Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Spinal Cord Injury by Dr Alok Sharma, Mumbai, India.
Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Spinal Cord Injury by Dr Alok Sharma, Mumbai, India. After Stem Cell Therapy 1. During exercises he was able to stand without...
By: neurogenbsi
More:
Stem Cell Therapy Treatment for Spinal Cord Injury by Dr Alok Sharma, Mumbai, India. - Video
Durham, NC (PRWEB) April 16, 2013
Can stem cell therapy outperform a drug commonly considered the gold standard for treating rheumatoid arthritis? A new study in rodents published in the current issue of STEM CELLS Translational Medicine indicates perhaps so.
The findings could lead to a faster, safer, more effective way to bring relief to the up to 70 million people estimated to suffer from this disease worldwide.
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic condition that causes pain, stiffness, swelling and limited motion and function of many joints. While it can affect any joint, RA tends to settle mainly in a patients hands and feet. The results can be debilitating.
People who have RA overproduce a protein called tumor necrosis factor (TNF), which causes the inflammation and damage to the bones, cartilage and tissue. Anti-TNF drugs can block the action of the protein and reduce inflammation. Etanercept (marketed under the trade name Enbrel) is a type of anti-TNF drug called a biologic that for years has been prescribed to treat RA. However, it cant be targeted specifically to the site of the arthritis and, thus, requires higher doses that can cause serious side effects including fatal infections, multiple sclerosis, seizures, heart failure, cancer and more.
Moreover, biologics in general require intense development and manufacturing processes that are challenging for reproducibility, even within the same company. So we wanted to see how delivering treatment through a very targeted system such as that which can be done using stem cells compared to a biologic drug such as Etanercept, said Joseph Mosca, Ph.D. He led the team of researchers from Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. Baltimore, Md., and the Novartis Research, Basel, Switzerland, in conducting the study.
The researchers began by genetically altering human mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in the lab to become vehicles for the cell-based anti-TNF delivery. They then injected the cells into mice that had been induced with RA and monitored them over a seven-day period, then compared the results to a group of animals treated with Etanercept. The results showed that the anti-TNF therapy delivered by stem cells reversed or attenuated the arthritis inflammation on par with the Etanercept except that it did it faster.
If this translates into fewer side-effects and/or lower compliance remains to be seen, Dr. Mosca said. In either case, these results illustrate the ability of stem cells to deliver proteins of therapeutic value and demonstrate their potential clinical utility in rheumatoid/osteoarthritis and other TNF-related diseases where anti-TNF biologic drugs have already shown promise.
The authors have shown the feasibility of a targeted approach to treatment using cells that are known to home to damaged tissue, said Anthony Atala, M.D., Editor of STEM CELLS Translational Medicine and director of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine. The manuscript supports and demonstrates the potential of mesenchymal stem cells as a vehicle for cell-based gene delivery.
### The full article, Comparison of Drug and Cell-Based DeliveryEngineered Adult Mesenchymal Stem Cells Expressing Soluble Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor-II Prevent Arthritis in Mouse and Rat Animal Models, can be accessed at http://www.stemcellstm.com.
Read this article:
Stem Cells Might Beat Drugs in Delivering Relief Faster, More Effectively to Rheumatoid Arthritis Sufferers
Experts to shed light on promising, but not quite proven, stem cell treatments as ASAPS Annual Meeting
New York, NY (PRWEB) April 15, 2013
There is a lot of marketing hype about the role of stem cells in aesthetic procedures, said Dr. Singer of La Jolla, CA. We are hopeful that this is the next frontier, but, unfortunately, there is no current scientific evidence that stem cells improve aesthetic outcomes.
This panel is critical because stem cells is such a hot term, used to market everything from surgical procedures to over-the-counter facial creams, added Dr. Hijjawi of Milwaukee, WI. As ASAPS members, we are concerned about all of the amazing claims being made about stem cells, and about finding out what the truth behind the claims really is.
