Custom Grown Organ Tranplanted!!!!
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
yea concidering that 85% of the US is neg (i think thats what i read, dont ask me to find it again because its amongst a stack of notes for bio 12 stories high
) that gives them the ability to create a universal surplie from 85% of the population. Pritty useful
) that gives them the ability to create a universal surplie from 85% of the population. Pritty useful
Easy as easy does, removing antigen markers without damaging the cells has only be possible recently. The process has also be used to strip markers on neural stem cells in experiments with treating Parkinson by injections of striped pig fetus neurons to the brain.
lysis, sure. This process seems to have got around that problem using enzymes very specific to removing surface Glycoproteins.
Your tag line is "What would Jack Do?", is that Jack Bauer, as in 24? If so, are you excited about Sundays season opener?
Nearly 300 patients have been treated in Aastrom's system, which extract a relatively small number of the patient's own cell's and then select the adult stems cells and in relatively short time (a few weeks or less) multiplies them to a therapeutic quantity, without causing them to begin to differentia or specialize. Initial patients had degenerative bone ends. Then PAD patients were added to their trials. Recently a few patients have been in very advanced stages of heart failure. See more details at: WWW.aastrom.com
The company is economically hard pressed, may be delisted. I own a small position in it as I think they have the correct approach to "personalized medicine" via stem cell therapy. The cost of finding a suitable donor is avoided; the complex processing of not suitable donor tissue is avoided; a life time on immunological suppression drug (and the associated risk) is avoided.
While much can be learned by what has been recently done, the cost of personalized medicine must be controlled if it is to ever play a significant role in the health care system.
The company is economically hard pressed, may be delisted. I own a small position in it as I think they have the correct approach to "personalized medicine" via stem cell therapy. The cost of finding a suitable donor is avoided; the complex processing of not suitable donor tissue is avoided; a life time on immunological suppression drug (and the associated risk) is avoided.
While much can be learned by what has been recently done, the cost of personalized medicine must be controlled if it is to ever play a significant role in the health care system.
While I'm sure that's true, is it really that much more expensive to grow an organ from your own stem cells when you factor in the fact that you'll not require years of immunosuppresive therapy and will not require treatment for the inevitable side effects of that therapy?
The dream is for organ pharming were GM animals grow organs with human immunomarkers or even grow patient specific organs from implanted stem cells in a host animal. At present it has been achieved with growing cartilage in nude mice, as well as several pseudo-organ experiments which managed to produce partially formed organ like tissue in host animals.
Your text I made bold is not required with Astrom's thearpy of post 28 as ONLY your own cells are used.
If, however, you have a poorly performing essential organ, and can repair it with your own, briefly externally cultured cells in a fully automatic sterile machine, is that not the best option?
If the organ is essential and you are alive, you have the basics structure for the stem cells to regenerate in to restore the organ. Aastrom has had many successes or partial success with this approach, and as far as I know, no total failures. (Patients have died while the treated organ was getting stronger.)
If the organ is not necessary for life, or humans have a spare, like the kidney, then not much demand for a replacement unless they were very cheap and did not require a life on immunosuppresive therapy.
If, however, you have a poorly performing essential organ, and can repair it with your own, briefly externally cultured cells in a fully automatic sterile machine, is that not the best option?
If the organ is essential and you are alive, you have the basics structure for the stem cells to regenerate in to restore the organ. Aastrom has had many successes or partial success with this approach, and as far as I know, no total failures. (Patients have died while the treated organ was getting stronger.)
Last edited by a moderator:
That was my point. You commented on the expense associated with custom medical care, and I was pointing out that the lack of a need for immunosuppresive therapy and its associated side effects represents a significant savings.
Work-arounds can be thought up. Perhaps the liver or kidney repair can be piecemeal or done by implanting small batches of cells. The new cells grow in like healing tissue. A pancreas might receive manufactured Langerhan cells. A piece of heart muscle or a heart valve could be manufactured. How about a heart valve replacement that doesn't require the user to be treated with blood thinners for the rest of his life?
Instead of replacing the organ, re-condition it. Also, maybe they can do something with telomerase to make the replacement tissue young.
Instead of replacing the organ, re-condition it. Also, maybe they can do something with telomerase to make the replacement tissue young.
I agree with all of this, but there is also cancer, that can attack only one kidney in addition to the trauma you mention. I really was just trying to illustrate that some organs are not essential to life and thus would rarely be replaced with new externally grown ones, even if the cost were reduced 100 fold but lifetime immulogical suppression was required; not really comment on the kidney. - Certainly if you do not have at least one kidney functioning well, your life expectancy is very much shortened even if you can afford your own dialysis machine.
BTW, there is great promise that an artificial liver machine soon will be available (or if one exists, greatly improved). I own a little stock in company working on that. See www.hepalife.com for more on it. Many, if not most, new drugs being developed that fail due to toxic side effect do so by poising the liver. To even get to the human trials and discover this, millions have been spent. The saving available if one could screen for liver failure in Hepalife's artificial liver as it is based on living liver cells, not physical / chemical processing as is done with dialysis machine. Even if it is never directly used for human therapy, it will speed and lower the cost of developing drugs and thus still save many lives (as well as make money, I think, by saving millions for these drug developers.)
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought that the replacement part itself left people prone to clotting.
Metakron
not as far as i know, actually it would make no sence that it would. The body naturally repairs itself all the time, with no hole to trigger the clotting cascade why would it cause clotting? an immune responce YES but clotting no. The aterialscolorosis which required the double, tripple bipass or the valve repair cause clots because they cause "dead" areas in the blood flow which alows clots to build in these shallows kind of like dead wood and other floating rubbish acumilates in dead areas of really fast rivers.
not as far as i know, actually it would make no sence that it would. The body naturally repairs itself all the time, with no hole to trigger the clotting cascade why would it cause clotting? an immune responce YES but clotting no. The aterialscolorosis which required the double, tripple bipass or the valve repair cause clots because they cause "dead" areas in the blood flow which alows clots to build in these shallows kind of like dead wood and other floating rubbish acumilates in dead areas of really fast rivers.