Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Korean stem cell rout...

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Christian M. Cepel wrote:
> What does this mean for the subject of stem cells on a broader basis? 
> There are so many different 'types' of uses of stem cell that are 
> currently being discussed out there that I (and I think the average 
> public) cannot keep them straight... therapudic cloning, etc...

This is the explanation I was given.

Stem cells are cells that have not yet differentiated (become blood 
cells, nerve cells, etc), and as such are ready to become any of these. 
 Various triggers are used to tell the cells what they should become, 
for example, what kind of special proteins called (I think) homeoboxes 
are present.  You can get stem cells from embryos in their very early 
stages, just after they have done lots of cell division, but not much 
differentiation.  You can also get them from adults, but I don't 
remember where (maybe bone marrow?).

The point is, you need to have stem cells that have the same DNA as the 
patient.  The way to get embryonic stem cells is to create an embryo 
that has exactly the same DNA as you have.  Thus if it were allowed to 
keep growing, it would, in theory, become a clone.  But you kill it just 
at the point before it starts differentiating, and then harvest the cells.

My guess is the current approach to creating these clones (replace the 
nucleus of one of your cells in a fertilized human zygote - i.e. the 
cell that is formed right after the sperm impregnates the egg) has been 
shown to be false.  But I'm not quite sure about this, or whether it was 
this particular Korean's particular research that was shown to be false.


> There's the research Bush banned, there's the issue on the 2006 Missouri 
> ballot, there's all these other debates and conflicts and hopes.
>
> Hopes.
>
> Even for those opposed to a lot of the procedures, the biggest thing 
> regarding stem cell research in general has been Hope.  You've got all 
> these celebrities and folks with reputable names out there pushing for 
> cures for all sorts of ailments and disease... Michael J. Fox is the 
> first that comes to mind with his own battle with Parkinsons, and, if I 
> recall, Superman was hoping for some therapudic solutions/treatments for 
> those with spinal chord injuries before he expired.

So the hope is if you put these stem cells into a part of your body that 
is damaged (e.g. brain tissue destroyed by Parkinson's disease) then it 
will take the cue from its environment, and itself become just like the 
cells surrounding it.  Apparently this happens rather well.  The only 
problem is is that the newly created nerve cells are not built into the 
current infrastructure, so while they seem to act just like nerve cells, 
it is not obvious that they improve brain function.  On the other hand, 
their presence seems to act in stopping further decay of existing brain 
cells, so while the cure might be hope, certainly the preventative 
aspects seem more than hope.

Well, this is what I got out of a I heard from lecture from Chris 
Pierret.  He is a graduate student at MU who is also a catholic, and has 
strong views, but is also a very nice person.  If you email him, my 
guess is that he would be only too happy to answer you to the best of 
his abilities.


> What I'm asking is... I don't understand the significance of the Korean 
> research... was all the other research validated based on their work and 
> now rendered invalid, or is there still some exciting (if controversial) 
> stuff still out there?  I.e., is it all a Red Herring, or do you just 
> want to avoid Herring caught in the Asiatic waters off the Korean 
> peninsula?

I am with you here - I also would like to know the answer to this one.



> Mike Miller wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 31 Dec 2005, Jonathan King wrote:
> >
> > > So last week, we thought that maybe 2 of the 11 stem cell lines were 
> > > real.  Now it looks like the other 2 were faked, causing Science to 
> > > postpone the paper's retraction so that they can print the *right* 
> > > retraction:
> > >
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/31/science/31clone.html?pagewanted=print
> > >
> > > And now, the more important 2004 stem cell cloning paper is suspect, 
> > > since a key figure was found to be copied from a 2003 paper, 
> > > and...maybe even Snuppy (sniff).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I've been keeping many of the news articles (e.g., from NY Times) here 
> > for anyone who would like to see them:
> >
> > http://taxa.epi.umn.edu/cgi-bin/webglimpse/rmnews?query=woo+suk%2Cwoo-suk
> >
> > Of course, we have to expect that *all* of Hwang's attention-grabbing 
> > research was fraudulent.  He was first to create human embryos from 
> > adult human cells, first to clone a dog from a cell of an adult dog, 
> > and first to make human stem cells from adult human cells, or so he 
> > claimed.
> >
> > With that kind of high-profile fakery, it was always a matter of time 
> > until he was apprehended.  He had to know this day would come.
> >
> > We don't know yet that he faked all of it, but that's what I think.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discussion mailing list
> > EMAIL:PROTECTED
> > http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion


_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion