Replotting the human: the thorny ethics of growing babies outside the womb – Prospect

In its worthy pursuit of what the philosopher Francis Bacon called the relief of mans estate, science has a habit of creating previously unknown moral dilemmas. Thats nowhere more apparent than in the sciences pertaining to the beginning of human lives.

When IVF took off after the birth of Louise Brown in 1978, fertility doctors were faced with the question of what to do with embryos produced in vitrothat is, outside the wombwhich would not, either because of their unviability or sheer excess in number, be implanted for gestation. Many were donated for embryological research, which has made huge strides as a result. But this has also complicated the already impassioned argumentsstill unresolvedabout the moral status of the human embryo.

Similar wrangles loom over the recent report in Nature by a team of scientists based in Israel who say that they can gestate mouse embryos in glass jars for up to 12 days. That might not sound long, but it is half a mouses normal gestation period: the embryos can reach a stage where the internal organs are in place, the heart is beating, and the hind legs are developing.

By contrast, no human embryos have been grown outside the womb beyond 14 days (the legal limit in the UK, Israel, China and many other countries), which is of course still at a very early stage of the journey towards becoming a baby. But Jacob Hanna, who led the Israeli project at the Weizmann Institute of Science, told Technology Review that it sets the stage for other species I hope that it will allow scientists to grow human embryos until week five.

At the same time, advances in biology are enabling the creation of entirely new types of embryo-like structures, which some call simbryos, by assembling from scratch the embryonic cells of humans and other animals. Because these entities are in some sense artificial, though made from ordinary living cells, researchers arent sure if they qualify as genuine embryos, and so whether they should fall under the 14-day legal constraint. Meanwhile, scientists in the US and China have recently reported making chimeric embryos that contain a mixture of human and monkey cells, which they could keep alive in vitro for up to 20 days.

All these studies are motivated by biomedical questions and needs, from trying to understand the early stages of human development (and what can go wrong, for example, leading up to miscarriages) to trying to grow human organs for transplants within livestock animals. Yet they are also blurring boundaries: between natural and artificial, tissue culture and actual conception, humans and other species. We are, in the words of academic Susan Merrill Squier, replotting the humanand, so far, with no moral framework to guide us.

We havent even decided what the important questions are, let alone how to answer them

When the Warnock Committee, chaired by moral philosopher Mary Warnock, was established in 1982 to navigate the thicket opened up by IVF, it intentionally ducked the issue of the human embryos moral status. A key strategy of the Warnock Committee, says Sarah Franklin, director of the Reproductive Sociology Research Group at Cambridge, was to eschew the moral debate, for the simple reason it can never be resolved. The committees recommendation of the 14-day rule was pragmatic: this is roughly the point after which an embryo cannot split into twins, and so served as an otherwise entirely arbitrary kind of proxy for personhood. No more rigour was needed because there was not at that stage any practical possibility of going beyond that line.

But technological advances mean that governments and scientific bodies are reconsidering the 14-day ruleand thereby taking the lid back off the moral debate. Simbryos might simply sidestep itbut should they? These are dilemmas that science has created but cannot answer. The great danger is that, amid the murk, we will grab onto polarised ideologies in the hope of settling things.

Eugenic hatcheries

Arguments about embryology have long been divisive, and come weighted down with heavy cultural baggage. Growing embryos and even babies ex utero was christened ectogenesis in the early 20th century; its possibility motivated the biologist JBS Haldane to write Daedalus, or Science and the Future in 1924. Haldane presented a fictionalised future in which ectogenesis was introduced in the 1950s to combat plummeting birth rates. His narrator explains that, by 2073, less than a third of children were still born of woman.

Haldane welcomed this prospect. First, he said, it would allow population increase to be rationally planned and controlled. Better still, it would be possible to control who reproduced. Like many of his progressive contemporaries, while he supported female emancipation, he worried that better educated, well-bred women would prefer their new opportunities over their traditional role as mothers, leading to a decline in the quality of the gene pool. Ectogenesis could facilitate the necessary corrective of eugenic engineering. An enthusiasm for eugenics was shared by Haldanes friend Julian Huxley, who served as vice president and then president of the British Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1962. (No, eugenic advocacy was not killed off by the example of the Nazis.)

But Huxleys brother Aldous was less taken with Haldanes vision of a bioengineered population grown in artificial wombs. That scenario supplied the inspiration for the dystopian Brave New World (1932), with its hatcheries in which foetuses are chemically manipulated for intelligence to create the hierarchical society of the World State.

At one time, both men and women sympathetic to the feminist cause welcomed ectogenesis. In Hymen, or The Future of Marriage (1927), Norman Haire suggested that animals might instead act as gestational surrogates: human babies born to chimp mothers, for example. The pioneering feminist Vera Brittain, however, conceded in Halcyon, or the Future of Monogamy (1929) that natural methods of reproduction might make a comeback after a period of ectogenesis because children born outside the womb could suffer psychological problems. The trailblazing feminist writer Shulamith Firestone was another fan of ectogenesis. Her 1970 book The Dialectic of Sex portrayed childbearing as a primary cause of gender inequality: I submit, she wrote, that the first demand for any alternative system must be the freeing of women from the tyranny of their reproductive biology by every means available.

For all its humanitarian objectives, embryonic research remains ethically fraught

In stark contrast, more recent feminists have warned that artificial wombs could remove from women a source of social power. Australian sociologist Robyn Rowland worries: We [women] may find ourselves without a product of any kind with which to bargain if that last power is taken and controlled by men, what role is envisaged for women in the new world? Will women become obsolete? Another worry is expressed by bioethicist Rosemarie Tong, who fears a commodification of the whole process of pregnancy [and] a view of the growing child as a thing.

History shows, then, that while putative reproductive technologies like ectogenesis and artificial wombs have long been controversial, the terms of the debate have shifted with social perceptions and attitudes. We havent even decided what the important questions are, let alone how to answer them.

Towards artificial wombs

True ectogenesis is still a far cry from what the Israeli group has just achieved. Their mouse embryos do not really exist in an artificial womb as such; they float freely in a nutrient medium, including human blood serum taken from the umbilical cord, in rotating glass jars kept at a carefully controlled temperature and in levels of dissolved oxygen elevated above normal. Because they have no placenta to attach to or umbilical cord to supply blood, eventually they die through lack of oxygen.

The work is impressive, but growing small mammal embryos far into gestation in artificial cell-culture conditions is not completely new. For example, developmental biologist Lynne Selwood at the University of Melbourne has been able to culture embryos of the stripe-face dunnarta mouse-like marsupialto within a few hours of full term. (Their gestation period is 11 days, the shortest of any mammal, and marsupials are born premature relative to other mammals.) Selwoods interest in the technique was its potential use for conservation: breeding and preserving the species from frozen embryos, for example.

Only in the past few years have researchers, such as Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz at Cambridgeone of Prospects World Top 50 Thinkers last yearmanaged to grow human embryos in vitro right up to that 14-day limit. The difficulties, both practical and ethical, of investigating human embryos inside the womb mean that plenty remains unknown about their genetics, cell biology and tissue and organ formation. Ex utero studies beyond two weeks could potentially help us to understand and avoid, for example, miscarriages and growth defects that might cause disability or even death for babies carried to full term.

You neednt be a pro-lifer to accept there is still an urgent need to think all the consequences through

For all its humanitarian objectives, though, such research remains ethically fraught. A five-week-old human embryo, say, is very different from the shapeless mass of cells and folded tissues at 14 days: it has a shrimp-like form, with a rudimentary head, a neural tube that eventually becomes the central nervous system and brainas well as a beating heart. In other words, it is more recognisably human. (When the foetus can potentially feel pain is not clearthat has generally been deemed impossible before the brains cortex matures at around 24 weeks, but some argue that pain of a kind, if not an awareness of suffering, might be registered as early as 12 weeks.)

Of course, abortion of such embryos is permitted well into pregnancy in many countriesup to 24 weeks (and in exceptional cases later) in Great Britain. But technologies for gestation in artificial wombsboth for the early embryo as in the latest Israeli work, and life support for very premature babiescould seriously complicate the legal and ethical dilemmas. If these two methods, coming from opposite directions, meet in the middle so that the entire gestational period becomes technologically supportable, then genuine Huxlerian ectogenesis becomes an option. Women with potentially life-threatening pregnancies might then no longer be faced with termination as the only optionbut the law doesnt currently cover such a scenario. And how would abortion rights fare in the face of a putative technological solution that can preserve the life of the embryo or foetus? Its far from inconceivable that a state with strong anti-abortion leanings could mandate continued ex utero gestation rather than termination.

Such questions remain hypothetical: creating true artificial wombs is challenging, and the field has advanced at a snails pace for decades. But the latest work by Jacob Hanna and colleagues is a reminder of the direction of travel.

Sustaining human embryos beyond 14 days would not, however, currently be done with reproduction in mind. The aim is basic research for understanding developmental biology. An alternative approach for doing that, which would evade the 14-day rule, is to build synthetic embryo-like structures from stem cells. In the right conditions, you dont need to do much more than bring the right sorts of cells togetherthey will organise themselves spontaneously into a configuration more or less resembling an embryo. Two teams in the US and Australia have recently described the in vitro generation of human blastoidsstructures similar to early-stage embryosfrom stem cells either taken from actual embryos or reprogrammed from adult skin cells. These blastoids resemble the so-called blastocyst, the stage that a human embryo reaches around five to nine days after fertilisation, when it is ready to implant in the uterus wall. The blastoids contain not only the mass of stem cells that will become the foetus, but also the cell types that can develop into the tissues needed to sustain and contain it: the yolk sac and the placenta. The team in Texas showed that their blastoids could attach themselves to the culture dish to mimic uterine implantation, and then continue to develop.

Blastoids are just one example of what some have dubbed synthetic human entities with embryo-like features (SHEEFs); though simbryos is a catchier name. As they are not made by fertilisation of an egg by sperm, their legal and ethical status is unclear, and there is no consensus on regulation. UK and EU patent law rules that a synthetic cellular entity cant be considered a human embryo if in the light of current scientific knowledge, it does not, in itself, have the inherent capacity of developing into a human being. In the US an absence of federal laws might mean that the guidelines of the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) are adopted. These were revised in May, and advise that such research be governed by case-by-case considerationbut that such entities should not be transferred to the uterus of either a human or another animal. Current simbryos almost certainly couldnt develop into a foetus in any casebut as they become ever better mimics of natural embryos, we cant be sure what potential they might have. Whether they could become babies is a crucial question, says bioethicist Hank Greely of Stanford University in California, but can we resolve that ethically? We wont know without trying it in humanswhich we cant do.

The edge of human

This science is in a Catch-22 situation, Greely says. We want to do research about humans that we cant ethically do on humans, so we go to non-human models. Existing non-human models [such as animals] arent that good, so we make new, better modelslike simbryos. But the dilemma is the better the models getthe more human they arethe more we get back into the same ethical issues. Biotechnologies like simbryos and chimeric embryos, suggest Greely and Bartha Maria Knoppers of McGill University in Montreal, are nibbling at the legal definition of what a human is.

The new ISSCR guidelines advise relaxation of the 14-day rule on human embryo research, to be replaced by a case-specific decision on what the limit should be. Changes to national legislation will be needed to enact this in many countries. But if that happens, some anticipate not only learning more about human embryo development but even harvesting nascent organs from such embryos, such as pancreases or kidneys, that might be grown further in vitro for transplantation. It might also be possible to use embryos grown for several weeks to test the safety of human gene editing, for example, to avoid some nasty genetic diseases.

History suggests that our response to disruptive technology will be highly dependent on contingent cultural preoccupations

Even with such potential medical benefits, you neednt be a pro-lifer to accept there is an urgent need to think all the consequences through. Our ability to transform, manipulate and culture cells takes us into uncharted territory where the boundaries of natural and artificial, and even of the human and non-human, are blurred. No off-the-shelf moral framework can be expected to guide the should and shouldnt. And history suggests that our response to disruptive technology will be highly dependent on contingent and perhaps ephemeral cultural preoccupations and prejudices. To track a responsible and humane path forward, we needsomehowto try and look beyond them.

Scientists lack the training and often the desire to take on that role. But the stifling of stem cell and embryo research in the US by George W Bushs 2001 Council on Bioethics shows what happens when religious conservatives are given the reins. As that panel showed, bioethics is a label that covers a multitude of sins and sometimes shows no inclination to examine its own assumptions. And heaven forbid that these issues be allowed to become fresh fuel for the culture wars. If we can reconstitute the collective and pragmatic wisdom of the Warnock Committee, it wont be a moment too soon.

