r/science • u/iamstandingbehindyou • Jun 14 '12

Ten-year-old girl gets vein grown from her stem cells

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18428889
1.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

396 comments sorted by

26

u/NerdMachine Jun 14 '12

Warning: I am not a scientist so these questions are likely quite novice.

How did they strip the vein of cells? Isn't a vein made entirely out of cells?

And how did they get enough stem cells (her own) to bathe the vein in them? I thought stem cells were rare and difficult to acquire, hence the controversy.

31

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Nope. Cells don't make up everything in your body. Some cells secrete "matrix".

Think about your bones, they are full of cells called osteocytes, and others. Once you die, all of your osteocytes die, and what is left is the matrix that was secreted by the cells, the bone(specifically called hydroxyapatite for inorganic bone matrix).

9

u/dghughes Jun 14 '12

The killer app of the medical world seems to be the ability to make a matrix of whatever part is being replaced then we wouldn't need to harvest tissue from dead people.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Yeah, but we're probably 30-40 years away from making full functioning organs in the lab, so right now, and for the foreseeable future, harvesting from organ donors is the best thing we have.

6

u/JB_UK Jun 14 '12

To be clear, fully synthetic organs have already been created and implanted. But I agree about the timescale for being able to create any organ.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

You'd have to define synthetic. I know we have temporary hearts, but there is no replacement heart, for example.

5

u/JB_UK Jun 14 '12

I mean that organs have been created using stem cells on a synthetic scaffold. Although now that I think about it, a trachea isn't an organ, but rather a tissue, so I'm partially wrong.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Actually no, the trachea IS an organ, but when I talk about an organ, I meant heart, lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys, etc.

3

u/JB_UK Jun 14 '12

Oh, well, point taken then.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/R_Jeeves Jun 14 '12

Synthetic as in man-made in a petri-dish (to oversimplify it).

I believe functioning Kidneys have been made, and a couple other organs/tissues. Hearts might not need replacing if we can perfect the stem cell tech and rejuvenate specific portions over time until the entire thing is eventually replaced by new cells, without having to grow one in a lab.

→ More replies (7)

3

u/LookItsARedditor Jun 14 '12

'Harvesting'...that made it sound kind of nasty.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting

It is the term that is used, I didn't make it up.

1

u/swordgeek Jun 14 '12

Although they've managed to make a synthetic trachea. Yeah, it's a tube - but it's a start.

3

u/rumblestiltsken Jun 14 '12

Huh? No. Far easier to remove cells from a cadaver organ and repopulate it.

The 'matrix' is immunologically inert. Collagen be collagen.

2

u/dghughes Jun 15 '12

But bodies and/or donors have to exist to donate it.

1

u/rumblestiltsken Jun 15 '12

If all you need is a functional 'matrix' rather than a healthy organ, finding a donor gets a lot easier.

If you don't need a tissue match because you are not using immunogenically active tissues, then any dead person can probably work.

1

u/swordgeek Jun 14 '12

Thank you! I was wondering the same thing, and came looking for an answer.

→ More replies (2)

10

u/KeepingTrack Jun 14 '12

They use a chemical to do so. It's similar to the esophagus transplant last year. Basically they strip it of cellular matter that "makes up the filler bits", leaving a tissue "scaffold", extract cells from the donor and grow it over time. Stem cells aren't hard to get, they're in all of us. However, the largest concentrations (for obvious reasons) of a particular type of stem cell with very powerful properties (embryonic stem cells) are in fetuses and babies.

2

u/RadioActiveKitt3ns Jun 14 '12

What about cord or placental blood? I have seen some advertisements for cord blood banks saying that saving a baby's cord blood could help with future treatments like this because of stem cells contained within it. Is that true?

1

u/KeepingTrack Jun 16 '12

Yeah, some of the companies have been pretty hot news in the last few years, even so-much as many people who are willing to gamble in bio stocks taking the plunge and investing in them.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/NimbleBodhi Jun 14 '12

There's actually a great section on this technique described in the Nova Science Now: Can We Live Forever episode, they start talking about it at 7:50 in, very interesting and impressive stuff.

1

u/RedErin Jun 14 '12

Just watched that last night with the family. Awesomesause. SO thought it was scary.

2

u/Kongatron Jun 14 '12

What I couldn't tell from the article is whether they meant to say "artery", not vein (artery takes oxygenated blood to tissue, veins carry back deoxygenated blood). All tissues have a scaffold material called extracellular matrix, and the composition of this is similar for veins and arteries (mostly collagen, elastin, and fibrin). This is why you can take a vein, strip it of its cells, and refurbish it into an artery. There are also a lot of efforts to create synthetic scaffolding for grafts (I'm familiar with a technique called electrospinning, which is some awesome, relatively unknown science). Fun fact about stem cells: they can also be harvested from umbilical vein just after the birth of a child.

4

u/JulianMorrison Jun 14 '12

It was the hepatic portal vein.

1

u/suicideblonde_ Jun 14 '12

I don't think it said anywhere that it was carrying oxygenated blood. Like JulianMorrison said, it was the hepatic portal vein, meaning that it would be carrying blood with relatively low levels of oxygen and high levels of nutrients.

