs derived from a single embryo. Because stem cells can self-replicate, just a few hESCs can give rise to a whole population of identical hESCs, or a cell line.

Once established, a cell line can be grown in the laboratory indefinitely and cells may be frozen for later use or distributed to other researchers. Because each cell line has its own distinct genetic footprint, researchers are often interested in using the same cell line for a number of related experiments.

No. At this point, the promise is huge, but hESC research is still in its early stages. Human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research only began in 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells.

In late January 2009, the California-based company Geron received FDA clearance to begin the first human clinical trial of cells derived from human embryonic stem cells.

In contrast, research with adult stem cells such as blood-forming stem cells in bone marrow (called hematopoietic stem cells, or HSCs) has been active for over decades. And this research has resulted in treatment of patients; for example, bone marrow (stem cell) transplants have been conducted for over 40 years.

In addition, studies with a limited number of patients have demonstrated the clinical potential of adult stem cells in the treatment of other human diseases that include diabetes and advanced kidney cancer.

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) are cells that began as normal adult cells (for example, a skin cell) and were engineered (induced) by scientists to become pluripotent, that is, able to form all cell types of the body. This process is often called 'reprogramming.' While iPS cells and embryonic stem cells share many characteristics they are not identical. Scientists are currently exploring whether they differ in clinically significant ways.

The technology used to generate iPS cells holds great promise for creating patient- and disease-specific cell lines for research purposes. These cells are already useful tools for drug development and scientists hope to use them in transplantation medicine. However, additional research is needed before the reprogramming techniques can be used to generate stem cells suitable for safe and effective therapies.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), is a technique in which the nucleus of a somatic cell (any cell of the body except sperm and egg cells) is injected, or transplanted, into an egg, that has had its nucleus removed. The product of SCNT has the same genetic material as the somatic cell donor.

Yes. SCNT is a technique of cloning. The product of SCNT is nearly genetically identical to the somatic cell used in the process. (Of note, the product of SCNT is not technically 100% identical in that the cytoplasm of the oocyte includes mitochondrial DNA.) While SCNT is considered cloning, it is important to differentiate between therapeutic and reproductive cloning. The following FAQ addresses these differences.

Reproductive cloning includes the placement of the product of SCNT into a uterus for the purpose of a live birth. The resulting organism would, in theory, be the genetic copy of the somatic cell donor. Reproductive cloning has been performed in animals for many years and is burdened by many technical and biological problems. Only about 1 percent of all the eggs that receive donor DNA can develop into normal surviving clones. Therapeutic cloning uses SCNT for the sole purpose of deriving cells for research, and potentially in the future for therapy. In therapeutic cloning, the product of SCNT is not placed into a uterus and hence a live birth is never a possibility. Therapeutic cloning provides two potential benefits.

Yes. Massachusetts state law that was enacted in May 2005 allows hESC research and it allows the derivation of hESCs from embryos that were created for reproductive purposes and are no longer needed for reproduction and from somatic cell nuclear transfer.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued guidelines for hESC research in April 2005, and subsequently updated those guidelines in 2007 and 2008. The current guidelines contain detailed recommendations with regard to many aspects of hESC research, including:

No. IRB approval is required for:

Until recently, the federal government limited its funding to specific hESCs derived before August 9, 2001. Specifically, federal funds were only allowed for research on hESCs listed on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Registry, and on derivative products from hESCs on the NIH Registry. On March 9, 2009, President Obama signed an executive order clearing the way for the NIH and other federal agencies to fund research using all kinds of hESCs.

Human embryonic stem cell research at the Center for Regenerative Medicine has been supportedin partby private philanthropic donations. These donations allowed us to support a wide range of research activities that could not have been supported from other sources such as NIH funding. In the future, we expect to receive support for eligible activities from NIH and other funding agencies.

The Center for Regenerative Medicine depends upon philanthropic support. To find out how you can help accelerate research and discovery, please click here.

The Center for Regenerative Medicine is dedicated to understanding how tissues are formed and may be repaired in settings of injury. Embedded at Mass General Hospital, the Center's primary goal is to develop novel therapies to regenerate damaged tissues and thereby overcome debilitating chronic disease. The success of this effort requires a cohesive team of scientists and clinicians with diverse areas of expertise, but with a shared mission and dedication to the larger goal.

The Center for Regenerative Medicine has extensive interactions with other investigators at MGH and in the broader Harvard-MIT community. The Center helped galvanize the establishment of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI), which is co-directed by Dr. Scadden and Dr. Douglas Melton of Harvard's Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. As an important confederated partner of HSCI, the Center brings specific features that augment other elements of HSCI, including unique stem cell clinical investigation expertise and ongoing collaborative clinical trials using stem cell transplantation. The Center emphasizes technologies that will ultimately be critical for the success of stem cell based medicine, including bioengineering, biomaterials expertise, close links to in vivo imaging capability and its GMP facility for sophisticated cell manipulation.

Read the original here:
Stem Cell FAQ - Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease – COPD | StemGenex

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease(COPD or Lung Disease)

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease) describes a group of lung conditions (diseases) that make it difficult to empty the air out of the lungs. This difficulty can lead to shortness of breath (also called breathlessness) or the feeling of being tired. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease) can be used to describe a person with chronic bronchitis, emphysema or a combination of these.

The most common cause of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease) is cigarette smoking, but there are many other causes. Inhaling smoke or air pollutants can cause the mucus glands that line the bronchial tubes (bronchi) to produce more mucus than normal, and can cause the walls of the bronchi to thicken and swell (inflame). This increase in mucus causes you to cough, frequently resulting in raising mucus (or phlegm). Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease) may develop if small amounts of these irritants are inhaled over a long period of time or if large amounts are inhaled over a short period of time.

Environmental factors and genetics may also cause Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease). For example, heavy exposure to certain dusts at work, chemicals and indoor or outdoor air pollution may contribute to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease). The reason why some smokers never develop Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease) and why some non-smokers are diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease) is not fully understood. Family genes or heredity may play a major role in who develops Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease).

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease) is an umbrella term for progressive lung diseases, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema, that are characterized by obstruction to airflow that interferes with normal breathing. In 2008, 13.1 million U.S. adults (ages 18 and over) were estimated to have Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease). However, close to 24 million U.S. adults have evidence of impaired lung function, indicating an under diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease).

In 2008, an estimated 9.8 million Americans reported a physician diagnosis of chronic bronchitis, the inflammation and eventual scarring of the lining of the bronchial tubes. Chronic bronchitis affects people of all ages, although people age 65 and older have the highest rate at 56.3 per 1,000 population.

Females are about twice as likely to be diagnosed with chronic bronchitis as males. In 2008, 3.1 million males had a diagnosis of chronic bronchitis compared with 6.7 million females.

Years of exposure to the irritation of cigarette smoke usually precede the development of emphysema, which irreversibly damages the air sacs of the lungs and results in permanent holes in the tissues of the lower lungs. Of the estimated 3.7 million Americans diagnosed with emphysema, 94 percent are 45 or older.