The rest is here:
Replotting the human: the thorny ethics of growing babies outside the womb - Prospect

Crossroads of life: Jordan Reed’s journey through concussions, injuries and post-NFL healing – The Athletic

LEESBURG, Va. The 2020 season had just ended, and tight end Jordan Reed already was imagining an improved version of himself for 2021. Only 30 years old, the tight end dreamt of what could be his best year yet.

Then, while he was meditating one morning in his home in Palo Alto, Calif., it started.

Ringing in his ears.

He had heard it before, but it never lasted. This time, it wasnt going away.

Sometimes it was audible, sometimes just vibration. At times it was loud; other times soft. It could be a high-pitched squeal, almost like a dog whistle, or sound like a breeze through a tunnel. Sometimes it was a low-pitched buzz, as if it came from a speaker with a wiring problem.

The ringing was there when he was showering, pumping gas, throwing punches at his trainers mitts and watching his daughters soccer practice. It was worse when he tried to sleep.

Visit link:
Crossroads of life: Jordan Reed's journey through concussions, injuries and post-NFL healing - The Athletic

Human Embryonic Stem Cells Market 2021 Is Booming Across the Globe by Share, Size, Growth, Segments and Forecast to 2027 The Courier – The Courier

Latest research report, titled GlobalHuman Embryonic Stem Cells MarketInsights 2021 and Forecast 2026, This includes overview and deep study of factors which are considered to have greater influence over future course of the market such asmarket size, market share, different dynamics of the industry, Human Embryonic Stem CellsMarket companies, regional analysis of the domestic markets, value chain analysis, consumption, demand, key application areas and more.The study also talks about crucial pockets of the industry such as products or services offered, downstream fields, end using customers, historic data figures regarding revenue and sales, market context and more.

Top Key players profiled in the report include:ESI BIO, Thermo Fisher, BioTime, MilliporeSigma, BD Biosciences, Astellas Institute of Regenerative Medicine, Asterias Biotherapeutics, Cell Cure Neurosciences, PerkinElmer, Takara Bio, Cellular Dynamics International, Reliance Life Sciences, Research & Diagnostics Systems, SABiosciences, STEMCELL Technologies, Stemina Biomarker Discovery, Takara Bio, TATAA Biocenter, UK Stem Cell Bank, ViaCyte, Vitrolifeand More

To Get PDF Sample Copy of the Report(withcovid 19Impact Analysis):https://www.syndicatemarketresearch.com/sample/human-embryonic-stem-cells-market

Our Research Analyst implemented a Free PDF Sample Report copy as per your Research Requirement, also including impact analysisofCOVID-19 on Human Embryonic Stem CellsMarket Size

The COVID-19 Outbreak:Global Human Embryonic Stem CellsMarket study covers current status, % share, future patterns, development rate, SWOT examination, sales channels, to anticipate growth scenarios for years 2021-2026. It aims to recommend analysis of the market with regards to growth trends, prospects, and players contribution in the market development.

On the basis of product, we research the production, revenue, price, market share and growth rate, primarily split into Totipotent Stem Cells, Pluripotent Stem Cells, Unipotent Stem Cells

Market Segment by Applications, can be divided into: Research, Clinical Trials

Global Human Embryonic Stem CellsMarket by Geography:

Asia-Pacific(Vietnam, China, Malaysia, Japan, Philippines, Korea, Thailand, India, Indonesia, and Australia) Europe(Turkey, Germany, Russia UK, Italy, France, etc.) North America(the United States, Mexico, and Canada.) South America(Brazil etc.) The Middle East and Africa(GCC Countries and Egypt.)

Years Considered to Estimate the Market Size: History Year:2018-2021 Base Year:2021 Estimated Year:2021 Forecast Year:2021-2026

Get Upto $1000 Flat Discount on All License Type@https://www.syndicatemarketresearch.com/inquiry/human-embryonic-stem-cells-market

Reasons to buy:

Some Major TOC Points:

1.Human Embryonic Stem CellsMarket Overview 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Scope 1.3 Assumptions 1.4 Players Covered 1.5 Market Analysis By Type 1.5.1 Global Human Embryonic Stem CellsMarket Size Growth Rate By Type (2021-2026) 1.5.2 1.6 Market By Application 1.6.1 Global Human Embryonic Stem CellsMarket Share By Application (2021-2026) 1.6.2 Application 1

2. Executive Summary

3. Human Embryonic Stem CellsMarket Analysis By Type (Historic 2016-2021) 3.1 Global Human Embryonic Stem CellsMarket Size Analysis (USD Million) 2016-2021 3.1.1 Type 1 3.1.2 3.2 Global Human Embryonic Stem CellsMarket Share Analysis By Type (%) 2016-2021

4. Human Embryonic Stem CellsMarket Analysis By Application (Historic 2016-2021) 4.1 Global Nanoscale Smart Materials Market Size Analysis (USD Million) 2016-2021 4.1.1 Application 1 4.1.2 Application 2 4.1.3 Application 3 4.2 Global Human Embryonic Stem CellsMarket Share Analysis By Application (%) 2016-2021

5. Human Embryonic Stem CellsMarket Analysis By Regions (Historic 2016-2021) 5.1 Global Human Embryonic Stem CellsMarket Size Analysis (USD Million) 2016-2021 5.1.1 Human Embryonic Stem CellsMarket Share By Regions (2016-2021) 5.1.2 United States 5.1.3 Europe 5.1.4 China 5.1.5 Japan 5.1.6 India 5.1.7 Rest Of The World

6. Key Companies Analysis/Company Profile

Continued..

For More Information with including full TOC:https://www.syndicatemarketresearch.com/market-analysis/human-embryonic-stem-cells-market.html

Customization of the Report:Glob Market Reportsprovides customization of reports as per your need. This report can be personalized to meet your requirements. Get in touch with our sales team, who will guarantee you to get a report that suits your necessities.

Contact Us:

Email ID:sales@syndicatemarketresearch.com

Read more:
Human Embryonic Stem Cells Market 2021 Is Booming Across the Globe by Share, Size, Growth, Segments and Forecast to 2027 The Courier - The Courier

Conversion of mouse embryonic fibroblasts into neural crest cells and functional corneal endothelia by defined small molecules – Science Advances

INTRODUCTION

Corneal disorders are the vital leading cause of blindness, with 12.7 million patients suffering from corneal blindness globally (1). Corneal transplantation, which replaces the damaged cornea with healthy donated corneal tissue, is the primary therapy. However, fewer than 1.5% of patients requiring corneal grafts can receive allotransplants due to a global shortage of donor corneas. Corneal endothelial keratoplasty has grown exponentially and is currently indicated for close to half of all corneal transplantations (2). The corneal endothelium, a monolayer of dedicated cells essential for maintaining the corneas transparency and useful visual function, is naturally nonrenewable in vivo but is lost with age or in various disease states. Therefore, the massive global demand for corneal endothelia allograft cannot be fulfilled at the current rate of cornea donation. Recently, success with surgical grafting of in vitro cultured corneal endothelial cells (CECs) provided a critical proof of principle for a strategy to develop CEC-based cell therapies (3). However, it remains challenging to obtain sufficient CECs from healthy donor tissues.

Direct lineage reprogramming facilitates the generation of functional cell types independent of the donor organ for applications in cell replacement therapy (4). Terminally differentiated cells can be converted to other cell types in vitro by the introduction of lineage-specific transcription factors (TFs), bypassing the pluripotent state (510). Similarly, these conversions can also be induced by the overexpression of specific TFs in vivo (1113). In addition, direct lineage reprogramming mediated by TFs has been used in disease modeling (14), implying its potential for practical applications. Recently, the small moleculebased conversion of fibroblasts to other functional cells represents an attractive reprogramming strategy and has attracted much interest because of its safety and efficiency (1518).

Developmentally, the corneal endothelia originate from neural crest cells (NCCs) (19, 20), which are a population of transient and multipotent cells giving rise to diverse differentiated cell types, including peripheral neurons, glia, melanocytes, and several types of ocular cells (21). During ocular development in vertebrates, NCCs delaminate from the roof plate upon closure of the neural tube and migrate into the eye, where they form the periocular mesenchyme; this tissue further differentiates into diverse cell lineages, including the corneal endothelium, stroma, trabecular meshwork, and others (20, 22, 23).

In this study, we developed a two-step lineage reprogramming strategy to generate chemically induced CECs (ciCECs) from fibroblasts using defined small molecules. We screened a new cocktail of small molecules that could efficiently convert mouse fibroblasts into chemically induced NCCs (ciNCCs) bypassing the pluripotent state. The ciNCCs exhibited typical NCC features and could be further differentiated into ciCECs using another combination of small molecules in vitro. Through lineage tracing in Wnt1-Cre/ROSAtdTomato and Fsp1-Cre/ROSA26tdTomato fibroblasts, we confirmed that the ciNCCs and ciCECs were converted from fibroblast cells. The ciCECs showed similar gene expression profiles and self-renewal capacity to those of primary CECs (pCECs). Transplantation of the ciCECs into an animal model reversed corneal opacity, yielding clear tissue. Our findings provide a new approach to the generation of neural crestlike cells and functional corneal endotheliallike cells, providing a different alternative cell source for regeneration of corneal endothelia and other tissues derived from neural crest.

To identify the chemicals sufficient for ciNCC generation from mouse fibroblasts, we used a lineage tracing strategy to monitor the conversion process and excluded any NCCs from the starting mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) (Fig. 1A and fig. S1A). Wnt1-Cre transgenic mice have been validated as a lineage-tracing reporter model for NCC development (24, 25). In Wnt1-Cre/ROSA26tdTomato mice, tdTomato protein was faithfully expressed in NCCs. MEFs were isolated from Wnt1-Cre/ROSA26tdTomato mice at embryonic day 13.5 (E13.5). Because the NCC population was marked with tdTomato, we performed fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) to collect the tdTomato population to exclude any NCCs or progenitors (the purified cells are hereinafter referred to as Wnt1-tdTomato MEFs; fig. S1B). We confirmed that the Wnt1-tdTomato MEFs were also negative for other NCC markers, including Sox10, P75, Pax3, HNK1, and AP2 (fig. S1, C and D).

(A) Schematic diagram of the reprogramming of NCCs from MEFs. (B) Effects of individual chemicals on ciNCC generation. Data are means SD; n = 3 independent experiments. (C) Enhancement effects of individual chemicals on the generation of ciNCCs. Data are means SD; n = 3 independent experiments. (D) Schematic illustration of our strategy to convert MEFs into ciNCCs. (E) Generation of Wnt1+ ciNCCs from MEFs using a cocktail of small molecules. DMSO, dimethyl sulfoxide. (F) Quantification of Wnt1+ cells induced by candidate cocktails at day 12. Independent experiments, n = 3. (G) Morphological changes on distinct days during the induction process of ciNCCs. Scale bar, 50 m. (H) Percentages of Wnt1-tdTomato+ cells induced by candidate cocktails on distinct days. Independent experiments, n = 3.

To generate ciNCCs from mouse fibroblasts, we hypothesized that small molecules shown to target NCC lineagespecific signaling would facilitate NCC reprogramming. Therefore, we selected 16 small molecules as candidates based on (i) the epigenetic regulation and signaling modulation of NCC development (2629) and (ii) enhanced neural lineage reprogramming. The small molecules for NCC reprogramming were as follows: valproic acid (VPA), SB431542, RepSox, LDN193189 (LDN), CHIR99021, Y-27632, retinoic acid (RA), Forskolin, A8301, EPZ004777 (EPZ), RG108, 5-azacytidine (5-Aza), SMER28, AM580, Parnate, and BMP4 (table S1). For initial screening, the Wnt1-tdTomato MEFs were cultured in a 24-well plate and treated with small molecules. After testing various small-molecule conditions, we found that a combination of SB431542, CHIR99021, and Forskolin yields consistent tdTomato expression (0.53 0.03%) (Fig. 1B). SB431542 is an inhibitor of transforming growth factor (TGF-) signaling, which is important for NCC differentiation (3032). Similarly, CHIR99021 is an inhibitor of glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK3) signaling, which is involved in promoting NCC fate (31, 33, 34). Forskolin, a adenosine 3,5-monophosphate (cAMP) agonist, is crucial in early reprogramming for mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition (MET) (35). For subsequent screening and optimization, we used the combination of SB431542, CHIR99021, and Forskolin as induction basal condition. We found that VPA (a histone deacetylase inhibitor), EPZ004777 [Disruptor of telomeric silencing 1-like (DOPTiL) inhibitor], and 5-Aza (a DNA methylation inhibitor) further enhanced the induction of Wnt1-tdTomato+ cells (Fig. 1C). Therefore, we used a chemically defined medium combined with a cocktail of six small molecules (VPA, CHIR99021, SB431542, Forskolin, 5-Aza, and EPZ004777) (hereafter termed M6) to reprogram mouse fibroblasts into ciNCCs (Fig. 1D). Expression of Wnt1-tdTomato in individual cells was observed as early as day 3 with M6 medium treatment (Fig. 1E). The M6 reprogramming medium effectively induced Wnt1-tdTomato+ cells at 3.67 0.21% (Fig. 1F). On days 5 to 7, inducted Wnt1-tdTomato+ colonies were observed in the M6 reprogramming medium (Fig. 1G and fig. S1E). These Wnt1-tdTomato+ cells and colonies had molecular feature similar to those of primary NCCs (pNCCs). The Wnt1-tdTomato+ cell number increased notably in small colonies at approximately day 12 (Fig. 1H). Although the generation of Wnt1-tdTomato+ NCCs was only as efficient as the conversion of human fibroblasts using TFs (33), merely 2 to 5% of cells were positive for Wnt1-tdTomato in this study. The results were reproducible in different batches of MEFs (n = 8), and MEFs with different genetic backgrounds (C57BL/6, 129C57BL/6, and 129) could also be converted into ciNCCs via M6 conditions (fig. S2). Together, these results indicate that M6 can reprogram MEFs into ciNCCs. Furthermore, M6 could induce neonatal mouse tail-tip fibroblasts (TTFs) into ciNCCs, albeit at a lower reprogramming efficiency (fig. S3).