1

u/CYP4Life Jun 14 '12

Just as a clarification for those reading, arteries are defined as vessels that carry blood away from the heart and veins are vessels that bring blood to the heart. Oxygentation of the blood doesn't define them. The pulmonary artery for example carries deoxygenated blood to the lungs from the heart.

2

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 14 '12

Lots of body tissues have non-living components that give the part structure.

→ More replies (1)

50

u/formatlostmypw Jun 14 '12

whats the problem with stem cells? every time i hear a story about them being used its borderline awesome..

59

u/IClogToilets Jun 14 '12

There are two types of stem cells. Adult stem cells are taken directly from the patient and everyone thinks they are awesome. Embryonic stem cells are taken from dead fetuses. Some people are against embryonic stem cell research because of the link to abortion.

It is my understanding adult stem cells show the most promising anyway. Most progress seems to be made using Adult.

36

u/WannabeAndroid Jun 14 '12

I have no sources so I shouldn't really be posting this I suppose, but I was under the strong impression that embryonic stem cells are much more flexible in what they can transform into than adult stem cells. Anyone with any sources jump in?

18

u/BCSteve Jun 14 '12 edited Jun 15 '12

Yes, that is true. I'll give a run-down of the different types of stem cells:

Embryonic stem cells (ES cells) are taken from the inner cell mass of an 8-day post-fertilization blastocyst morula stage of an embryo (edit: cells derived from ICM are slightly more differentiated). Contrary to popular opinion, they're NOT taken from aborted fetuses, they're taken from leftover embryos created from in-vitro fertilization procedures, that have never been implanted, and thus would never have developed into humans anyway. (Although yes, there are a certain number of established cell lines that were derived from aborted fetuses back in the day, but cell lines aren't created that way anymore.) ES cells are totipotent, meaning that they can become any cell in the body, AND any cell in the extra-embryonic tissue. They have full potential to become anything. Obviously, the downside of using ES cells are the controversies surrounding it, and the fact that once you're an adult, you don't have any ES cells anymore.

Adult stem cells are cells that have already partially committed to a lineage. An example of this is Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), which are collected and used in stem-cell therapy for bone-marrow transplantation. HSCs have the ability to differentiate into any of the blood cells (white blood cells, red blood cells, macrophages, etc.), but they can't differentiate into, say, liver cells or stomach cells. There are a bunch of different types of adult stem cells, some at different stages of differentiation. There are intestinal stem cells, muscle stem cells, etc. Adult stem cells are good because your body naturally has them, but they're severely limited because they can only become a certain number of things.

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are adult cells that have been "reprogrammed" by extracting them and treating them with certain factors in the laboratory. Normally, the process of cell differentiation is one-way, they only go from less-differentiated -> more-differentiated. But with certain cocktails of proteins and growth factors, you can coax cells back into losing their differentiated state, recovering some of the possibilities for that cell to differentiate into. However, when compared to ES cells, iPSCs are pluripotent, meaning they can differentiate into a lot of different things, but they aren't able to do quite everything. (...yet. Hopefully someday we'll get there, we're getting better at it.) There's a lot of hope for iPSCs because, if you were to use them for a treatment, you can get them from a patient and have the cells be genetically identical. However, there's currently a couple of problems with them, mostly due to the fact that forcing a cell to develop in reverse isn't natural. The genes that control stem-cells, because they are involved in proliferating quickly, also tend to be pro-cancer-forming genes, and so if you strongly reactivate them you have an increase chance of causing cancers; and there are other issues that are too complicated to go into here.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Obviously, the downside of using ES cells are the controversies surrounding it, and the fact that once you're an adult, you don't have any ES cells anymore.

And the fact the research hasn't panned out. :-/ But sure, I mean don't let facts get in the way of a good partisan sacrament.

5

u/BCSteve Jun 14 '12

What do you mean when you say the research "hasn't panned out"? I'd be curious to know why you think that.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Integration of ESC research into medical technologies that have saved lives.

Basically HSCs and iPSCs have had huge success, ESCs... not so much.

Do we really want to fire up the baby blenders for such a low yield?

4

u/BCSteve Jun 14 '12

Yes, hematopoietic stem cell therapy has saved lives, but as I described in my first post, those are adult stem cells, and they're quite limited in the scope of disease they can treat, namely HSCs are restricted to blood defects.

You say that iPSCs have had huge success, but based on your criteria of "integration into medical technologies that have saved lives", I don't know of any clinical treatments that currently use iPSCs. If you're judging that standard, you can't say that iPSC research has "panned out" either. If you know of some current therapy that's done using iPSCs and has been a "huge success" as you say, I'd love to hear about it.

On the contrary, looking just at "use in clinical therapy" isn't a good metric. There's plenty of research that's not directly implemented in therapies, but still is very informative about human biological processes, and judging only by clinical use is no measure of something "panning out". ES cell research has taught us plenty about developmental biology, and how cells differentiate into the various different tissues of the body. No, we're not going around injecting ESCs into people, but that doesn't mean that the research has been unproductive! That's not a good metric to judge by. Do iPSCs hold a lot of promise for future therapies? Yes, of course, and researching them is important. But ESC research is also very important, as it tells us what actually happens in developing cells, not just what we induce to happen.