Historically, men have been more likely than women to receive a diagnosis of emphysema. However, in 2008 more women (more than 2 million) reported a diagnosis of emphysema than men (almost 1.8 million).

Smoking is the primary risk factor for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease). Approximately 85 percent to 90 percent of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease) deaths are caused by smoking. Female smokers are nearly 13 times as likely to die from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease) as women who have never smoked. Male smokers are nearly 12 times as likely to die from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease) as men who have never smoked.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease) is the third leading cause of death in America, claiming the lives of 137,693 Americans in 2008. That was the ninth consecutive year in which women exceeded men in the number of deaths attributable to COPD. In 2008, more than 71,000 females died compared to nearly 66,000 males.

An American Lung Association survey revealed that half of all Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease) patients (51 percent) say their condition limits their ability to work. It also limits them in normal physical exertion (70 percent), household chores (56 percent), social activities (53 percent), sleeping (50 percent), and family activities (46 percent).

In 2010, the cost to the nation for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD or Lung Disease) was estimated to be approximately $49.9 billion, including $29.5 billion in direct health care expenditures, $8.0 billion in indirect morbidity costs, and $12.4 billion in indirect mortality costs.

Excerpt from:
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease - COPD | StemGenex

Cell MD – Stem Cells for Regenerative Medicine

Stem Cell Therapy is a revolutionary medical breakthrough with the potential to treat health problems that have been resistant to other forms of treatment. Stem cell therapy is a form of regenerative medicine that treats the body at the cellular-level. This therapy targets diseased or damaged tissue and organs by introducing cells to replace damaged cells. Stem cells are so effective because of their ability to differentiate into cells that carry out the roles needed in a variety of organs.

Regenerative medicine like stem cell therapy is used to treat a variety of medical conditions across specialties such as rheumatology, orthopedics, neurology, immunology, and cardiology. While stem cell therapy is used to treat pre-existing conditions, it can also be used preventatively. Because of the minimally invasive and potentially beneficial applications of stem cell therapy, many patients take regular stem cell treatments to help prevent against potential future complications.

Stem cells make the most efficient use of the bodys natural ability to heal itself by targeting health issues at the cellular level. This is why regenerative medicine such as stem cell therapy harnesses the ultimate potential for the future of medical treatment.

Read the rest here:
Cell MD - Stem Cells for Regenerative Medicine

A few questions about stem cells? | Yahoo Answers

Unless the last answer is coming from a different country, embryonic and fetal stem cells are NOT illegal.

Bush passed legislation that prevented federal funding from funding any embryonic or fetal stem cell research with the exception of a handful of projects that had already been proven contaminated or otherwise worthless.

The research was still legal and could be funded privately or even on a state level. However, since embryonic stem cell research is in its infancy, few private sources were willing to fund the research. Not only is it not 100% certain that the research will pay off, you are looking at 20-50 years at a min before this stuff is available publically and people start seeing returns on investments

Obama lifted the ban on federally funding embryonic stem cell research. However, with all the other economical issues, not much funding has been directed to it.

Embryonic stem cells come from IVF's trash pile. Women who go through IVF have their eggs harvested, they are fertalized with sperm in a lab and then frozen. WIth each mentstrual cycle, a few embryos at a time are inserted into the uterus hoping one will implant. They usually dont, it takes several cycles to produce a pregnancy, and all the embryos that dont implant die. When the mother is done trying to conceive, there are often embryos left over. Since most people going through IVF are doing so to have their own biological children, few are willing to donate their embryos to other women or accept donated embryos from other women. So, they are either incinerated as biowaste, or donated for research.

IVF kills more embryos than embryonic stem cell research, and will continue to, even if embryonic stem cell research stops today.

Fetal stem cell research is the least effective and least popular. But any woman can donate the remains from her abortion or naturally miscarried fetus.

C. is difficult to answer. Embryonic stem cells can turn into almost any type of cell in the body, however, early trials have led to cancer and other issues. Adult stem cells themselves arent turning cancerous after treatment (though keep in mind, they CAN become cancerous.... leukemia is cancer of the person's adult stem cells - their bone marrow.. If stem cells can turn cancerous before donation in the host body, they absolutely can after donation). Although, the most popular adult stem cell treatment is a bone marrow transplant, and that requires high dose chemo and full body radiation, which DOES increase the patients risk of cancers, including the same types that transplant treats.

In addition, adult stem cells have treatments, while embryonic stem cells dont. However, adult stem cells have been researched for about 100 years, and a bone marrow transplant has been available for 50. After all that time and research, they only have a handful of treatments. They just happened to get lucky because a bone marrow transplant can treat like 100+ different diseases - anything that originates or damages the blood system, marrow, or immune system.

Embryonic stem cells have only been researched for like 20-30 years. You wouldnt expect a treatment out of them, and precious adult stem cells took over 50 years to have a single succesful treatment in a single patient. If we had stopped adult stem cells after 20-30 years of research, we would never have anything that has come from it (and that is my debate against the people who claim embryonic stem cell research is worthless because it doesnt have treatments...... these people have no idea how long it took to develop a bone marrow transplant. and they have no idea how dangerous that transplant still is today, 50 years from its invention.

So, its really complicated and controversial.

I dont have any ethical issues against using bone marrow. My problem is that the bone marrow transplant is portrayed to be far safer than it really is. My problem is that anti embryonic people use the number of diseases this single treatment can treat to make it sound like adult stem cells have hundreds of different treatments, when they only have a handful. My problem is the misrepresentation of how long adult stem cell research has been conducted to make it look like they have accomplished way more than what they have in a way shorter amt of time. (for example, there is a particular user on ya that claims adult stem cells have only been researched for 20-30 years as well, but have hundreds of different treatments... its bs, based on manipulating the truth.)

The only people really against adult stem cell reserach are those against western medicine as a whole, and those who do not understand the difference bw adult and embryonic stem cells. I have been through a bone marrow transplant, so I am not against it. I just support being truthful about its flagship treatment.

Read the rest here:
A few questions about stem cells? | Yahoo Answers

Hypoimmunogenic derivatives of induced pluripotent stem …

Gyongyosi, M. et al. Meta-analysis of cell-based CaRdiac stUdiEs (ACCRUE) in patients with acute myocardial infarction based on individual patient data. Circ. Res. 116, 13461360 (2015).

Fisher, S. A., Doree, C., Mathur, A. & Martin-Rendon, E. Meta-analysis of cell therapy trials for patients with heart failure. Circ. Res. 116, 13611377 (2015).

Kandala, J. et al. Meta-analysis of stem cell therapy in chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy. Am. J. Cardiol. 112, 217225 (2013).

Fernandez-Aviles, F. et al. Global position paper on cardiovascular regenerative medicine. Eur. Heart J. 38, 25322546 (2017).

Lipsitz, Y. Y., Timmins, N. E. & Zandstra, P. W. Quality cell therapy manufacturing by design. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 393400 (2016).

Blair, N. F. & Barker, R. A. Making it personal: the prospects for autologous pluripotent stem cell-derived therapies. Regen. Med. 11, 423425 (2016).