In the reprogramming process of ciNCCs, Wnt1-positive cells appeared as early as day 3. Small cell colonies emerged toward day 5. With the extension of induction time, the Wnt1-positive cells proliferated gradually.

To obtain the ciNCCs, we performed FACS to collect the Wnt1-tdTomato+ cells on days 12 to 16. Established ciNCCs were serially propagated in NCC expansion medium containing N2, B27, basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), and epidermal growth factor (EGF). Morphologically, M6-induced cells at P3 maintained typical NCC features in monolayer culture (Fig. 2A). After passaging, the ciNCCs became morphologically homogeneous. To further characterize the M6-induced Wnt1-tdTomato+ cells, we sought to examine their gene expression. Our results showed the ciNCCs expressed multiple NCC markers, including P75, HNK1, AP2, and Nestin (Fig. 2B). Furthermore, we tested if the ciNCCs have differentiation potential toward peripheral neurons, Schwann cells, and others. For differentiation of ciNCCs, these cells were cultured in different lineage differentiation media. After cultured for 2 to 4 weeks, the differentiated cells were examined by assessing the expression of the markers by immunostaining. Notably, the ciNCCs could also give rise to cells expressing specific markers for neuron, including Tuj1 and Peripherin (Fig. 2C). For melanocyte differentiation, we observed melanocytes after 2 to 3 weeks of induction (Fig. 2C). Our results of immunostaining showed that the ciNCCs could differentiate to Schwann cells. The induced Schwann cells were GFAP+ and S100+ cells (Fig. 2D). Further differentiation of these ciNCCs in vitro gave rise to mesenchymal lineages, resulting in typical mesenchymal cell morphology. Our results showed that these ciNCC-derived mesenchymal cells could give rise into osteogenic, adipogenic, and chondrogenic cells (Fig. 2E). Collectively, these data indicated that our ciNCCs could be induced to differentiate toward peripheral nervous system lineages and mesenchymal lineages.

(A) Morphology of M6-induced ciNCCs. Scale bar, 400 m. (B) Immunostaining showing that MEF-derived ciNCCs express P75, Sox10, HNK1, AP2, and Nestin. Scale bar, 50 m. (C) Representative images of melanocytes and differentiated ciNCCs stained with peripheral neuron markers. Scale bars, 50 m. (D) Differentiation of ciNCCs into Schwann cells and melanocytes with marker expression. Scale bar, 50 m. (E) ciNCCs were differentiated into mesenchymal lineages and further into adipocytes, chondrocytes, and osteocytes. Scale bars, 100 m.

The mechanisms prompting the differentiation of NCCs to CECs remain unclear (36, 37). The niche surrounding NCCs, for example, lens epithelial cells (LECs), determines their ultimate fate during differentiation (38). To generate mouse CEC-like cells from ciNCCs, we sought small molecules based on their importance in CEC organogenesis and maintenance in vitro. SB431542 (an inhibitor of TGF- signaling) was capable of inducing CEC-like cells from human pluripotent stem cell (PSC) (39, 40). A previous study has reported that the Wnt signaling inhibitor Dkk2 promotes NCC differentiation into CECs (39). We selected the chemical inhibitor CKI-7 as a substitute, which has been shown to block Wnt signaling by inhibiting casein kinase I (41).

We decided to use the medium containing SB431542 and CKI-7 for CEC differentiation from ciNCCs (Fig. 3A). After 7 to 15 days of culture in this differentiation medium, a small population outside or inside the clusters displayed typical tight aggregates with homogeneous and polygonal morphology (Fig. 3B). We also observed that these colonies rapidly expanded, and the small clusters merged into larger ones by days 12 to 15 (Fig. 3B and movie S1). These CEC-like cells grew rapidly and had strong proliferation ability. The ciNCC-derived CEC-like cells formed a monolayer of hexagonal and pentagonal cells. To confirm that the CEC-like cells were derived from ciNCCs, we differentiated tdTomato+ ciNCCs with CEC differentiation medium containing 5 M SB431542 and 5 M CKI-7. These tdTomato+ ciNCCs could also be subsequently induced to differentiate toward polygonal cells (Fig. 3C). We next assessed CEC gene expression including Na+/K+-ATPase (Na+- and K+-dependent adenosine triphosphatase), AQP1, ZO-1, and N-cadherin by immunofluorescence staining. The results showed that these cells expressed CEC-specific markers (Fig. 3D). The TTF-derived ciNCCs also could be induced into CEC-like cells and expressed multiple CEC markers (fig. S3, A and C). In this study, we identified the function of the CEC-like cells by Dil-labeled acetylated low-density lipoprotein (Dil-Ac-LDL) uptake (Fig. 3E). Global gene expression analysis by RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) showed that the CEC-like cells shared a similar gene expression pattern to that of pCECs, but this pattern was distinct from that of the initial MEFs (Fig. 3F). The presence of tight junctions in the CEC-like cells was observed by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) (Fig. 3G). To further monitor the reprogramming process, we confirmed the expression of a panel of NCC and CEC markers at distinct times by using quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). By day 12, robust expression of NCC genes was detected in cells, including Hnk1, P75, Sox10, Sox9, Pax3, and Ap2 (Fig. 4A). In addition, similar kinetics of gene activation for CEC genes, such as Slc4a1c, Col8a1, Na+/K+-ATPase, Aqp1, and N-cadherin, were also detected by qRT-PCR (Fig. 4B). The genes that are known to be enriched in pCECs were greatly up-regulated in ciCECs. To validate the transition process from fibroblast to CECs, we analyzed the transcriptome by using RNA-seq (Fig. 4C). The expression of CEC signature genes in ciCECs was substantially up-regulated, consistent with that of pCECs, whereas fibroblast signature genes were markedly down-regulated. Notably, a panel of NCC marker genes was initially up-regulated and subsequently down-regulated during the induction process (16, 18, 40, 42, 43). Principal components analysis revealed that M6-treated cells were distinct from the original MEFs, indicating that chemical reprogramming led to marked transcriptional changes (Fig. 4D). These results indicate that the CEC-like cells obtained CEC identity. Collectively, these data suggest that the combination of SB431542 and CKI-7 effectively promoted the generation of CECs within 10 to 15 days in the ciNCC culture. Those fibroblast-originated CEC-like cells are thereafter referred to as ciCECs.

(A) Schematic diagram for the chemical reprogramming of ciCECs from MEFs. (B) Bright-field images of initial MEFs, reprogrammed ciNCC colonies, and ciCECs. Scale bar, 400 m. (C) Morphological changes on different days during the induction process of ciCECs from Wnt1-tdTomato+ ciNCCs. Scale bar, 400 m. (D) Immunofluorescence staining of ciCECs for the corneal endothelium markers Na+/K+-ATPase, AQP1, vimentin, N-cadherin, laminin, and ZO-1. Scale bars, 50 m. (E) LDL uptake function in ciCECs at P2 and pCECs at P3. Scale bar, 50 m. (F) Heatmap of differentially expressed genes among the samples at the indicated time points. These numbers below the heatmap indicate independent biological replicates. Red and blue indicate up-regulated and down-regulated genes, respectively. (G) TEM of ciCECs showing the tight junctions. Scale bar, 5 m.

(A) qRT-PCR analysis showing the expression of NCC genes at the indicated time points. Gene expression (log2) was normalized to that in MEFs. (B) qRT-PCR analysis of the expression of the indicated CEC genes in MEF-derived ciCECs at different passages, MEFs, and pCECs. (C) Heatmap of differentially expressed genes among samples at the indicated time points. The number below the heatmap indicates independent biological replicates (n = 12). Red and blue indicate up-regulated and down-regulated genes, respectively. (D) Principal components analysis of samples from day 0 (D0), day 7 (D7), and day 12 (D12) of reprogramming, ciCECs, and the control pCECs.

To confirm the origin of the initial fibroblasts for the small moleculebased reprogramming, we sought a genetic lineage-tracing strategy to purify fibroblast-specific protein 1 (Fsp1)tdTomato+ fibroblasts (Fig. 5A). Fsp1-Cre has been validated as a specific fibroblast marker for lineage tracing (44); thus, Fsp1-Cre mice were crossed with ROSA26tdTomato mice. MEFs were isolated from transgenic mice (Fsp1-Cre/ROSA26tdTomato) at E13.5, and the fibroblasts expressed tdTomato specifically; these cells are hereafter named tdMEFs (fig. S4A). To avoid possible contamination of the MEFs with NCC progenitor cells, we carried out FACS to collect the tdTomato+/p75 population (Fig. 5B and fig. S5G). These tdMEFs were negative for all NCC markers, including P75, HNK1, Sox10, and AP2 (Fig. 5C).

(A) Schematic diagram illustrating the genetic lineage-tracing strategy. MEFs were obtained by sorting for p75/tdTomato+ cells from MEFs derived from E13.5 mouse embryos of the Fsp1-Cre/ROSA26tdTomato background. (B) FACS result showing the p75/tdTomato+ cells from MEFs with a genetic background of Fsp1-Cre/ROSA26 tdTomato. (C) Immunostaining analysis showing negative results for Sox10, P75, HNK1, AP2, Sox2, and Pax6 in the p75/tdTomato+ cells. Scale bar, 100 m. (D) p75/tdTomato+ cell differentiation toward ciNCCs and ciCECs. Scale bars, 400 m. (E) Immunostaining analysis showing positive results for ZO-1, laminin, Na+/K+-ATPase, and AQP1 in the Fsp1-tdTomato-MEFderived ciCECs. Scale bar, 50 m.

Then, these tdMEFs were induced with the abovementioned M6 medium. Epithelial clusters expressing tdTomato were observed during ciNCC induction (Fig. 5D and fig. S4B). We passaged the Fsp1-tdTomato+ ciNCCs and cultured them in NCC expansion medium for further experiments (after 2 weeks of induction). Immunofluorescence analysis confirmed that these Fsp1-tdTomato+ ciNCCs were positive for the NC markers P75, HNK1, Sox10, and AP2, indicating that the colonies of Fsp1-tdTomato+ ciNCCs had the differentiation potential toward CEC-like cells (fig. S4C). Furthermore, the Fsp1-tdTomato+ ciNCCs could differentiate into tdTomato+ ciCECs (fig. S4D). By immunostaining, we found that differentiated CEC-like cells coexpressed Na+/K+-ATPase, AQP1, laminin, ZO-1, Na+/K+-ATPase, and tdTomato (Fig. 5E). Notably, all these ciCECs also expressed tdTomato, demonstrating a conversion from fibroblasts. The results confirmed that the ciNCCs and ciCECs were converted by two-step lineage reprogramming from fibroblasts.

Because the mechanism of our lineage reprogramming might be similar to that of chemically reprogrammed induced PSCs (iPSCs) (9, 16), we sought to assess whether the ciCECs went through an iPSC stage. We performed a comparison between chemical iPSC reprogramming and ciCEC induction from MEFs derived from mice harboring an Oct4 promoterdriven green fluorescent protein (GFP) (OG2) reporter (35, 45). The M6-treated MEFs morphologically underwent a characteristic MET, and small cell colonies gradually emerged toward day 6 (fig. S5A). These cell colonies expressed the NCC marker Sox10 (fig. S5B). In contrast, we did not observe any Oct4-GFPpositive cells during the entire process from MEFs to ciCECs based on our method (fig. S5, C and D). Furthermore, the ciCECs maintained a normal karyotype during 10 continuous passages in vitro (fig. S5E). To evaluate the potential risk of tumorigenesis, a total of 5 106 ciCECs and 2 106 mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs) were transplanted subcutaneously into nonobese diabetic mice (NOD)/severe combined immunodeficient (SCID) mice. Notably, no tumors formed over 6 months after transplantation with ciCECs, whereas large teratomas developed in the mice transplanted with mESCs after 4 to 8 weeks (fig. S5F). This result suggests that the ciCECs have no tumorigenic potential. To better understand their differentiation in vivo, we transplanted ciCECs into the anterior chambers of the eyes of NOD/SCID mice. After 4 to 8 weeks, the transplanted ciCECs did not form tumors over 6 months after transplantation. These results demonstrated that our approach could directly reprogram MEFs to ciNCCs and eventually ciCECs while bypassing the iPSC stage.

