Monthly Archives: June 2017


One gene closer to regenerative therapy for muscular disorders – Medical Xpress

June 1, 2017 This microscopic image of fibroblast cells shows the induction of cell fusion by a newly described gene and its protein, called myomerger. Multi-nucleus cells expressing genes needed to form skeletal muscle can be seen in flower-like clumps forming as cells fuse together. Reporting results in Nature Communications, the researchers seek ways to develop regenerative therapies for muscle disorders by getting stem cells to fuse and form functioning skeletal muscle tissues. Credit: Cincinnati Children's

A detour on the road to regenerative medicine for people with muscular disorders is figuring out how to coax muscle stem cells to fuse together and form functioning skeletal muscle tissues. A study published June 1 by Nature Communications reports scientists identify a new gene essential to this process, shedding new light on possible new therapeutic strategies.

Led by researchers at the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Heart Institute, the study demonstrates the gene Gm7325 and its protein - which the scientists named "myomerger" - prompt muscle stem cells to fuse and develop skeletal muscles the body needs to move and survive. They also show that myomerger works with another gene, Tmem8c, and its associated protein "myomaker" to fuse cells that normally would not.

In laboratory tests on embryonic mice engineered to not express myomerger in skeletal muscle, the animals did not develop enough muscle fiber to live.

"These findings stimulate new avenues for cell therapy approaches for regenerative medicine," said Douglas Millay, PhD, study senior investigator and a scientist in the Division of Molecular Cardiovascular Biology at Cincinnati Children's. "This includes the potential for cells expressing myomaker and myomerger to be loaded with therapeutic material and then fused to diseased tissue. An example would be muscular dystrophy, which is a devastating genetic muscle disease. The fusion technology possibly could be harnessed to provide muscle cells with a normal copy of the missing gene."

Bio-Pioneering in Reverse

One of the molecular mysteries hindering development of regenerative therapy for muscles is uncovering the precise genetic and molecular processes that cause skeletal muscle stem cells (called myoblasts) to fuse and form the striated muscle fibers that allow movement. Millay and his colleagues are identifying, deconstructing and analyzing these processes to search for new therapeutic clues.

Genetic degenerative disorders of the muscle number in the dozens, but are rare in the overall population, according to the National Institutes of Health. The major categories of these devastating wasting diseases include: muscular dystrophy, congenital myopathy and metabolic myopathy. Muscular dystrophies are a group of more than 30 genetic diseases characterized by progressive weakness and degeneration of the skeletal muscles that control movement. The most common form is Duchenne MD.

Molecular Sleuthing

A previous study authored by Millay in 2014 identified myomaker and its gene through bioinformatic analysis. Myomaker is also required for myoblast stem cells to fuse. However, it was clear from that work that myomaker did not work alone and needed a partner to drive the fusion process. The current study indicates that myomerger is the missing link for fusion, and that both genes are absolutely required for fusion to occur, according to the researchers.

To find additional genes that regulate fusion, Millay's team screened for those activated by expression of a protein called MyoD, which is the primary initiator of the all the genes that make muscle. The team focused on the top 100 genes induced by MyoD (including GM7325/myomerger) and designed a screen to test the factors that could function within and across cell membranes. They also looked for genes not previously studied for having a role in fusing muscle stem cells. These analyses eventually pointed to a previously uncharacterized gene listed in the database - Gm7325.

Researchers then tested cell cultures and mouse models by using a gene editing process called CRISPR-Cas9 to demonstrate how the presence or absence of myomaker and myomerger - both individually and in unison - affect cell fusion and muscle formation. These tests indicate that myomerger-deficient muscle cells called myocytes differentiate and form the contractile unit of muscle (sarcomeres), but they do not join together to form fully functioning muscle tissue.

Looking Ahead

The researchers are building on their current findings, which they say establishes a system for reconstituting cell fusion in mammalian cells, a feat not yet achieved by biomedical science.

For example, beyond the cell fusion effects of myomaker and myomerger, it isn't known how myomaker or myomerger induce cell membrane fusion. Knowing these details would be crucial to developing potential therapeutic strategies in the future, according to Millay. This study identifies myomerger as a fundmentally required protein for muscle development using cell culture and laboratory mouse models.

The authors emphasize that extensive additional research will be required to determine if these results can be translated to a clinical setting.

