Adult stem cell line may serve for regenerative medicine
from the regenerative-medicine dept.
Numerous reports appeared in late-January 2002 in response to a press release (23 January) that reports on a claim by Dr. Catherine M. Verfaillie and colleagues at the University of Minnesota Stem Cell Institute (SCI) that they have isolated a type of stem cell found in adults that can turn into every single tissue in the body. Previously, only stem cells from early embryos were thought to be able to do this. If the finding is confirmed, it will mean cells from your own body could one day be turned into all sorts of perfectly matched replacement tissues and even organs. The finding generated a high level of interest because, if confirmed, there would be no need to resort to therapeutic cloning — cloning human embryos to get matching stem cells from the resulting embryos. Nor would you have to genetically engineer embryonic stem cells (ESCs) to create a "one cell fits all" line that doesn't trigger immune rejection. The discovery of such versatile adult stem cells will also fan the debate about whether embryonic stem cell research is justified.
Additional coverage can be found in articles from the New York Times ("Scientists Herald a Versatile Adult Cell", by N. Wade and S.G. Stolberg, 25 January 2002) and United Press International ("Adult stem cell findings lauded", 24 January 2002).
In related news that demonstrates the importance of this line of research, Dr. Verfaillie announced in another press release (30 January 2002) that her team has demonstrated, for the first time, the ability of adult bone marrow stem cells to expand in vitro as endothelial cells (which line blood- and lymphatic vessels) and then engraft in vivo and contribute to new growth of blood vessels (neoangiogenesis). The report appeared in the 1 February 2002 issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Verfaillie and her colleagues announced late last year that these cells, called multipotent adult progenitor cells (MAPCs), demonstrate the potential to differentiate beyond mesenchymal cells, into cells of the visceral mesodermal origin, such as endothelium, and may be capable of differentiating into nonmesodermal cell types, such as neurons, astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, and liver.
January 31st, 2002 at 12:52 PM
Beautiful
This research is amazing. I want to be on a team working on this sort of thing. It's just too bad I don't have a degree and probably never will.
My ride towards the future is rough, but I am counting on certain things being smoothed out.
January 31st, 2002 at 1:13 PM
And another bone is removed
When the fetal stem debate sprang up, I made it a point to tell people that in five or so years it will be meaningless.
I said that research would continue in many, perhaps unrelated, fields and eventually the need for fetal stems cells will be eliminated–thereby rendering the whole controversy moot.
With this bit of news, it looks like this is coming true.
January 31st, 2002 at 2:19 PM
Re:And another bone is removed
However a concern is that once a team of researchers has success with a certain technique they will not want to change. Expert teams in fetal stem cell research may resist dropping a few years of work for a new technique they are not yet experts in. So the hope was to divert research becoming entrenched in fetal research.
Now if only technology can make the abortion debate moot.
January 31st, 2002 at 9:04 PM
Re:Beautiful
You don't need a degree to do this type of research – degrees are just there for people who like having stamps on their ass. The key to do doing this type of research is keeping up with all the new material (which can be a challenge – especially since the Singularity is very near) and meeting people who know others in the upper ranks. In this case, it's both what you know and who you know – which is something that a degree will NEVER give you.
February 1st, 2002 at 8:32 AM
Re:Beautiful
Bwaaahahaha! I smell sour grapes.
Believe it or not, mate, but going to university is a really, really good way to accumulate a fair portfolio of people you know, particularly ones who know something. Having a degree is no guarantee of quality, and I have several friends who are now big movers and shakers in IT who got headhunted before they had accumulated enough credits to wear a smock and throw their silly hats in the air. But having letters after your name doesn't irredeemably brand you an ignorant corporate tool, either. I suspect that TLF is quite capable of independent learning, and good luck to him. But your obsessive claim that anyone with a degree has learnt nothing is just petulant rubbish.
I have no idea whether I will graduate, or whether I will just fart around doing courses I find interesting until I get thrown out. But being at a tertiary institution is proving invaluable to me, because I get to use equipment that most of your putative Tesla wannabes can't afford, and I get to talk to people with actual experience, rather than someone who has read a few textbooks and has an inflated opinion of their abilities. Care to answer these questions that I posed a while ago to prove you have kept up with your reading? You didn't before and I doubt you will now, but will instead either ignore me completely or rant about how 'they' won't let me learn anything useful, etc, and avoid actually putting your money where your mouth is. Guaranteed.