The maintenance of cultured CECs with morphology and normal physiological function in vitro has proven challenging (46). We aimed to test whether large numbers of functional ciCECs could be generated from fibroblasts to enable the large-scale application of ciCECs. On the basis of our observations that ciCECs cultured in medium with SB431542 (5 M) and CKI-7 (5 M) were small, polygonally shaped cells (fig. S6A), we hypothesized that SB431542 and CKI-7 would promote ciCEC growth in vitro. We evaluated the long-term expansion capacity of ciCECs in vitro by continuously passaging ciCECs at a 1:6 ratio and found that the phenotype was similar between P3 and P30 (Fig. 6, A and B). This result showed that SB431542 and CKI-7 strongly promoted ciCEC expansion. These ciCECs sustained themselves as a homogeneous cell population for at least 30 passages (P30) with hexagonal morphology in small moleculebased medium. In addition, we successfully clonogenically cultured these ciCECs to 10 passages and demonstrated consistent morphologies. Our results of immunostaining showed that the rate of Ki67-positive cells was higher in ciCECs at P3 than in pCECs at P3 (fig. S6B). ciCECs were highly proliferative, as 24.6, 37.8, and 48.1% of these cells showed incorporation of ethynyl deoxyuridine (EdU) at P1, P3, and P6 (fig. S6C). The results of FACS analysis with propidium iodide (PI) staining showed that the cell cycle distribution (G0-G1, S, and G2-M phases) was 46.30, 45.11, and 8.59% for ciCECs at P3 and 67.30, 21.50, and 11.20% for pCECs at P3 (fig. S6D). They rapidly expanded into large, homogeneous colonies with population doubling times of 22.3 3.7 hours (Fig. 6C). Large vacuole-like structures were found on the surface of the ciCECs at P2 to P10 (Fig. 6D). These vacuole-like structures disappeared at P20 when they were serially propagated. Notably, the ciCECs at P30 also expressed typical CEC markers, including Na+/K+-ATPase, AQP1, and ZO-1 (Fig. 6E). When assayed by imaging for the ability to migrate into the space created by a scratch wound, ciCECs cultured in medium with SB431542 and CKI-7 at different passages showed a stronger capability of proliferation and migration as compared to that of pCECs (fig. S6, E and F). Collectively, these results demonstrated that SB431542 and CKI-7 had a robust and general effect on long-term expansion of ciCECs in vitro.

(A) ciCECs were expanded for 3 days in serum-free control medium. Scale bar, 200 m. (B) Serial expansion of ciCECs in the serum-free medium with addition of SB431542 and CKI-7. Scale bar, 200 m. (C) Average population doubling times (means SD, n = 3; ***P < 0.001) of the ciCECs cultured in medium with and without SB431542 and CKI-7. (D) Bright-field image of ciCECs at P5, which were expanded for 3 days in culture condition with addition of SB431542 and CKI-7. Arrows indicate the vacuole-like structures. Scale bar, 50 m. (E) These ciCECs at P30 were fixed and stained for Na+/K+-ATPase, AQP1, and ZO-1. Scale bar, 50 m.

To evaluate whether the ciCECs had the capacity to regenerate the corneal endothelia in vivo, we transplanted them into a well-established rabbit model with bullous keratopathy by mechanically scraping corneal endothelia from Descemets membrane (47, 48). A previous study found that injection of human pCECs supplemented with a ROCK inhibitor restored endothelial function (49). Corneal edema decreased much earlier after ciCEC transplantation in the grafted eyes than in the untreated eyes. Compared to the untreated eyes, which showed that the clarity of the cornea was unchanged, we noted that the clarity of the cornea of the grafted eyes increased gradually after transplantation (Fig. 7A). After 7 days, the corneas of the grafted eyes became transparent, while corneal opacity and stromal oedema remained poor in the untreated eyes. The results of slit-lamp examination showed that the clarity of the cornea of the grafted eyes was also notably improved after injection, and the pupil and iris texture could be clearly observed (Fig. 7B and fig. S7A).

(A) Diagram depicting the transplantation of ciCECs with the ROCK inhibitor into model rabbits. (B) Corneal transparency in the grafted eyes was notably improved after transplantation, while corneal opacity and stromal oedema were still serious in the untreated controls. (C) Slit-lamp microscopic images showing that the clarity of the grafted corneas was substantially improved after transplantation, while corneal opacity and stromal oedema remained in the untreated controls. (D) Immunohistochemistry showing that surviving tdTomato+ ciCECs were attached to Descemets membrane. Scale bar, 100 m. (E) Visante OCT showing ameliorated corneal oedema (reduced corneal thickness) in a grafted eye. (F and G) Trend in corneal thickness and corneal clarity after transplantation. There were significant differences in corneal thickness and transparency between the untreated controls and the grafted groups. The results are means and SEM for biological replicates (n = 9). (H) Live confocal imaging of corneal endothelia confirmed full coverage of polygonal cells on Descemets membrane in the grafted eyes. Photo credit: Zi-Bing Jin, Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Ophthalmology & Visual Science Key Laboratory, Beijing, 100730 China.

Next, we investigated ciCEC survival in the grafted eyes. Eyeballs were enucleated at postsurgical day 28 to evaluate the transplanted ciCECs. Fluorescence microscopy examination confirmed the existence of tdTomato-tagged grafted cells. Visante optical coherence tomography (OCT) of the anterior segment also showed that the corneal thickness decreased after ciCEC injection (Fig. 7C and fig. S7C). Confocal microscopy confirmed full coverage of polygonal endothelial cells on Descemets membrane in the ciCEC-grafted disease models, while this could not be detected in the untreated models due to their severe corneal opacity (Fig. 7D). Under magnification, the grafted ciCECs tightly adhered to the posterior surface of the cornea in a monolayer, whereas the Descemets membranes in the untreated model were bare and had no detectable CECs on day 28. Immunohistochemistry demonstrated ZO-1 expression, indicating the adhesion of injected cells onto the corneal tissue (Fig. 7E and fig. S7D).

There was a rapid decrease in corneal thickness within 4 weeks after ciCEC injection, followed by a more gradual decrease over the next 2 weeks (Fig. 7F and fig. S7E). In the untreated group, mean corneal thickness was approximately 1200 m throughout the 42 days of observation. In contrast, it decreased rapidly in the grafted group, being significantly less than that in the untreated group. We observed that the mean corneal thickness at postoperative days 14 (P < 0.01), 21, 28, 35, and 42 (P < 0.001) in the ciCEC-grafted group was significantly less than that in the control group, indicating that corneal edema was markedly reversed. Meanwhile, corneal clarity gradually increased after ciCEC transplantation, and grafted corneas had higher corneal transparency compared to untreated controls (Fig. 7G). These results strongly suggest that ciCEC transplantation repopulated and self-organized on the posterior surface of the cornea and has the capacity to regenerate the corneal endothelium. In this study, the ciCECs were injected combined with a ROCK inhibitor (Y-27632) into the anterior chambers of the eyes (Fig. 7H and movie S2). Each recipient received 1 106 ciCECs. Fellow eyes (normal) and untreated eyes [phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) injection] were used as experimental controls.

Previous studies have reported that NCCs can generate from fibroblasts by introducing NCC-specific TFs (33, 42). In this study, we demonstrated that ciNCCs could be generated from MEFs via a small-molecule reprogramming method in vitro. The generated ciNCCs resemble NCCs in the expression profile of signature genes, capacity for self-renewal, and the differentiation potential into derivative neurons, Schwann cells, and mesenchymal lineages. These finding demonstrated that direct lineage-specific conversion to NCCs from MEFs could be achieved by the manipulation of signaling pathways with small molecules. In addition, given the broad spectrum of NCC derivatives, our approach for developing ciNCCs holds great potential as a different source to generate other NCC-derivative cell types (50).

Furthermore, we successfully generated functional ciCECs from ciNCCs. We explored defined differentiation conditions including SB431542 and CKI-7 to achieve this process in vitro. ciCECs showed an expression profile and function close to those of mature CEC. These ciCECs were found to expand further and maintain contact-inhibited hexagonal phenotype in the defined serum-free chemical medium. The maintenance of pCECs in vitro has been proven challenging. When grown under normal culture conditions in vitro, pCECs often show morphological fibroblastic changes and lose their physiological function (43, 51). A TGF- inhibitor maintains the CEC phenotype during the process of ciCEC generation. A previous study showed that SB431542 assisted in the maintenance of cultivated CECs with a normal polygonal and functional phenotype (52). We found that the ciCECs could maintain normal polygonal morphology and function in the medium with SB431542 and CKI-7 over the long term. Notably, these cells could be serially expanded up to 30 passages and maintained contact-inhibited hexagonal phenotype. The contact-inhibited plays important roles in keeping the monolayer structure of ciCECs. Thus, it does not allow ciCECs to overproliferate in vitro and in vivo. During the passage, main genes related to maturation were increased, indicating that they were mature ciCECs.

Corneal endothelium is derived from periocular NCCs (53). Previous reports have shown that PSCs can differentiate into CECs with a conditioned medium (36, 37, 39). Defined medium containing small molecules promoted PSC to differentiate into CEC-like cells (39). Most approaches for the generation of CECs from stem cells in vitro were stepwise procedures according to the developmental process. Consistent with previous studies, the lineage conversion from mouse fibroblasts is also a stepwise procedure. The induction strategy for ciCECs is composed of two major steps, including an initial chemical conversion of ciNCCs from mouse fibroblasts, followed by lineage-specific differentiation into ciCECs. The ciCECs have advantages over the PSC-derived CECs in certain aspects. The small moleculebased conversion from fibroblasts makes the generation of ciCECs safe, which have no tumorigenic potential. Moreover, ciCECs can be produced from individual patients, thus developing individualized cell therapy (40).

The generation of large numbers of functional CECs for cell-based approaches to corneal endothelial dysfunction is an important goal. Direct reprogramming of fibroblasts to CECs could offer a solution to this problem. The ciCECs exhibited a monolayer of hexagonal shaped cells in vitro. In vivo engraftment of ciCECs substantially reversed the corneal opacity in the rabbit corneal endothelial dysfunction model, indicating their therapeutic effect for corneal endothelial deficiency. A previous study has shown that cultivated rabbit CECs injected with Y-27632 were successful in recovering complete transparency of the corneas (47). However, further commenting is needed on the immunologic rejection of xenotransplantation that occurs in this study.

It has been known that MEFs contain a heterogeneous population of nonfibroblast precursor cells (16). To avoid possible contamination of NCCs in the starting MEFs, we carried out a lineage-tracing experiment to track the origin of the ciNCCs and ciCECs. We verified that the Wnt1+ ciNCCs were generated from non-NCC fibroblasts. To further confirm the origin of the ciNCCs, we confirmed that the tdTomato-positive ciNCCs generated from fibroblasts and engrafted Fsp1-tdTomato ciCECs in the animal model by using a fibroblast-specific Fsp1-Cre lineage-tracing reporter in MEFs.

In conclusion, our study presents a new strategy to generate functional CECs through induction of NCCs with chemically defined small-molecule cocktails, providing a new source of neural crest derivatives for the purpose of corneal engineering and regeneration.

The Wnt1-Cre [Tg(Wnt1-Cre)11Rth], Fsp1-Cre [BALB/c-Tg (S100a4-cre)1Egn/YunkJ], and ROSA26-tdTomato [Gt(ROSA)26Sortm14(CAG-tdTomato)Hze] mice were obtained from The Jackson Laboratory; the Oct4-GFP transgenic allelecarrying mice (CBA/CaJC57BL/6J) were also obtained from The Jackson Laboratory; and the 129Sv/Jae and C57BL/6 mice were obtained from Shanghai Vital River Laboratory. The rabbits used in this study were of the New Zealand white strain and were obtained from JOINN Laboratories (Suzhou) Inc., Suzhou, China. All the animals were housed under stable conditions (21 2C) with a 12-hour dark/light cycle. All animal experiments were approved by the Animal Ethics Committee of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.

