Your Short-Order Stem Cells May Not Have Arrived After All!

A few weeks ago I blogged about a Japanese researcher's piece in Nature, in which she claimed to have induced pluripotency in mouse blood cells simply by immersing the cells in an acid bath for a half-hour.  It now emerges that the researcher, Haruko Obokata, may not have done this after all. The RIKEN center in Kobe announced on Friday that it is investigating "alleged irregularities" in her work. Questions have been raised about the use of duplicate images across several of her papers, and about numerous unsuccessful attempts to duplicate her results. Obokata is not answering press inquiries. The jury is very much still out: the failures to duplicate her results may simply be due to the complexity of her protocol and the character of the particular cells she used. The business about duplicate images may simply have been a mistake. Read the latest from Nature on the matter, and stay tuned.

Your Short-Order Stem Cells Have Arrived!

A Japanese research team has discovered a way to render somatic cells (in this case, blood cells) pluripotent, simply by bathing them in acid for under a half-hour. The pluripotent cells were generated in a mouse model, and when injected into a mouse embryo, contributed to all three of the developing embryo's tissue-types. They also exhibited stem-cell like growth capacity when cultivated with growth factors. The team are calling their creation STAP stem-cells, for "stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency." The new method involved no nuclear transfer and no introduction of transcription factors.

If the method works in humans, it could be the key to practical regenerative medicine. A person in need of replacement pancreatic cells, for example, might be able to give blood or other tissue to scientists who could then, very quickly, create pluripotent cells from them, and then develop these into replacement tissue which would not be rejected by the recipients body.

This story in the New Scientist has a lot of excellent detail, but includes a side allegation that an unnamed collaborator of the researchers permitted some STAP cells to grow into "spherical clusters" and then implanted one of these into a mouse uterus. According to the story, a researcher's "understanding" was that the collaborator's experiment resulted in the creation of an embryo. The unnamed collaborator hasn't commented. This would be a big deal, as it would indicate that STAP stem-cells were actually STAT stem cells (totipotent, not just pluripotent), and it would constitute an embryonic cloning without nuclear transfer.

Harvard Prof Isn't Recruiting Neanderthal Moms

Oh, good. This story isn't true. There isn't actually a Harvard professor who wants to recruit a woman to bear a Neanderthal child from an embryo constructed, using stem-cell and cloning technology, from Neanderthal bone DNA. Turns out there was some translation error in the account of his interview with a German magazine. And the professor is upset. He's not actually proposing to clone a Neanderthal baby; he only thinks the issue should be up for discussion. For several years.
Oh, good.

Mouse Eggs from Stem and iPS Cells

Okay, this is a big deal. A research team from Kyoto University has successfully used both murine stem cells and murine induced pluripotent stem cells to generate functioning oocytes. For those of you who do not excel in Latin, that means they took mouse embryonic stem cells and some ordinary mouse cells, and developed each into eggs. Those eggs were then used to create healthy mouse offspring.

This team and others have created both sperm and eggs from stem cells before, but haven't been able to produce healthy offspring from them. This time the researchers used proteins and other factors to induce the stem cells and iPS cells into becoming "primordial germ cell-like cells," or PGCLCs. The PGCLCs were then combined with cells from mouse ovaries to make artificial ovaries. These were then transplanted into female mice. After a month, the mice were found to be carrying immature eggs. The eggs were matured in vitro and then fertilized; the resultant embryos were transferred into female mice, who then gave birth. The happy mothers later became grandmothers, without need for further laboratory intervention.

Making oocytes out of stem cells would be impressive enough, but making them out of iPS cells is huge. This lab took an ordinary cell from a mouse, tweaked it and coaxed it into becoming an oocyte, and then made a baby mouse out of it. We're that much closer to being able to do that same trick for humans.

So, any tissue sample from any person, dead or alive, could in theory be used to make that person's baby. Did I say this was a big deal? Obviously it opens up some amazing possibilities for infertility treatment; but obviously, also, it poses huge challenges for control over the future uses of tissue in research and in the clinic.

Romney on Stem Cells

I blogged recently about Newt Gingrich's recent attacks on human embryonic stem cell research, and his intention to investigate and regulate the practices of IVF clinics which create excess human embryos. The news item led me to wonder what Mitt Romney's stem-cell position is. Not surprisingly, it's bounced around a bit.

In his gubernatorial race of 2002, Romney was a supporter of embryonic stem-cell research, and even promised to lobby President Bush for increased research funding in the area. But after a conversation with some Harvard researchers who, Romney often claims, had no moral qualms about destroying two-week-old embryos, he changed his position. Indeed, he credits the stem-cell debate with pushing him toward his current pro-life abortion position. In the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, Romney formulated his current position, namely, that it isn't unethical to use "excess" embryos from IVF clinics for embryonic stem-cell research, but that he opposes government funding for such research, and opposes any laboratory creation of embryos (by cloning or otherwise) for research purposes. This page gathers a number of quotations from Romney on the issue over the years.

He has spoken in favor of shifting research from human embryonic stem cells to induced pluripotent stem cells, since the latter research involves no embryonic destruction. He has also made mention several times of "altered nuclear transfer," the purported "scientific solution" to the ethical problem of embryonic stem-cell research promoted by William Hurlbut, a Stanford professor and member of President Bush's bioethics committee. Altered nuclear transfer essentially produces a severely disabled embryo which cannot develop into a human baby; Hurlbut argued that using ANT embryos thus avoided the problem of killing a viable embryo. Pro-life organizations briefly endorsed, and then pulled away from, the Hurlbut proposal. (There's a website touting ANT here; and brief discussion halfway down this page of the political reception by pro-life groups of Hurlbut's proposal.)

