Stem cells                  More health news      
    (CNN) - For decades, scientists have sought to create red blood    cells in the lab -- a "holy grail" that some hoped could ease    regional blood shortages, especially for people with rare blood    types.  
    But now British researchers say they have overcome a major    barrier that has plagued many scientists: creating enough red    cells to fill a blood bag. Their findings are published in the    journal Nature Communications.  
    "When we kept (the cells) continually dividing for a year, we    were quite excited," said Jan Frayne, a biochemist at the    University of Bristol and one of the study's lead authors.  
    The latest study "is a dramatic step forward because it gives    us the view that we can actually scale up to whole units of    blood," said Dr. Harvey Klein, chief of the NIH Clinical    Center's Department of Transfusion Medicine. Klein was not    involved in the study.  
    Two to three drops of blood may contain a billion red cells,    according to the American Red Cross.  
    "This technology gives us that particular dream, or at least it    brings us a lot closer," said Klein.  
    To ramp up production, the UK researchers infected stem cells    with cervical cancer genes. By inserting cancer genes from    human papilloma virus (HPV) into bone marrow cells, Frayne and    her colleagues were able to create the first adult red blood    cells that could multiply an infinite number of times. These    cells are referred to as "immortal."  
    The concept may be a familiar one to those who have read the    book "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks," in which a related    strain of HPV led to the production of HeLa cells, which are    widely used in scientific research. These cells were taken from    a cervical cancer biopsy from Lacks, who passed away in 1951    but whose cells still multiply in laboratories today.  
    As the red blood cells mature, they spit out the nucleus -- the    core that houses their DNA -- giving the cells a signature    round, dimpled shape. Frayne and her colleagues filtered those    cells from the rest, so the final batch did not contain the    active cancer genes.  
    Frayne said that a small number of these stem cells can be    found in a simple blood draw, too; there's no need to do an    invasive biopsy of the bone. Since her team completed the study    last year, she said, they have already created two new immortal    cell lines this way.  
    "It's a brilliant approach, and they seemed to have solved    several of the really important bottlenecks," said Dr. Robert    Lanza, Chief Scientific Officer at the Astellas Institute for    Regenerative Medicine.  
    Lanza is no stranger to the research; he tried to solve the    same problem years ago using embryonic stem cells.  
    But his cells didn't eject the nucleus well enough, and fetal    blood cells have too tight a grip on oxygen; they are less    likely to drop off the oxygen where it needs to go. Eventually,    though, he abandoned the research because "it's not really    commercially viable."  
    Many others have attempted to create blood in the lab, using    stem cells from umbilical cords and other sources. But these    stem cells fizzle out and stop dividing at a certain point.  
    "It's almost like they desperately want to carry on    differentiating" into mature cells, Frayne said.  
    In 2011, a group of French researchers transfused lab-grown red    blood cells -- which grew from stem cells, though not Frayne's    endless supply -- into one human. The cells functioned and    survived normally.  
    Frayne said that the first human trials will begin in England    later this year, though they will not be using the immortal    cells from her new study. Making the new cells under industry    standards, Frayne said, could take at least several more years.  
    A number of other prior studies have sought to create    oxygen-carrying liquids without the need for blood cells, but    none of them have proved to be widely usable. In fact, a 2008    analysis found that they carried an increased risk of heart    attack and death. A blood substitute called PolyHeme was    famously rejected by the US Food and Drug Administration after    10 patients suffered heart attacks out of 81 who received it.  
    Whole blood contains a lot of other bits and pieces that may    not necessarily be grown in a lab, said Lanza: blood-clotting    platelets, proteins, immune cells and ions like iron.  
    But Lanza also said that the advantage of lab-grown blood is    that it avoids common problems for patients who require    multiple transfusions over their lifetime, such as those with    sickle cell disease. For example, iron, which can be toxic at    high concentrations, can accumulate with successive blood bags,    which are given during a transfusion. Human blood, though    rigorously tested, also carries a very small risk of    transmitting disease.  
