Research on Stem Cells and Telomeres

Research on Stem Cells and Telomeres

A Spanish team has done some interesting research on telomeres in mouse stem cells, according to a press release. Telomeres are strands at the end of DNA that get shorter every time a cell divides; when they get too short the cells stops dividing. In stem cells, however, the cells produce telomerase, which keeps the telomeres long and enable the cells to keep dividing. The researchers found that when the telomerase enzyme was absent in mouse skin stem cells, the stem cells lost their ability to divide and could not regenerate damaged tissue. The mice also aged more rapidly than normal mice. On the pother hand, they had a marked resistance to cancer. Shortening the telomeres more led to aging but cancer resistance; reducing the shortening them led to longevity but a higher cancer risk.

My guess would be that because the stem cells are able to divide longer, they are more likely to mutate into a cancer causing stem cell. A stem cell that can’t divide can’t make either cancer cells or normal cells. It seems that the people who are doing research into stem cells and longevity will need to research the cancer link extensively. Identification of the mutation(s) that cause cancer is going to be very important in all stem cell therapies as well.

Cord Blood into Lung Cells

Cord Blood into Lung Cells

A business press release from the BioE company says that researchers at the University of Minnesota have been able to differentiate cord blood cells into lung cells. The lung cells are type II alveolar cells, which help stabilize air sacs during breathing. The press release emphasizes the potential of these stem cells if they can be differentiated into cells as complex as lung cells. Since the release is from the biotech company and not from the researchers, it’s slim on details. The University web site does not have any release itself on the subject.

Lung disease is a big issue, however, and getting any kind of stem cell to form lung cells is important.

More on Missouri

More on Missouri

I’m not going to go into detail on this, because it’s not truly news, but the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a story about the reaction to Senator Jim Talent’s announcement that he would not support the ballot initiative which would legalize stem cell research. Essentially, he is back in the good graces of conservatives, including the Missouri Right to Life.

Most of the article is a recap of things I’ve already been following in this blog, but there is a comment by one of Talent’s advisors which is worth noting. He said that he did not think stem cells were one of the top five issues in the Senate race. I have to say that I agree with that; I don’t think stem cell politics has the weight of jobs, the economy, education, health care, and other issues that press on American voters. For some people it is a passionate issue, but I don’t think they are a majority of voters.

Cloning Research to Begin at UCSF

Cloning Research to Begin at UCSF

The San Francisco Chronicle had a story on Saturday about research at UCSF that will be on somatic cell nuclear transfer procedures. The first of the donated eggs were expected to arrive today. The research had been on hold for several years; attempts were made but failed in 1999 and 2001. The lead researcher in those projects went on to the UK, and then many American researchers stopped work in this field after the Korean team’s putative success.

The eggs will be obtained from the University’s in vitro fertilization clinic; they are not new eggs but eggs that failed to fertilize. None of the donors are being compensated, and all are signing detailed consent forms. The procedure has passed University ethics reviews. The egg donors are also providing the DNA to be implanted in the egg, from scrapings of a cheek.

The article says that at least six other groups in the US are performing the same research; a formal announcement of a project at Harvard is expected within a few weeks.

Pennsylvania politics

Pennsylvania politics

Well, I should have blogged on this on Saturday, when the article came out, but it was a busy family day that culminated in a sick child and tired parents…24 hour bug and he is back at school today, so I’m catching up.

Anyway, the Philadelphia Inquirer had an article about the two Pennsylvania senators, Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter, joining forces in introducing a “compromise” stem cell bill. The interesting thing about this bill is that it would allow a form of embryonic stem cell research. The reason this is interesting is because Santorum is extremely conservative and on the pro-life side. (Specter, on the other hand, is a moderate Republican whose opinions I generally respect.) Santorum is now supporting the research, which includes creating a genetically engineered embryo that would not be able to implant in a uterus or to keep developing. He was quoted as saying, “There are some who believe that... there is controversy around these new entities - these collections of cells - as to whether it is an embryo or not. I feel comfortable, given all of the conversations I have had with a number of bioethicists, that these are appropriate steps to take.”

Santorum is up for re-election in what is apparently shaping up to be a tough race. Specter is supporting him; this bill would give Santorum some weight among more liberal voters.

Santorum is so conservative that I can’t see how this helps him; taking a slightly different stance on embryonic stem cell research might shift votes to him if he were liberal in other areas. But I can’t image Democrats voting for him because he supports this bill when he has a conservative agenda in many other arenas. If anything, it seems like this might alienate some of his constituency. The reader comments on the Inquirer article suggest this; there are several comparisons of him to Judas. I guess I should respect him for consulting with bioethicists and for being willing to shift his position, but unless he’s changed his understanding of what an embryo is and when human life begins, I don’t see how this is not at great odds with his pro-life stance, and it will be intriguing to see how he tries to reconcile these to voters.