Chakradhar, S. An eye to the future: researchers debate best path for stem cell-derived therapies. Nat. Med. 22, 116119 (2016).

Smith, D. M. Assessing commercial opportunities for autologous and allogeneic cell-based products. Regen. Med. 7, 721732 (2012).

Lipsitz, Y. Y., Bedford, P., Davies, A. H., Timmins, N. E. & Zandstra, P. W. Achieving efficient manufacturing and quality assurance through synthetic cell therapy design. Cell. Stem. Cell. 20, 1317 (2017).

van Berlo, J. H. & Molkentin, J. D. An emerging consensus on cardiac regeneration. Nat. Med. 20, 13861393 (2014).

Arck, P. C. & Hecher, K. Fetomaternal immune cross-talk and its consequences for maternal and offsprings health. Nat. Med. 19, 548556 (2013).

Jaiswal, S. et al. CD47 is upregulated on circulating hematopoietic stem cells and leukemia cells to avoid phagocytosis. Cell 138, 271285 (2009).

Diecke, S. et al. Novel codon-optimized mini-intronic plasmid for efficient, inexpensive, and xeno-free induction of pluripotency. Sci. Rep. 5, 8081 (2015).

Chang, C. H., Fontes, J. D., Peterlin, M. & Flavell, R. A. Class II transactivator (CIITA) is sufficient for the inducible expression of major histocompatibility complex class II genes. J. Exp. Med. 180, 13671374 (1994).

Elsner, L. et al. The heat shock protein HSP70 promotes mouse NK cell activity against tumors that express inducible NKG2D ligands. J. Immunol. 179, 55235533 (2007).

Maddaluno, M. et al. Murine aortic smooth muscle cells acquire, though fail to present exogenous protein antigens on major histocompatibility complex class II molecules. Biomed. Res. Int. 2014, 949845 (2014).

Didie, M., Galla, S., Muppala, V., Dressel, R. & Zimmermann, W. H. Immunological properties of murine parthenogenetic stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes and engineered heart muscle. Front. Immunol. 8, 955 (2017).

Wunderlich, M. et al. AML xenograft efficiency is significantly improved in NOD/SCID-IL2RG mice constitutively expressing human SCF, GM-CSF and IL-3. Leukemia 24, 17851788 (2010).

Shultz, L. D., Ishikawa, F. & Greiner, D. L. Humanized mice in translational biomedical research. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 7, 118130 (2007).

Billerbeck, E. et al. Development of human CD4+ FoxP3+ regulatory T cells in human stem cell factor-, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor-, and interleukin-3-expressing NOD-SCID IL2Rgamma(null) humanized mice. Blood 117, 30763086 (2011).

Melkus, M. W. et al. Humanized mice mount specific adaptive and innate immune responses to EBV and TSST-1. Nat. Med. 12, 13161322 (2006).

Deuse, T. et al. Human leukocyte antigen I knockdown human embryonic stem cells induce host ignorance and achieve prolonged xenogeneic survival. Circulation 124, S3S9 (2011).

Wang, D., Quan, Y., Yan, Q., Morales, J. E. & Wetsel, R. A. Targeted disruption of the beta2-microglobulin gene minimizes the immunogenicity of human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 4, 12341245 (2015).

Dressel, R. et al. Pluripotent stem cells are highly susceptible targets for syngeneic, allogeneic, and xenogeneic natural killer cells. FASEB J. 24, 21642177 (2010).

Kruse, V. et al. Human induced pluripotent stem cells are targets for allogeneic and autologous natural killer (NK) cells and killing is partly mediated by the activating NK Receptor DNAM-1. PLoS ONE 10, e0125544 (2015).

Gornalusse, G. G. et al. HLA-E-expressing pluripotent stem cells escape allogeneic responses and lysis by NK cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 765772 (2017).

Zhao, L., Teklemariam, T. & Hantash, B. M. Heterelogous expression of mutated HLA-G decreases immunogenicity of human embryonic stem cells and their epidermal derivatives. Stem Cell Res. 13, 342354 (2014).

Hou, S., Doherty, P. C., Zijlstra, M., Jaenisch, R. & Katz, J. M. Delayed clearance of Sendai virus in mice lacking class I MHC-restricted CD8+ T cells. J. Immunol. 149, 13191325 (1992).

Shiba, Y. et al. Allogeneic transplantation of iPS cell-derived cardiomyocytes regenerates primate hearts. Nature 538, 388391 (2016).

Kawamura, T. et al. Cardiomyocytes derived from MHC-homozygous induced pluripotent stem cells exhibit reduced allogeneic immunogenicity in MHC-matched non-human primates. Stem Cell Rep. 6, 312320 (2016).

Read more here:
Hypoimmunogenic derivatives of induced pluripotent stem ...

Innovative Medical Center: Stem Cell Clinic, Chiropractic …

Innovative Medical Center is an integrated physical medicine practice serving patients in Fresno, California. We are a state of the art medically integrated team of holistic health and wellness professionals, dedicated to serving the public by bringing health and happiness to a disease-less, pain-free community. We strive to prevent any unnecessary surgeries as well as reduce the use of any medications.

This facility offers treatment for a variety of different ailments, including disc disorders, joint pain, allergies, headaches, chronic pain, sports injuries, and auto accident injuries. The doctors at Innovative Medical Center treat patients of all ages, including newborns, children, adults, and seniors. The rehabilitative, medical, and corrective care Innovative Medical Center provides is designed to help patients who are currently in pain, as well as those who want to prevent a painful condition from occurring in the future.

Innovative Medical Center offers comprehensive, personalized care to patients with a team approach. When a new patient comes in, the medical staff will perform a thorough examination to identify all of the patients existing issues. Our team has years of training, experience, and success in bringing lasting and real relief to our patients. By locating the cause (not just medicating the symptoms) we can very often bring tremendous relief to our patients.

The staff at Innovative Medical Center is dedicated to providing each patient with the time and attention they deserve. Quite often our practitioners get results where nothing else has worked. We have a very high success rate with less serious back and spine related issues as well. Please contact us today for more information and a free, no obligation consultation to see how we can help you live pain-free with a customized lifestyle plan built just for you. Innovative Medical Center prides itself on providingthe attention needed for the best possible patient experience, which is a service offering many larger practices cannot offer.

Go here to read the rest:
Innovative Medical Center: Stem Cell Clinic, Chiropractic ...

microRNA-690 regulates induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs …

Stem Cell Research & Therapy201910:59

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-019-1154-8

The Author(s).2019

The regulatory mechanism of insulin-producing cells (IPCs) differentiation from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) in vitro is very important in the phylogenetics of pancreatic islets, the molecular pathogenesis of diabetes, and the acquisition of high-quality pancreatic -cells derived from stem cells for cell therapy.

miPSCs were induced for IPCs differentiation. miRNA microarray assays were performed by using total RNA from our iPCs-derived IPCs containing undifferentiated iPSCs and iPSCs-derived IPCSs at day 4, day 14, and day 21 during step 3 to screen the differentially expressed miRNAs (DEmiRNAs) related to IPCs differentiation, and putative target genes of DEmiRNAs were predicted by bioinformatics analysis. miR-690 was selected for further research, and MPCs were transfected by miR-690-agomir to confirm whether it was involved in the regulation of IPCs differentiation in iPSCs. Quantitative Real-Time PCR (qRT-PCR), Western blotting, and immunostaining assays were performed to examine the pancreatic function of IPCs at mRNA and protein level respectively. Flow cytometry and ELISA were performed to detect differentiation efficiency and insulin content and secretion from iPSCs-derived IPCs in response to stimulation at different concentration of glucose. The targeting of the 3-untranslated region of Sox9 by miR-690 was examined by luciferase assay.

