stem cells injected into blind eyes

Hair cells work differently, plus it's difficult to figure out where exactly to inject the cells. With eyes, I guess the cells automatically migrate to where they are supposed to be. With ears, it's different.

One problem with ears is that each individual hair cell responds to a different tone, as I understand it. So they are like "piano keys," in that the function is the same (react to sound) but the exact job for each cell is different (react to different tones). So it's more difficult to get stem cells to do that.

There was a very interesting talk on stem-cell and genetic therapy research at the HLAA convention two weeks ago. The guy giving the talk apparently is in the front-lines of the research. It was fascinating what they are doing.

But, bottom line: he said "If anyone is putting off getting a CI in the hope that stem cell research will soon be ready to go - don't do that. It's going to be a long while yet."
 
Bottesini said:
That's cornea which is on the outside. They have been doing cornea transplants for many, many years. So it isn't that far to go with the method in this article. The cornea has a simple function.
Click to expand...

Any time one has cataracts removed, essentially what is done is a corneal transplant.
 
Beach girl said:
OK, but using stem cells is far different from doing corneal transplants. Especially using stem cells from the person's own body - no risk of rejection.
I'm just in awe of the technology and the science behind it all.
Click to expand...

This is a complete and utterly false statement. I posted a report recently in which one of the complications using stem cells from one's own body has turned out to be rejection.

Really, people need to learn a bit more about the whole topic before posting innacurate things such as this. There is a risk of rejection with stem cells cultivated from one's own body, and there is a very good reason that risk is present.

Educate yourself, people.
 
jillio said:
Any time one has cataracts removed, essentially what is done is a corneal transplant.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it is very simple. The retina and other structures in the back of the eye are much more complicated.
 
Bottesini said:
Yes, and it is very simple. The retina and other structures in the back of the eye are much more complicated.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And yes, corneal transplant is very simple. Often done in office, and home within a couple of hours following surgery. Rare to experience complications. Recovery time is minimal.
 
Actually, the first article I cited was about cells in the retina, not the cornea.

"This latest treatment for eye disease, developed by Advanced Cell Technology (ACT), based in Worcester, MA, uses human embryonic stem cells to re-create a type of cell in the retina that supports the photoreceptors needed for vision. These cells, called retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), are often the first to die off in age-related macular degeneration and other eye diseases, which in turn leads to loss of vision. Several years ago, scientists found that human embryonic stem cells could be a source of RPE cells, and subsequent studies found that these cells could restore vision in mouse models of macular degeneration. "

Also:

"While scientists have made huge advances using stem cells to treat diseases in animal models, testing these experimental therapies in humans poses some unique challenges. One is proving that the cells are safe: embryonic stem cells, which can develop into any tissue type in the body, carry the risk of forming tumors. Another challenge is the threat of immune rejection of the transplanted cells; in most cases, introducing foreign cells would require a patient to take powerful drugs for life to suppress the immune system, as is the case with organ transplants. For that reason, the first stem-cell therapies have focused on the eye and nervous system, so-called immune-privileged sites that do not experience this response to foreign cells."

Stem cells restore sight to those blinded by burns - Health - Health care - msnbc.com

This article was about the Italian doctors who injected stem cells into the eyes to heal chemical burns of the eye.

"Dozens of people who were blinded or otherwise suffered severe eye damage when they were splashed with caustic chemicals had their sight restored with transplants of their own stem cells — a stunning success for the burgeoning cell-therapy field, Italian researchers reported Wednesday. "
 
Actually, the first article I cited was about cells in the retina, not the cornea.

"This latest treatment for eye disease, developed by Advanced Cell Technology (ACT), based in Worcester, MA, uses human embryonic stem cells to re-create a type of cell in the retina that supports the photoreceptors needed for vision. These cells, called retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), are often the first to die off in age-related macular degeneration and other eye diseases, which in turn leads to loss of vision. Several years ago, scientists found that human embryonic stem cells could be a source of RPE cells, and subsequent studies found that these cells could restore vision in mouse models of macular degeneration. "

Also:

"While scientists have made huge advances using stem cells to treat diseases in animal models, testing these experimental therapies in humans poses some unique challenges. One is proving that the cells are safe: embryonic stem cells, which can develop into any tissue type in the body, carry the risk of forming tumors. Another challenge is the threat of immune rejection of the transplanted cells; in most cases, introducing foreign cells would require a patient to take powerful drugs for life to suppress the immune system, as is the case with organ transplants. For that reason, the first stem-cell therapies have focused on the eye and nervous system, so-called immune-privileged sites that do not experience this response to foreign cells."

Stem cells restore sight to those blinded by burns - Health - Health care - msnbc.com

This article was about the Italian doctors who injected stem cells into the eyes to heal chemical burns of the eye.

"Dozens of people who were blinded or otherwise suffered severe eye damage when they were splashed with caustic chemicals had their sight restored with transplants of their own stem cells — a stunning success for the burgeoning cell-therapy field, Italian researchers reported Wednesday. "
 
wow, that is pretty new but it scares me... i hope there's no long term effects. Those people are making sacrifices but also the fact that they're in their 70's make it ok... I know it sounds ageist but I would be bummed if you get it at the age of 4 only to find that you got a brain tumor at age 14.
 
