Today’s Popular Posts
- .
Popular Posts
- ,
Posts in this Impact Area: (Stem Cells)
- ePSC: A new type of pluripotent stem cell
- Stem cell injection improves aging cells in mice
- Stem Cells: An excellent coverage of the medical reality
- Reprogramming cells: The post stem cell future?
- First steps: Converting skin cells to blood cells without stem cells
- First clinical trial: Embryonic stem cells for spinal repair
- Stem Cells: Using RNA to reprogram adult cells
- Stem cells: Myc does much more
- The dynamic state of embryonic stem cells
- Reversing silenced genes improves quality of induced stem cells
- Growing stem cells to become hair cells of the inner ear
- Neural stem cells: Going back to a brain with more plasticity
- New transplantation method: Organ + stem cells
- Finally(?)…artificially making blood stem cells in quantity
- Induced stem cells: Not such good news…
- New method: Creating stem cells from fat cells
- Stem cell epigenomic development mapped
- Why do some cancers resist treatment?
- The potentially polymorphous cell (a revolution in the making?)
- Stem cells to neurons to live transplant
- Research finding: Possibly a new way to create stem cells
- Watch for impact: Stem cells in China
- A new type of stem cell: Dermal
- Amniotic stem cells show more promise
- Studying infertility using laboratory created germ cells
- The race for safe stem cells
- Stem cell converts
- Skin cells – to stem cells – to liver cells
- Father's goat
- Stem cells from the umbilical cord

Induced stem cells: Not such good news…
It’s one of the hazards of reading science journalism, most of the news is positive – this advance, that breakthrough, etc. It’s easy to get the impression that a particular science – in this case research that creates pluripotent stem cells from adult (non-embryonic) cells – is rushing headlong to great things. It might be, but there are ‘speedbumps’ – the quaint automotive phrase for hitting obstructions that slow down progress. For induced stem cells, that speedbump is not matching the full capabilities of embryonic stem cells. This is the conclusion of a paper by the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health that studied the use of induced pluripotent stem cells as neuron cells.
The new study, led by Su-Chun Zhang, compared five embryonic stem cell lines with twelve induced stem cell lines. They found that the induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) converted to neuron cells do not match all the differentiations made by embryonic stem cells. The study also showed that iPS cells created without using genes, which in theory should have resulted in ‘cleaner’ differentiation, did no better than gene induced cells. As Dr. Zhang explains…
It is unclear whether not knowing ‘what things are at play’ – possibly some fundamental information is missing – constitutes a technical issue.