|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/07/07/trachea.transplant/index.html?hpt=hp_t2(CNN) -- For the first time, a patient has received a synthetic windpipe that was created in a lab with the patient's own stem cells and without using human donor tissue, researchers said Thursday. Previous lab-generated transplants either used a segment of donor windpipe or involved tissue only, not an organ. In a laboratory in London, scientists created a trachea, which is a tube-like airway that connects at the voice box and branches into both lungs. On June 9, doctors implanted this synthetic windpipe into a 36-year-old man with late-stage tracheal cancer at Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm. The patient is doing well and is expected to be released from the hospital Friday, said Dr. Paolo Macchiarini, professor of regenerative medicine there. Tracheal cancers are extremely rare, accounting for less than 1% of all cancers. After the patient's initial diagnosis in 2008, he had exhausted every treatment available, including chemotherapy, radiation and surgery, Macchiarini said. The patient, an Eritrean who had been studying in Iceland, is the subject of a BBC documentary airing Thursday in Sweden. His tumor had almost blocked his windpipe, doctors said. Rather than waiting for a transplant, his doctors suggested growing an organ. Scientists created a Y-shaped framework for the new trachea, modeling it after the specific shape of the patient's windpipe. The form was made of polymers that had a spongy and flexible texture. Stiff rings around the tube mimicked the structure of a human trachea. The form was then bathed in a solution containing the patient's stem cells "to get the cells to grow on the sponge material," said David Green, president of Harvard Bioscience. Stem cells can divide and turn into a range of cell types, including those in organs. This is the artificial trachea, covered in the patient's cells. This is the artificial trachea, covered in the patient's cells. His company worked on the stem cell solution, which is seen as a pink liquid in the photo at left. The purpose was to "seed" the synthetic windpipe -- as you would seed a new lawn -- to grow on the structure. "Stem cells from the own patient were growing inside and outside," Macchiarini said. "This structure was becoming a living structure." The stem cells were given physical or chemical cues to create the desired type, Green said. Once the cells were thriving on the form, the artificial trachea was implanted into the patient. His body accepted the new trachea, and he even had a cough reflex two days after the surgery, Macchiarini said. Three years ago, Macchiarini made headlines by implanting an artificial trachea created from donor tissue combined with stem cells from the recipient, Claudia Castillo, whose windpipe had been damaged by tuberculosis. "The results were quite good, but unfortunately we were still dependent" on organ donation, which can take months, Macchiarini said. Creating the synthetic structure for the trachea in the current case took 10 to 12 days, compared with waiting months for an organ donor, Macchiarini said. Earlier this year, regenerative medicine scientists at Wake Forest University School of Medicine reported that they had engineered five urethras between March 2004 and July 2007. They had used a small piece of each patient's own tissue from the bladder, then grew the cells in a lab onto a mesh scaffold shaped like a urethra. This area of research remains somewhat controversial in medicine, because critics say this could lead to human cloning. But Macchiarini said making these first artificial organs viable in patients opens doors for future transplants through the relatively new field of regenerative medicine. "It's a beautiful international collaboration," he said about the recent effort that involved doctors and researches in Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. "If scientists and clinicians work together, we can help humanity."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
It's a great idea and gets rid of two problems with artificial body parts like joints. The first, it won't get rejected by the body since the immune system sees "self" when it comes into contact with the coating of cells. Second, bacteria will have a heck of a time growing on this, making it less likely that biofilms will attach and cause a debilitating infection. This is simply amazing and can be applied to basically any simple tissue/organ that needs replacing. Science for the win ... again. An aside, this has absolutely nothing to do with human cloning 
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,136
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,136 |
Quote:
"It's a beautiful international collaboration," he said about the recent effort that involved doctors and researches in Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. "If scientists and clinicians work together, we can help humanity."
Certainly it will be covered under Obamacare. 
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
It's ok. Some people just don't know when to turn off the rhetoric.