MEFs were isolated from E13.5 embryos as previously described (54). Briefly, the neural tissues (including head, spinal cord, and tail), limbs, gonads, and visceral tissues of the E13.5 mouse embryos were carefully removed and discarded before MEF isolation. The remaining tissues were sliced into small pieces, trypsinized, and plated onto 10-cm dishes in fibroblast medium. Mouse NCCs were isolated from the neural tube of E8.5 embryos under a dissection microscope as previously described (55). The mouse meninges and vessels were removed and discarded. The remaining brain tissues were sliced into small pieces, dissociated with 0.25% trypsin (Gibco) for 15 min at 37C, washed with Dulbeccos modified Eagles medium (DMEM)/F12 twice, and then plated in a T25 flask bottle in NCC medium, which is composed of DMEM/F12 (Gibco) supplemented with 1 N2 (Gibco), 1 B27 (Gibco), bFGF (20 ng/ml) (PeproTech), and EGF (10 ng/ml) (PeproTech). Mouse pCECs were isolated from postnatal day 30 (P1)2 pups following a published protocol (56). They were cultured in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) (Gibco), 0.1 mM nonessential amino acids (NEAAs) (Sigma-Aldrich), 2 mM GlutaMAX (Gibco), and 2 mM penicillin-streptomycin (Gibco). The mESCs were maintained in ESC medium, which is composed of DMEM with 1 N2 (Gibco), 1 B27 (Gibco), leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF), 0.1 mM nonessential amino acids (Sigma-Aldrich), 2 mM GlutaMAX (Gibco), 2 mM penicillin-streptomycin (Gibco), 0.1 mM 2-mercaptoethanol (Gibco), CHIR99021 (3 mM), and PD0325901 (1 mM).

Primary MEFs were isolated from E13.5 mouse embryos with a genetic background of Wnt1-Cre/ROSA26tdTomato (Wnt1-Cre mice ROSA26tdTomato mice) and Fsp1-Cre/ROSA26tdTomato (Fsp1-Cre mice ROSA26tdTomato mice). The MEFs at P2 were dissociated with 0.25% trypsin at 37C for 5 min and neutralized with MEF medium. To prepare the Fsp1-MEFs, the resulting fibroblasts were sorted to obtain tdTomato+/p75 cells by FACS. These MEFs were stained with a specific antibody against p75 and subjected to FACS for tdTomato+/p75 cells. During FACS, a Matrigel-coated 24-well plate was prewarmed at 37C for at least 30 min before seeding the tdMEFs. The tdMEFs were planted immediately after FACS into the prewarmed Matrigel-coated 24-well plate at 1.5 104 cells per well in MEF medium in 5% CO2 and 20% O2 at 37C for 5 hours to allow the cells to attach to the plate.

Small molecules, including the GSK3 inhibitor CHIR99021, the TGF- inhibitor SB431542, the cAMP inducer Forskolin, and CKI-7, were acquired from Sigma-Aldrich. bFGF was acquired from PeproTech. All chemical components are described in table S1.

M6 reprogramming medium preparation. The basal medium contained knockout DMEM (Gibco), 10% KSR (KnockOut serum replacement) (Gibco), 10% FBS (Gibco), 1% NEAA (Gibco), and 0.1 mM 2-mercaptoethanol (Gibco) supplemented with the small molecules CHIR99021 (3 M), SB431542 (5 M), Forskolin (10 M), VPA (500 mM), EPZ004777 (5 M), and 5-Aza (0.5 M). The medium was shaken for 30 min to ensure that all components were fully dissolved.

CEC differentiation and medium preparation. DMEM/F12/GlutaMAX (Gibco), 10% KSR (Gibco), 1% NEAA (Gibco), and 0.1 mM 2-mercaptoethanol (Gibco) were supplemented with SB431542 (5 M) and CKI-7 (5 M).

Chemical conversion of NCCs from mouse fibroblasts. The MEFs and TTFs were plated at 5 104 cells per well on six-well tissue culture plates in fibroblast medium. The culture plates were precoated with fibronectin or laminin for more than 2 hours. After overnight culture, the medium was exchanged with M6 chemical medium, which was refreshed every 2 days. NCC-like cells appeared and increased at days 3 to 5. After 7 to 10 days of induction, FACS was performed to collect Wnt1+ cells.

Generation of ciCECs from mouse ciNCCs. On days 12 to 16, the M6 chemical medium was replaced with CEC differentiation medium, which was refreshed every 2 days. Endothelial-like cell clusters appeared as early as day 20. During days 30 to 35, these CEC-like cell colonies were counted or further detected.

Cells were washed once with 1 PBS and then fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde at room temperature for 10 to 15 min, followed by permeabilization with 0.2% Triton X-100 in 1 PBS for 10 min and blocking with 7.5% bovine serum albumin (BSA) for at least 1 hour. All primary antibodies were diluted in 7.5% BSA, and the primary antibody reactions were incubated at 4C overnight. Then, the cells were washed with 1 PBS for 10 min five times at room temperature. The secondary antibodies with Alexa Fluor 488, Alexa Fluor 555, and Alexa Fluor 647, purchased from Invitrogen, were diluted in 7.5% BSA, and incubation was performed for 1 hour at room temperature, followed by five 10-min washes with 1 PBS. The nuclei were stained with 4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI). The antibodies used in this study are listed in table S2.

Total RNA was extracted using an RNeasy Plus Mini kit (Qiagen). In brief, 1 g of total RNA was used for reverse transcription with an iScript cDNA synthesis kit (Bio-Rad), and the resulting complementary DNA (cDNA) was diluted five times in H2O for PCR. For semiquantitative PCR, 1 l of one-fifth diluted cDNA was used as template for the following PCR program: 95C for 5 min and 35 cycles of 95C for 30 s, 60C for 30 s, and 72C for 30 s, followed by 72C for 10 min. Quantitative PCR was performed following the FAST SYBR Green Master Mix (ABI) protocol. All PCR was performed in triplicate, and the expression of individual genes was normalized to that of Gapdh. The primer sequences are listed in table S3.

Total RNA for each sample was isolated with TRIzol reagent and purified using the RNeasy 23 Mini Kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturers instructions. RNA quality and quantity were assessed using NanoDrop 2000, Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer, and Agilent RNA 6000 Nano Kit. RNA library construction and RNA-seq were performed by the Annoroad Gene Technology. Sequencing libraries were generated using the NEB Next Ultra RNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina24 (NEB), and library clustering was performed using HiSeq PE Cluster Kit v4-cBot-HS (Illumina) following the manufacturers recommendations. After cluster generation, the libraries were sequenced on an Illumina platform and 150base pair paired-end reads were generated. The initial data analysis was performed on BMKCloud (www.biocloud.net/).

For MEF preparation, fibroblasts with the desired genotype were cultured in MEF medium until they reached more than 80% confluence. The cells were washed twice with 1 PBS and treated with 0.25% trypsin at 37C for 5 min. After harvesting, the cells were passed through a 70-m filter, washed twice with PBS, and resuspended in precooled buffer (1 PBS, 1.5% FBS, and 0.5% BSA). The cells were incubated with either fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)conjugated P75 antibody (Abcam) or isotype control (BD) at the suggested concentrations on ice for 30 min or room temperature for 45 min, followed by six washes with FACS buffer. Cells were then resuspended in FACS buffer and sorted with BD FACSAria II.

Approximately 5 103 ciNCCs were seeded on laminin-coated 24-well tissue culture plates and cultured in N2B27 medium, which contained 1 N2, 1 B27, EGF (10 ng/ml), and bFGF (10 ng/ml) in Neurobasal medium. After 24 hours, cells were subjected to differentiation conditions.

For peripheral neuron differentiation, the medium was switched to neuron differentiation medium [NCC medium without bFGF and EGF, with the addition of 200 M ascorbic acid, 2 M dibutyryl cAMP (db-cAMP), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) (25 ng/ml), NT3 (25 ng/ml), and glial cell linederived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) (50 ng/ml)]. Half of the medium was changed every 2 to 3 days. Specific neuron markers were analyzed by day 10 to day 20 after differentiation.

For Schwann cell differentiation, ciNCCs were cultured in N2B27 medium for at least 2 weeks. Differentiation was then induced by culturing in NCC medium without FGF2 and EGF and supplemented with ciliary neurotrophic factor (10 ng/ml), neuregulin (20 ng/ml), and 0.5 mM db-cAMP for 3 to 4 weeks. Media were changed every 2 to 3 days. Cells were then examined for the expression of Schwann cell protein markers by immunostaining.

To differentiate into melanocytes, ciNCCs were cultured in the presence of 5 M RA and Shh (Sonic hedgehog) (200 ng/ml) for 1 day and platelet-derived growth factorAA (PDGF-AA) (20 ng/ml), bFGF (20 ng/ml), and Shh (200 ng/ml) for 3 to 5 days; then, they were cultured in differentiation medium containing T3 (40 ng/ml), Shh (200 ng/ml), 1 nM LDN193189, 5 mM db-cAMP, and NT3 (10 ng/ml) for 8 to 12 days. The medium was refreshed every other day.

For mesenchymal differentiation, ciNCCs were cultured for 3 weeks in -MEM containing 10% FBS, as previously described (57). The differentiation potential of ciNCC-derived mesenchymal stem cells was achieved by incubation with adipogenesis medium, osteogenesis medium, and chondrogenesis medium, respectively (Cyagen Biosciences). The differentiation medium was refreshed every 3 days. The induced cells were stained with Oil Red O stain kit (Solarbio), alizarin red S (Sigma-Aldrich), and Alcian blue (Sigma-Aldrich) after 3 weeks of induction.

Cells were carefully dissociated into single-cell suspensions by trypsin (Gibco), washed twice with PBS, and then fixed overnight with cold 70% ethanol. Fixed cells were washed twice with PBS, followed by ribonuclease (100 g/ml; Sigma-Aldrich) treatment and PI (50 g/ml; Sigma-Aldrich) staining for 30 min at 37C. Approximately 1 106 cells were analyzed using FACSCanto II (Becton Dickinson) to determine the cell cycle distribution pattern. The percentages of cells in the G1, S, and G2-M phases of the cell cycle were analyzed using ModFit 4.1 (Verity Software House).

For generation of teratoma in vivo, 5 106 ciCECs were subcutaneously injected into each recipient NOD/SCID mouse (n = 5). Control NOD/SCID mice (n = 3) were injected with 2 106 mESCs, and teratoma formed from 4 to 8 weeks. Then, images of mice were captured with the cell phone imaging system.

All rabbits weighing 2.0 to 2.5 kg were anesthetized intramuscularly with ketamine hydrochloride (60 mg/kg) and xylazine (10 mg/kg; Bayer). The rabbits were divided into two groups (n = 10 each group), and the right eye was used for this experiment. After disinfection and sterile draping of the operation site, a 6-mm corneal incision centered at 12 oclock was made with a slit knife, and a viscoelastic agent (Healon; Amersham Pharmacia Biotech AB) was infused into the anterior chamber. After the corneal surface had been ruled with a marking pen (Devon Industries Inc.), a 6.0-mm-diameter circular aperture for descemetorhexis was created in the center of the cornea with a 30-gauge needle (Terumo), and Descemets membrane was removed from the anterior chamber of the eye. The corneal endothelium was mechanically scraped from Descemets membrane with a lacrimal passage irrigator (Shandong Weigao) as previously described. Fsp-ciCECs were dissociated using 0.25% trypsin-EDTA, resuspended in basic medium at a density of 1 107 cells/ml, and kept on ice. The anterior chamber was washed with PBS three times. After this procedure, a 26-gauge needle was used to inject 1 106 cultured ciCECs suspended in 100 l of basic DMEM containing 10 M ROCK inhibitor Y-27632 (Selleck) into the anterior chamber of the right eye. Thereafter, rabbits in the ciCEC transplantation groups were kept in the eye-down position for 24 hours under deep anesthesia so the cells could become attached by gravitation. Each surgical eye was checked two or three times a week by external examination, and photographs were taken on days 3, 7, 14, and 28 after injection. Central corneal thickness was measured using the Spectralis BluePeak OCT unit (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany), and CECs were imaged with confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (HRT3, Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) on days 0.5, 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 after surgery. An average of three readings was taken. Corneal transparency was scored using a scale of 0 to 4 as previously described (58), where 0 = completely clear; 1 = slightly hazy, iris and pupils easily visible; 2 = slightly opaque, iris and pupils still detectable; 3 = opaque, pupils hardly detectable; and 4 = completely opaque with no view of the pupils. Photographs of ocular surface were taken with slit-lamp microscopy (SLM-8E, KANGHUA, China) at each time point.

The proliferation rate of ciCECs cultured in differentiation medium was determined by the Click-iT EdU Alexa Fluor 488 Imaging Kit (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturers instructions. Briefly, passaged CECs were seeded onto a slide at a lower density of 5 103 cells per cm2 and cultured for 24 hours.