Explore further: Researchers turn stem cells into somites, precursors to skeletal muscle, cartilage and bone

More information: Nature Communications (2017). DOI: 10.1038/NCOMMS15665

Adding just the right mixture of signaling moleculesproteins involved in developmentto human stem cells can coax them to resemble somites, which are groups of cells that give rise to skeletal muscles, bones, and cartilage ...

A team led by Jean-Franois Ct, researcher at the IRCM, identified a ''conductor'' in the development of muscle tissue. The discovery, published online yesterday by the scientific journal Proceedings of the National ...

Athletes, the elderly and those with degenerative muscle disease would all benefit from accelerated muscle repair. When skeletal muscles, those connected to the bone, are injured, muscle stem cells wake up from a dormant ...

Johns Hopkins researchers report they have inadvertently found a way to make human muscle cells bearing genetic mutations from people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD).

Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a chronic disease causing severe muscle degeneration that is ultimately fatal. As the disease progresses, muscle precursor cells lose the ability to create new musclar tissue, leading to faster ...

Researchers at Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Research Institute (SBP) have conclusively identified the protein complex that controls the genes needed to repair skeletal muscle. The discovery clears up deep-rooted conflicting ...

The human body runs according to a roughly 24-hour cycle, controlled by a "master" clock in the brain and peripheral clocks in other parts of the body that are synchronized according to external cues, including light. Now, ...

Cholesterol, a naturally occurring compound at the lung surface, has been shown to have a clear effect on the properties of this nanoscale film that covers the inside of our lungs. Cholesterol levels in this system may affect ...

A detour on the road to regenerative medicine for people with muscular disorders is figuring out how to coax muscle stem cells to fuse together and form functioning skeletal muscle tissues. A study published June 1 by Nature ...

Researchers from Monash University have developed a new drug delivery strategy able to block pain within the nerve cells, in what could be a major development of an immediate and long lasting treatment for pain.

Can a fish with a malformed jaw tell us something about hearing loss in mice and humans? The answer is yes, according to a new publication in Scientific Reports.

A newly developed tissue scanner allows looking under the skin of psoriasis patients. This provides clinically relevant information, such as the structure of skin layers and blood vessels, without the need for contrast agents ...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Original post:
One gene closer to regenerative therapy for muscular disorders - Medical Xpress

A controversial trial to bring the dead back to life plans a restart – STAT

F

or any given medical problem, it seems, theres a research team trying to use stem cells to find a solution. In clinical trials to treat everything from diabetes to macular degeneration to ALS, researchers are injecting the cells in efforts to curepatients.

But in one study expectedto launch later this year, scientists hope to use stem cells in a new, highly controversial way to reverse death.

The idea ofthe trial, run by Philadelphia-based Bioquark, isto inject stem cells into the spinal cords of people who have been declared clinically brain-dead. The subjects will also receive an injected protein blend, electrical nerve stimulation, and laser therapy directed at the brain.

advertisement

The ultimate goal: to grow new neurons and spur them to connect to each other, and thereby bring the brain back to life.

Its our contention that theres no single magic bullet for this, so to start with a single magic bullet makes no sense. Hence why we have to take a different approach, said Ira Pastor, CEO of Bioquark.

A dogged quest to fix broken spinal cords pays off with new hope for the paralyzed

But the scientific literature scarce as it is seems to show that even several magic bullets are unlikely to accomplish what Bioquark hopes itwill.

This isnt the first start for the trial. The study launched in Rudrapur, India, in April 2016 but it never enrolled any patients. Regulators shut the study down in November2016 because, according to Science, IndiasDrug Controller General hadnt cleared it.

Now, Pastor said, the company is in the final stages of finding a new location to host trials. The company willannounce a trial in Latin America in coming months, Pastor told STAT.

If that trial mirrors the protocol for the halted Indian one, itll aim to enroll 20 patients wholl receive a barrage of treatments. First theres the injection of stem cells isolatedfrom the individuals own fat or blood. Second, theres a peptide formula injected into the spinal cord, purported to help nurture new neurons growth. (The company has tested the same concoction, called BQ-A, in animalmodels of melanoma, traumatic brain injuries, and skin wrinkling.) Third, theres a regimen of nerve stimulation and laser therapyover 15 days to spur the neurons to form connections. Researcherswilllook to behavior and EEG for signs that the treatment is working.