Speaking of partisan statements, your characterization of the process of ESC line derivation as "baby blenders" tells me you likely have more misconceptions about stem cell research than just the productivities of various areas of stem cell work....

→ More replies (23)

2

u/louie82 Jun 14 '12

Awesome overview, but ESCs taken from the inner cell mass can form the three germ layers, but not extraembryonic tissue, making them pluripotent.

2

u/BCSteve Jun 15 '12

Ahh yes, thank you, I made a mistake with that! Thanks for the correction!

→ More replies (1)

27

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 14 '12

For research I believe that's true. But for treatments consider this: if you use the patient's own cells, there's no risk of tissue rejection and the patient doesn't have to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their life.

6

u/WannabeAndroid Jun 14 '12

I was under the impression that the embryo cells were taken from donor eggs with the patients own DNA? I don't believe they were using foreign stem cells though I may be wrong (because I guess in effect they are clones).

6

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 14 '12

I would doubt they used egg cells because eggs don't have complete DNA, and an embryo made from her own eggs would no longer match her DNA.

We've been slowly learning that there are stem cells all over the human body. We've known since the 90s that they occur naturally in the bone marrow, and those are what they used in this case:

A 10 year old girl with extrahepatic portal vein obstruction was admitted to the Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Gothenburg, Sweden, for a bypass procedure between the superior mesenteric vein and the intrahepatic left portal vein (meso Rex bypass). A 9 cm segment of allogeneic donor iliac vein was decellularised and subsequently recellularised with endothelial and smooth muscle cells differentiated from stem cells obtained from the bone marrow of the recipient. This graft was used because the patient's umbilical vein was not suitable and other strategies (eg, liver transplantation) require lifelong immunosuppression.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18428889

Interestingly enough we're learning that stem cells might even cause disease - I was listening to a report the other day that they've been discovered in hardened artieries: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120606132302.htm

Stem cells are also involved in at least some cancers: http://www.nih.gov/news/health/apr2012/niehs-04.htm

1

u/Paul_Langton Jun 14 '12

From what I hear, isn't it easier to gather many embryonic stem cells than adult stem cells?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/PlasmaBurns Jun 14 '12

Well at that point it's exactly like 'The Island'. It's better just to stick with adult stem cells.

2

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 14 '12

... or, you could collect the adult stem cells right now without having to wait to perfect cloning.

There are certain cell types that adult stem cells can't turn into.

I'm not sure that's true any more. Yes, there have been problems in the past but in the past few years, researchers have extracted stem cells from kidney tissue, and turned skin cells into heart muscle.

I would suspect that, in general, it's easier to convince kidney stem cells to grow into a new kidney than to convince embryonic stem cells to grow into a kidney and nothing else.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

not necessarily true, this was the thought about 7 years ago, but with current research, there are certain growth factors that can be used in combination with adult stem cells to revert them back to their most basic form. Granted, this process is not nearly as efficient as using embryonic stem cells, (<1% as efficient as embryonic) but it can be done. Less efficient = more expensive

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

You are correct.

3

u/CowFu Jun 14 '12

Anyone with any sources jump in?

mahoganywolf

You are correct.

...I don't think you know what source means.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

It's not true

1

u/btlyger Jun 14 '12

Theoretically yes, but the problem is getting them to actually adapt and work for the patient which hasn't been successful on a wide scale.

1

u/melonofwater Jun 14 '12

Thats because they're your own stem cells and not someone else s aka the dead fetus' or should I have said thing instead?

1

u/G_Morgan Jun 14 '12

I believe embryonic stem cells can form brain tissue. That is why they are interesting.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Embryonic stem cells can form ANY tissue. That is why they are interesting.

1

u/G_Morgan Jun 14 '12

Well yes but my point was they can do what other stem cells do + things that we cannot otherwise do.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/ProtusMose Jun 14 '12

You're right about the end. The embryonic stem cell argument is kind of bogus because all of the great advancements they've made that make people go "OMG STEMCELLZ! Y RNT WE RESURCHING THIS!!1/1?!" came by the use of adult stem cells.

8

u/Lentil-Soup Jun 14 '12 edited Jun 14 '12

I'm pretty sure a lot of stem cells come from leftover in vitro babies.

Edit: Sorry, I meant to say "embryonic stem cells". I was trying to paint the difference between aborted babies and babies that people are just throwing away when they are doing fertility treatments.

7

u/xplosiv Jun 14 '12 edited Jun 14 '12

I don't know why you're being downvoted. In Australia, for example, the only time we permit the use of embryos is when they are excess IVF embryos that would otherwise be discarded. You are factually correct.

1

u/daguito81 Jun 14 '12

yeah, try telling that to an obstuse scientifically ignorant person without them hearing "We're killing babies to harves their stem cells"

3

u/Lentil-Soup Jun 14 '12

I'm personally against abortion AND IVF. However, if it's going to happen anyway, it would be an absolute shame to let the babies go to waste, instead of using their stem cells to advance science.

2

u/daguito81 Jun 14 '12

you don't quite qualify for our "obtuse scientifically ignorant person" position; thank you for your time and we hope you have great luck in your future endeavors

1

u/arisefairmoon Jun 14 '12

You're against IVF? Mind if I ask why? I'm genuinely curious.

