The Prism: Stem Cells May Hold the Key to the Riddle of Muscular Dystrophy

[Burgold]

Thought this was pretty amazing. Using stem cells, scientists not only halted, but reversed muscular dystrophy.

Researchers from the University of Minnesota’s Liliheigh Heart Institute have effectively treated muscular dystrophy in mice using stem cells derived from a process that for the first time, according to the study, makes the production of muscle from stems cells efficient and effective.

Associate Proffessor of Medicine Rita Perlingeiro at Minnesota’s School of Cardiology joins Andrew Hiller in the Prism.

http://capitolcorrespondent.com/cc/2...lar-dystrophy/

[PeterMP]

As I'm sure this issue will come up, they are starting with adult fibroblast cells and then turning them into the stem cells they are using.

[Teller]

Very encouraging. And quite honestly, "my side" needs to come around on this issue, even in the case of embryonic stem cells.

And this Hiller kid? He does some pretty good work.

[twa]

isn't most every one in current use doing so?(due to reduced rejection and unwanted growths issues ect)

they are doing some amazing work

[Burgold]

I was quite excited by the possibilities here.

Another amazing one was the use of nanotechnology in cerebral palsy. Effectively, they are lacing nanoparticles with aspirin making it small enough to go through the blood brain barrier. The aspirin then works to break up the plaques which seems to have reversed many of the symptoms. Right now, this has only been attempted using rabbits, but it seems like we are on the verge of an age of medical marvels.

And yes, the study we were talking about did not use embryonic stem cells. Rita sounded quite nervous about that point as she did not want to be swept up into the politics and controversy of that issue. Mind you, neither did I. I do think it is important to talk ethics, flaws, and confounds, but I try to steer away from politics when possible and just focus on the study, what it says, what it means, and where it might lead.

[PeterMP]

isn't most every one in current use doing so?(due to reduced rejection and unwanted growths issues ect)

they are doing some amazing work

I know people that do "basic" stem cell research that use the "Bush" embryonic lines. They aren't trying to do translational work so things like rejection aren't an issue for them. They are doing basic work on how stem cells do different things.

I suspect that they are doing so mostly because of inerita. They have the cells, they have protcols that they know work well with the cells and that they are used to doing (even amongst the "Bush" embryonic lines there are different best ways to do certain things), and they don't have to worry about generating them.

They also never claimed they need new stem cell lines to do their work (after the Bush lines were approved). They are happy continuing to do their work using the already approved lines.

If you told them that they had to stop using those lines, I suspect they could do so, but that it would cost them real time and money to switch over to generated lines and adopt protocols and the like.

I don't actualy personally know anybody that does translational embryonic stem cell research and don't honestly read that literature enough to state what most people are doing.

[No Excuses]

Interesting stuff. I did my undergrad research in a lab which was studying FSHD (faciospaculohumeral muscular dystrophy). The primary gene being studied in our lab was DUX4, a 'dead gene' which becomes reactivated.

When are you having her on your show, or have you already done the interview? (Can't seem to find a link).

[Burgold]

Interview link is in the OP.

[No Excuses]

The only interview link I see is for the cerebral palsy one. I'm probably just having a dumb moment, I'll keep looking.

[Burgold]

Sorry about that. Lazy reading.

Yeah, that one hasn't been put up yet. Darn lazy web team. I'll link it when it does. Here's the general page.

Lots o' cool sciency stuff

http://capitolcorrespondent.com/cc/category/prism/

[PeterMP]

I think the most exciting (if we ignore costs because when I think of costs than my excitement for most medical advances is greatly reduced) thing that is happening in medicine is the actual successful use of gene therapy to treat diseases.

I knew people in the mid-1990s that worked in the filed that truely believed in 10 years we'd really be treating diseases with gene therapy. And then for about 10 years we essentially had no progress- and you could even say went backwards, but in the last 3 years or so there have been a number of successful gene therapy cases to treat different diseases.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0802315
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20966749
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...74442211700394

[Sticksboi05]

Very encouraging. And quite honestly, "my side" needs to come around on this issue, even in the case of embryonic stem cells.

And this Hiller kid? He does some pretty good work.

100% agreed.

The ignorance by some people (not you obviously) in assuming you have to kill unborn babies to harvest stem cells is absurd.

[Burgold]

Some of this stuff I have heard of... some not. Feel free to toss things my way if you hear of anything cool. I'll take most anything on. Sometimes, I'm drowning trying to figure it out (The Higgs Boson stuff was very tough for me), but I figure/hope if I'm struggling to make sense of it it give the scientist a better chance to clarify and the audience a better chance to grapple with it too.

[Hubbs]

Some of this stuff I have heard of... some not. Feel free to toss things my way if you hear of anything cool. I'll take most anything on. Sometimes, I'm drowning trying to figure it out (The Higgs Boson stuff was very tough for me), but I figure/hope if I'm struggling to make sense of it it give the scientist a better chance to clarify and the audience a better chance to grapple with it too.

I would guess that you could generate a whole lot of material if you went out of your way to watch every episode of a show called Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, which airs on the Science Channel (and I'm sure clips are online). It essentially examines the work of various legitimate scientists who are on the "edge" of science, so to speak, and everything is broken down in layman's terms very well. The combination of the topics and the production value is so good that I'm not sure I've ever seen such positive reviews of a show on social media. It's incredibly addicting. (And yes, they've tackled the Higgs Boson. I'd be interested in hearing your take on the way they explained it, versus how the people you talked to explained it.)

[Burgold]

It's a cool show, but I'm trying to be pretty timely. Most of the stuff I report comes out only a week or two after their study is first published.

On Friday, It was kind of cool that I got someone who was just being interviewed by Ira Flato on Science Friday for NPR. Exciting that I'm getting people on that level and I always really liked his show. Technical, but accessible.