Massachusetts Update

Massachusetts Update

There’s general news about Massachusetts—a year ago, the state made a decision to “streamline embryonic stem cell research.” As with any anniversary, people are checking in. The Boston Globe has a lengthy AP article that includes the following:

At least 16 institutions can conduct stem cell research. An example was given of one researcher who decided to stay in Massachusetts instead of moving to Missouri because of the possibility that Missouri might criminalize his work.

The Massachusetts law, enacted over a gubernatorial veto, is seen as important because it sets ground rules for what kind of research can be done. (The local DA no longer has to be consulted—imagine trying to do research which had to be cleared by an elected official first!) It does not allow reproductive cloning and it does not allow egg donors to be compensated (egg donors for in vitro fertilization procedures can receive compensation, which seems inconsistent to some).

Harvard University is building a 500,000 square foot facility for stem cell research.

There is the usual opposition to the law from right-to-life groups.

The article does not give any new research news, but does reinforce the point that embryonic stem cell research is very much a state by state approach right now.

Brief News on Gene Silencing

Brief News on Gene Silencing

Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh have been able to use RNA interference (a method of preventing gene expression) to “increase the propensity” for stem cells derived from muscles to become bone. The researchers turned off a gene that regulates the formation of muscle cells. They also turned off a gene that inhibits a cell from responding to bone-forming signals. When the stem cells without the muscle formation gene were implanted in cells which had the bone-inhibition gene turned off, 60% of the test mice developed recognizable bone structure within three weeks. When the stem cells with the muscle gene were turned off and implanted in skeletal muscle which did not have the bone-inhibition gene turned off, they did not develop into bone, so it appears that both genes need to be repressed for this particular result to occur. The press release does not give further details; the study is an oral presentation at a conference and not a peer-reviewed publication at this point.

While this certainly shows some potential for the muscle derived stem cells to differentiate into other types of cells, I wonder about the complication that the cells themselves needed to be receptive to the stem cells’ signaling for the differentiation into bone to occur. Stem cells obviously need particular environments in which to do their work, and any treatment that involves manipulation of the environment in which the stem cells are placed—e.g. the human body—is going to be fraught with more complexity than a “straight-forward” stem cell injection.