Please email the editors at 'theniche at nature.com' to propose new posts.

« September 2008 | Main | November 2008 »

Archive by date: October 2008

Bookmark in Connotea

This week: diabetes deal, new building, seeing rats, young innovator

Stem cells for diabetes got a vote of confidence this week, with giant Novo Nordisk entering into a deal with Cellartis and Lund University to create insulin-producing cells for diabetes. Novo Nordisk has been selling insulin since 1923 and knows the diabetes market well. Additionally, Geron announced a publication on its progress coaxing embryonic stem cells into what it calls islet-like clusters. The cells secrete insulin, glucagon, and other factors, as well as responding to glucose levels. These technologies are still far from clinical trials, and the buzz is that southern California’s Novocell is in the lead for bringing ES-cell products to trial for diabetes.

Two stem cell stories this week come from Palo Alto. On Monday, Stanford University broke ground for their new stem cell building, reported to be the largest in the US. It is funded by private donors and funds from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine.

On Thursday, company StemCells ( also known for its clinical trial in Batten’s disease ) reported that its purified preparation of neural stem cells preserved sight in a rat model of vision loss, and that grafted cells persisted for as long as 150 days. The results were presented in a seminar and have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. CIRM leader Bob Klein is also enthused about using stem cells for sight. When he signed a memorandum of understanding with the UK last week, he constantly referred to work by Peter Coffee from the British Institute of Opthamology that he felt was close to clinical trials.

Finally, Harvard’s Konrad Hochedlinger was named one of MIT’s Technology Reviews top young innovators. Along with Rudolf Jaenisch and Shinya Yamanaka, he created iPS cells that could contribute to germline, a stringent test of pluripotency. He recently reported how to make iPS cells without permanently changing the genome (see Integration-free iPS cells). Technology Review has links to his work and will tell you exactly how young he is.

Bookmark in Connotea

Stem cells and the National Academies

Someone from the NAS outreach office noticed my recent post on Obama's science plan and suggested the following NAS work would be of interest to those fllowing the debate.

We recently published “2008 Advisements to the National Academies’ Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research”, which offers a common set of ethical standards along with a straightforward account of stem cells and stem cell research. We believe that this publication would be of interest to anyone following the Stem Cell debate.

This report is available for free online reading and download, along with the following resources that will further inform your readers.

1. Read or download for FREE the entire text of the book in HTML and pd.

2. Podcast: “Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine”

This podcast is devoted to the basics on stem cells.

-You may subscribe to this podcast at http://www.nap.edu/podcast.html


3. Other Stem Cells related books from the National Academies

Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Assessing the Medical Risks of Human Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell Research

Cord Blood: Establishing a National Hematopoietic Stem Cell bank Program

Bookmark in Connotea

Obama's science plan

One of Barack Obama’s science advisors addressed the annual gathering of science writers this Sunday in Palo Alto, CA. John McCain’s campaign declined to send anyone, which meant that the entire time slot could be taken by Sharon Long, a Stanford professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences, who advises Obama in her personal capacity.

She didn’t mention stem cells during her 45-minute talk, but instead described “returning integrity to scientific advising in the White House”, a veiled reference to widespread complaints that Bush has filled advisory positions with people who agree with him rather than top scientific minds. (See an earlier post, Surgeon General Censored ).

During the question period, I asked whether she was concerned about the leadership role of the U.S. National Institutes of Health in stem cell research. States have grown their own regulatory and funding infrastructures to promote stem cell funding, and while researchers tell me they are very grateful for the money, they also tell me that these state-by-state systems are inherently inefficient and create bureaucracy blockades to collaborations. When I asked Long whether this was a problem, she said that Barack Obama would allow the NIH to fund human embryonic stem cell research.

I chased her down afterward to get her to answer the question I’d asked, and she seemed familiar with the issue, acknowledged it as a problem, but said it was “too granular” to be considered at this time. (For more on this issue, see a Patchwork quilt of funding and State initiatives strain stem-cell scientists )

Overall, I thought the priorities she described reflected the issues I hear scientists talk about. Often, these speeches induce yawns, full of vague platitudes of how very important science is, time-worn hang-wringing, etc. There was some of that, of course, but there was also a plan to double science funding over ten years, plus the acknowledgement that turning funding taps on and off discourage young people to enter the field.