For TEM analysis, cells were fixed in 2.5% EM-grade glutaraldehyde (Servicebio) for 2 to 4 hours at 4C, washed with 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.4), postfixed in 1% osmium tetroxide for 2 to 4 hours at 4C, and washed and then dehydrated in an ethanol series (50 to 100%) to a final rinse in 100% acetone, followed by 2-hour incubations in 1:1 acetone/Pon 812 (SPI) and overnight incubation in 1:2 acetone/Pon 812. The samples were embedded in Pon 812, polymerized for 48 hours at 60C, and then sectioned (60 to 80 nm) with a diamond knife (Daitome). Sections were stained with 2% uranyl acetate, followed by lead citrate, and visualized using an HT7700 transmission electron microscope (HITACHI).

ciCECs and pCECs were cultured for 24 hours and then incubated with Dil-Ac-LDL (10 g/ml) (Invitrogen) in culture medium at 37C for 6 hours. Cells were washed three times with PBS and stained with FITC-lectin (10 mg/ml) (Sigma-Aldrich) at 37C in the dark for 2 hours. Thereafter, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde for 15 min. The cells were imaged using an inverted fluorescence microscope.

Cells were treated with colcemid (0.1 g/ml) (Gibco) at 37C for 2 hours, trypsinized, resuspended, and incubated in 0.075 M potassium chloride for 15 min at 37C, fixed with 3:1 methanol:acetic acid, and then dropped onto slides to spread the chromosomes. The chromosomes were visualized by Giemsa (Solarbio) staining.

All experiments were independently performed at least three times. The results are expressed as means SD. The data were analyzed by unpaired two-tailed Students t tests for comparisons of two groups and by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukeys test or Dunnetts multiple comparisons test for comparisons of multiple groups. All analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics 19.0 software. P < 0.05 was considered significant. The accession number for the RNA-seq data reported in this paper is National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO): GSE162889.

Acknowledgments: We thank D. Jiang and H. Liu for the computational analysis and H. Li for the support of transplantation in rabbit model. Funding: This study was supported by the Beijing Natural Science Foundation (Z200014), National Key R&D Program of China (2017YFA0105300), National Natural Science Foundation of China (81600749, 81790644, and 81970838), and Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (LD18H120001LD). Author contributions: Z.-B.J. designed and supervised the study and provided financial supports. S.-H.P. and N.Z. performed transdifferentiation experiments and data analysis. N.Z. and X.F. conducted qRT-PCR experiments, N.Z. performed the reprogramming experiments and compound removal experiments, and X.F. performed the immunostaining. N.Z. worked on the in vivo experiments. Y.J. carried out corneal transparency scaling analysis. S.-H.P. wrote the manuscript. Z.-B.J. and Y.J. revised the manuscript. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Data and materials availability: All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper and/or the Supplementary Materials. The Supplemental Information for this article includes seven figures, Supplemental Experimental Procedures, and a Small-Molecule Screening Table and can be found with this article online.

Follow this link:
Conversion of mouse embryonic fibroblasts into neural crest cells and functional corneal endothelia by defined small molecules - Science Advances

Global Stem Cells Market Regulations and Competitive Landscape Outlook, 2020 to 2025 The Courier – The Courier

Global Stem Cells Market 2020 by Company, Regions, Type and Application, Forecast to 2025 recently published by MarketQuest.biz, contains important market data that is collected from two or three sources, and the models. A loyal team of experienced forecasters, well-versed analysts, and knowledgeable researchers have worked painstakingly. The report involves six major parameters namely market analysis, market definition, market segmentation, key developments in the market, competitive analysis, and research methodology. Different markets, marketing strategies, future products, and emerging opportunities are taken into account while studying the global Stem Cells market and preparing this report.

The report presents a great understanding of the current market situation with the historic and upcoming market size based on technological growth, value and volume, projecting cost-effective and leading fundamentals in the market. The research report gives essential statistics on the market status of producers as well as offers beneficial advice and direction for businesses and individuals interested in the global Stem Cells industry.

NOTE: Our report highlights the major issues and hazards that companies might come across due to the unprecedented outbreak of COVID-19.

DOWNLOAD FREE SAMPLE REPORT: https://www.marketquest.biz/sample-request/31756

Market Scope And Segments:

It provides market size (value and volume), market share, growth rate by types, applications, and combines both qualitative and quantitative methods to make micro and macro forecasts in different regions or countries. The global Stem Cells market is segmented on the basis of product, application, and leading regions. The report brings together granular experiences with enormous demand drivers, headway opportunities, pay prospects, and massive challenges and dangers that have a significant effect on the expansion of the company space.

The top players listed in the market report are:

CCBC, Beikebiotech, Vcanbio, Boyalife

Based on type, the report split into:

Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cell, Embryonic Stem Cell, Adult Stem Cell, Other

Based on application market is segmented into:

Diseases Therapy, Healthcare

According to the regional segmentation, the market provides the information covers the following regions:

North America (United States, Canada and Mexico), Europe (Germany, France, UK, Russia and Italy), Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, Korea, India and Southeast Asia), South America (Brazil, Argentina, etc.), Middle East & Africa (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa)

This report aims to give emerging as well as established industry players a strategic edge by allowing them to better grasp industry events and gather insights on past and current industry happenings that are expected to affect the global Stem Cells markets growth in the coming years. The study provides an up-to-date overview of the emerging global business situation, as well as the most recent developments and factors, as well as the overall market climate. This report makes it easy to know about the market strategies that are being adopted by the competitors and leading organizations.

ACCESS FULL REPORT: https://www.marketquest.biz/report/31756/global-stem-cells-market-2020-by-company-regions-type-and-application-forecast-to-2025

The market study report can help to understand the market and strategize for business expansion. In the strategy analysis, the report throws light on insights from marketing channel and market positioning to potential growth strategies, providing in-depth analysis for new entrants or exists competitors in the global Stem Cells industry.

The Market Research/analysis Report Contains Answers To Your Following Questions:

Customization of the Report:

This report can be customized to meet the clients requirements. Please connect with our sales team (sales@marketquest.biz), who will ensure that you get a report that suits your needs. You can also get in touch with our executives on +1-201-465-4211 to share your research requirements.

Contact Us Mark Stone Head of Business Development Phone: +1-201-465-4211 Email: sales@marketquest.biz Web: http://www.marketquest.biz

Here is the original post:
Global Stem Cells Market Regulations and Competitive Landscape Outlook, 2020 to 2025 The Courier - The Courier

Global cell isolation market was valued at USD7013.71 million in 2020 and is anticipated to reach USD15529.45 million by 2026 – Yahoo Finance

by registering a CAGR of 15. 25% until 2026. Cell isolation is a technique of isolating cells for diagnosis and analysis of a particular type of cell. The market growth can be attributed to the rising demand for drugs, vaccines and other related products, as they are manufactured with the assistance of cell isolation technique.

New York, June 03, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Reportlinker.com announces the release of the report "Global Cell Isolation Market - Competition Forecast & Opportunities, 2026" - https://www.reportlinker.com/p06089447/?utm_source=GNW Increasing popularity of precision medicines is also working in the favor of the market growth.

Global cell isolation market has been segmented into product, cell type, source, technique, application, end-user, company and region.Based on technique, the market is further fragmented into centrifugation-based cell isolation, surface-marker based cell isolation and filtration-based cell isolation, amongst which, centrifugation-based cell isolation segment occupied the largest market share in 2020 as it finds extensive applications in various end user sectors such as academic institutes, research laboratories, etc.

Based on application, the market is further divided into biomolecule isolation, cancer research, stem cell research, in vitro diagnostics and others.Among these, cancer research and stem cell research are projected to be the lucrative segments of the market in the forecast period.

Increase in the research activities by biopharma companies and laboratory is the key factor for the growth of the segments.

Based on regional analysis, Asia-Pacific is expected to grow at the highest CAGR during the forecast period.The high CAGR of the region can be attributed to the relaxation in the stringent rules and regulations laid down by the government for drug development.

Another factor that can be held responsible for the fastest growth of the region is the availability of competent researchers and personnel who can carry out cell isolation techniques along with a wide genome pool.

Major players operating in the global cell isolation market include GE Healthcare Inc., Stemcell Technologies Inc., Danaher Corporation (Beckman Coulter Inc.), Becton, Dickinson and Company, Merck KGaA, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc., Terumo Corporation, Sartorius AG, Cell Biolabs Inc., Miltenyi Biotec GmbH, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Corning Inc, Akadeum Life Sciences, Inc., Invent Biotechnologies, Inc. and others. The market players are focusing on research and development activities in order to enhance their product portfolios and strengthen their position across the global market. For instance, the major pharmaceutical companies worldwide are making substantial investments in R&D to introduce new drugs in the market. Such investments are expected to increase the demand for cell isolation products over the coming years. In addition to this, new product developments help vendors to expand their product portfolio and gain maximum share in the sector. For example, Thermo Scientifics Medifuge is a benchtop centrifuge which is having a unique hybrid rotor as well as an interchangeable swing-out buckets and fixed-angle rotors to facilitate rapid & convenient applications on a single platform. Moreover, collaborations, mergers & acquisitions and regional expansions are some of the other strategic initiatives taken by major companies for serving the unmet needs of their customers.

Years considered for this report:

Historical Years: 2016-2019 Base Year: 2020 Estimated Year: 2021 Forecast Period: 2022-2026

Objective of the Study:

To analyze the historical growth in the market size of global cell isolation market from 2016 to 2020. To estimate and forecast the market size of global cell isolation market from 2021 to 2026 and growth rate until 2026. To classify and forecast global cell isolation market based on product, cell type, source, technique, application, end-user, company and region. To identify dominant region or segment in the global cell isolation market. To identify drivers and challenges for global cell isolation market. To examine competitive developments such as expansions, new product launches, mergers & acquisitions, etc., in global cell isolation market. To conduct pricing analysis for global cell isolation market. To identify and analyze the profile of leading players operating in global cell isolation market. To identify key sustainable strategies adopted by market players in global cell isolation market. The analyst performed both primary as well as exhaustive secondary research for this study.Initially, the analyst sourced a list of companies and laboratories using cell isolation techniques across the globe.

Subsequently, the analyst conducted primary research surveys with the identified companies.While interviewing, the respondents were also enquired about their competitors.

Through this technique, the analyst could include the companies and laboratories using cell isolation techniques which could not be identified due to the limitations of secondary research. The analyst examined the companies and laboratories using cell isolation techniques and presence of all major players across the globe. The analyst calculated the market size of global cell isolation market using a bottom-up approach, wherein data for various end-user segments was recorded and forecast for the future years. The analyst sourced these values from the industry experts and company representatives and externally validated through analyzing historical data of these product types and applications for getting an appropriate, overall market size.

Various secondary sources such as company websites, news articles, press releases, company annual reports, investor presentations and financial reports were also studied by the analyst.

Key Target Audience:

Companies and laboratories using cell isolation techniques, research labs, end users and other stakeholders Government bodies such as regulating authorities and policy makers Organizations, forums and alliances related to cell isolation Market research and consulting firms The study is useful in providing answers to several critical questions that are important for the industry stakeholders such as research labs, end users, etc., besides allowing them in strategizing investments and capitalizing on market opportunities.

Report Scope:

In this report, global cell isolation market has been segmented into the following categories, in addition to the industry trends which have also been detailed below: Global Cell Isolation Market, By Product: o Consumables o Instruments Global Cell Isolation Market, By Cell Type: o Human Cells o Animal Cells Global Cell Isolation Market, By Source: o Bone Marrow o Cord Blood/Embryonic Stem Cells o Adipose Tissue Global Cell Isolation Market, By Technique: o Centrifugation-Based Cell Isolation o Surface Marker-Based Cell Isolation o Filtration-Based Cell Isolation Global Cell Isolation Market, By Application: o Biomolecule Isolation o Cancer Research o Stem Cell Research o In Vitro Diagnostics o Others Global Cell Isolation Market, By End-User: o Biotechnology and Biopharmaceutical Companies o Research Laboratories and Institutes o Hospitals and Diagnostic Laboratories o Cell Banks Global Cell Isolation Market, By Region: o North America United States Mexico Canada o Europe Germany United Kingdom France Italy Spain o Asia-Pacific China Japan India South Korea Australia o South America Brazil Argentina Colombia o Middle East and Africa South Africa Saudi Arabia UAE

Competitive Landscape

Company Profiles: Detailed analysis of the major companies present in global cell isolation market.

Available Customizations:

With the given market data, we offers customizations according to a companys specific needs. The following customization options are available for the report:

Company Information

Detailed analysis and profiling of additional market players (up to five). Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p06089447/?utm_source=GNW

About Reportlinker ReportLinker is an award-winning market research solution. Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry data so you get all the market research you need - instantly, in one place.

