Reply With Quote
In before the move to the Political forum!
By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science Writer Alicia Chang, Ap Science Writer – Wed Jun 23, 11:37 pm ET
LOS ANGELES – Dozens of people who were blinded or otherwise suffered severe eye damage when they were splashed with caustic chemicals had their sight restored with transplants of their own stem cells — a stunning success for the burgeoning cell-therapy field, Italian researchers reported Wednesday.
The treatment worked completely in 82 of 107 eyes and partially in 14 others, with benefits lasting up to a decade so far. One man whose eyes were severely damaged more than 60 years ago now has near-normal vision.
"This is a roaring success," said ophthalmologist Dr. Ivan Schwab of the University of California, Davis, who had no role in the study — the longest and largest of its kind.
Stem cell transplants offer hope to the thousands of people worldwide every year who suffer chemical burns on their corneas from heavy-duty cleansers or other substances at work or at home.
The approach would not help people with damage to the optic nerve or macular degeneration, which involves the retina. Nor would it work in people who are completely blind in both eyes, because doctors need at least some healthy tissue that they can transplant.
In the study, published online by the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers took a small number of stem cells from a patient's healthy eye, multiplied them in the lab and placed them into the burned eye, where they were able to grow new corneal tissue to replace what had been damaged. Since the stem cells are from their own bodies, the patients do not need to take anti-rejection drugs.
Adult stem cells have been used for decades to cure blood cancers such as leukemia and diseases like sickle cell anemia. But fixing a problem like damaged eyes is a relatively new use. Researchers have been studying cell therapy for a host of other diseases, including diabetes and heart failure, with limited success.
Adult stem cells, which are found around the body, are different from embryonic stem cells, which come from human embryos and have stirred ethical concerns because removing the cells requires destroying the embryos.
Currently, people with eye burns can get an artificial cornea, a procedure that carries such complications as infection and glaucoma, or they can receive a transplant using stem cells from a cadaver, but that requires taking drugs to prevent rejection.
The Italian study involved 106 patients treated between 1998 and 2007. Most had extensive damage in one eye, and some had such limited vision that they could only sense light, count fingers or perceive hand motions. Many had been blind for years and had had unsuccessful operations to restore their vision.
The cells were taken from the limbus, the rim around the cornea, the clear window that covers the colored part of the eye. In a normal eye, stem cells in the limbus are like factories, churning out new cells to replace dead corneal cells. When an injury kills off the stem cells, scar tissue forms over the cornea, clouding vision and causing blindness.
In the Italian study, the doctors removed scar tissue over the cornea and glued the laboratory-grown stem cells over the injured eye. In cases where both eyes were damaged by burns, cells were taken from an unaffected part of the limbus.
Researchers followed the patients for an average of three years and some as long as a decade. More than three-quarters regained sight after the transplant. An additional 13 percent were considered a partial success. Though their vision improved, they still had some cloudiness in the cornea.
Patients with superficial damage were able to see within one to two months. Those with more extensive injuries took several months longer.
"They were incredibly happy. Some said it was a miracle," said one of the study leaders, Graziella Pellegrini of the University of Modena's Center for Regenerative Medicine in Italy. "It was not a miracle. It was simply a technique."
The study was partly funded by the Italian government.
Researchers in the United States have been testing a different way to use self-supplied stem cells, but that work is preliminary.
One of the successful transplants in the Italian study involved a man who had severe damage in both eyes as a result of a chemical burn in 1948. Doctors grafted stem cells from a small section of his left eye to both eyes. His vision is now close to normal.
In 2008, there were 2,850 work-related chemical burns to the eyes in the United States, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Schwab of UC Davis said stem cell transplants would not help those blinded by burns in both eyes because doctors need stem cells to do the procedure.
"I don't want to give the false hope that this will answer their prayers," he said.
Dr. Sophie Deng, a cornea expert at the UCLA's Jules Stein Eye Ins ute, said the biggest advantage was that the Italian doctors were able to expand the number of stem cells in the lab. This technique is less invasive than taking a large tissue sample from the eye and lowers the chance of an eye injury.
"The key is whether you can find a good stem cell population and expand it," she said.
I wonder what they will do next? I really wonder what this tech will be able to do in 20 years.
In before the move to the Political forum!