Research is currently ongoing to define the potential role of stem cells in aesthetic surgery, particularly for stem cells derived from the fat tissue. Each of the presenters on the panel is actively engaged in clinical or basic science research looking at stem cell therapy, including its impact on fat grafting outcomes in aesthetic surgery. Fat grafting has been used for many years to enhance contour and shape in the face, breasts, and hands, and research continues to uncover therapeutic possibilities. However, it is unclear if methods to add additional stem cells to the transplanted fat tissue produce better results than fat grafting alone.
Although stem cells have great promise in tissue generation as seen in animal studies, plastic surgeons continue to struggle with demonstrating their role in aesthetic medicine, added Dr. Del Vecchio of Boston, MA.
In the decade since the discovery of abundant stem cells in the fat tissue, many physicians have begun to rebrand their procedures using the words stem cell for marketing purposes. Unfortunately, there are no published studies showing that stem cell-enriched fat has any effect on fat transplantation outcomes.
In our previously unwanted fat lies a vast store of our own bodys stem cells, which we may be able to use to treat many conditions in the near future, said Dr. Coleman of New York, NY. However, the amazing potential of stem cells must be measured through honest scientific studies, rather than through less-than-honest marketing ploys.
"As the field evolves, we need to take a thoughtful approach to collecting data that justifies stem cell treatments in each specific application, and a realistic and rational approach to how these treatments are presented to patients," added Dr. Rubin of Pittsburgh, PA.
###
See the rest here:
Do Stem Cell Claims in Aesthetic Surgery Hold Up?
Peggy Noonan and Bill Hemmer Share Thoughts on Vatican-Hosted Conference Rome, April 15, 2013 (Zenit.org) Ann Schneible | 346 hits
Adult stem cell research has advanced further than many people realize, according to journalists Peggy Noonan and Bill Hemmer, both panelists at the Second International Vatican Stem Cell Conference.
The three-day conference, which concluded Saturday, explored advancements made in the field of adult stem cell research and therapies, and included interventions from experts in the fields of science, medicine, bioethics, politics and journalism.
From the beginning, the Catholic Church has condemned the destruction of embryos for the purpose of research, but has been a supporter of research using adult stem cells.
Peggy Noonan, columnist for the Wall Street Journal, moderated a panel that focused on the political landscape of stem cell research and funding.
It was noted during the panel discussion how the stem cell debate was much more heated in the United States. Explaining the reason for this difference, Noonan told ZENIT, "We are still used to grappling with great political issues from a moral standpoint. It is almost our habit as a nation, for 250 years now. In Europe, this has grown less of a habit. Europe has grown more pragmatic, perhaps."
She noted how the extent to which adult stem cell research and treatment have advanced, moreover, "takes the pressure at least in the States, perhaps off this grinding argument over embryonic stem cells."
"I am impressed to find out so much is going on in the adult stem cell area," Noonan continued, saying she had not been "so aware of the scientific progress being made in the area of adult stem cell research."
"More is happening in the field of medicine than you know," she said.
Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer, who was also one of the moderators during Friday's session of the conference, expressed his enthusiasm for what stem cell research could mean for the future of medicine.
You are here: Popular Issues >> Pros And Cons Of Stem Cell Research
Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Research - What are Stem Cells? There has been much controversy in the press recently about the pros and cons of stem cell research. What is the controversy all about? "Stem" cells can be contrasted with "differentiated" cells. They offer much hope for medical advancement because of their ability to grow into almost any kind of cell. 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 destroyed 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. As a result, billions of dollars are being poured into this new field.
Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Research - Where Do They Come From? To understand the pros and cons of stem cell research, one must first understand where stem cells come from. There are three main sources for obtaining stem cells - adult cells, cord cells, and embryonic cells. Adult stem cells can be extracted either from bone marrow or from the peripheral system. Bone marrow is a rich source of stem cells. However, some painful destruction of the bone marrow results from this procedure. Peripheral stem cells can be extracted without damage to bones, but the process takes more time. And with health issues, time is often of the essence. Although difficult to extract, since they are taken from the patient's own body, adult stem cells are superior to both umbilical cord and embryonic stem cells. They are plentiful. There is always an exact DNA match so the body's immune system never rejects them. And as we might expect, results have been both profound and promising.