There also seemed to be considerable thought of how a president should get scientific advice. Obama has pledged to follow recommendations produced from the National Academies of Sciences, which lists 60 positions that they feel could benefit from high levels of expertise. Obama’s science and technology advisor would report to the President (that role got kicked out of the White House under the Bush administration). By creating a hybrid position, a President Obama could have that person working before all the Congressional approvals went through. (For our columnist thinks scientists might be a bit too obsessed on this issue.)

Here’s a link to Obama’s science plan as well as takes on individual issues . John McCain outlines his ideas on technology, climate change, agricultural policies, energy and other science-related issues as separate topics.

Nature covered the U.S. election extensively last month.

Bookmark in Connotea

Regenerated prostates; stem cells from plucked hair; what’s a stem cell?

Below, I’ll paste highlights of a Nature paper showing that entire mouse prostates can be regenerated from a single cell: nice evidence of stem cells’ power plus the ability to find these rare cells. Also, in the race to create pluripotent cells without embryos or genetic engineering, some cell types seem easier than others. A paper in Nature Biotechnology shows that an easily reprogrammable cell type is also the easiest to get in a biopsy.

I saw reports on the news wires of a new technology from Austin Smith’s lab for efficiently reprogramming cells, which has reportedly been published in PLoS and licensed by Stem Cell Sciences. I can’t find the actual paper, but it was blogged here. I’m betting it’s an extension of work reported in Nature a few months ago which used small molecules to inhibit differentiation in mouse embryonic stem cells and which was licensed by the same company.

Also, if you’ve encountered me in the past month or so, I’ve probably sidled up and asked you to tell me the most problematic terms in the stem cell field. You told me terms including: reprogramming, function, commitment, population, purity. But the most common term I heard “stemness” or “stem cell”, which is what I used for my write-up in the disputed definitions in Nature this week. I talked to over a dozen people for this, and so collected far more wisdom than will fit in 500 words. Please send me an email and tell me what you think!

And finally, articles going live on Nature Reports this week include an interview with Tom Graf, who showed how changing transcription factor networks change transform one cell type to another. Also, two separate papers on how organisms trade regeneration potential to decrease risk of cancer. One, in Drosophila, from Yukiko Yamashita. Another in mice from Sean Morrison. Anyone remember how Lgr5 pinpointed intestinal stem cells? It’s shining light on surprising stem cell activity in the hair follicle too.

Continue reading "Regenerated prostates; stem cells from plucked hair; what’s a stem cell?" »

Bookmark in Connotea

UK and California agree to collaborate on stem cell research

California’s stem cell funding agency signed a memorandum of understanding with the United Kingdom, expediting collaborations between scientists in the two locations.

Robert Klein, chair of the California Institute of Stem Cell Research and Lord Paul Drayson, UK’s Minister for Science, met in the San Francisco airport to sign the four-page document.

The thrust of the agreement is that Californian and British scientists can use funds supplied by CIRM or the UK’s Medical Research Council in formal collaborations, and would be able to describe such collaborations in requests for funding. A conference to bring researchers from the two locations together is planned for January of next year.

“We could do a one-off with an investigator in Paris, but that bogs us down,” says CIRM spokesman Don Gibbons. With the memorandum, CIRM can accept applications under the same rules and avoid bureaucracy.

Drayson and Klein were full of compliments for each other at the signing. Though no scientists or projects are named specifically in the memorandum, Klein emphasized that collaborations with the UK would allow researchers in California to tap into projects that were close to clinical trials, particularly cell therapies for blindness. Drayson said that the UK’s National Health System made his country particularly able to carry out clinical trials and gather clinical data.

Drayson said that most of the research pursued under the memorandum would be academic. However, he said that the UK could particularly benefit from the United States, particularly California’s ability to commercialize research.

This is at least the third international agreement announced by CIRM. In June, the agency signed agreements with Canada and with the Australian state of Victoria. Klein says similar and more-expanded announcements are forthcoming. Along with the National Institutes of Health and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, CIRM is part of three American members of the 21-member International Stem Cell Forum, which organizes cross-country collaborations between its member countries.

Bookmark in Connotea

Aging stem cells: trade-offs between vigor and cancer

Two papers from the University of Michigan show how tissue-specific stem cells trade regenerative potential to control unwanted proliferation. One, in fly testes from Yukiko Yamasita, shows that cells halt their division if the daughter cells would be misoriented. The other, in mice brains, shows how gene expression changes with age to favor decreased regeneration with decreased risk for tumorigenesis.

I’ll put those research highlights below. If you’re interested in how stem-cell rigor declines with age, you’ll also be interested in A metasignalling network makes muscles age , which shows that muscle tissue doesn’t so much lose its regenerative potential as actively inhibit it.