We found that miR-690 was expressed dynamically during IPCs differentiation according to the miRNA array results and that overexpression of miR-690 significantly impaired the maturation and insulinogenesis of IPCs derived from iPSCs both in vitro and in vivo. Bioinformatic prediction and mechanistic analysis revealed that miR-690 plays a pivotal role during the differentiation of IPCs by directly targeting the transcription factor sex-determining region Y (SRY)-box9. Furthermore, downstream experiments indicated that miR-690 is likely to act as an inactivated regulator of the Wnt signaling pathway in this process.

We discovered a previously unknown interaction between miR-690 and sox9 but also revealed a new regulatory signaling pathway of the miR-690/Sox9 axis during iPSCs-induced IPCs differentiation.

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is defined as dysregulation of homeostatic control of blood glucose due to an absolute insulin deficiency caused by autoimmune destruction of insulin-secreting pancreatic -cells [1]. The transplantation of -cells from a pancreatic donor or augmentation of endogenous -cells regeneration may lead to a cure for T1D. Unfortunately, these methods are restricted by donor tissue availability and tissue rejection and are thus far from being widely applied [2]. Insulin-producing cells (IPCs) derived from pluripotent stem cells in vitro may provide an alternative source of -cells [3]; however, the rate of development of functional and mature IPCs is very low according to the present protocols [4], which will be improved by a thorough understanding of pancreatic organogenesis, including proliferation, differentiation, migration, and maturation of pancreatic progenitor cells.

Considerable evidence has verified that microRNAs (miRNAs) in pancreatic cells regulate gene expression through post-transcriptional modulation [5, 6]. Recently, the global influence of miRNAs on pancreatic development has been assessed by Dicer-knockout mouse embryos. Dicer deficiency resulted in alterations of islet architecture and differentiation markers, accompanied by enhanced apoptosis and defects in all types of endocrine cell formation, particularly that of -cells [7]. Similarly, miR-375 is expressed specifically in pancreatic islets and regulates the proliferation and insulin secretion of -cells by targeting myotrophin (MTPN) and phosphoinositide-dependent protein kinase-1 [8]. Knockdown of miR-375 in ob/ob mice led to a disproportionate ratio of -cells to -cells, high plasma glucagon levels, or even diabetes [9]. In addition, other miRNAs, such as miR-7 and miR-199b-5p, have been studied functionally and reported to selectively affect the development of pancreatic islets, promoting the proliferation of -cells and miR-124a and regulating Foxa2 expression and intracellular signaling in -cells [1012]. These findings, as highlighted above, encouraged us to identify different layers of miRNA regulatory networks, which will provide greater insights into the roles of noncoding RNAs and help further elucidate -cell biology, pancreas formation, and the molecular mechanisms of diabetes etiopathogenesis.

During pancreatic development, the sex-determining region Y (SRY)-box9 (Sox9) factor, which is known to function in campomelic dysplasia, XY sex reversal, and skeletal malformations, has been linked to the proliferation and differentiation of endocrine progenitors [13, 14]. Analysis of cases with Sox9 loss in pancreatic progenitor cells demonstrated a proportional reduction in FoxA2 and Onecut1 expression, along with upregulation of Hnf1b (TCF2), which resulted in a dramatic decrease in endocrine cells without changes in exocrine compartments [15]. Despite a fair understanding of the molecular mechanism by which Sox9 controls pancreatic development, only a few pathways regulated by Sox9 are known. Wnt/-catenin signaling (WNT) has been demonstrated to participate broadly in the differentiation of stem cells, showing a negative regulatory relationship with Sox9 in various contexts [16, 17]. Furthermore, both CTNNB1 (-catenin) and pGSK3 act as downstream target genes, increasing transcriptional activity and decreasing degradation by overexpression of Sox9 [14].

In this study, we identified miR-690 as a differentially expressed transcript during induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSCs)-induced IPCs differentiation in vitro. Surprisingly, predicted mRNA targets, such as Sox9, CTNNB1 (-Catenin), and Stat3, were found to be crucial during the specification of pancreatic progenitor cells and terminal maturation of endocrine cells. Furthermore, the augmentation of miR-690 destabilized IPCs differentiation through direct binding to Sox9 and was likely to have a repressive effect on the Wnt pathway, suggesting an unreported role of miR-690 in modulating key transcription factors and signaling pathways.

C57BL/6J mice were from the animal center of Nantong University. All animal experiments were performed according to the Institutional Animal Care guidelines and were approved by the Animal Ethics Committee of the Medical School of Nantong University.

Mouse GFP-iPSCs were obtained from the Innovative Cellular Therapeutics, Ltd. (Shanghai, China), maintained on feeders in mESC culture conditions, and induced to differentiate into pancreatic IPCs via a three-step protocol as previously described.

Total RNA was isolated using RNAiso Plus (TaKaRa). The first-strand cDNA synthesis for miRNA was performed by using the RevertAid First Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (Thermo Scientific) and following the manufacturers instructions. The relative expression levels of each miRNA and mRNA were calculated by the 2Ct method as previously described, and GAPDH and U6 were used as the internal normalization controls. Each experiment was performed independently and repeated three times. The qRT-PCR primer sequences were designed and synthesized by GenScript Biotech Corp. (Nanjing, China).

miRNA profiling of iPSC-derived IPCs was carried out by the Professional Oebiotech Corporation (Shanghai, China). In brief, total extracted RNA was labeled with the Agilent miRNA Complete Labeling and Hyb kit (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and hybridized to an Agilent Mouse microRNA microarray V21.0. Then, a Gene Expression Wash Buffer kit (Agilent) was used to wash the microarray. Differentially expressed miRNAs (DEmiRNAs) were identified using GeneSpring software (version 13.1, Agilent Technologies, fold change 1.5, P value 0.05). TargetScan and microRNA.org were used to select target genes of DEmiRNAs (P0.05 for both gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analysis). The feasible regulatory relationships between miRNAs and target genes were analyzed using Cytoscape software (http://www.cytoscape.org/).

