Nature Insight Stem Cells

This is definitely the best and most thoughtful paper on the topic yet. http://pimm.wordpress.com/2007/01/12/best-paper-on-stem-cells-and-ageing-by-thomas-rando-figure-1/

Earlier and butter publications on asymmetric cell reproduction and intrinsic aging

Rando’s quest for immortality [1] is a repetition of medieval fiction and thus a reversal of scientific progress [2]. His recent publication on nonrandom DNA segregation [3] just confirmed some previous discoveries [4-6] but still contains many fundamental mistakes [7-8]. Unfortunately, “top” journals have given Rando too much space in publishing his erroneous views [9]. On the contrary so far they have suppressed alternative but very correct views from a true research pioneer studying cell life [10].
I concluded years ago that cell reproduction (often incorrectly characterized as cell division) is asymmetric regardless of the morphological similarity between two cells formed from one cell [4]. My unique view is that two cells formed from one cell bear a mother-daughter rather than a twin-daughter relationship. Furthermore, I was the first in proposing that a mother cell retains the old template DNA strand and segregates the young template DNA strand to its daughter cell(s) [4]. A precise depiction of this normal DNA segregation pattern during the life span of a cell was published which links DNA aging with cell aging and combines genetics with epigenetics [5].
That DNA-cell aging synchrony was used as an example for the existence of a molecule-cell-organism aging axis throughout the development of multicellular organisms from single zygote cells [6]. This theoretical framework not only provides a deep insight into the fundamental mechanisms of biotic aging [11] but also clarifies several paradoxes in stem cell research and, moreover, uncovers a conceptual limitation of the ‘Hayflick limit’ [12].
My new cell life theory [4-6] provides a linkage between semi-conservative DNA replication and generation-asymmetric cell reproduction. This understanding provides a basis for arguing against the popular but flawed ‘immortal strand’ hypothesis. It also reveals the self-contradictory nature of the ‘self-renewal’ claim for stem cells [13]. The intrinsic aging process that, as I assume, occurs in all cells disproves any immortality claim for any cell [14]. Thus, this new cell life theory will probably be pivotal in revolutionizing cell-based biology by virtue of its superior understanding of the relationship between aging and diseases such as cancer compared to some currently prevailing opinions and its insights into various enigmas still puzzling stem cell researchers and cloning experts [15-19].
Rando and others not only promoted some wrong views on cell life but also committed severe misconduct by distorting the history on cell life research and rubber credit that should be deserved for a true pioneer [20-24].

References

[1] Rando TA. Stem cells, ageing and the quest for immortality. Nature 2006; 441: 1080-1086.
[2] Liu SV. Put the immortality concept to death. Logical Biology. 2006; 6: 52-53.
[3] Conboy MJ, Karasov AO, Rando TA. High incidence of non-random template strand segregation and asymmetric fate determination in dividing stem cells and their progeny. 2007; PLoS Biol 5:e102.
[4] Liu SV. Tracking bacterial growth in liquid media and a new bacterial life model. Science in China (Series C: Life Science) 1999; 42: 644-654 (English) and 29: 571-579 (Chinese).
[5] Liu SV. Linking DNA aging with cell aging and combining genetics with epigenetics. Logical Biology 2005; 5: 51-55.
[6] Liu SV. A theoretical framework for understanding biotic aging from molecule to organism in multicellular life. Logical Biology 2005; 5: 109-116.
[7] Liu SV. Revisit semi-conservative DNA replication and immortal DNA strand hypothesis. Logical Biology 2006; 6: 54-61.
[8] Liu SV. I am the mother, you stupid! Logical Biology 2007; 7: 29-33.
[9] Rando TA. The immortal strand hypothesis: segregation and reconstruction. Cell. 2007; 129, 1239-1243.
[10] Liu SV. Immortal strand does not exist but nonrandom strand segregation should be universal. Logical Biology 2007; 7: 50-60.
[11] Liu SV. Searching for the deep root and fundamental mechanism of biotic aging. Logical Biology 2005; 5: 89-91.
[12] Liu SV. Understanding the limit of the Hayflick Limit. Logical Biology 2005; 5:58-65.
[13] Liu SV. Stem cells’ self-renewal or cell biologists’ self-cheating? Logical Biology 2006; 6:106-109.
[14] Liu SV. Are stem cells really immortal cells? Logical Biology 2006; 6:71-75.
[15] Liu SV. What is a stem cell? Logical Biology 2007; 7:12-17.
[16] Liu SV. Cell division deception and stem cell confusion. Pioneer 2007; 2:7-10.
[17] Liu SV. Increased cloning efficiency over differentiation hierarchy: True paradigm shift or false outlier presentation? Logical Biology 2006; 6:110-112.
[18] Liu SV. iPS cells: Stem cells induced from terminally differentiated cells or just pre-existing stem cells being detected? Logical Biology 2007; 7:63-65.
[19] Liu SV. Are iPS cells really indistinguishable from ES cells? Logical Biology 2007; 7:66-68.
[20] Liu SV. A public robbery of science in the public library of science. Logical Biology 2005; 5:76-78.
[21] Liu SV. I cannot believe this, you shameful! - A revelation of a severe publishing misconduct. Scientific Ethics 2007; 2:48-50.
[22] Liu SV. Another reinvention of the wheel and an outright credit ribbery. Scientific Ethics 2007; 2:61-74.
[23] Liu SV. This outrageous lie has got to stop! Scientific Ethics 2007; 2:79-85.
[24] Liu SV. The dark side of Amar Klar. Scientific Ethics 2007; 2:96-101.

(Many more publications relevant to this subject can be found in a central communication forum at http://im1.biz)

Shi V. Liu
Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine
Apex, NC 27502 USA
E-mail address: SVL@logibio.com