Both these highlights will show up as formal article in Nature Reports Stem Cells next week. Already going live this week are two highlights that show just how many ways there are to be pluripotent. One features separate work by Azim Surani and Myriam Hemberger on how pluripotency is governed within the embryo. (See Plasticity of the pluripotent). The other highlight also combines coverage of two separate papers. Shinya Yamanaka and Konrad Hochedlinger show that reprogramming cultured mouse skin cells to pluripotency need not require genetic modification.

Continue reading "Aging stem cells: trade-offs between vigor and cancer" »

Bookmark in Connotea

Pluripotency without viruses or embryos

Ever since human cells were reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells, a large group of scientists have said confidently that the feat can be accomplished without modifying the genome. Just this week, there has been a flurry of papers showing advances. Perhaps getting the most press are reports that biopsies from testes can be reprogrammed to pluripotency without any genetic modification at all.

Most recently comes a report from Harvard’s Doug Melton in Nature Biotechnology. (Here’s the Reuters report ). The first descriptions of the reprogramming technique required multiple copies of four separate genes to be permanently inserted into cells without using retrovirus. Melton shows that a common chemical, valproic acid, can be used in place of two of the four genes when reprogramming cultured human skin cells. The two that were replaced were Klf4 and c-Myc, both associated with tumorigenesis. The researchers kept Oct4 and Sox2, known pluripotency genes.

This work follows closely on work previously reported in the mouse.
BTW: Other researchers have reprogrammed without Sox2, so no single factor seems essential for reprogramming. It’s just a matter of finding one of the right combinations.

Integration-free iPS cells

Last week, Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University described in Science that mouse cells could be transformed to pluripotency apparently without using viruses and, as far as he could tell, without permanently changing cells’ genome. The week before, Harvard’s Konrad Hochedlinger reported that his team had reprogrammed cells using a virus that does not insert itself into chromosomes. My research highlight on that goes live on Thursday, but I’ll paste a sneak preview below.

A major impediment to clinical application of a technique for creating embryonic-like stem cells without using embryos has been removed, at least in principle.

Specialized cells can be reset to an unspecialized state capable of becoming any cell type in the body. Though induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells made from individual patients could be incredibly valuable for drug screening or cell therapies, the established process to create the cells requires using retroviruses to insert several extra copies of genes into each cell. This renders the cells less predictable and more prone to forming tumours, and may make them unacceptable for human transplantation.

Two recent papers in Science show that, at least for certain cell types in mice, viral integration is not necessary; one technique does away with viruses altogether. A team led by Konrad Hochedlinger at Harvard Medical School in Boston used a type of virus that does not insert itself into the genome to deliver the genes necessary for converting cells to pluripotency. Hochedlinger’s team focused on converting adult liver cells, which have previously been shown to require fewer sites of viral integration and are more easily infected by the adenovirus vector the team was using. This approach generated cells that passed stringent tests of pluripotency1. If transplanted into mouse embryos, the cells go on to produce a wide range of tissue types within newly born mice, including sperm. Interestingly, though, about a quarter of the cell lines had twice the usual number of chromosomes, an abnormality that is not observed with other techniques used to produce iPS cells.

After using adenoviruses to figure out the best way to combine genes, Shinya Yamanaka at Kyoto University in Japan then tried a technique that did not use a virus. They transfected mouse cells cultured from embryonic tissue (mouse embryonic fibroblasts) with plasmids over several days. The team also generated cell lines that expressed markers of pluripotency and formed sperm in chimeric mice, but the researchers started with specialized embryonic cells instead of adult cells2.

Kathrin Plath, at the University of California, Los Angeles has created mouse and human iPS cells. She says the starting cell type might be very important when using non-integrating viral vectors, but she’s confident that the plasmid technique Yamanaka used on embryonic fibroblasts can be made to work using fibroblasts derived from skin biopsies from adult mice.

She also is not particularly worried that the yields of iPS cells are so much lower with this method than those seen when using retroviruses. “The efficiencies are quite low, but at the end if you get them, you don’t care.”

Besides efficiency, there are hurdles between this work in mice and being able to reprogram human cells from easily accessible tissue samples like a skin biopsy. The rates at which cells convert to pluripotency are far lower than the rates obtained using integrating viruses, and neither team can be absolutely certain that no fragments of the introduced DNA integrated into the cells’ genomes. Nonetheless, the work indicates that permanent genetic modification is not necessary for creating iPS cells. Though the cells still need to be more thoroughly compared to ES cells, iPS cells’ potential use for therapy and research seems greater than ever.