One thing I'll add to this discussion is that congress is (again) underfunding our science branches with this new budget. It's milestones like these that make the pittance spent on funding the basic and applied sciences (both of which were vital for the success of this technique) worth every dollar. Funding science is as good as putting money towards our future and it's really quite shame that a majority in congress don't realize this.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171 |
This is VERY cool.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,431 |
Quote:
Creating the synthetic structure for the trachea in the current case took 10 to 12 days, compared with waiting months for an organ donor,
Wow ! Too cool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
It's ok. Some people just don't know when to turn off the rhetoric.
One thing I'll add to this discussion is that congress is (again) underfunding our science branches with this new budget. It's milestones like these that make the pittance spent on funding the basic and applied sciences (both of which were vital for the success of this technique) worth every dollar. Funding science is as good as putting money towards our future and it's really quite shame that a majority in congress don't realize this.
But then your encountering the situation where you took money from one budget but not from another, and people from the groups that got cut more will argue.
This is cool stuff, and the next step toward cures for many diseases, repairs for accident victims, and many other possibilities.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,425
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,425 |
I have a question.
If someone has a genetic pre-disposition towards cancer, or heart disease, or any other disease/factor that would cause them to require a new organ ... wouldn't an organ grown from their own genetic material carry that same risk?
In other words ... if someone is genetically pre-disposed to heart disease .... and they can "grow" a genetically compatible heart ... might not the patient be back in a few year needing another new heart because he had the same prroblem with the "new" heart as he did with the original one?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
One thing I'll add to this discussion is that congress is (again) underfunding our science branches with this new budget. It's milestones like these that make the pittance spent on funding the basic and applied sciences (both of which were vital for the success of this technique) worth every dollar. Funding science is as good as putting money towards our future and it's really quite shame that a majority in congress don't realize this.
That's what you have to do when you spent many decades OVER FUNDING so many other things...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Then cut back on the things that have been overfunded, not the ones that are arguably the most underfunded and also with the largest benefit. And I'm not saying "fund everyone with an idea" either. The current way of competing for grants is grant is great and gives rise to the greatest amount of use for the money. However, these back-to-back years of decreased funding is killing a lot of basic research that is used to make discoveries like the synthetic trachea possible.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
If someone has a genetic pre-disposition towards cancer, or heart disease, or any other disease/factor that would cause them to require a new organ ... wouldn't an organ grown from their own genetic material carry that same risk?
Yes, it would. Hopefully, and this is just a hope without any fact, the tissue will "think" it's younger than it actually is since it came from stem cells and that scenario would be a long way off. It would still need to be monitored though.
Quote:
In other words ... if someone is genetically pre-disposed to heart disease .... and they can "grow" a genetically compatible heart ... might not the patient be back in a few year needing another new heart because he had the same prroblem with the "new" heart as he did with the original one?
They'd need to remove/replace the genetic component leading to the bad heart. However, this could save people who have cancers and damaged organs from exterior sources like viruses and chemicals.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Then cut back on the things that have been overfunded, not the ones that are arguably the most underfunded and also with the largest benefit. And I'm not saying "fund everyone with an idea" either. The current way of competing for grants is grant is great and gives rise to the greatest amount of use for the money. However, these back-to-back years of decreased funding is killing a lot of basic research that is used to make discoveries like the synthetic trachea possible.
I don't disagree with you but unfortunately we have dug such a tremendously deep hole that everything must be cut...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Then cut back on the things that have been overfunded, not the ones that are arguably the most underfunded and also with the largest benefit. And I'm not saying "fund everyone with an idea" either. The current way of competing for grants is grant is great and gives rise to the greatest amount of use for the money. However, these back-to-back years of decreased funding is killing a lot of basic research that is used to make discoveries like the synthetic trachea possible.
I don't disagree with you but unfortunately we have dug such a tremendously deep hole that everything must be cut...
Except the military.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
I think they need to cut back on the nassa fund's and concentrate on what need's we need here ! jmho.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,136
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,136 |
Quote:
It's ok. Some people just don't know when to turn off the rhetoric.