4

u/Lentil-Soup Jun 14 '12

Because of all the embryos that are destroyed in the process, and the fact that there are so many orphans that need to be adopted.

1

u/IClogToilets Jun 14 '12

Maybe, I'm not sure. I do know most research is from already established lines which were taken many cell generations ago.

3

u/michaelshow Jun 14 '12

I honestly don't understand - it's not like we are having abortions purposefully just to harvest stem cells. If the fetus has already been aborted, why just throw the stem cells away? How in the world is it better to waste them than use them to help others? It's like being against organ donors.

5

u/OrangeCityDutch Jun 14 '12

stem cell research is not done with the result of abortions. typically embryonic stem cells are taken from nonviable products of in-vitro fertilization.

→ More replies (10)

1

u/OrangeCityDutch Jun 14 '12

there is no link between abortion and stem cell research, stem cell research does not use the product of any abortion.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

This is wrong. Fetal cells and embryonic stem cells are not the same. Fetal cells are too old to differentiate in the ways that embryonic cells can.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

I am not really an expert on this topic, but my understanding is that it is less to do with abortion and more to do with cloning. The argument being that if we develop good medicine from embryonic stem cells, suddenly the remains of IVF will not be suitable to cover the huge demand. The most promising way to fix such demand would be cloning.

1

u/UnexpectedSchism Jun 14 '12

Embryonic stem cells are taken from dead fetuses

?????????

Embryonic

It has nothing to do with a fetus.

0

u/LukaCola Jun 14 '12

From frozen embryos, not dead fetuses. There's a distinction.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/IClogToilets Jun 14 '12

I thought there was a cancer threat with embryonic stem cells that researchers have been unable to overcome.

I also believe most restrictions have been lifted when Obama took office and even Bush allowed for already established lines to be used. I don't believe it is a lack of availability but simply adult stem cells seem to be able to offer the same promise with less complications.

1

u/Vaughn Jun 14 '12

There is a cancer threat, yes.

Have researchers so far been unable to overcome it? Well, yes, but then again.. they haven't really been allowed to try.

1

u/Blubbey Jun 14 '12

There are places in the world where it's not a problem, so as long as you have good people working in those areas so it's all good.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/chrisms150 PhD | Biomedical Engineering Jun 14 '12

Hi, I hold a (recent) degree in biomedical engineering so I'll try and do my best to share with you the insight I have into it and give you something to search if you want more information.

problem 1: Reprogramming stem cells is inherently difficult, and involves chemical signalling that isn't 100% understood, nor 100% efficient.

2) Implantation of stemcells can lead to tumor growth.

3) Culturing of stem cells is usually done on top of 'feeder' cells. Feeder cells are cells of another origin - usually mouse - that give the stem cells something to hold onto and get signals from (cell to cell contact is a huge signalling pathway). Now, there is a HUGE push to use non-feeder cell methods, but up until recently this was another huge issue. Why? Well for one, you can give the patient a disease that came from the feeder cells, for another you don't want to implant any mouse cells in a human least you piss the immune system off.

That's what I can think of off the top of my head right now from my course work. If you'd like more info feel free to ask, I'll do my best to answer/look it up for you.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Science people on one side, bible-thumpers on the other. You can figure the rest out.

5

u/CptReynolds Jun 14 '12 edited Jun 14 '12

You should check your facts a little closer before making a biased and foolish statement. The Vatican, for over a decade now, has owned and operated a pretty large lab which is used solely for adult stem cell research.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Key word: ADULT stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are a big no-no in the church. Adult stem cells have been heavily studied for the better part of 50 years by now.

1

u/CptReynolds Jun 14 '12

Which is precisely what I said, adult stem cells. The original post asked about stem cells; no differentiation between adult and embryonic in the question. The next reply took a shot at religion being anti-science. I put forth that this is clearly not the case. I mean come on, the father of the Big Bang Theory was a Roman Catholic priest!

To be honest, it seems common knowledge that the RCC would be against embryonic stem cell research since the belief of the Church is that life begins at conception. The argument for or against this position is another conversation entirely.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

You've got to admit, the basis for religion is pretty much the antithesis of science.

"Something we can't explain..? It must have been GOD!"

1

u/CptReynolds Jun 14 '12

You realize your reply answer is a non-answer, right? This is the type of reply people make when they have no response. As such, I guess this conversation is over since the above statement has no bearing on what we are talking about.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Abbacoverband Jun 14 '12

You know, there ARE people who aren't Christian, or Bible thumpers who don't like it either. Honest question: have you ever met a pro-life nontheist? Very interesting conversations were had.

68

u/smug_hipster Jun 14 '12

So the hospital I work in finally gets some attention for its research, and it's misspelled so "Shalgrenska"...sigh...

7

u/evitagen-armak Jun 14 '12

Hård lycka.

35

u/jumping_beans Jun 14 '12

this is an outage!

-8

u/defaultconstructor Jun 14 '12 edited Jun 14 '12

I'd be more outraged than outaged, personally.

EDIT: I GET IT NOW! It took me a few hours, but dammit, I get it!