Not everything that you learn in a standard degree course is interesting or even relevant, but there is enough there for those prepared to put a bit of thought into what they are being told. If you're just a passive sponge, then of course your experience will be substandard. But guess what? The engineers that build computers, the biochemists that research proteomics, the people that get results mostly accumulated their skills in institutes of higher learning (IT being the industry with the highest and most anomalous exception rate).
Read you-know-who yet? I've got commentary on your messiah lined up, though I don't think this is the forum to air it in.
February 2nd, 2002 at 12:57 AM
Re:Beautiful
Vindicated again, it would seem. You tend to be very quick off the mark in responding (often multiple times within 24 hours) when the subject matter boils down to a simple matter of opinion, but as soon as your claims of technical proficiency are questioned you become as deaf as a post. You have claimed that you have read chemistry until your head just about explodes, but you can't answer freshman-level questions on the topic.
So you don't follow your own advice and have a decent grasp of the foundation material. I bet dollars to cents that you are not in contact with anyone doing actual, concrete MNT-related R&D (as opposed to masturbating about how you will use it once it is handed to you on a platter). Sad.
February 2nd, 2002 at 10:37 PM
Re:Beautiful
Ah…Mr. Impatient, himself. Though it would be convenient to post whenever there is a response to a certain thread, some of us just don't have that type of luck. My cable connection has been disabled for 2 days due to a fiber optic upgrade in my area…though it doesn't surprise me one bit that you would call me a coward for not responding to you just because I didn't do it immediately. But enough of the ranting, let's get down to business.
Bwaaahahaha! I smell sour grapes.
Sour? More like a ripe grape that didn't like sharing the vine – especially when all the 'nourishment' needed for the little grape to survive and grow was either being syphoned off or absent.
Believe it or not, mate, but going to university is a really, really good way to accumulate a fair portfolio of people you know, particularly ones who know something.
Is this a sick joke or something? Does going to a university guarantee you who you get to meet? If I were to go to Rice, would I be able to do research with someone like Smalley? Nope…not unless you ALREADY have a Masters or a PHD under your belt – afterall, that's the only way you will ever get to touch any of the university's equipment…at least that's how it is here in the States. (Which probably explains why most college 'graduates' are as braindead as they were when they first came in – and this is due to all the politics involved and the lack of 'hands on' experience.)
The major universities in the States are nothing more than Corporations (or mini-governments) using the facade of a 'School of Learning' to attract most of the populace into going there. Little do people realize, however, that the so called 'School of Learning' was nothing more than the biggest con in the history of the world. It is the 'sheep' (students) who fund the university and its equipement; however, only the 'shepards' (people with Doctorites or the major Seniority) can access the important knowledge and the equipment there. And in the end, the 'sheep' who don't commit themselves to a 6-8 year term, don't receive anything beneficial. 6-8 years learning worthless, censored garbage (which is used ONLY to find those who are the weeds and those who aren't) is too much time to waste and too big of a price to pay.
I have no idea whether I will graduate, or whether I will just fart around doing courses I find interesting until I get thrown out. But being at a tertiary institution is proving invaluable to me, because I get to use equipment that most of your putative Tesla wannabes can't afford, and I get to talk to people with actual experience, rather than someone who has read a few textbooks and has an inflated opinion of their abilities
Unless you're a Mechanical Engineer (they get to access broken down cars and stuff – whoopee) then you are not accessing any equipment worthwhile. If you enjoy going to your boring Chemistry labs and mixing water and sugar to make electrity…and yet still call it valuable equipment, you're delusional. If you enjoy going to your (well, mine in this case) Electrical Engineering class and soldering your motherboard with all your diodes, capacitors, resistors, and digital gates, and yet still think it's valuable knowledge and equipment…again, you're delusional. Universities offer nothing but the same stuff you can find in a public library and a convenience store. The truth sucks, doesn't it?