From the first article I cited (re: stem-cell treatment for the retina):

"A second experiment tested the long-term safety of the cells in mice--an important requirement for moving into human testing--and found no evidence that the cells cause tumors. "

This is in relation to clinical trials using stem-cells to treat Stargardt's disease and if successful, then patients with macular degeneration. These are clinical trials with results as yet unknown.

From the second article:

"While scientists have made huge advances using stem cells to treat diseases in animal models, testing these experimental therapies in humans poses some unique challenges. One is proving that the cells are safe: embryonic stem cells, which can develop into any tissue type in the body, carry the risk of forming tumors. Another challenge is the threat of immune rejection of the transplanted cells; in most cases, introducing foreign cells would require a patient to take powerful drugs for life to suppress the immune system, as is the case with organ transplants. For that reason, the first stem-cell therapies have focused on the eye and nervous system, so-called immune-privileged sites that do not experience this response to foreign cells."

Note that the eyes do not have the response of creating tumors, as apparently other parts of the body might. So it is NOT a concern.

From the New England Journal of Medicine, giving details:

"We studied 113 eyes from 112 patients enrolled between 1998 and 2006. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 46.5±14.4 years (range, 14 to 80), and 78.6% of them were men....

"One year after surgery, the 107 transplants were scored as success, partial success, or failure in 73 eyes (68.2%), 18 eyes (16.8%), and 16 eyes (15%), respectively (Table 1). Of 11 eyes (representing 12 grafts, since 1 eye was regrafted twice), 6 were partially successful and 5 were considered to have failed; these 11 were all regrafted with cultures prepared from frozen cells taken from the original biopsy specimen or from cells cultured from a new biopsy specimen. In 9 of these eyes, normal epithelium was regenerated after regrafting.

Thus, the final clinical outcome was classified as a success in 82 eyes (76.6%), a partial success in 14 eyes (13.1%), and a failure in 11 eyes (10.3%) (Table 1).
So with these individuals, they had nearly a 90% chance of at least partial success, and a near 77% chance of full success.

I'd take that bet in a heart-beat, if I had that type of blindness caused by a chemical burn.

The other type, the jury is still out since the clinical trials have not been done yet, but it certainly looks promising.
 
Beach girl said:
From the first article I cited (re: stem-cell treatment for the retina):

"A second experiment tested the long-term safety of the cells in mice--an important requirement for moving into human testing--and found no evidence that the cells cause tumors. "

This is in relation to clinical trials using stem-cells to treat Stargardt's disease and if successful, then patients with macular degeneration. These are clinical trials with results as yet unknown.

From the second article:

"While scientists have made huge advances using stem cells to treat diseases in animal models, testing these experimental therapies in humans poses some unique challenges. One is proving that the cells are safe: embryonic stem cells, which can develop into any tissue type in the body, carry the risk of forming tumors. Another challenge is the threat of immune rejection of the transplanted cells; in most cases, introducing foreign cells would require a patient to take powerful drugs for life to suppress the immune system, as is the case with organ transplants. For that reason, the first stem-cell therapies have focused on the eye and nervous system, so-called immune-privileged sites that do not experience this response to foreign cells."

Note that the eyes do not have the response of creating tumors, as apparently other parts of the body might. So it is NOT a concern.

From the New England Journal of Medicine, giving details:

"We studied 113 eyes from 112 patients enrolled between 1998 and 2006. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 46.5±14.4 years (range, 14 to 80), and 78.6% of them were men....

"One year after surgery, the 107 transplants were scored as success, partial success, or failure in 73 eyes (68.2%), 18 eyes (16.8%), and 16 eyes (15%), respectively (Table 1). Of 11 eyes (representing 12 grafts, since 1 eye was regrafted twice), 6 were partially successful and 5 were considered to have failed; these 11 were all regrafted with cultures prepared from frozen cells taken from the original biopsy specimen or from cells cultured from a new biopsy specimen. In 9 of these eyes, normal epithelium was regenerated after regrafting.

Thus, the final clinical outcome was classified as a success in 82 eyes (76.6%), a partial success in 14 eyes (13.1%), and a failure in 11 eyes (10.3%) (Table 1).
So with these individuals, they had nearly a 90% chance of at least partial success, and a near 77% chance of full success.

I'd take that bet in a heart-beat, if I had that type of blindness caused by a chemical burn.

The other type, the jury is still out since the clinical trials have not been done yet, but it certainly looks promising.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the article says eyes and nervous system don't require immunosuppresants?

It does NOT say they won't form tumors.
 
It says exactly that, in the first bit that I bolded - found no evidence that the cells cause tumors.
 
"A second experiment tested the long-term safety of the cells in mice--an important requirement for moving into human testing--and found no evidence that the cells cause tumors. "
 
kokonut said:
"A second experiment tested the long-term safety of the cells in mice--an important requirement for moving into human testing--and found no evidence that the cells cause tumors. "
Click to expand...

Mice lifespan is short. But I give up. Enjoy yourselves.
 
Back
Top