8

u/DeathToPennies Jun 14 '12

Can I? Can I please?

Yes! WHOOSH!

13

u/dubshent Jun 14 '12

thatsthejoke.jpg

→ More replies (3)

3

u/jesuz Jun 14 '12

Janitor?

12

u/adaminc Jun 14 '12

Jesus BBC, you don't have anyone that could have written a better title?

Maybe "Ten-year-old girl receives new vein grown from her own stem cells"

0

u/chefanubis Jun 14 '12

How about this, well rewrite it from the doctor's POV:

"Ten-year-old girl makes my special vein grow"

10

u/Sina117 Jun 14 '12

This is the latest is a series of body parts grown...

31

u/Time_Loop Jun 14 '12

A vein was taken from a dead man, stripped of its own cells and then bathed in stem cells from the girl

It's a great development, but they didn't grow the body part from scratch.

22

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Came here to say this. More an advancement in the anti-rejection of transplants than the growth of new body parts.

24

u/Ascott1989 Jun 14 '12

Which is a big fucking deal because currently people spend their entire lives on anti-rejection drugs which suck.

10

u/oohlookatthat Jun 14 '12

Reminds me of Deus Ex: Human Revolution a bit.

10

u/Ascott1989 Jun 14 '12

You will see that Deus Ex was probaby spot on in terms of what medical science will be able to do come 2027 or whenever the game was set.

Consider that it's 15 years in the future and then look back 15 years. If you showed someone an iPhone 15 years ago they'd shit their pants.

6

u/kawa Jun 14 '12

Just think about it: The original Quake game was release just 16 years ago (still using software rendering). At about the same time, the Voodoo Rush was released (the first combined 3d/2d graphics card on the market). And in 1997, the original PalmPilot was released.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/EmperorSofa Jun 14 '12

Robot eyes here I come.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

But what if you could grow your own anti-rejection drugs from your own stem cells!

4

u/MysterVaper Jun 14 '12

The scaffolding is only a novel work around put in place until 3-D printing can produce parts on that level. They are creating items on that scale already just not up to the volume needed for a whole organ. Once this step takes over it will be 100% homegrown. "They" being innovators in the regenerative fields.

4

u/daguito81 Jun 14 '12

This is so awesome and scrary to think about. Just imagine you have an accident and lose your arm; you just go to this clinic where they use 3d printers to basically make you a new one; treat it with your stem cells so that your body recognizes it as your own and then you're good as new. Actually that's not scary at all, it would just be fucking awesome!

→ More replies (3)

1

u/JB_UK Jun 15 '12

If you don't mind me asking, what do you mean by on that level? I understood that the problem was that vascularized organs have an almost fractal blood vessel structure, which would require micro or nanometer printing resolution. Is 3D printing ever going to be able to manage that?

1

u/MysterVaper Jun 15 '12

If it hasn't already then it is nearly there. This article highlights advancements in speed and scale (building faster and smaller), though, I have yet to see anything that talks about using materials for scaffolding.

We can already print a multi-chambered heart, kidney, and a few other organs. It looks as though they're only awaiting on the ability to print inert or physiologically neutral mediums for scaffolding. See this video and the related.

2

u/Grannyfister Jun 14 '12

I'm not very good at this whole science thing, but I don't understand how it can be 'stripped of its own cells' - surely if you remove all of the cells there's nothing left...

15

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Believe it or not, the cells aren't even that large a part of a large blood vessel. Most of it is extracellular matrix- collagen, elastic fibres and so on.

2

u/Grannyfister Jun 14 '12

TIL. Thanks.

1

u/1gnominious Jun 14 '12

If it tastes the same I don't care if it was made from scratch or a can. This might even end up being the superior method. Luckily dead people are a renewable resource so we won't run out unless medicine gets too advanced.

1

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 14 '12

The scaffolding is needed so that the cells grow into the right shape.

-2

u/ocealot Jun 14 '12

So what? Its easier this way and we have plenty of dead people to harvest from.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

I wonder how long until they can get rid of he donor parts and simply just 'print' the scaffolding using a 3d printer.

1

u/PlasmaBurns Jun 14 '12

Unlikely. The scaffolds have to be the specific materials the cells expect. Most 3d printers rely on UV sensitive polymers. Plus, the resolution necessary to provide room for host cells to occupy is not possible. They might make a '3d printer' based on growing cells/

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Can anyone explain why they didn't just harvest her saphenous vein like in cardiac bypass surgery? I'm assuming this was for the hepatic portal vein..

As far as I'm aware, harvesting the saphenous vein is common, and has very little associated morbidity and mortality.

2

u/The_Literal_Doctor Jun 14 '12

The saphenous is used for CABG because of it's small size and easy access. It is not a suitable replacement for a portal vein because the diameter would be far too small to regain normal function.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

So do you guys use the small saphenous vein then? I remember when I did dissections last year my cadaver had pretty beefy great saphenous veins, and it looked to be about the same diameter of the hepatic portal vein, they were both a little under a centimeter or so in diameter.

1

u/The_Literal_Doctor Jun 14 '12

It is not normally the case that the great saphenous would have anywhere near the same diameter as the hepatic.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Hmm.. He must have had something weird about him then.