If Daredevil received this treatment would he still retain his other super heightened senses?
Please note, this was done without fetal stem cells.
I dunno. I put some thought into putting it here, because it seemed a bit more general "gee whiz"/"sciency" thing than "political".
I guess that is, as always, something for the mods to ejudicate, as that is what they get paid (HA) for.
Factually true, but embryonic stem cell research does involve allowing the merger and beginning of life. It's past a single cell, and already multiplying. Since we cannot with fact say when life begins, it is controversial.
I am one that has no doubt that we have a spirit. When does this spirit start to form with the embryo? please don't tell me it's at birth.
Well, you also know how some of us are. Have to interject our two cents worth in even if it might spark political ideas.I dunno. I put some thought into putting it here, because it seemed a bit more general "gee whiz"/"sciency" thing than "political".
I guess that is, as always, something for the mods to ejudicate, as that is what they get paid (HA) for.
I don't see the point of attempting embryonic stem cell research. As far as I know, all practical stem cell advances have been other than embryonic. Am I wrong?
So you boil down this whole argument to religion.
"God made us, and stuff, and so we have spirits"
Why don't you feel bad about chicken spirits and all other animal spirits?
kthxbye
Major fail...
Religion means spirituality, but spirituality doesn't automatically mean religion.
Poor chicken spirits
om nom nom nom
Life has already begun at that point but it is not "conscious life". So it is totally OK in my book to mingle in any way with stem cells.
We disagree, and like I said, it's controversial.
Not really a legitimate controversy.
We have one side claiming religion, or you claiming "spirituality but not religion",
and we have the other side
claiming to be able to heal the human race with natural, high tech science.
I don't see how that's a legitimate discussion. It's fantasy vs reality
You know whats funny? I know where you stand on every single issue even though you're a stranger to me. Kinda funny when you're so brainwashed you keep to the same tired line as all of your lemming friends.
There was another study that had stem cell therapy fixing a problem but destroying kidneys.
We got a long way to go. Read the Bible and pray a lot, that always advances human knowledge.
^would you rather have your vision back or one less kidney.?
hmmm
You may as well be speaking into a mirror as you type that...
Nah, I'm pretty sure it only relates to the type of people he quoted.
Well then you're not as smart as you claim to be...
For every controversial issue relating to morality or 'religion'... opposition usually only flows in two directions...
Kettle, meet pot.
That said, stem cell research is very promising... fortunately, stem cells are available without having to recur to fetal ones... "oh but, they're harder to harvest" well, to that I say that the end doesn't justify the means... Science is not about laziness...
I'm in the middle. I'm way pro guns, I'd legalize bazookas if I were in charge. I'm anti immigration without screening to make sure the people are not criminals and have job skills, plus I'd limit the number of people who can enter the country every year. I don't think people should have abortions it just seems irresponsible plus you know deep down inside fetuses often feel pain but I don't really know if I would try to stop them (the harm they would do to themselves on backstreet abortions would probably be worse, plus it seems like a losing proposition like prohibition), in cases of rape you're short bus level stupid if you're against them, I'm pro taxing the rich, pro universal health care, I'm pro stem cell research, and let's see what else...well that's enough for know.
But of course you already knew all that before I even posted.
Oh and people on unemployment should still get it indefinitely but should have to apply for like 10-15 jobs every week to stay on it. Even if they're not in their field of expertise. And people should check randomly to make sure people have met their requirements or they lose it for like a month or longer, and then get it back on it only when they prove they have started looking again.
But again, you already knew all that.
Bolded what I agree with. Also, there is a limit to the number of people they allow in each year. It's broken down by categories as well; more skilled workers get better chances.I'm in the middle. I'm way pro guns, I'd legalize bazookas if I were in charge. I'm anti immigration without screening to make sure the people are not criminals and have job skills, plus I'd limit the number of people who can enter the country every year. I don't think people should have abortions it just seems irresponsible plus you know deep down inside fetuses often feel pain but I don't really know if I would try to stop them (the harm they would do to themselves on backstreet abortions would probably be worse, plus it seems like a losing proposition like prohibition), in cases of rape you're short bus level stupid if you're against them, I'm pro taxing the rich, pro universal health care, I'm pro stem cell research, and let's see what else...well that's enough for know.
But of course you already knew all that before I even posted.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