But the process is fraught with questions. How do researchers complete trial paperwork when the person participating is, legally, dead? (In the United States, state laws most often define death as the irreversible loss of heart and lung or brain function.) If the person did regain brain activity, what kind of functional abilities would he or she have? Are families getting their hopes up for an incredibly long-shot cure?

Answers to most of those questions are still far off. Of course, many folks are asking the what comes next? question, Pastor acknowledged. While full recovery in such patients is indeed a long term vision of ours, and a possibility that we foresee with continued work along this path, it is not the core focus or primary endpoint of this first protocol.

No real template exists to know whether this approach might work and its gotten some prominent backlash. Neurologist Dr. Ariane Lewis and bioethicist Arthur Caplan wrote in a 2016 editorial that the trial borders on quackery, has no scientific foundation, and gave families a cruel, false hope for recovery. (Exploratory research programs of this nature are not false hope. They are a glimmer of hope, Pastor responded.)

The company hasnt tested the full, four-pronged treatment, even in animal models. Studies have evaluated the treatments singly for other conditions stroke, coma but brain death is a quite different proposition.

Stem cell injections to the brain or spinal cord have shown some positive results for children with brain injuries; trials using similar procedures to treat cerebral palsy and ALS have also been completed. One small, uncontrolled studyof 21 stroke patients found that they recoveredmore mobility after they received an injection of donor stem cells into their brains.

On transcranial laserdevices, the evidence is mixed. The approach has been shown to stimulate neuron growth in some animal studies. However, a high-profile Phase 3 study of one such device in humans was halted in 2014 after it showed no effect on 600 patients physical capabilities as they recovered from a stroke. Othertrialsto revive people from comasusing laser therapy are underway.

The literature around electrical stimulation of the median nerve whichbranches from the spinal cord downthe arm and to the fingers primarily consists of case studies.Dr. EdCooper wrote some of those papers, one of which described dozens of patients treated in his home state of North Carolina, including 12 who had a Glasgow Coma Score of 4 an extremely low score on the scale. With time (and with the nerve stimulation), four of those 12people made a good recovery, the paper described; others were left with minor or major disabilities after their coma.

Mini-me brains-in-a-dish mimic disease, raise hope for eventual therapies

But Cooper, an orthopedic surgeon by training who worked with neurosurgeons on the paper, said unequivocally that there is no way this technique could work on someone who is brain-dead. The technique, he said, relies on there being a functional brain stem one of the structuresthat mostmotor neurons go through before connecting with the cortex proper. If theres no functional brain stem, then it cant work.

Pastor agreed but heclaimed the technique would work because there are a small nestofcells that still function in patients who are brain-dead.

Complicating such trials, there is noclear-cut confirmatory test for brain death meaning a recovery in the trial might not be entirely due to the treatment. Some poisons and drugs, for instance, can make people look brain-dead.Bioquark plans to rely on local physicians in the trials host country to make the declaration. Were not doing the confirmatory work ourselves, Pastor said, but each participant would have undergone a battery of tests considered appropriate by local authorities.

But asurvey of 38 papers published over 13 years found that, if the American Academy of Neurology guidelines for brain death had been met, no brain-dead people have ever regained brain function.

Of Bioquarks full protocol, its not the absolute craziest thing Ive ever heard, but I think the probability of that working is next to zero, said Dr. Charles Cox, a pediatric surgeon who has doneresearch with mesenchymal stem cells the type used in the trial at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. Cox is not involved in Bioquarks work.

Some studies have found that cells from a part of thebrain called the subventricular zone can grow in culture even after a person is declared dead, Cox said. However, its unlikely that the trials intended outcome to havea stem cell treatment result in new neurons or connections would actually happen. Neurons would likely struggle tosurvive, because blood flow to the brain isalmost always lostin people whohave been declared brain-dead, Cox said.

But Pastor thinksBioquarks protocol will work. I give us a pretty good chance, he said. I just think its a matter of putting it all together and getting the right people and the right minds on it.

Cox is less optimistic. I think [someone reviving] would technically be a miracle, he said. I think the pope would technically call that a miracle.