Cells were washed with PBS and lysed on ice for 30min with RIPA buffer (high) (Solarbio). Protein concentrations were detected using the BCA Protein Assay (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Total proteins were separated by SDS-PAGE, blotted on PVDF membranes (Millipore, Bedford, MA, USA), and probed with primary antibody in Antibody Dilution Buffer (Solarbio) at 4C overnight. After three washes in TBST, the membranes were incubated with HRP-conjugated secondary antibodies for visualization. Primary antibodies and HRP-conjugated secondary antibodies are listed: anti-Sox9 antibody (Abcam), anti-beta catenin antibody (Abcam), anti-beta actin antibody as a loading control (Abcam), anti-phospho-GSK-3 (Ser9) rabbit mAb (Cell Signaling Technology), anti-phospho-CyclinD1 (Ser90) antibody (affinity), and goat anti-rabbit HRP antibody (affinity).

iPSCs-derived IPCs were transferred into new 24-well plates for 12h. After preincubation in Krebs-Ringer bicarbonate buffer (KRB) without glucose for 120min, the cells were stimulated with KRB containing 0, 5, 15, 30, and 45mM glucose for 120min. The supernatant was collected. Insulin content and secretion from iPSC-derived IPCs were assessed by ELISAs, which were carried out using an ultrasensitive mouse insulin assay kit (Mercodia) following the manufacturers instructions.

iPSCs-derived IPCs grown on glass coverslips were washed with PBS and fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde for 15min at room temperature. Then, these cells were washed thrice (10min every time) and permeabilized with 0.5% (v/v) Triton X-100 for 15min at room temperature. Next, 5% donkey serum was added for 60min, and the cells were stained with different primary antibodies at 4C overnight. Then, the cells were stained with fluorescence secondary antibodies for 1h and DAPI (Solarbio) for 15min. Images were acquired using a Zeiss LSM 510 META confocal microscope (Carl Zeiss, Ltd.). Primary antibodies are listed as follows: anti-insulin antibody (Abcam), anti-C-peptide antibody (Abcam), anti-PDX1 antibody (Abcam), anti-SOX9 antibody (Abcam), antibody-beta catenin antibody (Abcam), anti-NKX6.1 (D804R) rabbit mAb (Cell Signaling Technology). Secondary antibodies included donkey anti-rabbit (Alexa Fluor 647, Abcam), donkey anti-rabbit (Alexa Fluor 555, Abcam), goat anti-guinea pig (Alexa Fluor 647, Abcam), donkey F(ab,)2 anti-goat (Alexa Fluor 594, Abcam), and donkey anti-goat (Alexa Fluor 647, Abcam) antibodies.

For identification of the insulin-positive population, 1106 iPSCs-derived IPCs were digested with trypsin, washed with PBS, and resuspended as single cells by incubation in Reagent 1: Fixation (Beckman Coulter) for 15min. Then, the cells were washed once in PBS, incubated in Reagent 2: Permeabilization (Beckman Coulter) for 20min, and washed once in PBS. Next, the cells were resuspended in PBS with primary antibody and incubated for 30min. The cells were then washed with PBS twice and analyzed with the BD FACSCalibur system (BD Biosciences). The results were analyzed using FlowJo software. All procedures were carried out at room temperature. The primary antibody was anti-h/b/m insulin APC-conjugated rat IgG2A (R&D Systems). The isotype antibody was rat IgG2A control APC-conjugated.

A luciferase reporter assay was performed to observe interactions between miR-690 and Sox9. Wild-type Sox9 and the mutant Sox9 were cloned into the Pezx-FR02 reporter vector for miR-690 targeting. Pezx-FR02 or Pezx-FR02-Sox9-MUT was co-transfected with miR-690 mimic or miRNA mimic control. Firefly and Renilla luciferase activities were assayed with a Dual-Luciferase Assay (Promega, Madison, USA) at 48h post-transfection according to the manufacturers instructions.

Data are presented as the meanstandard deviation (SD) from at least three independent experiments. Significant differences in the relative miRNA or mRNA levels between the experimental groups and their negative controls were determined via Students t test using GraphPad Prism 7.0 (GraphPad Software, Inc.). A P value <0.05 was considered significant.

The differentiation protocol has been described by Huang et al. (Fig.

a, b) [

,

]. The iPSCs obtaining from the Innovative Cellular Therapeutics, Ltd., were identified (Additionalfile

: Figure S1). Importantly, pancreatic -cells are the only IPCs in humans and animals. C-peptide is the active form of insulin. We detected these two markers of mature -cells in iPSC-derived IPCs on day 21 of step 3 to evaluate the efficiency of these insulin-secreting cells. Immunofluorescence assays showed that the majorities of the cells were positive for insulin and C-peptide (Fig.

c). The flow cytometry results also showed that 41.3%0.35% of iPSCs-derived IPCs at the final stage were insulin

(Fig.

d). To determine whether the differentiated cells respond to glucose stimulation, we assessed insulin secretion by exposing IPCs to glucose at different concentrations (0, 5, 15, and 30mM). Treatment with glucose increased insulin secretion in these IPCs, with a peak at the 15mM glucose concentration. No more insulin was induced when the glucose concentration increased to 30mM, suggesting that these IPCs reached the upper limit of their insulin secretion capacity in response to glucose (Fig.

e).

Overview of the differentiation protocol. a Summary of the three-step differentiation protocol. EBs embryoid bodies, MPs multilineage progenitor. b Morphologies of differentiating iPSCs into IPCs at different time points during differentiation. Scale bar: 20m. c Immunofluorescence assay of iPSCs at step 3 on day 21. Co-immunostaining of insulin (red) with C-peptide (green); nuclear DAPI staining is shown in blue. Scale bar: 75m. d Flow cytometry plots illustrating the protein expression of insulin in populations of iPSC-derived IPCs. Black text indicates the percentage of insulin. e Glucose-stimulated insulin secretion in vitro. iPSC-derived IPCs on day 21 of the three-step protocol were exposed to different glucose concentrations (0, 5, and 15mM). The insulin concentration levels were determined

To screen the differentially expressed miRNAs (DEmiRNAs) related to IPCs differentiation, we performed miRNA microarray assays by using total RNA from our iPSCs-derived IPCs containing undifferentiated iPSCs and iPSCs-derived IPCs at day 4 (early stage), day 14 (middle stage), and day 21 (late stage) during step 3. A Venn diagram was used to compare several miRNAs differentially expressed during the three-step induction. The results showed that there were 13 common miRNAs during the three-step induction (Fig.

a). The miRNA expression levels at different time points were clustered and are shown graphically (Fig.

b).