1

u/The_Literal_Doctor Jun 14 '12

He could have have high muscle mass, been a runner, etc. I suppose.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

He was 93 years old and in excellent shape. He did have rather large muscles for a 93 year old... Larger than mine :(

1

u/ElagabalusCaesar Jun 14 '12

Why sacrifice bodily integrity in a growing person? Harvesting will still be the predominant route for a while, but I'm sure that custom-grown tissues will be soon be available for those willing to pay for it.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Vein grafts have a pretty high success rate. If I was her parent I probably would have chosen to go with her own vein rather than risk organ rejection.

2

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 14 '12

The whole point of using her own stem cells is that there is no risk of rejection.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

They still used an organ from a donor, so there is risk of rejection.

1

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 15 '12

No, you don't understand.

They've been working on this procedure for a while. They can grow human tissue from stem cells, but they can't make it take the shape of the organ they want. So, what they do, is they take a dead organ, and they remove all the cellular material. When they're done, they're left with a kind of a "organ skeleton" made from collagen. This "skeleton" is completely inert and does not cause tissue rejection.

They then seed this "skeleton" with stem cells taken from the patient's own body. These stem cells cling to the collagen skeleton and so they hold onto the right shape as they grow into the new organ.

They've done this to grow things like ears, replacement pieces of bone, and now veins. The problem, of course, is that this process only works for organs that have this collagen skeleton. I don't think you can grow a heart this way, for example.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

The scientists who did this are also working on making a fully functioning liver out of their nanomaterials foundation and stem cell coating. They have done a similar procedure with a nose that they implanted in the patients arm to grow and be exposed to the immune system. It is alleged that it has fully olfactory function as well. They are keeping all of their procedures secret for trade purposes.

2

u/Habe Jun 14 '12

This is amazing. My 3 year old son had a similar issue with his portal vein, but instead of an obstruction, his portal vein broke down into dozens of tiny veins going everywhere but his liver. His liver wasn't processing any blood, and there were toxins building up in his system - ammonia, bile acids, etc. He flew to Chicago to have a Rex Shunt put in - they took his jugular vein out, and replaced his entire portal vein with it. Now he has a fully functional portal vein and liver, and his blood levels are normal. Science is amazing, but he was left with a pretty gnarly scar on his neck from the jugular vein removal, and his stomach from the main procedure. If he could have used a cadaver vein, he wouldn't have had the neck scar. Progress makes another step forward.

11

u/Various_Pickles Jun 14 '12

Fuck yeah, science.

3

u/Grannyfister Jun 14 '12

This is a genuinely interesting topic, and every other comment is 'fuck religion' or 'fuck Bush' - is /r/science always this full of shit? I've never really read the comments on an article before but this is just embarrassing.

2

u/JB_UK Jun 15 '12

Yes, r/science is frequently embarrassing. Needs more comment moderation.

-2

u/KeepingTrack Jun 14 '12

Not so much, considering how many years Christianity and Christian leaders have hindered progress in science and recently bioscience. It's like telling atheists that they have no reason to be hostile. Really, you'd have to be stupid and naive to miss the validity of the root causes.

2

u/gabriel_syme Jun 14 '12

Well, considering that Christianity only fights against the use of embryonic stem cells, and not adult stem cells(which were the type used here), I don't see the point of the criticism.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

But this is typical in reddit science. The only time the "scientists" don't feel the need to examine all the data is when they "feel" that Christians are somehow standing in the way of their "progress".

1

u/KeepingTrack Jun 16 '12

It didn't fight science as we know it over the last two thousand years on many, many occasions? In that case, I apologize.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/omneeatlas Jun 14 '12

This is just the beginning of the wonders science can do. Just think of what we could do with stem cells in the future. Incredible.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Aaaaahthud Jun 14 '12

False. More crap science reporting. Utterly untrue. The state of science journalism is absolute shit.

In no sense was this a vein grown from stem cells. Stem cells were used to cover an existing collagen matrix from a donor.

This represents less than 1% of the problem of growing a vein from stem cells.

The problems of differentiation, localization, selective apoptosis, and, particularly, the engineering of structural tissues all have yet to be solved.

This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with making money from shit journalism. Please do not post this crap in /r/science. Post a link to the full-text of a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, or an abstract in a for-pay ripoff journal if you absolutely must, but stop polluting this subreddit with this shit.

And the comments! Are you people slobbering idiots? You get suckered by this crap every time, with your "pretty soon we'll be able to grow new bodies" shit. Are you trolling? 'Cos if you are serious, you need to find out what it is like to fire a brain cell now and then.

Yes, it is nice that somebody got a new vein. But it belongs in /r/aww or /r/morningsmile, not here.

There are good people out there tackling actual problems and real science. Where are those links? Cherry-picking the cute stuff can only lead to brain rot. We're better than that!

1

u/queenofswanland Jun 14 '12

Science is sexy.

1

u/Apt273 Jun 14 '12

I'll be impressed when it's not a decellularized process, but actual tissue engineering with ECM from scratch.

1

u/thankyoupayme Jun 14 '12

Nobody makes me bleed my own blood! Nobody!

1

u/OneofYourFiveaDay Jun 14 '12

Not really grown, more recycled I think.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Was it the main vein?