References
1. Stadtfield, M. et al. Induced pluripotent stem cell generated without viral integration. Science doi:10.1126/science.1162494 (published online 25 September 2008).

2. Okita, K. Generation of mouse induced pluripotent stem cells without viral vectors. Science doi:10.1126/science.1164270 (published online 9 October 2008).

Bookmark in Connotea

Fake Data for Flexible Stem Cells; Funding Falling Flat for Stem-Cell Facility

Credit crunch hurts California stem-cell facility
When the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine granted $271 million for building new laboratories, it had a few conditions. One was that research institutions had to come up with matching funds (see yesterday’s post on funds to Stanford). But one of the awardees, the Buck Institute for Age Research, has blamed the credit crunch for a stall in securing its share of the funds, according to an article in GenomeWeb. According to the article, nine of the grant recipients report that their building projects are moving ahead, and CIRM says it is too early to assess whether it should extend the deadline by which buildings must be completed.

Falsified data
Years before news that human skin cell could be reprogrammed to a state as powerful as embryonic stem cells, enthusiasm centered on potentially powerful cells in the bone marrow termed MAPCs (multipotent adult progenitor cells). Excitement dimmed when other researchers were unable to replicate the results. (This stands in sharp contrast to the reprogramming work, which has been repeated in multiple labs in multiple countries.) Now, a panel at the University of Minnesota reports that data was falsified in several figures. The investigation cleared the lead investigator in the lab, Catherine Verfaillie who is still retains a part-time U of M position but is now at the Catholic University in Leuven, Belgium, and the blame falls to a graduate student in the lab.

The story was first reported in New Scientist, which had previously brough attention to discrepancies.

The University has asked that an article published in Blood be retracted and notes discrepancies but not falsification in another article in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. Other peer-reviewed articles are not mentioned in the materials made available to the media. (Nature issued a correction on related work in June last year, though authors say conclusions are still valid. See Flawed data in multipotent cell study and Stem-cell paper corrected.)

Here is an excerpt from the U of M statement:
In four of seven figures in the Blood paper, the panel concluded that aspects of the figures were altered in such a way that the manipulation misrepresented experimental data and sufficiently
altered the original research record to constitute falsification under federal regulations and University policy. Manipulations identified by the panel included: elimination of bands on blots, altered orientation of bands, introduction of lanes not included in the original figure, and covering objects or image density in certain lanes.

Bookmark in Connotea

Funds for building, paperwork for donating, tools for screening

Cheaper genome scanning
Next year, the cost of sequencing a human genome will fall to $5000, according to start-up Complete Genomics in a story in The New York Times. The start-up expects that individual people will be the chief customers, but I’d imaging those characterizing stem cell lines wouldn’t mind getting some additional data, both about the existing variety of stem cell lines and about how individual stem cell lines change genetically as they adapt to culture. (See our commentary on how to assess a stem cell genome.)

Paperwork for embryo donors
Besides providing more genetic diversity, newly derived embryonic stem cell lines could be derived and maintained under better conditions for culture and informed consent. While recent surveys show individuals are willing to donate unwanted frozen embryos for research, an article in The Los Angeles Times describes some of the paperwork burdens involved.

Private money for Stanford stem-cell building
Meanwhile, BusinessWire founder Lorry Lokey is giving $75 million to Stanford for a stem-cell facility, according to the San Jose Business Journal. In the article, the Stanford Graduate and entrepreneur compares stem cells to the silicon chip. The total cost of the building will be $200 million, of which $44 million is coming from tax-payer funded California Institute of Regenerative Medicine; the university and other contributors are supposed to foot the rest of the bill.
Also, here’s a story from the San Francisco Chronicle.

Bookmark in Connotea

VCs consider routes to make reprogrammed cells into products

Posted by Monya Baker on behalf of Natalie DeWitt

What do the top venture capitalists interested in investing in iPS cells consider the major hurdles on the road to viable clinical products? Today stem-cell scientists Deepak Srivastava and Shinya Yamanaka of the Gladstone Institute in San Francisco were joined by Beth Seidenberg of venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers to answer that question for an audience consisting mainly of investors.