Differentially expressed miRNA profiling and bioinformatic analysis. Differentially expressed miRNAs (P<0.05) were analyzed by hierarchical clustering of log2 values. a Venn diagram showing separate and overlapping differential expression of miRNAs during iPSCs-derived IPCs at the early, middle, and late stages of step 3 compared to that of iPSCs. b Heatmap shows selected differentially expressed miRNAs (fold change 1.5 and P value <0.05). c The regulatory network of miRNA-target genes. Green circles represent target genes, and purple circles represent differentially expressed miRNAs. d Differentially expressed pathways were analyzed by gene ontology (GO) analysis. e KEGG pathway enrichment analysis for target genes. The size of the bubbles represents the number of target genes associated with each pathway

To further understand the role of 13 common DEmiRNAs in iPSCs-derived IPCs, we performed the bioinformatics prediction analysis using two databases (TargetScan and miRanda) respectively to search for putative target genes. There were 332 common target genes after combining data predicted by two databases (miRanda threshold value: binding energy 16.0, align score 158, TargetScan threshold value: context score percentile 30, data not shown). We explored the connections between the DEmiRNAs and putative target genes by building a regulatory network for miRNA-target genes using Cytoscape software (Fig.2c). Then, we investigated the target genes in the KEGG pathways to further study the biological function of the DEmiRNAs (Fig.2d). Interestingly, the WNT signaling pathway was located at the top of the 20 most enriched pathways. Our pathway analysis partly revealed the function of the signature miRNAs, and signal-related function was highlighted among all the subsystems, which was consistent with GO function analyses of the target genes (Fig.2e). To verify the bioinformatic results, we performed qPCR, showing that miR-296, miR-331, miR-345, and miR-690 levels were consistent with the previous trends (Additionalfile2: Figure S2). Of the transcripts that we identified, miR-690, which was persistently highly expressed in the full step 3, drew our attention, as it was reported to regulate Runx2-induced osteogenic differentiation of myogenic progenitor cells; these findings suggest that it may mediate organism differentiation and development. Then, we concentrated on the miR-690 functions during IPCs differentiation.

To explore the specific function of miR-690 in the progression of the three-step induced differentiation, we constructed an agomir vector targeting miR-690 (miR-690-agomir), and miR-690 was overexpressed in MPCs on day 4. The overexpression efficiency of agomir-miR-690 was confirmed by qPCR analysis (Fig.

a). Upregulated miR-690 in MPCs reduced the mRNA expression of several key transcription factors critical for early pancreatic development such as Pdx1, Ngn3, Nkx6.1, Gata4, and Pax4, although the deletion of these nonspecific factors alone was enough to abrogate pancreatic lineage induction (Fig.

b). Immunostaining assays partially verified the results of quantitative RT-PCR analysis (Fig.

c). As expected, IPCs overexpressing miR-690 showed a weak response to glucose stimulation, and high expression of these markers was correlated with the maturation of -cells. Moreover, flow cytometry showed that the population of insulin

cells significantly decreased from 42.4%0.25% to 22.8%0.007% from cells with NC-agomir compared to cells with miR-690-agomir (Fig.

a). The ELISA results of mature IPCs (late stage/day 21) showed that insulin secretion decreased after glucose stimulation (Fig.

b), indicating that IPCs were unable to reduce their glucose concentrations compared with NC cells. Also, we found that IPCs generated after overexpression of miR-690 showed significantly lower mRNA levels of mature -cell and mature -cell markers, such as insulin 1, insulin 2,

,

, and

, than NC-agomir-transfected cells on day 21 of the late stage through quantitative RT-PCR analysis. Interestingly,

expression of -cells was opposite to that of mature -cells and mature -cells, and Mafa expression showed no significant difference between the two groups of cells (Fig.

c). In addition, immunostaining assays confirmed that the co-expression of insulin/C-peptide, insulin/Nkx6.1, and insulin/Pdx1 was consistent with the results from previous quantitative RT-PCR assays (Fig.

d). All these findings showed that miR-690 suppressed the maturation and endocrine functions of IPCs derived from iPSCs, indicating that miR-690 might be a critical regulator of -cells differentiation.

Overexpression of miR-690 inhibits pancreatic differentiation potential. This group of experiments tested the functions of iPSCs-derived IPCs on day 4 of the second step. Quantitative RT-PCR analysis of the expression levels of a miR-690 and b several key transcription factors during the development of pancreatic -cells (Pdx1, NGN3, Nkx2.2, Nkx6.1, Gata4, Gata6, Pax4, Pax6). GAPDH was used as the internal control. Error bars show meanstandard deviation (SD) (n=3). *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001, ****P<0.0001. c Immunofluorescence assay (Nkx6.1 and Pdx1, green; nuclear, blue; scale bar 75m) for protein expression level of Nkx6.1 and Pdx1

Overexpression of miR-690 impaired the functions of terminal iPSCs-derived IPCs. This group of experiments tested the functions of iPSCs-derived IPCs on day 21 of the second step. a Flow cytometry plots illustrating the protein expression of insulin in populations of iPSCs-derived IPCs. Black text indicates the percentage of insulin. b Glucose-stimulated insulin secretion in vitro. iPSCs-derived IPCs on day 21 of the third step were exposed to different glucose concentrations (0, 5, 15, and 45mM). The insulin concentration levels were determined. c Quantitative RT-PCR analysis of the mRNA expression levels of key endocrine markers (insulin1, insulin2, GCG, SST, GCK, Mafa, ISL, Glut2). GAPDH was used as the internal control. Error bars show meanstandard deviation (SD) (n=3). *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001. d Immunofluorescence assays of protein expression levels of some key markers. Co-immunostaining of insulin (red) with C-peptide (green), insulin (red) with Pdx1 (green), insulin with Nkx6.1 (green); nuclear DAPI staining is shown in blue. Scale bar 75m

To further dissect the molecular mechanism of the inhibitory effect of miR-690 on IPCs differentiation, we performed the bioinformatics prediction analysis by using TargetScan and miRanda and combined with the results from RNA-seq (Huang, et al.) to predict the target genes of DEmiRNAs. miR-690 has 15 putative target genes (Prkca, Nedd4l, Ulk2, Prkcz, Csnk1g1, Mllt3, Enah, Pcgf3, Impa1, Stat3, Grm5, Cnot6, Sox9, Wasl, and Ctnnb1). Then, we built a regulatory network to show the connections between DEmiRNAs and target genes (Fig.

c). Among these predicted genes,

, a marker of pancreatic progenitor cells, and the genes encoding key transcription factors for the development of -cells were notable. Next, we performed a dual-luciferase reporter assay to experimentally determine whether miR-690 targeted Sox9 directly. We transfected HEK293T cells with a luciferase plasmid containing the wild-type 3 UTRs of Sox9 or its mutant version downstream of the firefly luciferase cDNA in the pEZX-FR02 vector (Fig.

a). The results showed that the co-transfection of miR-690 mimics into 293T cells led to a decrease of up to 83% in luciferase activity by miR-690 but had nearly no effect on the mutant reporter activity (Fig.

b). Furthermore, knockdown of miR-690 reversed the repressive effects of siRNA-Sox9 on the mRNA and protein levels of Sox9 (Fig.

ce). These findings indicated that Sox9 was the authentic target of miR-690 in our induced IPCs.

miR-690 directly targeted Sox9 in iPSCs-derived IPCs. a Predicted miR-690 targeting sequence in the 3UTR of Sox9 (Sox9 WT-3UTR) and the mutant form of the Sox9 3UTR (Sox9 MUT-3UTR). b Dual-luciferase reporter assays to determine the influence of miR-690 on Sox9 3UTR activity in iPSCs-derived IPCs. Data are the meanSD of three independent assays. ce Quantitative RT-PCR and Western blotting analyses of the effects of miR-690 knockdown (miR-690 inhibitor) on the expression level of Sox9 and the effects of miR-690 knockdown (miR-690) on the repressive effects of Sox9 knockdown (Sox9 siRNA). -Actin was used as the loading control. GAPDH was used as the internal control for mRNA. Error bars show the SD (n=3)