Kate Sheridan can be reached at kate.sheridan@statnews.com Follow Kate on Twitter @sheridan_kate

Trending

The CRISPR patent decision: Your six takeaways

The CRISPR patent decision: Your six takeaways

A potent painkiller, and the drug makers marketing, are

A potent painkiller, and the drug makers marketing, are faulted in a womans death

Fighting cancer with cancer: an out-of-the-box way to target

Fighting cancer with cancer: an out-of-the-box way to target tumors

Recommended

This map will help biologists learn more about the

This map will help biologists learn more about the human body than ever before

Dan Budwick: Telling biopharmas story in plain English (even

Dan Budwick: Telling biopharmas story in plain English (even when that sparks a fight)

The good death that could have been much better

The good death that could have been much better

Originally posted here:
A controversial trial to bring the dead back to life plans a restart - STAT

Stem cell laws and policy in the United States – Wikipedia

Stem cell laws and policy in the United States have had a complicated legal and political history.

Stem cells are cells found in all multi-cellular organisms. They were isolated in mice in 1981, and in humans in 1998.[1] In humans there are many types of stem cells, each with varying levels of potency. Potency is a measure of a cell's differentiation potential, or the number of other cell types that can be made from that stem cell. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent stem cells derived from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst. These stem cells can differentiate into all other cells in the human body and are the subject of much scientific research. However, since they must be derived from early human embryos their production and use in research has been a hotly debated topic as the embryo most likely is destroyed in the process.

Stem cell treatments are a type of cell therapy that introduce new cells into adult bodies for possible treatment of cancer, diabetes, neurological disorders and other medical conditions. Stem cells have been used to repair tissue damaged by disease or age.[2]Cloning also might be done with stem cells. Pluripotent stem cells can also be derived from Somatic cell nuclear transfer which is a laboratory technique where a clone embryo is created from a donor nucleus. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is also tightly regulated amongst various countries.

Until recently, the principal source of human embryonic stem cells has been donated embryos from fertility clinics. In January 2007, researchers at Wake Forest University reported that "stem cells drawn from amniotic fluid donated by pregnant women hold much of the same promise as embryonic stem cells."[1]

In 2000, the NIH, under the administration of President Bill Clinton, issued "guidelines that allow federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research."[1]

In 1973, Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States. Five years later, the first successful human in vitro fertilization resulted in the birth of Louise Brown in England. These developments prompted the federal government to create regulations barring the use of federal funds for research that experimented on human embryos.[3] In 1995, the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel advised the administration of President Bill Clinton to permit federal funding for research on embryos left over from in vitro fertility treatments and also recommended federal funding of research on embryos specifically created for experimentation. In response to the panel's recommendations, the Clinton administration, citing moral and ethical concerns, declined to fund research on embryos created solely for research purposes,[4] but did agree to fund research on left-over embryos created by in vitro fertility treatments. At this point, the Congress intervened and passed the Dickey-Wicker Amendment in 1995 (the final bill, which included the Dickey Amendment, was signed into law by Bill Clinton) which prohibited any federal funding for the Department of Health and Human Services be used for research that resulted in the destruction of an embryo regardless of the source of that embryo. In 1998, privately funded research led to the breakthrough discovery of human Embryonic stem cells (hESC).

No federal law ever did ban stem cell research in the United States, but only placed restrictions on funding and use, under Congress's power to spend.[5]

In February 2001, George W. Bush requested a review of the NIH's guidelines, and after a policy discussion within his circle of supporters, implemented a policy in August of that year to limit the number of embryonic stem cell lines that could be used for research.[1] (While he claimed that 78 lines would qualify for federal funding, only 19 lines were actually available.[1])

In April 2004, 206 members of Congress, including many moderate Republicans, signed a letter urging President Bush to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research beyond what Bush had already supported.

In May 2005, the House of Representatives voted 238-194 to loosen the limitations on federally funded embryonic stem-cell research by allowing government-funded research on surplus frozen embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics to be used for stem cell research with the permission of donors despite Bush's promise to veto if passed. [5] On July 29, 2005, Senate Majority Leader William H. Frist (R-TN), announced that he too favored loosening restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.[6] On July 18, 2006, the Senate passed three different bills concerning stem cell research. The Senate passed the first bill, 63-37, which would have made it legal for the Federal government to spend Federal money on embryonic stem cell research that uses embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures.[7] On July 19, 2006 President Bush vetoed this bill. The second bill makes it illegal to create, grow, and abort fetuses for research purposes. The third bill would encourage research that would isolate pluripotent, i.e., embryonic-like, stem cells without the destruction of human embryos.