__________________________

Story continues

See more here:
Global cell isolation market was valued at USD7013.71 million in 2020 and is anticipated to reach USD15529.45 million by 2026 - Yahoo Finance

Innovative Regenerative Medicine Therapies Safety Comes First – FDA.gov

Caption

By: Peter Marks, M.D., Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration continues to facilitate the development and availability of innovative medical products, such as regenerative medicine therapies, that have the potential to treat or even cure diseases or conditions for which few effective treatment options exist. For example, the agency has recently licensed (approved) its first product that received Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) designation, underscoring our ongoing commitment to work with sponsors and manufacturers to bring these products to market.

Unapproved products marketed as regenerative medicine therapies may cause serious harm to patients. Cellular therapies, including stem-cell products, are often marketed by clinics as being safe and effective for the treatment of a wide range of diseases or conditions, even though they havent been adequately or appropriately studied in clinical trials.

In 2017, the FDA issued guidance on the regulatory framework for regenerative medicine therapies and announced its intent to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to the FDAs investigational new drug (IND) and premarket approval requirements for certain regenerative medicine products. This policy gave manufacturers three-and-a-half-years to determine the appropriate regulatory pathway for their products, and if an application is needed, ample time to prepare and submit the appropriate application to the FDA.

Now that we have reached the end of the compliance and enforcement discretion policy period, we are once again reminding manufacturers, clinics, and health care practitioners and providers that the compliance and enforcement discretion policy for certain human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps), including regenerative medicine therapies, ended on May 31, 2021. If manufacturers continue to illegally market unapproved HCT/Ps, they do so at their own risk and may be subject to an enforcement action.

The FDA continues to receive consumer complaints and has warned consumers about unapproved regenerative medicine products and the unfounded claims made in advertisements and direct-to-patient marketing. Despite the FDAs warnings that an IND may be required for these products, many entities still ignore such warnings and offer these unapproved and unproven products, with some consumers subsequently experiencing serious adverse effects.

The compliance and enforcement discretion policy was never intended to excuse the violations of manufacturers or health care providers who are offering unapproved regenerative medicine products that have the potential to put patients at significant risk. The policy did not apply to products that have been associated with reported safety concerns or have the potential to cause significant safety concerns to patients.

Indeed, while the policy was in place, the FDA took swift and aggressive action in the face of serious violations of the law, including some involving patient harm. Since November 2017, the FDA has pursued two enforcement actions for injunction against manufacturers of such violative HCT/Ps.

The FDA prevailed in one of those cases, United States v. US Stem Cell Inc. et al., in June 2019, before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Earlier this week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower courts judgment. The US Stem Cell decision is a victory for public health and an endorsement of the FDAs work to stop stem cell clinics that place patients at risk by marketing products that violate the law.

The other case for injunction, United States v. Cell Surgical Network et al., is currently being litigated in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A third enforcement action pursued by the FDA was resolved in March 2018. That case involved the seizure of vials of Vaccinia Virus Vaccine, Live, used to create an unapproved and dangerous stem cell product (a combination of excess amounts of live virus and stromal vascular fraction a stem cell mixture derived from body fat).

The FDA also has taken numerous actions since the compliance and enforcement policy was announced. During this period, the agency issued 14 Warning Letters and 24 Untitled Letters involving violative HCT/Ps regulated under Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and applicable FDA regulations. Additionally, since December 2018, the FDA has issued 400 letters to manufacturers and health care providers who may be offering violative stem cell or related products since December 2018.

The FDA reminds all stakeholders that the agencys acceptance of an establishment registration and HCT/P listing does not constitute a determination that an establishment is in compliance with applicable rules and regulations or that the HCT/P is licensed or approved by the FDA. It is inappropriate and misleading to advertise establishment registration and product listing in any manner that may imply product approval or compliance with the law.

If manufacturers, clinics, and health care providers offering regenerative medicine products to patients did not contact the FDA about the need for an IND during the period the Tissue Reference Group Rapid Inquiry Program was offered, there remain three options that have been available for many years and these options continue to be available. We want to remind stakeholders that a product that requires but lacks premarket approval may not be lawfully marketed or offered for sale, including when a sponsor has an IND or is pursuing an IND or BLA for its HCT/P.

The FDA is committed to helping advance the development of clinical trials for regenerative medicine products with the shared goal of safe and effective products for patients. We look forward to working with those who share this goal.

For more information: Important Patient and Consumer Information About Regenerative Medicine Therapies

Continue reading here:
Innovative Regenerative Medicine Therapies Safety Comes First - FDA.gov

The stem cell market was valued at USD 14.7 billion in 2020, and it is expected – GlobeNewswire

New York, June 01, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Reportlinker.com announces the release of the report "Stem Cell Market - Growth, Trends, COVID-19 Impact, and Forecasts (2021 - 2026)" - https://www.reportlinker.com/p06079777/?utm_source=GNW According to a 2020 research article published in the scientific journal Aging and Disease (2020), mesenchymal stem cells are a safe and effective approach to the treatment of COVID-19. At least 10 projects have been registered in the official international registry for clinical trials, implicating the use of mesenchymal stem cells to patients with coronavirus pneumonia. However, it is still at an initial stage of study in relation to the market studied.

Stem cells are majorly used in regenerative medicine, especially in the field of dermatology. However, oncology is expected to grow at the highest rate due to a large number of pipeline products present for the treatment of tumors or cancers. With the increase in the number of regenerative medicine centers, the stem cell market is also expected to increase in the future.

One of the richest sources of stem cells is the umbilical cord, which possesses unique qualities and has greater advantages over embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells. There are an increasing number of stem cell banks, which collaborate with hospitals and increase awareness about the storage of cord blood units in families, particularly in the emerging markets. The support is increasing with the rising number of medical communities and government initiatives active in promoting the use of stem cells for the treatment of more than 100 diseases. Currently, there is an increase in the number of clinical trials for testing future treatment possibilities of cord blood. Over 200 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded clinical trials with cord blood are currently being conducted in the United States alone.

Key Market Trends The Oncology Disorders Segment is Expected to Exhibit the Fastest Growth Rate Over the Forecast Period

The global cancer burden has been increasing, and thus, cancer therapies must be modified according to regional and national priorities. According to the World Cancer Research Fund, in 2018, there were an estimated 18 million cancer cases around the world. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer is the second-leading cause of death across the world, with an estimated number of 9.6 million deaths in 2018, accounting for nearly one in six deaths.

Bone marrow transplant or stem cell transplant is a treatment for some types of cancer, like leukemia, multiple myeloma, neuroblastoma, or some types of lymphoma. For cancer treatments, both autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplants are done. Autologous transplants are preferred in the case of leukemias, lymphomas, multiple myeloma, testicular cancer, and neuroblastoma.

The major disadvantage associated with autologous stem cell transplants in cancer therapy is that cancer cells sometimes also get collected, along with stem cells, which may further put it back into the body during the therapy.

In case of allogeneic stem cell transplants, the donor can often be asked to donate more stem cells or even white blood cells, as per the requirement, and stem cells from healthy donors are free of cancer cells. However, the transplanted donor stem cells could die or be destroyed by the patients body before settling in the bone marrow.

Moreover, due to the growing focus of stem cell-based research and the rising demand for novel treatments, several companies, such as Stemline Therapeutics, have been focusing on developing technologies and treatments to attack cancer cells, which may help the market grow. However, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the detection and treatment of new cancer cases are impended, which may slightly impact the segment growth in the year.

North America Captured The Largest Market Share and is Expected to Retain its Dominance

North America dominated the overall stem cell market, with the United States contributing to the largest share in the market. The United States and Canada have developed and well-structured healthcare systems. These systems also encourage research and development. The increasing number of cancer cases is providing opportunities for market players. The major market players are focusing on R&D activities to introduce new stem cell therapies in the market.

For instance, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) had stated that the national expenditure on cancer care was expected to reach USD 156 billion by 2020. This factor is expected to boost the growth of the market in the future. In December 2019, the researchers at the National Eye Institute (NEI) launched a clinical trial to test the safety of a novel patient-specific stem cell-based therapy to treat geographic atrophy, the advanced dry form of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a leading cause of vision loss among people aged 65 years and above.

In addition, the current situation of COVID-19 is another factor driving the growth of the market in the country, as research activities are undergoing for the treatment of COVID-19. Stem cell therapy can also be a promising approach for the treatment of COVID-19 in the future. For instance, on May 6, 2020, Lineage Cell Therapeutics received a grant of USD 5 million from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) to support the use of VAC, Lineages allogeneic dendritic cell therapy for the development of a potential vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Competitive Landscape The stem cell market is highly competitive and consists of several major players. In terms of market share, few of the major players currently dominate the market. The presence of major market players, such as Thermo Fisher Scientific (Qiagen NV), Sigma Aldrich (a subsidiary of Merck KGaA), Becton, Dickinson and Company, and Stem Cell Technologies, is in turn, increasing the overall competitive rivalry in the market. The product advancements and improvement in stem cell technology by the major players are also increasing the competitive rivalry.

Reasons to Purchase this report: - The market estimate (ME) sheet in Excel format - 3 months of analyst support Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p06079777/?utm_source=GNW

About Reportlinker ReportLinker is an award-winning market research solution. Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry data so you get all the market research you need - instantly, in one place.

__________________________

Originally posted here:
The stem cell market was valued at USD 14.7 billion in 2020, and it is expected - GlobeNewswire

Part 3: Moving Forward and Keeping Stem Cell Treatments Safe – MedShadow

Times up, said the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A three-and-a-half-year grace period during which companies manufacturing and providing regenerative medicine procedures were instructed to get their operations in line with new, clarified rules announced in 2017, ended May 31, 2021. Those procedures had previously fallen into a gray area of regulation because they rely on harvesting live stem cells or related products rather than traditionally manufactured drugs to repair damaged tissues and organs. Starting June 1, the agency expects all such companies to be in compliance or risk a variety of enforcement actions from warning letters to pursuing criminal prosecution.

For many years, the regenerative medicine industry operated with limited FDA oversight. The field exploded in the 2010s, with nearly a thousand clinics popping up throughout the US. In 2017, the FDA announced stricter, clearer regulations for those treatments. Knowing that a multibillion-dollar industry already existed and wanting to support research and innovation in what most researchers believe is a promising field of medicine, the agency didnt penalize all clinics that werent following the rules. Instead, the FDA offered a grace period, during which companies could file regulatory paperwork and design trials in line with the agencys requirements.

Traditional clinical trials can take years and sometimes even decades to complete, so the FDA has offered several types of expedited approval pathways for therapies expected to provide valuable treatment to patients who have few options. In 2016, it created the Regenerative Medicine Advance Therapy Designation (RMAT) as a part of the 21st Century Cures Act. If the FDA grants the designation to a treatment, the researchers conducting its trials get special support from the agency that can streamline the approval process. The company may be permitted to submit real world data and patient registries in lieu of data from a standard clinical trial, in which some patients are randomized to receive a placebo, to be considered for approval.

But in June 2019, Ned Sharpless, the acting FDA commissioner, announced that the agency had received far fewer approval requests RMAT or otherwise than it had anticipated during the grace period. Were more than halfway through the enforcement discretion period, and the pace of progress of those offering these human cells, tissues and cellular and tissue-based products, including stem cell treatments, to come into compliance with the requirements has been slower than expected. Its possible some stakeholders have questions about the requirements or the length of the process, he said in a statement announcing the Tissue Reference Groups Rapid Inquiry Program (TRIP). Essentially, companies that were unsure which level of regulation their products required could have submitted a request to the Tissue Regerence Group, which would answer within three days, outlining the steps needed to meet the FDAs requirements for compliance. That program ended on March 31, 2021.

While the FDA offered to help companies willing to seek regulatory approval, the agency continued to penalize those companies it believes are conducting the riskiest procedures and making the boldest claims, which had fallen outside of even the previous, cloudier regulations.

For instance, Vibrant Health Care received a warning letter from the FDA in November 2020, after marketing umbilical-cord-derived stem cell treatments designed to boost the immune system and protect patients against COVID-19.

A banner on the companys homepage now reads: Vibrant Health Care does not offer any products or treatments that can mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19. If you are experiencing COVID 19 symptoms, please contact your primary care physician or local hospital.

The letter also cited patient testimonials on the website that claimed that Vibrants treatments had cured their asthma overnight, for example, or led to other dramatic improvements. The testimonials page no longer includes references to specific treatments other than Botox. Instead, patients make broad statements like, Dr. Farrell has been keeping me functional for many years. She always finds some way to alleviate my pain.