Care to answer these questions that I posed a while ago to prove you have kept up with your reading?
Wasn't it you who said it doesn't matter what answer I gave, I'd still be considered a plagiarist? Why should I even bother proving myself with that statement?
Read you-know-who yet? I've got commentary on your messiah lined up, though I don't think this is the forum to air it in.
Actually, I have. But, unfortunately I don't think the material is fit enough to be posted here. If you wish to discuss this further, feel free to Email me.
February 3rd, 2002 at 2:03 AM
Re:Beautiful
This answer is so demonstrative of the biggest flaw in your attitude. You are like a baby crying for the Moon; if it ain't the biggest show in town, it ain't worth your valuable time. You would get to work with Smalley once you had proved you could contribute something at his level, not before. When I was learning to cook and made my first batch of french toast at the age of eight, that did not entitle me to barge into the Iron Chef's kitchen and start telling him what to do. That would be childishly presumtuous. Once I have the skills to contribute something useful to a researcher's work, then I have the right to talk to him as a equal, rather than as a student. In the meantime, I would be associating with other undergraduates that will one day be sitting in Smalley's chair. It's called laying the groundwork. And you have the gall to call me impatient, Mr "the Singularity will soon free me of the need to do anything for myself".
You either went to a very underfunded university, or you have very exciting convenience stores where you live. Did you ever get past first year? Even the shit equipment I got to play with as a freshman (GCMS, furnaces, DEA-watched chemicals like acetic anhydride, better computers than I can afford) was not the sort of thing you can pick up at a 7-11. Australia also still pays some lip service to the concept of equity of access, so poor kids can go to uni and do stuff that would otherwise be completely beyond their reach.
Even by your standards, this is the most piss poor evasion I have ever heard. Where did I ever say that? Link to a post of mine where I say that. The closest I ever came was to say "My guess is that you will have to look it up, if you respond at all." So, at the very worst, demonstrate that you can use reference materials properly. There is a world of difference between ripping off other people's creative work and demonstrating a basic knowledge of a subject you claim to be proficient in.
Here is a fresh batch of really basic questions, to minimise the chances of accusing you of 'plagiarism': which two period 4 transition elements have anomalies in the filling of the 3d orbital? Explain what the isomeric prefixes trans- and mer- indicate? Name a reagent you could use to produce cyclohexene from cyclohexanol? What is a bidentate ligand? Let's see if your cable connection goes down again. Answering these would go some way toward repairing the damage done to your educational claims by repeatedly spelling iridium as Irridium (proper noun status and all!).
Why should you bother? Becuase you have repeatedly claimed that you have taught yourself to a level superior to university graduates. Any undergraduate worth their salt would be able to answer those questions off the top of their head. I am calling you a liar and a braggart and offering you a very, very simple way to refute that allegation. If you actually possess the skills you say you do, then you should take a few minutes to prove it. Otherwise, you should stop repeatedly lying about your abilities, becuase I will remind you of this every time you lay claim to abilities you are unwilling or incapable of adequately demonstrating. Put up or shut up.
No, the deal was you show me yours, then I show you mine. You email me if you want.
February 4th, 2002 at 5:30 AM
Re:Beautiful
That's over 24 hours, which should be plenty of time given that answering should take you 5 minutes if you know it off the top of your head, maybe 15 minutes if you have to refer to online references. Is your link working?
You going to tell me what you think of Kropotkin, or what?
February 5th, 2002 at 3:34 AM
Come in #6, your time is up.
And that's nearly 48 hours. Congratulations, Kadamose, you have once again been proven a liar. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and you have provided none. If you think your continued silence in some way shields you from having to face up to being exposed, think again. Anybody silly enough to actually read our bouts of outrageous flirting is left in no doubt as to your status as a pathological liar of the same stature as Bernard Shifman. If you ever make that sort of claim again, do so in the knowledge that nobody believes you, not even yourself.
I also assume from your continued silence that you have not read any Kropotkin, and wanted me to contact you for the sole purpose of sidestepping our agreement and trying to engage me in conversation about Sitchin. No dice. A deal is a deal, and you need to hold up your end of it before I come through. You can email me if you actually want to play ball.