The National Institutes of Health has hundreds of funding opportunities for researchers interested in hESC.[8] In 2005 the NIH funded $607 million worth of stem cell research, of which $39 million was specifically used for hESC.[9]

During Bush's second term, in July 2006, he used his first Presidential veto on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act was the name of two similar bills, and both were vetoed by President George W. Bush and were not enacted into law. New Jersey congressman Chris Smith wrote a Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which was signed into law by President Bush. It provided $265 million for adult stem cell therapy, umbilical cord blood and bone marrow treatment, and authorized $79 million for the collection of cord blood stem cells.

By executive order on March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama removed certain restrictions on federal funding for research involving new lines of human embryonic stem cells.[10] Prior to President Obama's executive order, federal funding was limited to non-embryonic stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research based upon embryonic stem cell lines in existence prior to August 9, 2001. Federal funding originating from current appropriations to the Department of Health and Human Services (including the National Institutes of Health) under the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, remains prohibited under the Dickey Amendment for (1) the creation of a human embryo for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero.

In a speech before signing the executive order, President Obama noted the following:

In 2011, a United States District Court "threw out a lawsuit that challenged the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research."[12] The decision was a case on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[12][13]

S1909/A2840 is a bill that was passed by the New Jersey legislature in December 2003, and signed into law by Governor James McGreevey on January 4, 2004, that permits human cloning for the purpose of developing and harvesting human stem cells. Specifically, it legalizes the process of cloning a human embryo, and implanting the clone into a womb, provided that the clone is then aborted and used for medical research. Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2 (2006) (Missouri Amendment Two) was a 2006 law that legalized certain forms of embryonic stem cell research in the state.

California voters in November 2004 approved Proposition 71, creating a US$3 billion state taxpayer-funded institute for stem cell research, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. It hopes to provide $300 million a year. However, as of June 6, 2006, there were delays in the implementation of the California program and it is believed that the delays will continue for the significant future. [6] On July 21, 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) authorized $150 million in loans to the Institute in an attempt to jump start the process of funding research.[14]

Several states, in what was initially believed to be a national migration of biotech researchers to California,[15] have shown interest in providing their own funding support of embryonic and adult stem cell research. These states include Connecticut [7], Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts [8], Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas [9] [10], Washington, and Wisconsin.

Other states have, or have shown interest in, additional restrictions or even complete bans on embryonic stem cell research. These states include Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Virginia. (States play catch-up on stem cells, USA Today, December 2004) Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota and South Dakota have passed laws to "prohibit the creation or destruction of human embryos for medical research."[5]

Policy stances on stem cell research of various political leaders in the United States have not always been predictable.

As a rule, most Democratic Party leaders and high-profile supporters and even rank and file members have pushed for laws and policies almost exclusively favoring embryonic stem cell research.[17] President Bill Clinton supported the NIH's guidelines in 2000.[1] Both the major candidates in 2008 had supported the 2005 and 2007 bills, in particular Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bill Clinton's First Lady, then U. S. Senator for New York,[18] and Barack Obama, then U.S. Senator for Illinois, who promised to sign the EFCA into law, and was a cosponsor of such bills.[19] Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick is also a proponent of embryonic stem cell research. There have been some Democrats who have asked for boundaries be placed on human embryo use. For example, Carolyn McCarthy has publicly stated she only supports using human embryos "that would be discarded".[20][21]

The Republicans largely oppose embryonic stem cell research in favor of adult stem cell research which has already produced cures and treatments for cancer and paralysis for example, but there are some high-profile exceptions who offer qualified support for some embryonic stem cell research.[5] Prominent Republican leaders against embryonic stem cell research include Sarah Palin, Jim Talent, Rick Santorum, and Sam Brownback.[5] In July 2001:

Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), a vocal abortion opponent, call[ed] for limited federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.... House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and other Republican House leaders [came] out in opposition to federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

2008 "GOP" Presidential Candidate John McCain is a member of The Republican Main Street Partnership, and supports embryonic stem cell research,[5] despite his earlier opposition.[22] In July 2008 he said, "At the moment I support stem cell research [because of] the potential it has for curing some of the most terrible diseases that afflict mankind."[23] In 2007, in what he described as "a very agonizing and tough decision," he voted to allow research using human embryos left over from fertility treatments.[24] Former First Lady Nancy Reagan and Senator Orrin Hatch also support stem cell research, after first opposing the issue.[5] Former Senator Frist also supports stem cell research, despite having initially supported past restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. 2008 V.P. candidate Palin opposed embryonic stem cell research, which she said causes the destruction of life, thus this research is inconsistent with her pro-life position and she does not support it.[25] She said, in an interview with Charlie Gibson, that she supports adult stem cell research approaches.[26]

A few moderates or Libertarians support such research with limits. Lincoln Chafee supported federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Ron Paul, a Republican congressman, physician, and Libertarian and Independent candidate for President, has sponsored much legislation, and has had quite complex positions.