Stem cells taken from the umbilical cord are a second very rich source of stem cells. Umbilical cells can also offer a perfect match where a family has planned ahead. Cord cells are extracted during pregnancy and stored in cryogenic cell banks as a type of insurance policy for future use on behalf of the newborn. Cord cells can also be used by the mother, the father or others. The more distant the relationship, the more likely it is that the cells will be rejected by the immune system's antibodies. However, there are a number of common cell types just as there are common blood types so matching is always possible especially where there are numerous donors. The donation and storage process is similar to blood banking. Donation of umbilical cells is highly encouraged. Compared to adult cells and embryonic cells, the umbilical cord is by far the richest source of stem cells, and cells can be stored up in advance so they are available when needed. Further, even where there is not an exact DNA match between donor and recipient, scientists have developed methods to increase transferability and reduce risk.
Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Research - Embryonic Cells The pros and cons of stem cell research come to the surface when we examine the third source of stem cells - embryonic cells. Embryonic stem cells are extracted directly from an embryo before the embryo's cells begin to differentiate. At this stage the embryo is referred to as a "blastocyst." There are about 100 cells in a blastocyst, a very large percentage of which are stem cells, which can be kept alive indefinitely, grown in cultures, where the stem cells continue to double in number every 2-3 days. A replicating set of stem cells from a single blastocyst is called a "stem cell line" because the genetic material all comes from the same fertilized human egg that started it. President Bush authorized federal funding for research on the 15 stem cell lines available in August 2001. Other stem cell lines are also available for research but without the coveted assistance of federal funding.
So what is the controversy all about? Those who value human life from the point of conception, oppose embryonic stem cell research because the extraction of stem cells from this type of an embryo requires its destruction. In other words, it requires that a human life be killed. Some believe this to be the same as murder. Against this, embryonic research advocates argue that the tiny blastocyst has no human features. Further, new stem cell lines already exist due to the common practice of in vitro fertilization. Research advocates conclude that many fertilized human cells have already been banked, but are not being made available for research. Advocates of embryonic stem cell research claim new human lives will not be created for the sole purpose of experimentation.
Others argue against such research on medical grounds. Mice treated for Parkinson's with embryonic stem cells have died from brain tumors in as much as 20% of cases.1 Embryonic stem cells stored over time have been shown to create the type of chromosomal anomalies that create cancer cells.2 Looking at it from a more pragmatic standpoint, funds devoted to embryonic stem cell research are funds being taken away from the other two more promising and less controversial types of stem cell research mentioned above.
Learn More Now!
Footnotes 1 The Real Promise of Stem Cell Research Dr. David Prentice, HealthNewsDigest.com 2 Derivation of Human Stem-Cell Lines from Human Blastocysts, C. A. Cowan and others. March 25, 2004, New England Journal of Medicine, p.1355 with secondary reference to footnotes 13-17 p.1356.
Like this information? Help us by sharing it with others using the social media buttons below. What is this?
See the original post here:
Pros And Cons Of Stem Cell Research
Ready for a story in which the part about stem cell research is the least complicated thing happening? The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia today upheld a lower courts decision to toss out a lawsuit that would have prevented the federal government from funding research on embryonic stem cells. The long and the short of that? Federal research dollars from the National Institutes of Health can fund research on embyronic stell cells.
Todays decision puts the Obama administration on the side of the angels on this issue, legally speaking. Shortly after Obamas inauguration, the administration overturned a longstanding restriction on federal funding for stem cell research put in place by George W. Bush in 2001. Lawsuits trying to restrict the funding once more under a provision of the 1996 Dickey-Wicker amendment, which precludes taxpayer funding for research that harms an embryo were filed in short order. Today, it appears those efforts have ended fruitlessly.
Its the second time the three-judge panel has upheld the ruling on the grounds that harvesting stem cells does not harm a viable embryo, and should put the matter to rest permenanently or at least until a new administration rolls into the White House. The judges in the case, it seems, are already tired of hearing the same arguments, with Judge David Sentelle stating thatunless [the plaintiffs] have established some extraordinary circumstance, the law of the case is established and we will not revisit the issue. You can read the courts decision here if you think it will make any sense to you.