    And stem cells could be used to create Type O cells, fit for    nearly any patient's IV, Lanza said. Known as the "universal    donor," Type O is the blood type most often requested by    hospitals, but it is frequently in short supply, he said.  
    But where Lanza really expects to see this technology is on the    battlefield.  
    The Department of Defense technology research agency, known as    DARPA, has funded similar studies in the past, such as a "blood    pharming" study with a medical device company formerly known as    Arteriocyte.  
    Lanza, who met with DARPA officials about his own blood cell    research in the past, said that the military wants to use    lab-grown blood "for patients who have massive blood loss,    particularly in the battlefield, where a soldier is blown up by    a bomb and there isn't time for blood typing."  
    "I think the goal ultimately is to put this on the back of a    Humvee," he said.  
    That research, however, met the same obstacles other scientists    faced in the past, Klein said.  
    "They were not able to make sufficient amounts blood at any    kind of reasonable cost," said Klein, who also serves on the    FDA Blood Products Advisory Committee. Though familiar with the    DARPA research, he was not involved in evaluating its products.  
    To mass produce blood in the lab, Frayne and her colleagues    would need lots of expensive liquids to grow the cells and a    battery of new equipment that complies with manufacturing    standards -- all of which will cost money.  
    "To make big huge vats of it would be outside of our ability in    a research lab," she said. "We'd have to have company    interest."  
    A hospital in the US might pay hundreds to thousands of dollars    to purchase and test a unit of donated blood, and it may charge    far more to transfuse it to patients. Producing a pint of blood    using her method, Frayne said, would likely be several times    more expensive than buying bags from blood donors in the UK.  
    But Frayne is optimistic that costs will come down. She hopes    that lab-grown cells will be shown to last longer, and    therefore doctors might need to use less blood less frequently.    That's because stem cells can be collected while they're young,    Frayne said, while human blood has cells of all different ages.    Many donated blood cells die not long after transfusion.  
    Collected blood expires, too. Currently, the Red Cross, which    claims to provide 40% of the country's blood supply, stores red    blood cells for up to 42 days.  
    That aside, Klein said that lowering the cost to $1,000 to    $2,000 per unit of blood would make these cells worth the price    for a small subset of patients who have rare blood types or    need regular transfusions. For the typical hospital patient,    however, it would probably not be very practical or    cost-effective, he said.  
    But it is their willingness to invest money in the research,    Klein said, that may have led to the British team's success    where the US and other countries have faltered.  
    "They have put a great deal of financial muscle behind doing    this on a national basis, which we simply haven't seen in the    United States," he said, adding that perhaps there was an    element of "healthy skepticism (in the US) that maybe it will    never in our lifetime be practical."  
    "I don't share that skepticism," he said.  
    But what about the rogue red cell that slips through the filter    with its cancer genes still intact? Lanza calls these cells    "escapees."  
    "When you're dealing with such huge numbers of cells," said    Lanza, "there may be a few of these cells that would slip in."  
    Frayne said that these cells are highly unlikely to cause any    form of blood cancer. The cancer genes are only switched on by    a certain antibiotic, and by the time the cells are collected,    any remaining nuclei are no longer working. Before ablood    transfusion, radiation can also be used to destroy any leftover    DNA without affecting normal cells, she said.  
    Still, Frayne said, "These are all really good points to be    raising, and they need to be looked at."  
    But none of these concerns have slowed a deluge of requests to    use her cells, Frayne said, though perhaps not from whom you'd    expect. It's not blood banks hoping to capitalize on a new, if    untested, method. In fact, it's other researchers who, until    now, have not had an unlimited way to study diseases like    malaria, which infect red blood cells. "That's where all my    requests are coming from," she said.  
    Klein, Lanza and Frayne all said lab-grown blood cells are not    meant to replace blood donors. To fill a national blood    service, or even a single hospital, will require another major    leap in the research.  
    "They're not going to put the Red Cross out of business," said    Lanza. "Volunteer blood donations are always going to be the    first line of defense -- but with this technology, you have a    safety net."  
The rest is here:
Using stem cells to create an endless supply of blood - Tristatehomepage.com