Comments on: Using induced pluripotent stem cells to reverse sickle cell anemia in mice http://hematopoiesis.info/2007/12/16/using-induced-pluripotent-stem-cells-to-reverse-sickle-cell-anemia-in-mice/ Blood Stem Cell & Lineages Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:48:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Alex http://hematopoiesis.info/2007/12/16/using-induced-pluripotent-stem-cells-to-reverse-sickle-cell-anemia-in-mice/#comment-8 Alex Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:29:31 +0000 http://hematopoiesis.info/2007/12/16/using-induced-pluripotent-stem-cells-to-reverse-sickle-cell-anemia-in-mice/#comment-8 to Jae-Won - I'm more pessimistic about future of iPS, so my answer is NO so far, i feel like it's gonna be translated "from bench to the other bench". We will see. to Jae-Won -
I’m more pessimistic about future of iPS,
so my answer is NO so far,
i feel like it’s gonna be translated “from bench to the other bench”.
We will see.

]]> By: Jae-Won http://hematopoiesis.info/2007/12/16/using-induced-pluripotent-stem-cells-to-reverse-sickle-cell-anemia-in-mice/#comment-3 Jae-Won Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:02:04 +0000 http://hematopoiesis.info/2007/12/16/using-induced-pluripotent-stem-cells-to-reverse-sickle-cell-anemia-in-mice/#comment-3 Hi Alexey, thanks for your comment. To me, whether a certain technology will remain on the bench or evolve into the bedside really depends on whether scientists only talk about potential pitfalls of a given technology/scientific and do not do anything about it (which is quite common), or they are actually willing to solve potential pitfalls using their strengths: the ability to solve problems scientifically. Having said that, if we are able to find a rule behind genomic integration of a given retro/lenti viral vector, a possibility of a given gene integrated near oncogenic promoters could be controlled. Dr. Fredick Bushman is working on this type of work at Penn. I think a revolution in this area will provide an opportunity for iPS to become therapeutics. What is your thought? -JWS Hi Alexey, thanks for your comment. To me, whether a certain technology will remain on the bench or evolve into the bedside really depends on whether scientists only talk about potential pitfalls of a given technology/scientific and do not do anything about it (which is quite common), or they are actually willing to solve potential pitfalls using their strengths: the ability to solve problems scientifically.

Having said that, if we are able to find a rule behind genomic integration of a given retro/lenti viral vector, a possibility of a given gene integrated near oncogenic promoters could be controlled. Dr. Fredick Bushman is working on this type of work at Penn. I think a revolution in this area will provide an opportunity for iPS to become therapeutics.

What is your thought?

-JWS

]]> By: Alex http://hematopoiesis.info/2007/12/16/using-induced-pluripotent-stem-cells-to-reverse-sickle-cell-anemia-in-mice/#comment-2 Alex Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:58:11 +0000 http://hematopoiesis.info/2007/12/16/using-induced-pluripotent-stem-cells-to-reverse-sickle-cell-anemia-in-mice/#comment-2 Jae-Won, thank you for news. One step closer but still so far from reality, because - you're right - safety issues. I quote here opinion one of leading scientist in somatic cell nuclear transfer - Miodrag Stojkovic - about safety and iPS: ----------------------------------------------- "The recent generation of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells has put the feasibility of SCNT in regenerative medicine under intense scrutiny. Along with many other scientists, we applaud the former achievement. However, at this early stage of development, we do not consider iPS cells as a substitute for SCNT. As has been stated by other scientists, the use of genes and retroviruses known to cause cancer in mammals and retroviruses known to have the ability to disrupt the normal DNA function and stimulate the birth of cancer cells [4, 5] makes questionable any possible application of iPS in regenerative medicine, especially cell therapy. Although some proponents of reprogramming argue that these problems are purely technical and easily surmountable, currently it is vital to maintain the pace of research on more controversial fronts, such as the use of human oocytes in SCNT." ------------------------------------------------ so what do you think about perspectives of iPS? Will stick on the bench or go to bedside? Jae-Won, thank you for news.
One step closer but still so far from reality, because - you’re right - safety issues.
I quote here opinion one of leading scientist in somatic cell nuclear transfer - Miodrag Stojkovic - about safety and iPS:
———————————————–
“The recent generation of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells has put the feasibility of SCNT in regenerative medicine under intense scrutiny. Along with many other scientists, we applaud the former achievement. However, at this early stage of development, we do not consider iPS cells as a substitute for SCNT. As has been stated by other scientists, the use of genes and retroviruses known to cause cancer in mammals and retroviruses known to have the ability to disrupt the normal DNA function and stimulate the birth of cancer cells [4, 5] makes questionable any possible application of iPS in regenerative medicine, especially cell therapy. Although some proponents of reprogramming argue that these problems are purely technical and easily surmountable, currently it is vital to maintain the pace of research on more controversial fronts, such as the use of human oocytes in SCNT.”
————————————————

so what do you think about perspectives of iPS? Will stick on the bench or go to bedside?

]]>