Stem Cell ResearchEssay Preview: Stem Cell ResearchReport this essayStem Cell ResearchMiguel AmadorBiology 131November 8, 2003Stem Cell ResearchStem cells are located deep down in our bone marrow. They have the incredible ability of “generating an endless supply of red cells, white cells, and platelets”(1). They have been called the “Mother of all blood cells” due to their ability to regenerate the entire blood supply of a persons body. Just to think that this is possible is actually pretty incredible. The man who claims to be responsible for the discovery of this gem is a immunologist from Stanford University named Irving Weissman, and his collaborators at SyStemix, (a biotech company that he cofounded in 1988, located in Palo Alto, CA). He and his company are so confident about these cells, not only have they obtained a government patent on the process by which these specific cells are separated from other cells, they have also patented the cells themselves. They have even convinced Sandoz Ltd. (a giant Swiss drug-and-chemical company) to purchase 60 percent of the stock for SyStemix for a reported 392 million dollars.
Stem cells are very valuable for many reasons, some of which are as follows: by giving patients the ability to make an entirely new supply of blood, they make it possible for the immune system to regenerate itself. In doing this, it could feasibly allow medical breakthroughs for treating diseases like cancer and AIDS. There is much controversy over who actually should have taken credit for the discovery of stem cells. Back in the 1960s James Till and Ernest McCulloch (from the Ontario Cancer Institute in Toronto ) discovered that after mice were injected with bone marrow cells their spleens developed “nodules” on them, and, upon studying these nodules they noticed that they were loaded with white and red blood cells. They also discovered that, additionally, these cells were able to reproduce themselves. These men said that, “All blood cells arise from a few hematopoietic stem cells, which are hidden away in bone marrow”(2). On the average, these cells produce an ounce of new blood (260 billion new cells) every day. Weissman was studying medicine at Stanford when the before mentioned men developed their theory, and it fascinated him. He decided to pursue the study and see where he could go with it. He soon began to study white cells backwards, from maturity to early cells. At the same time, the rest of the researcher were discovering the same thing.
One man, in particular, Jan Visser, developed a strategy for separating these stem cells from other cells in blood. He fine tuned his strategy by making small changes in what he was doing, which broke down the number of cells to smaller and smaller groups, until finally, he narrowed it down and he figured that there is approximately one stem cell per 10,000 cells. Visser had his original results published in the Journal of Experimental Medicine in 1984, and four years later, Weissman announced in the journal Science that he and his colleagues had found the mouses stem cell. It was Weissmans article that drew headlines, while Vissers only drew polite praise. Visser notes ironically, The Journal of Experimental medicine is considered scientifically one of the best journals. Science is more popular.
It was the Weissman team that took a much more narrow approach to separating the cells, they used a variety of monoclonal antibodies, each with a specific ability to single out certain proteins on certain cells. In my opinion, this is how science works. Science is based on someone figuring something out, and another person comes along later and makes it better. It is called advancement. The problem with what Weissman did, was that he claimed all responsibility for discovering stem cells and separating cells and gave no credit to Visser or anyone else who had made huge leaps forward with the advancement of stem cell research. Since being called on doing that, it has been noted that Weissman now acknowledges Vissers work. Weissman claims to
The Science
Weissman is also a major coauthor of the current paper by Ostrom and coworkers. In fact, they all write:
The goal of MMP is to remove cell markers and/or to stimulate cell death. When these marker functions are not met (meaning they are still there, even when the disease has not yet been treated), the cells become sick and lose their capabilities (the cells themselves not so much). For this reason, we are doing three steps when the molecular markers are removed.
After removing the markers (which are usually a mixture of cells with distinct functions) the cell can still function normally but can’t completely eliminate the markers and thus it is important that we remove the markers by removing the non-target-producing cell line. To this end, we are doing MMP. One major problem with MMP, is that it replaces an already existing enzyme that was associated with a “molecular marker” — thus, if the molecular marker is not deleted by a cell, the cells cannot develop any cells. It is also possible that we can remove MMP from the cell so as to do away with the molecular marker.
So, by using a combination of both biological engineering and molecular engineering, MMP achieves similar goals. However, it doesn’t solve the problems associated with preventing disease and so it’s not well suited to a particular disease or the current health laws. To do it, you need to do something unique to the disease vector: remove the non-target-producing cell line from your cell line.
The Science
Most of the basic problems with MMP and the work it does are based upon the results from studies from the last years and have very little in common with MMP. So, by using methods that are clearly designed to reduce the risk of disease, you can eliminate some of these problems in your research. One way to do this is by using a new form of molecular engineering. This means that instead of looking at a single, complex protein, instead you need to see how it affects each individual cell before it creates any new molecules in its genome. One technique that this new technology can achieve is to use a single amino acid with a different function than the way the genome functiones as a whole.
When the single function ends, or what is known as the “unified protein backbone” is formed to complete the entire protein backbone. In this way, the new molecular markers can be used to “remove” the non-target-producing cell line, remove its genetic elements, remove the non-target-producing cell lines, and reduce the disease. Thus, to accomplish this goal, you need to separate the cellular infrastructure (the proteins, the DNA components, and then the disease vector components) that you target with different cell pathways and make sure they all work together.
If your target is an organ or tissue you may already have (but you