Sox9 has been reported to play a role in regulating Wnt signaling, which influences pancreatic development and modulates mature -cell functions, such as insulin secretion, survival, and proliferation. Sox9 was chosen for further analysis in our study and validated by both qPCR analysis at the mRNA level and Western blot and immunostaining assays at the protein level (Fig.

ac and h). Because the phosphorylation and inactivation of GSK3- may lead to activation and nuclear translocation of -catenin, we detected the level of GSK3- phosphorylation when miR-690 was overexpressed. As expected, a more than 1.5-fold decrease in phosphorylated GSK3- and a more than 2-fold decrease in -catenin activity were observed (Fig.

dh). We speculated that in our induced models, miR-690 may inactivate the WNT signaling pathway through Sox9 which will be the focus of our future research (Fig.

i).

miR-690 may affect the differentiation of IPCs by inactivating the expression of the Wnt signaling pathway. a Quantitative RT-PCR analysis of the expression levels Sox9 and -catenin. The scale bar represents 100m. Western blotting analysis of the effects of miR-690 overexpression on Sox9 (b, c), p-GSK3 (phosphorylated-GSK3) (d, e), and -catenin (f, g) (690-OE means 690 overexpression/miR-690 agomir). -Actin was used as the loading control. h Immunofluorescence assay (Sox9 and -catenin, red; nuclei, blue; scale bar 75m) of the protein level of Sox9 and -catenin. i Schematic diagram of the supposed role of miR-690 in iPSCs-derived IPCs differentiation.

We next sought to explore whether miR-690 could modulate glucose homeostasis by transplanting miR-690-overexpressing IPCs and negative control cells into anemic capsule kidneys of mice treated with streptozotocin (STZ), which specifically destroys mouse -cells (Fig.

a). After transplantation, populations from the NC group needed nearly 28days to reverse the hyperglycemia. Although the blood glucose level was decreased, mice transplanted with the miR-690 agomir still showed glycemia (Fig.

b). Not surprisingly, the body weight of transplanted mice in the miR-690 overexpression group was significantly lower than that of the control group and healthy mice (data has not shown). At 40days post-transplant, excised iPSCs-derived IPCs grafts were highly compact and homogenous and did not have regions of expanded ducts (Fig.

c). Immunofluorescence staining revealed insulin-positive clusters of cells in the graft surrounded by connective tissue producing endocrine hormones (Fig.

d).

iPSCs-derived IPCs reverse diabetes in vivo. a Image of the entire kidney with iPSCs-derived IPCs engrafted under the kidney capsule and harvested at 25days post-transplant. (~1106 cells/mouse, n=6 /group). b Blood glucose levels were measured pre- and post-transplantation for over 30days. c Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining image of iPSCs-derived IPCs grafts in the kidney capsule 25days after transplantation. Scale bar 200m. d Immunofluorescence staining of whole grafts for insulin (red); nuclear DAPI staining is shown in blue. Scale bar 75m

iPSCs, which are derived from somatic cells, allow for the patient-specific functional -cells in vitro that will free diabetic populations from daily insulin injections and prevent life-threatening complications, generate sufficient -cells for transplantation, and also avert immune suppression to repress auto- and allo-immunity [1, 19]. Although many attempts have been made to acquire mature, glucose-responsive IPCs entirely in vitro, the results of these studies lacked convincing evidence [19]. Multiple core transcription factors, signaling pathways, and noncoding RNAs have been confirmed to be required for pancreatic -cells differentiation potential in potent stem cells [10, 2024]. Increasing evidence shows that miRNAs, as important epigenetic factors that regulate gene expression and determine cell fate in pancreatic -cells, mediate -cells biological activities, including differentiation, proliferation, apoptosis, and insulin secretion [6, 25]. However, the mechanisms of miRNAs in -cells differentiation of iPSCs remain unknown.

This study adopted a three-step protocol mimicking normal pancreatic formation to screen for differentiation-associated miRNAs during iPSCs-induced IPCs differentiation in culture. According to the miRNA array analysis data, 13 miRNAs with markedly different expression levels were identified (Additionalfile1: Figure S1), and we found that miR-690 was significantly upregulated in step 3 compared to that in iPSCs. To explore the specific function of miR-690 in IPCs differentiation, we overexpressed miR-690 in progenitor cells on day 4 of step 3 and found that pancreatic progenitor markers, such as Pdx1 and Sox9, and the early endocrine progenitors NGN3, Nkx6.1, and Pax4 were downregulated after 48h. At the final stage of our protocol, miR-690 overexpression significantly impaired the maturation and endocrine function of IPCs (Fig.3). However, the mRNA level of SST increased unexpectedly after miR-690 overexpression, suggesting that this miRNA may promote the differentiation of -cells.

To elaborate on the mechanism by which miR-690 regulates IPCs formation, we used bioinformatic analysis. Combined with the RNA-seq data detected previously, these results identified Sox9 as an underlying target gene of miR-690. Sox9 is widely known as a pancreatic progenitor marker that influences endocrine pancreatic development and modulation of mature -cells functions [14]. The prevailing theory is that miRNAs regulate gene expression post-transcriptionally by binding to the 3 untranslated sequence of the targeted mRNA to silence its corresponding target genes [26, 27]. Then, we demonstrated that Sox9 was a direct target of miR-690 using a luciferase reporter assay (Fig.5). Furthermore, overexpression of miR-690 decreased the protein levels of Sox9 and -catenin (Fig.6), indicating that this noncoding RNA may regulate the Wnt signaling pathway, which has been thoroughly investigated and is necessary for controlling the development of -cells and their function [16, 28, 29]. These findings suggested that the important function of miR-690 during IPCs differentiation was predominantly regulated by the miR-690/Sox9 and -catenin axes, confirming that the interactions of miRNAs and transcription factors were involved in the differentiation of mouse iPSCs to IPCs. -catenin is an important effector of the Wnt pathway [30]. To date, the role of Wnt signaling in pancreatic development has been disputed. The majority of studies have noted the primary role of Wnt signaling in the development of the exocrine compartments of the pancreas and confirmed that abolishment of the signaling pathway resulted in an almost complete lack of exocrine cells; however, the influence of Wnt signaling on endocrine cells, especially on pancreatic -cell development, is still undefined [31]. Previous studies have reported that knockdown of the Sox9 gene in human islet epithelial cells significantly decreases the expression of phosphorylated GSK3- at the protein level, leading to a prominent decline in the expression of cyclin D1 and other target genes of the Wnt signaling pathway [14]. Therefore, we examined the Wnt signaling activity by detecting the expression of p-GSK3-. Interestingly, the results showed that miR-690 overexpression simultaneously decreased Sox9 and phosphorylated GSK3- at the protein level. We speculated that miR-690 may mediate the Wnt signaling pathway via binding to Sox9 and lead to a decline in phosphorylation of GSK3- and a decrease in -catenin, which are the effectors of this pathway. Furthermore, other researchers have shown that pancreatic -cells differentiation is complex and a result of the interaction of multiple signaling pathways, such as Notch, Fgf, Wnt, and others. Thus, the specific regulatory mechanism between miR-690 and the Wnt signaling pathway and whether other signaling pathways are regulated by miR-690 require further exploration.