An FDA spokesperson told MedShadow in an email, Clinics currently offering products outside of FDAs review process are taking advantage of patients and flouting federal statutes and FDA regulations. This ultimately puts at risk the very patients that these clinics claim to want to help, by either delaying treatment with legitimate and scientifically sound treatment options, or worse, posing harm to patients.

While some providers are working to get their products in line with FDA recommendations, others continue to claim that their products should not be subject to FDA review. Some companies may be toeing a fine line, registering clinical trials as a way to offer treatments to patients, but not designing those trials in ways that are likely to bring the therapies to market.

A search for stem cell and COVID on clinicaltrials.gov, a government website that lists clinical trial information, yields over 100 results. It could be a sign that researchers are working on new therapies and developing them through traditional clinical trial pathways sanctioned by the FDA. But, trials listed here are not always what they seem and the listings are subject to limited oversight. Thousands of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov are not completed and the results never published. Its possible that some companies dont intend to send their results to the FDA for review and instead have set up sham trials for the appearance of legitimacy.

Leigh Turner, PhD, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota published an analysis in 2017 that found 18 US-based clinical trials testing stem cells listed on clinicaltrials.gov required the patients to pay for their own treatments. In most clinical trials, patients are responsible for little to none of the cost of treatment or are paid a stipend and compensated for some travel costs to and from the medical facility. Moreover, Wired reported that patients paid $5,000 to $15,000 per treatment, a fact that was not disclosed in any of the clinicaltrials.gov listings themselves. None of the 18 studies were randomized or blinded, conditions usually required in studies intended for FDA review, because they minimize bias in results.

In 2019, Google banned advertisements for treatments that have no established biomedical or scientific basis. The companys announcement also stated, The new policy also includes treatments that are rooted in basic scientific findings and preliminary clinical experience, but currently have insufficient formal clinical testing to justify widespread clinical use. Some companies, Turner suggests in his article, may be using clinicaltrials.gov as an advertising tool to recruit patients willing to pay for the treatments, without conducting scientifically sound trials.

[Disclosure: The MedShadow Foundation advocated against the Right to Try Act.]

Even if you might benefit from an experimental drug, you might not be eligible for a trial. Maybe youre not the right age, youve been prescribed drugs in the past or have a comorbidity that interferes with the treatment being tested. Those conditions could cloud the data for scientists, even if the treatment is still helpful to you. For these situations, the FDA created the Expanded Access Pathway.

The expanded access pathway has been around for a long time. It tries to acknowledge that there may be circumstances where its justifiable to provide access to investigational new drugs outside of a clinical trial context, says Turner. But with the expanded access route, there is a fair degree of oversight.

The FDA evaluates each application for a patient who has exhausted other options to receive a drug through the expanded access pathway. According to a 2017 study, initiating the process requires paperwork that takes about 45 minutes to fill out. On average, the FDA issues a decision within four days. In emergency situations, it usually responds in less than 24 hours. The overwhelming majority of requests are approved, though about 11% require adjustments like a change in dosing or an informed consent form before approval.

The Right to Try Act allows patients, physicians and sponsors to bypass this FDA review. It really means that decision-making devolves onto patients, their physicians and a sponsor, says Turner. If everyone is being careful and cautious and doing everything they can to be compliant, it may be an approach that works in an acceptable fashion.

When Congress passed the Right to Try act in 2018, Matthew Feshbach, who had previously run a company that provided stem cell treatments in the Bahamas, saw an opportunity to return to the US and open Ambrose Cell Therapy, which now offers stem cell treatments for patients with a wide range of diseases who have exhausted conventional therapeutic options.

On the companys website, the tagline under the Ambrose Cell Therapy logo reads your right to try, and the site has a page dedicated to explaining the legislation. The company uses a system made by another company, Cytori Therapeutics, to process cells collected from a patients fat and reintroduce them into the patients body. The system has been tested for safety in nine Phase I and Phase II trials, but Ambrose is not currently pursuing any clinical trials of the treatment to bring it to market for specific diseases under FDA approval. Rather, the company is offering the stem cell treatment exclusively on a Right to Try basis. Feshbach says, There are very few large-scale clinical trials that have been done with adult stem cells. They usually dont make it past Phase II, primarily because of funding. Additionally, he says, he is not a big believer in randomized controlled trials, because in the real world, [treatments] dont work out the way they did in a trial.

He explains that there is a growing body of peer-reviewed literature to support the cells that Ambrose uses (and encourages patients to ask for such literature when searching for stem cell treatment options). The company is collecting data on patients and plans to publish a series of case reports.

Turner worries that the offering treatment in this context is never going to bring a safe and efficacious stem cell product to market. Its a way of sitting out there for years, [technically] complying with regulations.

Prices for different products and procedures arent readily available, and Feshbach declined to discuss the cost of care at Ambrose. A 2017 study showed that the average price quoted to a patient seeking stem cell injections for osteoarthritis in the knee is about $5,000. Its important to review all costs you can expect before beginning treatment, especially considering that, in most cases, insurance wont cover it.

During our conversation, Turner also mentions that there is a line in the Right to Try act that seemed to suggest that companies, like Ambrose Cell Therapy, couldnt profit solely from offering treatments on a Right to Try basis. He admitted that while it had caught his eye, he wasnt yet positive if he was interpreting the law accurately.

The Right to Try states that eligible investigational drugs must be in compliance with 312.6, 312.7 and 312.8 d (1). Of Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations. 312.8d states that, A sponsor may recover only the direct costs of making its investigational drug available.

To investigate, I reached out to a retired biotech executive who was involved with several expanded access requests, which are also required to conform to 312.8d, prior to the approval of the Right to Try act. She explains that her companies were only allowed to charge patients what it cost the company to make and send the treatments to a patients doctors, and that her companies never charged patients for anything.

I also emailed the FDA spokesperson, who responded, FDA does not review or approve requests for use under the Right to Try Act. FDAs role is limited to receipt and posting of certain information submitted under the Right to Try Act. Section 561B (C)(b) of the Right to Try Act (Public Law 115-176), Investigational Drugs For Use By Eligible Patients, describes the requirement to be in compliance with the applicable regulations set forth in section 312.8(d)(1) of the CFR [Code of Federal Regulations].

At this point, it seems clear to me that a company cant profit from selling its unapproved treatments to patients outside of clinical trials, but that its unlikely the rule would be enforced because as Turner put it, The FDA is not actively involved in scrutinizing any of this. The Right to Try law stops the agency from overseeing requests.

When I present this information to Feshbach, however, he explains that I am missing a key detail. The price of the treatment itself cannot exceed the companys cost of providing access to it, but the law does not address additional costs like having a doctor administer the treatment on-site.

While the cost of knee injections average $5,000, some stem cell treatments cost tens of thousands of dollars. In 2018, one company said it may even charge several hundreds of thousands to patients who requested their Right to Try a treatment that had demonstrated little efficacy even in the companys own trials. The company later announced it would offer the treatment to only a limited number of patients through expanded access, and that it would do so for free. One for-profit cancer treatment company currently offers Right to Try treatments alongside other options.

Some types of minimally manipulated regenerative medicine are still exempt from much FDA oversight, requiring only that their facilities keep up manufacturing standards that limit contamination. Even in these instances, there is a movement among some researchers to collect better data on patient outcomes, in hopes of better understanding who benefits from the treatments and when.

At the Center for Regenerative Orthopedic Medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, where Daniel Grande, PhD is the scientific director, he and others provide, for a fee, platelet-rich plasma and stem cell injections derived from a patients own bone marrow or fat, with techniques that fall under the FDAs lowest-risk tier and are thus not subject to the clinical trial process.

But he laments the lack of consistent data reporting in the field. He says you can do a literature search and find thousands of papers on a particular procedure only to realize theyre mostly individual case studies or lack a control group. We want to bring a standardization to the clinic, he says. For example, when Grande gives a patient a platelet-rich plasma treatment, he takes a sample of the blood and conducts a complete blood count, which analyzes the concentration of different cells and biomarkers in your blood to evaluate overall health and diagnose certain diseases. Next, he takes a sample of just the plasma. Both are stored in freezers for continued analysis. Then [I] follow these patients from zero to one year to see how they actually do, he adds.

Grande is not alone. His group has teamed up with several other institutions, including the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Northwell Health, Hospital for Special Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Institute, Stanford University and the University of Colorado Denver, to form the Biological Alliance of Regenerative Medicine and Biorepository. He says its members have committed to measuring the same variables through treatment and sharing data in hopes of answering questions about who the treatments are most likely to help and how many stem cells are actually needed for best results. In the first year, their goal is to enroll 1,400 patients. Grande also hopes the effort may lead to insurance companies eventually reimbursing for the procedures.

Theres a movement underway nationally to better characterize these regenerative therapies in a way that everybody can either figure out whats going on [with them], Grande adds. Theres a call to action for trying to better characterize these things and to provide information to not only clinicians, but also [to] the public about what works and what doesnt, so that people can be informed.

Continued here:
Part 3: Moving Forward and Keeping Stem Cell Treatments Safe - MedShadow

Early Promise of AntiCLL-1 CAR T-Cell Therapy Reported in Pediatric AML – Cancer Network

Feasibility of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy targeting C-type lectin-like molecule-1 (CLL-1) for pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was validated in a small patient cohort in a phase 1/2 trial (ChiCTR1900027684), results of which were presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting.1

At an interim analysis, 10 of 11 patients completely responded to anti-CLL1based CAR-T cell therapy, with CLL-1positive AML blasts eliminated within 1 month. Six patients achieved complete remission with minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, added lead investigator Hui Zhang, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at Shanghai Childrens Medical Center and director of Guangzhou Women and Childrens Medical Center at Chinas Guangzhou Medical University.

From all the research shown, we can say that anti-CLL1 based CAR T-cells is a safe therapeutic candidate with manageable CAR T-cellassociated toxicity for children with R/R AML, he said. It is highly effective in targeting CLL1-positive AML cells with superior overall response rate (ORR) relative to conventional/novel targeting compounds.

In this study, 11 pediatric R/R AML patients aged 2 to 16 years were infused between October 2019 and January 2021 with a second-generation CLL1 CAR-T created in Zhangs laboratory. Investigators administered a single dose of CLL1 or CLL1-CD33 dual CAR-T cells (target dose: 0.3-1 x 106/kg) following lymphodepleting conditioning with a cyclophosphamide/fludarabine combination.

Zhang said all 11 patients experienced CAR T-cell expansion in vivo during the first month. Five patients demonstrated persistence of T-cell expansion.

All patients experienced grade 1 to 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) but there were no lethal events, Zhang said. All patients experienced myelosuppression, which he said might be due to chemotherapy. Three patients experienced a grade 1/2 hepatic event. No patient experienced cardiac, renal, or gastrointestinal adverse events.

Investigators have suggested that CLL-1 is a promising target because it not expressed on normal hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), but is expressed on 85% to 92% of AML blasts cells and leukemia stem cells.2 In a humanized mouse model, investigators demonstrated that CAR T-cell therapy specific for CLL-1 exhibit potent cytokine production and cytotoxicity against CLL-1-expressing AML cell lines without disrupting normal HSCs.

Investigators theorized that developing an anti-CLL1 CAR T therapy would help patients avoid the need for HSC transplant.

In 2020, Zhang published a case study of a 10-year-old girl who presented with an elevated peripheral blood blast percentage while undergoing maintenance treatment for a B-cell ALL relapse. Investigators developed a CAR containing a CLL1-specific single-chain variable fragment.3

The patient received lymphodepleting chemotherapy for 4 days before CAR T-cell transfer to enhance in vivo expansion of CAR T-cells. This was followed by a single dose anti-CLL1 CAR-T cells infusion. She experienced Grade 1 to CRS.

After completing CAR T-cell therapy, the patient achieved a complete response and was negative for MRD (<0.1%) on day 29. But the CLL1+ cells were not completely eliminated until 6 months after CAR T-cell therapy. The patient achieved a 10-month response using 1 dose of anti-CLL1 CAR-T monotherapy.

References

1. Zhang H, Bu C, Pen Z, et al. The efficacy and safety of anti-CLL1 based CAR-T cells in children with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia: A multicenter interim analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(suppl 15):10000. doi:10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.10000

2. Tashiro H, Sauer T, Shum T, et al. Treatment of acute myeloid leukemia with T cells expressing chimeric antigen receptors directed to C-type lectin-like molecule 1. Mol Ther. 2017;25(9):2202-2213. doi:10.1016/j.ymthe.2017.05.024

3. Zhang H, Gan WT, Hao, WG, et al. Successful ant-CLL1 CAR T-cell therapy in secondary acute myeloid leukemia. Front Oncol. 2020;10:685. Doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.00685

Read this article:
Early Promise of AntiCLL-1 CAR T-Cell Therapy Reported in Pediatric AML - Cancer Network