Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsWednesday, November 21, 2007 8:55 AM CST
Stem cell breakthrough uses no embryos
Advertisement

NEW YORK -- Scientists have made ordinary human skin cells take on the chameleon-like powers of embryonic stem cells, a startling breakthrough that might someday deliver the medical payoffs of embryo cloning without the controversy.

Laboratory teams on two continents report success in a pair of landmark papers released Tuesday. It's a neck-and-neck finish to a race that made headlines five months ago, when scientists announced that the feat had been accomplished in mice.

The "direct reprogramming" technique avoids the swarm of ethical, political and practical obstacles that have stymied attempts to produce human stem cells by cloning embryos.

Scientists familiar with the work said scientific questions remain and that it's still important to pursue the cloning strategy, but that the new work is a major coup.

"This work represents a tremendous scientific milestone - the biological equivalent of the Wright Brothers' first airplane," said Dr. Robert Lanza, chief science officer of Advanced Cell Technology, which has been trying to extract stem cells from cloned human embryos.

"It's a bit like learning how to turn lead into gold," said Lanza, while cautioning that the work is far from providing medical payoffs.

"It's a huge deal," agreed Rudolf Jaenisch, a prominent stem cell scientist at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass. "You have the proof of principle that you can do it."

The White House lauded the papers, saying such research is what President Bush was advocating when he twice vetoed legislation to pave the way for taxpayer-funded embryo research.

There is a catch with the new technique. At this point, it requires disrupting the DNA of the skin cells, which creates the potential for developing cancer. So it would be unacceptable for the most touted use of embryonic cells: creating transplant tissue that in theory could be used to treat diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's, and spinal cord injury.

But the DNA disruption is just a byproduct of the technique, and experts said they believe it can be avoided.

The new work is being published online by two journals, Cell and Science. The Cell paper is from a team led by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University; the Science paper is from a team led by Junying Yu, working in the lab of in stem-cell pioneer James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Both reported creating cells that behaved like stem cells in a series of lab tests.

Thomson, 48, made headlines in 1998 when he announced that his team had isolated human embryonic stem cells.

Yamanaka gained scientific notice in 2006 by reporting that direct reprogramming in mice had produced cells resembling embryonic stem cells, although with significant differences. In June, his group and two others announced they'd created mouse cells that were virtually indistinguishable from stem cells.

For the new work, the two men chose different cell types from a tissue supplier. Yamanaka reprogrammed skin cells from the face of an unidentified 36-year-old woman, and Thomson's team worked with foreskin cells from a newborn. Thomson, who was working his way from embryonic to fetal to adult cells, said he's still analyzing his results with adult cells.

Both labs did basically the same thing. Each used viruses to ferry four genes into the skin cells. These particular genes were known to turn other genes on and off, but just how they produced cells that mimic embryonic stem cells is a mystery.

"People didn't know it would be this easy," Thomson said. "Thousands of labs in the United States can do this, basically tomorrow."

The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, which holds three patents for Thomson's work, is applying for patents involving his new research, a spokeswoman said. Two of the four genes he used were different from Yamanaka's recipe.

Scientists prize embryonic stem cells because they can turn into virtually any kind of cell in the body. The cloning approach - which has worked so far only in mice and monkeys - should be able to produce stem cells that genetically match the person who donates body cells for cloning.

That means tissue made from the cells should be transplantable into that person without fear of rejection. Scientists emphasize that any such payoff would be well in the future, and that the more immediate medical benefits would come from basic research in the lab.

In fact, many scientists say the cloning technique has proven too expensive and cumbersome in its current form to produce stem cells routinely for transplants.

The new work shows that the direct reprogramming technique can also produce versatile cells that are genetically matched to a person. But it avoids several problems that have bedeviled the cloning approach.

For one thing, it doesn't require a supply of unfertilized human eggs, which are hard to obtain for research and subjects the women donating them to a surgical procedure. Using eggs also raises the ethical questions of whether women should be paid for them.

In cloning, those eggs are used to make embryos from which stem cells are harvested. But that destroys the embryos, which has led to political opposition from President Bush, the Roman Catholic church and others.