Yamanaka was reluctant to give a timetable for clinical application. Alternatives to viral integration as a means to make iPS cells are clearly on the way, he said, but the similarity of reprogrammed cells to cancer cells presents another serious hurdle. Srivastava added that expansion of cells is another major focus—how to generate the large quantities of cells needed for human therapy.

As someone who is mainly preoccupied by the science, I found it fascinating to hear Siedenberg, a drug development expert for a venture capital firm, break the road to clinical development into the following seven steps, two scientific feats to be established, plus a series of questions that clinicians and regulators must figure out how to answer. (My own observations are in parentheses.)

• A way around viral transduction to reprogramming must be developed. (This is a hot area of research and already small molecules are being screened and developed to do this).
• Differentiate iPS cells into any cell type. (Many papers report differentiation of ES cells to useful cell types such as neurons or cardiomyocytes—but only in rare cases do these procedures achieve robust efficiency. It is proving to similarly be a challenge for iPS cells).
• What is the best way to administer the cells? Will novel biomaterials to form scaffolds be needed?
• What safety and regulatory process must be in place before using cell transplantation in humans?
• What dose will be required and how often?
• How do you gauge the efficacy of the cells destined for transplantation? How do you know if they are working?
• And a major hurdle, how to handle the manufacturing of cells to control costs and reproducibility?

The first two goals are well underway in scientific labs. But the next five are key for developing therapies, and are the questions investors and drug developers ask about any product in their pipeline. However, using cells for transplantation instead of small molecules raises serious challenges in terms of bringing a cost effective product to market. Do companies developing hES cell therapies like Geron have the answers? By now, the FDA has likely told them what experiments are necessary to move their cell product for spinal cord injury into clinical trials, but so far they’ve been silent.

See also FDA places Geron’s clinical trial on hold. This can get you to Monya Baker’s overview of the FDA’s meeting on how to assess whether embryonic-stem cell derived products were ready for human trials as well as transcripts of that meeting.

Seidenberg pointed out that the nearest term application of iPS cells is testing for drug toxicity. At present, 63% of drugs are withdrawn because of toxicity, usually to the heart and liver. Individuals are susceptible to varying degrees depending to some extent on their genotypes so iPS cells provide a great opportunity for testing toxicities in cells with a wide array of genotypes. And these investigations may, in turn, help answer some of the questions necessary to bring these cells to the clinic.

Bookmark in Connotea

How can taxpayer-funded stem-cell initiatives ease research, commercialization?

Maryland has just issued requests for proposals in stem cell research for a series of five-year grants for projects with supporting data plus two-year grants for more exploratory research. Graduate students and post-docs across the U.S. can apply to work in Maryland stem-cell labs for fellowships worth up to $55,000.

Elsewhere, initiatives to push stem-cell products toward commercialization are hitting snags. A few weeks after its head was ousted and its board resigned en masse, the Australian Stem Cell Centre has a new interim head and board of directors. (See The Age) The agency has been having a tumultuous time, sparked by debates over whether to follow basic or commercial research. Though a 2006 review of the centre gave it good marks, the ASCC board fired it head Stephen Livesey, after a negative review of the centre. He told an Australian newspaper, that he was frustrated by stakeholders’ skeptical attitudes toward commercialization. See Infighting clouds stem cell centre’s future .

The Australian quotes Alan Trounson, head of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, co-founded ASCC in 2002, said the organization “needed to restructure”. Ironically, the structure of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine is currently undergoing a review of its structure and efficacy. (See The Great Beyond ) CIRM itself is obligated to help stem cells become commercial therapies. It is offering a loan program for biotechs. Biotechs are also eligible to apply for grants which carry an obligation to pay some royalties to the state for commercialized products. At the same time, CIRM must make sure that these therapies will be accessible to Californians. On Monday, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed bipartisan legislationguaranteeing access to Californians and making it easier for the agency to fund other sorts of research.

As possibilities for commercialization increase, so will the tumult.

Bookmark in Connotea

Revamped stem cell guidelines from the National Academies

The National Academies updated their guidelines on human embryonic stem cell research. Although the guidelines don’t carry the force of law, they are standard practice in both industry and academia in the US.
The amendments re-affirm that women cannot be paid to donate eggs for ES cell research, and clarify that they can be reimbursed for expenses. They also say that potential uses and experiments with induced pluripotent stem cells are broadly the same as ES cells, that if a researcher only wants to study an existing stem cell line in vitro, the ethical review of the research can be expedited. Also, embryonic stem cell oversight committees (ESCROs) should conduct regular audits and make detailed information on ES cell research at their institutions publicly available.