This is great news for the field of stem cell research, which could provide cures to a variety of ailments too far-ranging to list here. It is also great news for people who believe that scientific and research funding should be a priority, and one not to be mucked about with by politicians. It is great news for people who like things that could cure cancer. We count ourselves in this last category, because cancer is a dick. It is less great news for people who are against embryonic stem cell research, but hey, not everyone can be a winner, right?
Weve covered the ongoing study of induced pluripotent stem cells here before. IPS cells, which are derived from adult cells reverted back to an embryonic state by genetic tinkering, are great. Just terrific. Cant say enough good things about them. They also come with their own set of risks and drawbacks, from being hard to produce to containing unwanted mutations.
Embryonic stem cells are easier to work with, as they havent been manipulated into behaving like something they really arent, like IPS cells. They also have more promise when it comes to treating maladies like blindness. While embryonic stem cells are harvested from fertilized egg cells created in vitro, those embryos are never destined for implantation these are lumps of cellular tissue that are bound to become bio-waste, not babies. So yes, we could throw them out. Or we could use them for making medicine, curing illness, and saving lives instead. I mean, both are good options, really.
(via The Washington Posto)
Relevant to your interests
Read this article:
Circuit Court OKs Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research ...
Mar 30
Posted by admin
Mar 29 2013
Mar 28
The Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL) has signed a licensing agreement with the Spanish biotech company Histocell to make use of a patent for the treatment of acute pulmonary diseases with mesenchymal stem cells. These cells, administered intravenously, have the ability to go directly to the damaged lungs, acting as a &smart drug&.
To enhance the effect, researchers have modified this cells by genetic engineering. The studies have been developed by a team led by Josep Maria Aran, researcher at the Human Molecular Genetics group of IDIBELL, in collaboration with researchers of the Pneumology group at Vall d&Hebron Research Institute (VHIR) and the Biomedical Research Network Centre for Respiratory Diseases (CIBERES). The outcomes of the research have supposed an international patent application managed by the Technology Transfer Office (TTO) at IDIBELL.
The researchers use adult mesenchymal stem cells extracted from adipose tissue obtained from liposuction. These cells are capable of enhancing the regeneration of the damaged lung tissue and secrete inflammatory proteins therein when injected into the blood.
Improvements
The novelty patented by IDIBELL and VHIR researchers has been the insertion of improvements through genetic engineering that can significantly enhance the anti-inflammatory and regenerative power of the mesenchymal cells. Specifically, researchers have modified the antagonist to secrete interleukin 33, a regulatory protein (cytokine) that has a fundamental role in the inflammatory process.
The treatment has proven to be very effective given intravenously, although it could be considered the option of administering it by inhalation.
Read more:
IDIBELL signs agreement with Histocell to use … – Stem Cell Cafe ...
STEM CELL RESEARCH: Riverside girl honored at Vatican
The Vatican this week is honoring a Riverside girl whose life has been transformed by an infusion of adult stem cells that strengthen her severely fragile bo...
By: pe
Read more:
STEM CELL RESEARCH: Riverside girl honored at Vatican - Video
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
ROCHESTER, Minn. Translating a Mayo Clinic stem-cell discovery, an international team has demonstrated that therapy with cardiopoietic (cardiogenically-instructed) or &smart& stem cells can improve heart health for people suffering from heart failure. This is the first application in patients of lineage-guided stem cells for targeted regeneration of a failing organ, paving the way to development of next generation regenerative medicine solutions. Results of the clinical trial appear online of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
VIDEO ALERT: Audio and video resources are available on the Mayo Clinic News Network.