In 2005, the United States National Academies released its Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. These Guidelines were prepared to enhance the integrity of human embryonic stem cell research in the public's perception and in actuality by encouraging responsible practices in the conduct of that research. The National Academies has subsequently named the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee to keep the Guidelines up-to-date.[27]

The guidelines preserve two primary principles. First, that hESC research has the potential to improve our understanding of human health and discover new ways to treat illness. Second, that individuals donating embryos should do so freely, with voluntary and informed consent. The guidelines implement executive order 13505, and apply to hESC research receiving funds from the NIH. The guidelines detail safeguards to protect donating individuals by acquiring informed consent and protecting their identity. In addition, the guidelines contain multiple sections applying to embryos donated in the US and abroad, both before and after the effective date of the guidelines.[28]

The NIH guidelines define which hESC research is eligible to receive NIH funding through a series of regulations which applicants for funding must adhere to. Applicants proposing research, may use stem cell lines that are posted on the NIH registry, or may submit an assurance of compliance with section II of the guidelines. Section II is applicable to stem cells derived from human embryos.[28]

For the purposes of section II of the NIH guidelines, the following requirements must be met. First, the hESCs should have been derived from embryos created using an in vitro fertilization procedure for reproductive purposes, and no longer needed for this purpose. Second, the donors who sought reproductive treatment have given written consent for the embryos to be used for research purposes. Third, all written consent forms and other documentation must be provided.[28]

Documentation must be provided regarding the following: All options available to the healthcare facility regarding the embryos in question were explained to the individual who sought reproductive treatment. No payments of any kind may be offered for the donated embryos. Policies and procedures must be in place at the facility where the embryos were donated to ensure that neither donation nor refusal to donate affects quality of care received by the patient.[28]

There must also be a clear distinction between the donors decision to create embryos for reproductive purposes, and the decision to donate embryos for research. This is ensured through a number of regulations which follow. First, the decision to create embryos for reproductive purposes must have been made without the influence of researchers proposing usage for the embryos to derive hESCs for research purposes. Consent for the donation of embryos should have been given at the time of donation. Finally, donors should have been informed that they have the right to withdraw consent at any time until derivation of stem cells from the embryo, or until the identity of the donor can no longer be linked to the embryo.[28]

When seeking consent from the donor, they must be informed of what will become of their donation. The donor must be informed that the embryonic stem cells would be derived from the embryos from research purposes. The donor must also be informed of the procedures that the embryo would undergo in the derivation process, and that the stem cell lines derived from the embryo may be kept for many years. In addition, the donors must be informed that the donation is not made with direction regarding the intended use of the derived stem cells, and the research is not intended to provide direct medical benefit to the donor. The donor is also to be informed that there may be commercial potential resulting from the research performed, and that the donor is not to benefit from commercial development as a result of the donation. The donor is also to be notified if information that could disclose their identity will be available to the researchers.[28]

Applicants seeking to use stem cell lines established before the effective date of the guidelines may use lines published on the NIH registry, or establish eligibility by complying with the requirements listed above. Alternately, researchers may submit materials to a working group of the Advisory Committee to the Director. The working group will review submitted materials and submit recommendations to the Advisory Committee, which will in turn make recommendations to the NIH director. A final decision regarding eligibility for funding is then made by the NIH director.[28]

The materials submitted to the working group must demonstrate that the stem cells were derived from embryos created for reproductive purposes, and are no longer needed. Also, the materials must demonstrate that the stem cells were donated by donors who had granted voluntary written consent.[28]

Research ineligible for NIH funding as dictated within the guidelines include research in which hESCs are introduced into non-human primate blastocysts. Research of the breeding of animals where hESCs may contribute to the germ line are similarly ineligible. NIH funding of the derivation of stem cells from human embryos is prohibited by the annual appropriations ban on the funding of human embryo research. Research using hESCs derived from other sources is also not eligible for funding.[28]

See the original post:
Stem cell laws and policy in the United States - Wikipedia

Trials of embryonic stem cells to launch in China – Nature.com

Jason Lee/Reuters

Former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping had Parkinsons disease, one of the first targets of embryonic-stem-cell therapies being tested in China.