This recent item from Fox News takes Romney to task for continuing to invest in Novo Nordisk, a Danish pharmaceutical firm which uses some stem cells in its research, up until 2010--in spite of having taken a position against embryonic stem-cell research in 2007. But I think that's just a mistake. Romney, as far as I've been able to find, has never taken a comprehensive position opposing all human embryonic stem-cell research. He isn't opposed to privately-funded research on leftover IVF embryos. He opposes laboratory embryo creation, and he opposes the public funding of any embryonic stem-cell research.

No Fetuses in Food!

Oklahoma Senate Bill 1418, introduced by State Sen. Ralph Shortey, would prevent anyone from manufacturing or selling food "which contains aborted human fetuses in the ingredients or which used aborted human fetuses in the research or development of any of the ingredients." The concern behind the bill, apparently, is with food companies which are in fact using tissue derived from aborted fetuses in research on the development of new product flavorings. (This is of course different from saying that such cells are being used as ingredients in food!)

The Onion, America's finest news source, has gathered some informed opinions on the issue.

Gingrich Would Ban Stem Cell Research, Regulate IVF

Newt Gingrich is telling conservative audiences in Florida that, if elected, he will ban all human embryonic stem-cell research, including research done on excess embryos from fertility clinics. He regards embryonic stem-cell research as "the use of science to desensitize society over the killing of babies." This is a reversal of positions he took in two different interviews in 2001, in which he expressed support for federally funding research on leftover fertility-clinic embryos which would otherwise be discarded. Over this weekend Gingrich also indicated that he would create a commission to look into the ethics of IVF: “I believe life begins at conception, and the question I was raising was what happens to embryos in fertility clinics, and I would favor a commission to look seriously at the ethics of how we manage fertility clinics....If you have in vitro fertilization, you are creating life; therefore, we should look seriously at what the rules should be for clinics that are doing that, because they are creating life.”

The roughly $125 million saved by cutting all of NIH's human embryonic stem-cell research funding could presumably be used to help offset some of the billions and billions of dollars required to create the new moon-base Gingrich says he wants by the end of his second term.

Chimeric Monkeys, Mice and Stem Cells

Shoukhrat Mitalipov of the Oregon National Primate Research Center has created chimeric rhesus monkeys, each of whose bodies combines tissues with up to six different genetic identities. The chimera creation was part of research which showed that--unlike in the case of mice--chimeras cannot be formed by injecting rhesus embryonic stem cells into blastocysts. Chimera formation was instead achieved by aggregating several four-cell embryos (a result never achieved in mice). The research hints at some important limitations of using mouse embryonic stem cell models to predict experience in primates, including humans.

The Onion has gathered some on-the-street comments on the research, including from Mr. Bobo.

Egg Donors and Stem Cell Research

This piece from the Atlantic (summarizing this article from Fertility and Sterility) says that most fertility clinics which accept donor eggs for fertility treatments, and which donate at least some "excess" embryos for research, fail to inform egg donors of the possibility that their eggs might be used in stem-cell research. Most of the surveyed clinics told donors that they would not have control over the future uses of their eggs or the embryos made from them, and 30% mentioned the possibility of research use, but very few mentioned stem-cell research by name. This ought to be remedied. I doubt that most women who are willing to donate eggs for fertility treatment have serious opposition to the use of their eggs in fertility research or in stem-cell research, but a few might. They should be given the information.

European Court: No Patents on Human Embryonic Stem-Cell Products

The European Court of Justice ("ECJ") has held that scientists cannot patent products developed from any research which involves the destruction of the human embryo. The Court's full opinion is here. Greenpeace (!) began the case in 2004 by suing to block a Bonn researcher's patent on a technique for deriving neural cells from human embryonic stem cells. European law has banned patenting in connection with the "uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes" since 1998, and German law includes similar language. The Greenpeace case turned on whether a blastocyst destroyed in creating a stem-cell line counts as an "embryo;" whether "industrial or commercial purposes" includes university-based research; and whether the European patent-exclusion law applies to research that is conducted significantly downstream from the act of embryonic destruction (for example, on stem cell lines produced many years ago, and purchased by German researchers from researchers in other countries). The German court's 2006 ruling in favor of Greenpeace was appealed to the German supreme court, who referred it to the ECJ for clarity on the meaning and application of the various terms. Earlier this year the ECJ's advocate-general recommended that the court uphold the patent ban, so yesterday's opinion was widely expected. The court held, first, that the term "embryo" includes any fertilized egg, any product of "research cloning" (in which an unfertilized egg has introduced into it a nucleus from a mature cell), and any parthenote (an unfertilized egg whose division and development have been artificially stimulated by researchers). (This last holding is surprising to me, since parthenotes aren't capable of developing into babies.) Next, the court held that scientific research is included within the legal restriction from patentability concerning the use of embryos "for industrial or commercial purposes". Finally, the court found that the patent restriction applies no matter how distant the research or patent is from the original act of embryonic destruction, and even if the patent itself makes no mention of embryos (referring, for example, only to particular cell-lines originally derived from embryos). There's a fine technical overview of the opinion here.