Those were "show-stopping ethical problems," said Laurie Zoloth, director of Northwestern University's Center for Bioethics, Science and Society.

The new work, she said, "redefines the ethical terrain."

Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called the new work "a very significant breakthrough in finding morally unproblematic alternatives to cloning. ... I think this is something that would be readily acceptable to Catholics."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the new method does not cross what Bush considers an "ethical line." And Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, a staunch opponent of publicly funded embryonic stem cell research, said it should nullify the debate.

Another advantage of direct reprogramming is that it would qualify for federal research funding, unlike projects that seek to extract stem cells from human embryos, noted Doug Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.

Still, scientific questions remain about the cells produced by direct reprogramming, called "iPS" cells. One is how the cells compare to embryonic stem cells in their behavior and potential. Yamanaka said his work detected differences in gene activity.

If they're different, iPS cells might prove better for some scientific uses and cloned stem cells preferable for other uses. Scientists want to study the roots of genetic disease and screen potential drug treatments in their laboratories, for example.

Scottish researcher Ian Wilmut, famous for his role in cloning Dolly the sheep a decade ago, told London's Daily Telegraph that he is giving up the cloning approach to produce stem cells and plans to pursue direct reprogramming instead.

Other scientists said it's too early for the field to follow Wilmut's lead. Cloning embryos to produce stem cells remains too valuable as a research tool, Jaenisch said.

Dr. George Daley of the Harvard institute, who said his own lab has also achieved direct reprogramming of human cells, said it's not clear how long it will take to get around the cancer risk problem. Nor is it clear just how direct reprogramming works, or whether that approach mimics what happens in cloning, he noted.

So the cloning approach still has much to offer, he said.

Daley, who's president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, said his lab is pursuing both strategies.

"We'll see, ultimately, which one works and which one is more practical."

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report from Washington.

On the Net

Journal Cell: http://www.cell.com

Journal Science: http://www.sciencemag.org

Take a look
In this undated photo released by Kyoto University Prof. Shinya Yamanaka of Department of Stem Cell Biology Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2007, mouse cells are shown. (AP Photo/Shinya Yamanaka)
Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 21 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

to MRS. wrote on Nov 21, 2007 9:47 AM:

" Actually, no boy should be routinely circumcised. Its a cosmetic surgery. There's nothing wrong with a boy's foreskin when he's born. We have a double standard in this country where its ok to remove one part of a healthy boy's body, but its illegal to remove any other healthy body part from a nonconsenting person. And don't give me the parents' consent bit either. Ask your doctor to give your newborn a tummy tuck. He'll call CPS. But ask him to take a wack at your son's willy and watch his eyes light up. Its a double standard that shows a lack of ethics in the American medical community and just the American medical community since the United States is the only country where doctors circumcise newborns! The Japanese researcher came up with a much more ethical solution. "

Typical.. wrote on Nov 21, 2007 7:39 AM:

" ..finally a nice breakthrough, and people still complain. Are any of you nay-sayers working on cures for cancer or any other disease?..........no?......m'kay, then put up, or shut up. "

MRS. wrote on Nov 20, 2007 11:27 PM:

" RE:to value; OK now I am confused. When it as a live potential child it was OK to kill it but you are against using skin removed from a circumcision. Are you saying you would rather have that skin thrown away than used for a possible cure? Isn't that the same argument pro abortionists use? I don't think anyone is going to be lining up their male babies for circumcision they weren't already going to have done. What is so wrong with circumcision anyway? I have 7 boys, all circumcised. All healthy,thank God. One son is diabetic but I don't think being circumcised had anything to do with it. "

try it wrote on Nov 20, 2007 10:35 PM:

" to homeschooler and others: I have an idea, why don't you pretend to be paralyzed for just a couple days, let alone week after week, not being able to care for yourself, completely dependent on others and see how you feel about things then. oh and hopefully you or your loved ones will never meet this fate in life. only one of the things this research would help "

to value wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:30 PM:

" You're missing the point. You are completely free to donate any part of YOUR body that you want to science. You are not free, ethically, to donate a part of your son's body no matter how little value you place on it... hence the problem with the use of infant foreskin for stem cells. "

value wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:48 PM:

" Who the heck said anything about a value? The VALUE is potentially saving lives of millions of americans who suffer through diseases. I'm not talking about SELLING anything. I'm talking about donating a SMALL part of my body to help people who are suffering. If it is found that ear lobes can be used to cure diabetes, or any other major disease, I would have mine removed in an instant. Some of you people are so narrow minded, it frustrates me to share air with you. I am stunned that something as potentially important as stemcell research is looked down upon from some people. Foreskin, fingernails, earlobes, all the hair on my body, I DONT GIVE A CRAP - if it is found that any of these would cure a major disease, WHY NOT DONATE?! Are you that selfish so as to potentiall not help others? "

Homeschooler wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:47 PM:

" Still not interested. Thanks! "

MRS. wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:42 PM:

" This is great news. I would think this would make everyone happy. I would gladly donate my skin for this. I am so happy this was found. I am dibetic as well as my husband that takes 4 shots a day, a son that is on the insulin pump and a Sister that takes 2 shots a day. "

JD wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:34 PM:

" Some people will never be happy regardless of what or how things are done. They just look for things to get upset over, or offended about. These people attempt to measure everyone and everything through standards of their choice, and of which they often can not measure up to themselves. Personally, I applaud this research. I hope that it will lead to discoveries that will be able to heal/cure alot of thing which today have no cure. I am also willing to bet that those who complain about research like this would be the first in line to receive treatments derived from the research if they need it. "

to whatever wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:29 PM:

" Then sign up yourself. Who are you to assign value to part of someone else's healthy body? Your earlobe is a small chunk of skin. Can I assign it a value of nothing and lop it off for you? No, of course not. Double standards regading male private parts abound in our society. Notice how the Japanese researcher made a different choice of cells. Why? Well, partly because infant foreskins aren't available in Japan because they don't cut them off! "

whatever wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:10 PM:

" Dont tell people you're athiest and then try to make an ethics claim based on the removal of less than a 1/2" of skin. Its not like we are talking about the removal of half a penis. If donating some of my skin will in the long run help cure my diabetes, TELL ME WHERE TO SIGN UP! "

WOW wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:34 PM:

" The anti religion people are full of hate. HUM!!!!! "

Human Rights TO: to: human rights wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:08 PM:

" I'm an atheist, actually. Just because its legal doesn't mean its right. What other body part can a parent choose to donate or cut off and throw in the trash? A finger? A toe? A clitoris? All illegal except for one special exception. Its wrong. "

to: human rights wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:41 PM:

" Oh zip it already. If parents concent for a newborn (which they lawfully do BTW,) and the parents decide to donate foreskin for research, there is no issue. Some of you need to take your 'ethics' and move to an island of your own so everybody on earth with normal thoughts that are not god-invoked can live in peace. "

Human rights wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:17 PM:

" Thomson's approach isn't any better than the aborted fetus. Cutting off part of a healthy newborn's penis who obviously can't consent isn't exactly ethical either. I prefer Yamanaka's approach from an ethical standpoint. An adult can consent to having a few skin cells removed. "

An open letter to G.W.B wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:09 PM:

" G.W.B. Are you happy now? Can we start curing diseases yet? Are all of your arbitrary moral guidelines met yet? Sincerely, Sensible People Everywhere "

Adam wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:00 PM:

" Sweeeeeeet! No more blocking this stuff from actually helping humanity! Way to go science. "

to abortion wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:59 PM:

" Actually, I'm pro-choice and thrilled about this news. Hopefully, it means that funding for stem cell research will be less impeded. Although, I am confident that the Fundies will find a problem with this like they find a problem with all progress. "

To: AJ wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:28 PM:

" Can you tell me with all the 100's of millions being spent worldwide on embryonic stemcell research what study has produced results that they have been able to duplicate? "

aj wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:18 PM:

" Just like anything else though....millions will have died before any of this is acutally used for the better of mankind. Oh well....I guess there is hope for our grandkids. "

abortion wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:18 PM:

" people wont be happy to hear this. "

Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?