In the next few months, surgeons in the Chinese city of Zhengzhou will carefully drill through the skulls of people with Parkinsons disease and inject 4 million immature neurons derived from human embryonic stem cells into their brains. Then they will patch the patients up, send them home and wait.

This will mark the start of the first clinical trial in China using human embryonic stem (ES) cells, and the first one worldwide aimed at treating Parkinsons disease using ES cells from fertilized embryos. In a second trial starting around the same time, a different team in Zhengzhou will use ES cells to target vision loss caused by age-related macular degeneration.

The experiments will also represent the first clinical trials of ES cells under regulations that China adopted in 2015, in an attempt to ensure the ethical and safe use of stem cells in the clinic. China previously had no clear regulatory framework, and many companies had used that gap as an excuse to market unproven stem-cell treatments.

It will be a major new direction for China, says Pei Xuetao, a stem-cell scientist at the Beijing Institute of Transfusion Medicine who is on the central-government committee that approved the trials. Other researchers who work on Parkinsons disease, however, worry that the trials might be misguided.

Both studies will take place at the First Affiliated Hospital ofZhengzhouUniversity in Henan province. In the first, surgeons will inject ES-cell-derived neuronal-precursor cells into the brains of individuals with Parkinsons disease. The only previous trial using ES cells to treat Parkinsons began last year in Australia; participants there received stem cells from parthenogenetic embryosunfertilized eggs that are triggered in the lab to start embryonic development.

In the other Zhengzhou trial, surgeons will take retinal cells derived from ES cells and transplant them into the eyes of people with age-related macular degeneration. The team will follow a similar procedure to that of previous ES-cell trials carried out by researchers in the United States and South Korea.

Qi Zhou, a stem-cell specialist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Zoology in Beijing, is leading both efforts. For the Parkinsons trial, his team assessed hundreds of candidates and have so far have picked ten who best match the ES cells in the cell bank, to reduce the risk of the patients bodies rejecting the cells.

The 2015 regulations state that hospitals planning to carry out stem-cell clinical work must use government-certified ES-cell lines and pass hospital-review procedures. Zhous team completed four years of work with a monkey model of Parkinsons, and has met the government requirements, he says.

Parkinsons disease is caused by a deficit in dopamine produced by brain cells. Zhous team will coax ES cells to develop into precursors to neurons, and will then inject them into the striatum, a central region of the brain implicated in the disease.

In their unpublished study of 15 monkeys, the researchers did not observe any improvements in movement at first, says Zhou. But at the end of the first year, the team examined the brains of half the monkeys and found that the stem cells had turned into dopamine-releasing cells. He says that they saw 50% improvement in the remaining monkeys over the next several years. We have all the imaging data, behavioural data and molecular data to support efficacy, he says. They are preparing a publication, but Zhou says that they wanted to collect a full five years worth of animal data.

Jeanne Loring, a stem-cell biologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, who is also planning stem-cell trials for Parkinsons, is concerned that the Australian and Chinese trials use neural precursors and not ES-cell-derived cells that have fully committed to becoming dopamine-producing cells. Precursor cells can turn into other kinds of neurons, and could accumulate dangerous mutations during their many divisions, says Loring. Not knowing what the cells will become is troubling.

But Zhou and the Australian team defend their choices. Russell Kern, chief scientific officer of the International Stem Cell Corporation in Carlsbad, California, which is providing the cells for and managing the Australian trial, says that in preclinical work, 97% of them became dopamine-releasing cells.

Lorenz Studer, a stem-cell biologist at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City who has spent years characterizing such neurons ahead of his own planned clinical trials, says that support is not very strong for the use of precursor cells. I am somewhat surprised and concerned, as I have not seen any peer-reviewed preclinical data on this approach, he says.

Studers and Lorings teams are part of an international consortium that coordinates stem-cell treatments for Parkinsons. In the next two years, five groups in the consortium plan to run trials using cells fully committed to becoming dopamine-producing cells.

Regenerative neurobiologist Malin Parmar, who heads one of the teams at Lund University in Sweden, says that the groups are all rapidly moving towards clinical trials, and this field will be very exciting in the coming years.

Read the rest here:
Trials of embryonic stem cells to launch in China - Nature.com