I like the way you make that statement and jump into a diatribe on government funding. Both of our posts are relevant to this thread. Do you honestly think that Obamacare will cover the expense of this procedure? It's unlikely they are going to be able to pay for basic health care needs, let alone cover the replacement part costs of the multitude of people in this country with cancer damaged organs/body parts. The developments made with stem cell technology are huge, but do you really think that there will ever be an economically sound method of making it available to the masses covered in a taxpayer funded universal health plan?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then cut back on the things that have been overfunded, not the ones that are arguably the most underfunded and also with the largest benefit. And I'm not saying "fund everyone with an idea" either. The current way of competing for grants is grant is great and gives rise to the greatest amount of use for the money. However, these back-to-back years of decreased funding is killing a lot of basic research that is used to make discoveries like the synthetic trachea possible.
I don't disagree with you but unfortunately we have dug such a tremendously deep hole that everything must be cut...
Except the military.
Says who?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,276 |
Here in Nevada the fund's for education has dropped at least 60% than when I 1st. moved here. They are more interested in funding
Research for energy then our children's future. And To get back to the military, Nellis AFB is booming from what people are telling me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then cut back on the things that have been overfunded, not the ones that are arguably the most underfunded and also with the largest benefit. And I'm not saying "fund everyone with an idea" either. The current way of competing for grants is grant is great and gives rise to the greatest amount of use for the money. However, these back-to-back years of decreased funding is killing a lot of basic research that is used to make discoveries like the synthetic trachea possible.
I don't disagree with you but unfortunately we have dug such a tremendously deep hole that everything must be cut...
Except the military.
Says who?
Anyone with a legitimate chance in high office at the federal level
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
j/c
A couple of comments. Disclaimer: I have a vested interest in science funding, as my career depends on it. However, we really should be careful how much we cut things like NASA, NIH, NSF, military research, etc. I would actually prefer that we spend more here. My reason is that if you think about a lot of the basic innovations that drive our economy now, they had their roots in basic, government funded research. Rising economies like Brazil, China, and India are pouring money into research and education. One of few advantages that we have anymore is our technology, and that is fading fast.
Second, making these types of organs are obviously very good for patients. But what isn't being talked about too much yet is that true cures like this have the potential for dramatically decreasing overall health care spending. The reason is this: the vast majority of health care spending is on maintenance of chronic diseases like diabetes or kidney failure. If you can simply replace the problem (without having to use immunosuppression to prevent rejection) rather than expensively maintaining it for years, then overall cost will go down (once growing organs becomes cost effective).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
Except his post actually was relevant. He was talking about something related to the discovery while you decided to use it to take a swipe at Obama (whom I am far from a fan of). His post was related to science and the efforts that go towards it. Yours had nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,136
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,136 |
I said his post was relevant. Mine was also relevant. Maybe I should have said "our taxpayer funded universal healthcare plan" rather than "Obamacare" so as not to offend the sensitive people here.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
I said his post was relevant. Mine was also relevant. Maybe I should have said "our taxpayer funded universal healthcare plan" rather than "Obamacare" so as not to offend the sensitive people here.
No matter how you phrase it, it's still irrelevant to the conversation. This discussion has nothing to do with Obamacare or how to pay for anything like this. As it is now, this technique is probably only available to the extremely wealthy or affluent (who may be able to get around the red tape) and is not under FDA regulation.
My point is that advanced like this are directly the cause of funding basic research, something that is sorely lacking in the upcoming budget. People think that if they can't see anything directly related to the human condition, it must be a waste. The fact is that we have no idea where innovation and advancement may come from, so we should fund more, not less scientific endeavors. This (a high concentration of thinkers and innovators) is one of the few brightspots left in the United states, and as Tjs said, it's a title we're readily ceding to other countries who are willing to pay these people to work.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Lab-made organ implated for the
first time
|
|