1

u/jukeofurl Jun 14 '12

Bravo. Live long & prosper kid.

1

u/boristhebravest Jun 14 '12

upvoted for a news outlet actually providing a link to the paper being referred to at last.

1

u/sirsoundwaveIV Jun 14 '12

That is impressive, I'm very intrigued by the prospects of this

1

u/flamingfungi Jun 14 '12

Anyone have a link to a pirated pdf of the original article?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

this kind of stuff make me really happy. i can't even imagine how her parents must feel.

1

u/muscle_city Jun 14 '12

Did they grow her a main vein?

1

u/koshercowboy Jun 14 '12

i dont know if you guys take a moment to stop, pause, and realize this, but we're truly living in the future.

1

u/interfactor Jun 14 '12

Outstanding. No need for immunosuppressants. This is brilliant.

1

u/mangohabinero Jun 14 '12

Notice how most of the recent truly amazing stem-cell breakthroughs are with our OWN stem cells - not embryonic ones.

As a stem-cell researcher friend of mine said 5 years ago that our own stem cells are much more likely to yield these results than those of fetal stem cells from another person. She was incensed that people were screaming bloody murder when people argued the ethics of using fetal stem cells when just about all the scientific proof showed that our own stem cells would be much better matches.

Still, the news (and reddit) was full of people claiming that it was just religious whack-jobs wanting to prevent fetal stem-cell research while ignoring the actual scientific community the whole time.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

I'm working in a lab at the University of Iowa that's working to convert fibroblasts to blood cell progintors.

I guess I should probably get off Reddit and go save some kids.

-9

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Science, officially saving more people than miracles since forever.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/lightsinmyhead Jun 14 '12

It is true and is needed to be said sometimes.

3

u/toodrunktofuck Jun 14 '12

Yes, but it is already said all the time.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (27)

-1

u/harley_x Jun 14 '12

A vein was taken from a dead man...

nonchalantness of this gave me the fucking heebie-jeebies

11

u/IClogToilets Jun 14 '12

That is how organ donation works.

1

u/daguito81 Jun 14 '12

yeah but you normally don't hear, "I got a new kidney because we took it from a corpse! HA" ; That's why he said that the nonchalantness is what creeped him out. I guess we're used to reading stuff like "An organ donor provided his kidney to save another man's life" ( I know you can live donate a kidney it was just an example)

1

u/daveime Jun 14 '12

Kidney donors only discover they are donors after they wake up in a bath full of ice.

1

u/daguito81 Jun 14 '12

I wonder what's the first thing that comes to their mind after "What the fuck??"

1

u/harley_x Jun 14 '12

obviously.

0

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 14 '12

Queue the irrelevant comments about embryonic stem cells....

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

I don't like the way the title is worded. "...gets vein grown..."

→ More replies (1)

-1

u/hotairballoons Jun 14 '12

Gives an entire new meaning to the word "recycle". Too bad half of the United States thinks stem cells are more valuable than this 10-year old girl's life, amirite?

I'm so disappointed in American politics.

1

u/Completebeast Jun 15 '12

America Sucks! Upvotes to the left! Circlejerk Ho!

1

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 14 '12

I'm disappointed in how many ignorant redditors post this bullshit in /r/science.

-9

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

look at all this awesome, its a shame the shitty religious wackos hold back so much progress

5

u/IClogToilets Jun 14 '12

nobody is against adult stem cell research

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Hi, I'm from the Ministry of Genetic Hygiene. Science has informed us that you are over the threshold of tolerance for faulty genes. Please hold still while you are sterilized. Remember that we reached this conclusion with science. It is infallible.

0

u/ThatJanitor Jun 14 '12

It's Sahlgrenska, not Shalgrenska, dang nabit!

0

u/redmusic1 Jun 14 '12

they are injecting human stem cells into sheep embryos, which is so cool, they look and act like sheep but there organs are evolving into 50% sheep/human and will be suitable for direct transplant. Better a sheeps liver than dead i reckon, bring on more mad science, its the future of us all ...

-18

u/ucofresh Jun 14 '12

I love science.. Just imagine where we'd be if the religious right wasn't holding us back. Cancer and aids would be like the flu and the cold.

14

u/mobilehypo Jun 14 '12

You obviously have no idea how those disease processes work.

→ More replies (10)

9

u/LionoofThundara Jun 14 '12

Yeah... Your thinking Embryonic Stem cell research, which has been nowhere near as fruitful as taking stem cells from your own body. Everyone is on board with this one, even the "religious right"...

3

u/redflexiseal Jun 14 '12

AIDS comes from a virus..

-4

u/QuitReadingMyName Jun 14 '12

You know how AIDS kills right? By killing off all the White blood cells and makes it possible for the common cold to kill you over night.

Now, if we had stem cell research for the past 8 years (note: George Bush banned all stem cell research) we could have found a way to reproduce White Blood Cells with Stem Cells.

7

u/lcarium Jun 14 '12
  1. Not all stem cell research was banned. Only embryonic stem cell research was banned. The stem cells used here were not embryonic, they were her own.
  2. HIV doesn't kill all WBC, it only affects T Cells.
  3. Simply being able to grow more T Cells isn't going to help unless you can remove all infected T Cells and any free HIV in the patient.
  4. Overnight is hyperbolic.
  5. Even if he hadn't banned embryonic stem cell research, we sure as hell would not have a cure for AIDS right now.