Recently, miR-690 was reported to mediate osteogenic differentiation of human myogenic progenitor cells through its target NF-kappaB p65, indicating that miR-690 may play different roles in the development and differentiation of different organs and tissues [32]. Many studies have shown that Sox9 downregulation is important for early lineage bifurcation of endocrine progenitors and pancreatic -cells development [15, 3336]. In our study, the expression of miR-690 at an appropriate level is vital to the maturation and differentiation of IPCs. However, prematurely upregulated Sox9 resulted in deficient IPC differentiation in vitro, indicating that miR-690 activity may need to be within a narrow range to avoid detrimental consequences. Therefore, further exploration of the function of the miR-690/Sox9/Wnt signaling pathway in pancreatic -cells differentiation, development, and maturation may be required to systematically uncover the critical function and mechanism of miR-690 in vitro and in vivo.

We found that miR-690, a rarely studied noncoding RNA, played an important role in the differentiation of iPSCs-derived IPCs. MiR-690 regulates the expression of transcription factor Sox9 and may have an influence on Wnt signaling pathway in the differentiation process. These findings not only indicate that miR-690 mediates differentiation of iPSCs-derived IPCs through Sox9 and affects Wnt signaling pathway, but also provide novel evidence for the regulatory potential mechanisms of miRNAs in development associated with insulin-producing cells derived from induced pluripotent cells.

Yang Xu, Yan Huang and Yibing Guo contributed equally to this work.

Differentially expressed miRNAs

Embryoid Bodies

GATA binding protein 4

GATA binding protein 6

Glucagon

Glucokinase

Facilitated glucose transporter, member 2

Gene ontology

Hematoxylin and eosin

Insulin-producing cell

Induced pluripotent stem cell

ISL LIM homeobox

Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes

v-maf musculoaponeurotic fibrosarcoma oncogene family, protein A

MicroRNA

Multilineage precursor stem cell

Negative control

Neurogenin 3

NK2 homeobox 2

NK6 homeobox 1

Paired box 4

Paired box 6

Pancreatic and duodenal homeobox 1

Phosphorylated glycogen synthase kinase-3

Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction

Original post:
microRNA-690 regulates induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs ...

Induced pluripotent stem cells have been generated for the …

Induced pluripotent stem cells have been generated for the first time from tumor cells in order to study therapies for tumors developed in patients with hereditary diseases with predisposition to cancer

The Hereditary Cancer Research Group at the Germans Trias i Pujol Research Institute (IGTP) on the Can Ruti Campus, Badalona has for the first time generated induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) from tumors from people with the hereditary disease Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). The work has been carried out in conjunction with Angel Raya of the Centre for Regenerative Medicine of Barcelona (CMRB) and published in Stem Cell Reports, the official journal for the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR).

iPSCs are stem cells capable of giving rise to most other types of cell in the body. It is quite normal to generate stem cells by reprogramming skin cells extracted from patients with hereditary diseases such as NF1 to study them as a model for the disease, but the IGTP researchers have now generated iPSCs for the first time as a valid model for NF1 from cells from tumors. Instead of using skin cells, we have reprogrammed cells from tumors from patients with NF1 in order to have a model of cells genetically identical to the tumor cells, explains Eduard Serra, leader of the work at the IGTP.

One of the difficulties of studying these pathologies with cells obtained directly from benign tumors is that they are finite, but now we have achieved a cellular model which will not run out because, due to their characteristics, we can culture these iPSCs indefinitely and then convert them into the same cells that make up a tumor, Serra adds. The work has invested most of the efforts in converting these iPSCs into Schwann cells, which are cells which make up plexiform neurofibromas, typical of NF1. The resulting cells have the same capacity to proliferate as the original tumor cells. As iPSCs are an endless source of cells, we have been able to generate the resource we needed. Now we can test drugs that inhibit proliferation, study the mechanisms by which these tumors develop and try to stop them developing into malignant tumors, explains Meritxell Carri, first author of the article.

New ways to study NF1

The Hereditary Cancer Research Group at the IGTP has been studying Neurofibromatoses for many years, this includes NF1, a minority disease that affects 1 in every 3,000 people in the world. It is a hereditary disease, which brings a high predisposition to develop tumors in the peripheral nervous system. One of these types of tumor is the plexiform neurofibromas. It is a tumor that appears at birth, or in the first years of life, and forms on major nerves in the body, disorganizing and thickening the tissue surrounding the nerve and forming a tumor mass that can reach great dimensions. These tumors can impede functionality and disfigure the part of the body where they appear, which can be on the extremities or even on the face. Additionally, there is a risk that these tumors progress to become malignant; a sarcoma of the peripheral nerve sheath.

Although they start as benign tumors, we do not have drugs to put the patient into remission. To develop effective drugs for this type of tumor we need cellular models that are faithful copies of the tumor and that do not run out, this is the model that now has been achieved.

Available to the scientific community

The cell lines generated have been deposited in the Carlos III Stem Cell Bank at the node kept at the CMRB in Barcelona. They are available to other researchers in the world who want to study this disease and these tumors.

This work was led by Eduard Serra at the IGTP and carried out in collaboration with Angel Raya at the CMRB alongside other participating institutions such as the Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), Sage Bionetworks, and the Germans Trias Hospital. This project has been financed by the Neurofibromatosis Therapuetic Acceleration Program (NTAP, http://www.n-tap.org), a program based at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland in the United States, whose mission is to accelerate the development of therapies for Neurofibromatosis Type 1. The team has also had the support of the Spanish and Catalan Associations of Neurofibromatosis Patients.

The Johns Hopkins University, and the Germans Trias i Pujol Research Institute (IGTP) (http://www.germanstrias.org/) are academic institutions based respectively in Baltimore, Maryland, and Badalona (Barcelona), Spain.

The Center of Regenerative Medicine in Barcelona (CMR[B]) (www.cmrb.eu) is a public research centre (non-profit foundation) based in Barcelona, Spain. The overall mission of the CMR[B] is to conduct fundamental research of excellence forthe advancement inthe clinical translation of regenerative medicine strategies basedin pluripotent stem cells, mainly in the context of heart failure, neurodegenerative diseases, non-malignant hematological diseases and age-related macular degeneration.

Sage Bionetworks is a nonprofitbiomedical research and technology organization. We develop and apply open practices to data-driven research for the advancement of human health. Our interdisciplinary team of scientists and engineers work together to provide researchers access to technology tools and scientific approaches to share data, benchmark methods, and explore collective insights, all backed by Sages gold-standard governance protocols and commitment to user-centered design.Sage, founded in Seattle in 2009, is supported through a portfolio of competitive research grants, commercial partnerships, and philanthropic contributions. Learn more atwww.sagebionetworks.org.

Read more from the original source:
Induced pluripotent stem cells have been generated for the ...