The multi-center, randomized Cardiopoietic stem cell therapy in heart failure (C-CURE) trial involved heart failure patients from Belgium, Switzerland and Serbia. Patients in the control group received standard care for heart failure in accordance with established guidelines. Patients in the cell therapy arm received, in addition to standard care, cardiopoietic stem cells a first-in-class biotherapeutic. In this process, bone marrow was harvested from the top of the patient&s hip, and isolated stem cells were treated with a protein cocktail to replicate natural cues of heart development. Derived cardiopoietic stem cells were then injected into the patient&s heart.
&The cells underwent an innovative treatment to optimize their repair capacity,& says Andre Terzic, M.D., Ph.D., study senior author and director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Regenerative Medicine. &This study helps us move beyond the science fiction notion of stem cell research, providing clinical evidence for a new approach in cardiovascular regenerative medicine.&
Every patient in the stem cell treatment group improved. Heart pumping function improved in each patient within six months following cardiopoietic stem cell treatment. In addition, patients experienced improved fitness and were able to walk longer distances than before stem cell therapy. &The benefit to patients who received cardiopoietic stem cell therapy was significant,& Dr. Terzic says.
In an accompanying editorial, Charles Murry, M.D., Ph.D., and colleagues at the University of Washington, Seattle, say, &Six months after treatment, the cell therapy group had a 7 percent absolute improvement in EF (ejection fraction) over baseline, versus a non-significant change in the control group. This improvement in EF is dramatic, particularly given the duration between the ischemic injury and cell therapy. It compares favorably with our most potent therapies in heart failure.&
The science supporting this trial is a product of a decade-long journey in decoding principles of stem cell-based heart repair. &Discovery of rare stem cells that could inherently promote heart regeneration provided a critical clue. In following this natural blueprint, we further developed the know-how needed to convert patient-derived stem cells into cells that can reliably repair a failing heart,& says Dr. Terzic, underscoring the team effort in this endeavor.
Initial discovery led to the identification of hundreds of proteins involved in cardiogenesis, or the heart development process. The research team then identified which proteins are necessary in helping a stem cell become a reparative cell type, leading to development of a protein cocktail-based procedure that orients stem cells for heart repair. Such upgraded stem cells are called cardiopoietic or heart creative.
Mayo Clinic partnered with Cardio3 Biosciences, a bioscience company in Mont-Saint-Guibert, Belgium, for advanced product development, manufacturing scale-up, and clinical trial execution.
Go here to read the rest:
Stem Cells Show Promise in Heart Failure Patients – Stem Cell Cafe
With what appears to be thousands of Australians heading overseas for expensive treatments that don't reverse their illnesses, university researchers are trying to understand the ''stem-cell tourism'' phenomenon.
The patients report spending tens of thousands of dollars on airfares and accommodation and up to $40,000 on treatments for conditions such as motor neurone disease, blindness, cerebral palsy, paraplegia and multiple sclerosis.
Despite the limited successes, few report feeling duped by the experience. In fact, counter to a prevalence of negative media reporting on stem-cell tourism - that it is essentially one step up from back-room faith healing - stem-cell tourists overwhelmingly report positive outcomes and an improvement in their wellbeing, be it a lift in energy or mood, and in some cases improved mobility.
Despite the negative reporting, it is thought that the number of people with serious degenerative and crippling conditions heading overseas - mainly to China and India - to undergo unproven stem-cell treatments, is increasing.
Advertisement
These are the preliminary findings by a joint Australian-British study that is now in its second phase of understanding why people are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars on treatments that don't deliver a life-changing miracle.
The first phase of the research involved hour-long interviews with 16 Australian patients or carers who had travelled overseas for treatment. Some of them reported paying up to $40,000 for a series of injections, and tens of thousands of dollars more for flights, accommodation and living costs.
The next phase involves interviews with 50 more people who have travelled overseas, and 20 others who considered stem-cell tourism but decided against it.
Next year, Melbourne researchers will also travel to India and China to investigate the disconnection between official restrictions and regulations on treatment, and the reality on the ground.
Lead investigator Alan Petersen, a professor of sociology at Monash University, said stem-cell tourism was an emotionally complex and little-understood phenomenon - and seems to be ''more tied to the politics of hope'' than unrealistic expectations.
Read the original here:
Stem-cell tourists living in hope: study