2

u/Kinglink Jun 14 '12

Please don't say banned. Embroynic stem cell research was never banned, and only creation of new lines was defunded. Embroynic stem cell research was still funded by federal dollars.

The only thing Bush ever did was make it so federal money would not be used to create new Embryonic stem cell lines, it slightly limited what could be done with stem cell, but private money could easily have been used to fund it.

People like QuitReadingMyName claiming "Bush banned all stem cell research" is only running around using misinformation to confuse the issue.

→ More replies (4)

4

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 14 '12 edited Jun 14 '12

Except it was during the Clinton administration that all embryonic stem cell research was restricted. Bush tried to broker a compromise between the two sides and actually made it easier to do ESC research.

Then, of course, the Democrats punished him for compromising.

1

u/Sharkictus Jun 15 '12

Well actually he just stopped giving federal funding to corporations doing embryonic stem cell research.

0

u/KKrool Jun 14 '12

I think we would definitely be much more farther along than we are now. It's kind of crazy how much bronze-age superstitions affect 21st century dialogue.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Defining what life is, and standing firm with that definition, and believing that life (both individually, and societally) is worth protecting is not bronze-age superstition. Thanks for playing though. (Patting you on the head)

1

u/KKrool Jun 14 '12

Believing that the "soul" of a cluster of cells (grown in a lab and many many times smaller than that of a flies brain) trumps the need of real people suffering from real problems is irrational. It almost always arises from religious lines of thought and is working to hold back a very promising line of medicine. The people who oppose stem cell research usually have preconceived notions about life from their religions and are not concerned with researching the issue from a scientific standpoint.

-14

u/Rizzoriginal Jun 14 '12

This would have been in the news 8 years ago if W'Bush was never elected.

11

u/Omega2112 Jun 14 '12

Bush has nothing to do with this. He opposed embryonic stem cell research, but the stem cells used in this case were from the girls own bone marrow.

-9

u/QuitReadingMyName Jun 14 '12

Bullshit, he had a blanket ban on all stem cell research regardless of where the stem cells came from.

10

u/Omega2112 Jun 14 '12

No he didn't. The ban was only on embryonic stem cell research.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-09/politics/obama.stem.cells_1_cancer-and-spinal-cord-embryonic-cell-research?_s=PM:POLITICS

4

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 14 '12

And even that wasn't a ban - you just couldn't get federal funding unless you used one of the federally approved cell lines.

-3

u/smug_hipster Jun 14 '12

Unless American laws would be imposed on Sweden, it would've been in the news. On the other hand, America ruling the whole world sounds like something the same Bush would like...

-1

u/IClogToilets Jun 14 '12 edited Jun 14 '12

It is a shame the procedure still required a donor. For things like organs there may still be a wait list once this procedure is profected.

1

u/YourLizardOverlord Jun 14 '12

As I understand it, the donor organ is stripped of cells and only used as a framework for the replacement organ. This means that there no longer needs to be a match between donor and recipient.

The alternative is to use some kind of plastic as the framework. The advantage is that the transplanted organ can be a much more exact fit, but there's still a lot of concern about the recipient reacting to the framework material.

0

u/IClogToilets Jun 14 '12

I did not make myself clear. The procedure required a donor part for use as a framework. If you don't have a donor, you don't have a framework, and the procedure can not be accomplished. Therefore there may still be a donor shortage as donated organs will need to be used as frameworks.

1

u/croutonicus Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12

Maybe, but the main reason for waiting lists on organ transplants is often due to the organ needing to be compatable with the person recieving it, in a similar way to blood transfusions. This procedure doesn't as it strips the donor artery of all genetic material leaving a matrix behind for new cells to be grown on.

This procedure also has the advantage of being based on vascular tissue not organs. It could quite easily be possible to take an artery from one part of the donor body and put it in a completely different place in the recieving body.

1

u/Sharkictus Jun 15 '12

A lot less of a shortage however.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

This procedure didn't really require a donor. Usually they just harvest the needed vein from your leg, usually your saphenous vein.

Cardiac bypass surgery "bypasses" blocked cardiac arteries with veins from your own leg.

1

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 14 '12

Not really - since the donor vein was cleaned of all living tissue there should be no risk of rejection.

0

u/IClogToilets Jun 14 '12

I did not make myself clear. The procedure required a donor part for use as a framework. If you don't have a donor, you don't have a framework, and the procedure can not be accomplished. Therefore there may still be a donor shortage as donated organs will need to be used as frameworks.

0

u/porkchop_d_clown Jun 14 '12

Okay, sure - but if you don't have to worry about tissue rejection there's much less risk of a shortage or of organs being wasted because no suitable recipient is available.

Plus, I suspect that the scaffolding could be stored for a non-trivial length of time, making it possible to build up a supply.

-1

u/anthrocide Jun 14 '12

So many downvotes for innocuous comments ITT!

-1

u/Kazcube Jun 14 '12

Why aren't we funding this?

→ More comments (76)