My BIL sent me a link to a video on cell regeneration, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhi4Q8EDTU. I watched it and wondered if this would be a possibility for AD (e.g. regenerating the brain). There are obviously a lot of questions about it but it does sound interesting. Take a look. I'm interested in what your reactions and thoughts are.
This is remarkable--science may be on the brink of a process beyond our wildest dreams--it is possible. I have been following stem cell research for several years and want to make comments here that I hope will not cause any fuss. I have no political or religious feelings about embryonic stem cells. But, putting the cells of an embryo into an AD brain makes me feel very uncomfortable on many levels. There is the whole idea of rejection, even tho supporters claim that they can eventually control that; can one ever be certain just what's in the cells of another that may be negative to the recipient; and even if enough cells could be developed to replace those lost to AD, how can they restore personal memories. I've always been of the opinion that our own adult stem cells can be manipulated just as embryonic stem cells can be--so why not use our own. It bothers me that a gazillion dollars have been voted on my voters to study embryonic stem calls, but adult stem cells, cord stem cells & cord stem cell banks get little--if any attention. I am sad to say that I think it has become more political than scientific--and as of today, more tax dollars are being thrown at it. To learn more about adult stems cells and their successful research vs embryonic stem cells, please visit: www.stemcellresearch.org. I have also felt from the very beginning that diminished blood flow to the brain and resultant diminished oxygen has a lot to do w/AD. Whether or not that causes the AD or if AD causes diminished blood flow, no one knows. In my husband's case, I think it was a recessive gene plus a chosen stress-filled life style that had a lot to do with it, but if I really knew the answers, I'd be famous by now. Nonetheless, the above sounds very promising--maybe not yet for AD, but certainly for other things.
I agree about stem cell research. From all I have heard and read adult stem cells, and umbilical cord stem cells have shown more promise than embryonic. They can do the same things with these cells as embryonic, so why do they push the embryonic? I guess that is politics.
I've heard about stem cell research in this area and I understand some countries have had some success. There are ethical issues, political, and religous issues and obviously many points of views about it. Science does seem to show some promise.
I just listened to a commentator on the radio who was talking about adult vs embryonic stem cells. The adult stem cells can be tested to see if they are a match to the patient. The embrionic cells cannot and they could be rejected like stated above. I don't know how I feel about the entire thing. Interesting topic.
My understanding is that the way things are dealt with now, most labs doing stem cell research have to keep separate expensive set-ups for both the government-sanctioned "lines" of stem cells (already in use before the changes wrought by the Bush administration) and the ones they get, legally, from private labs which are in different lines. So it's wasteful to operate as they do now, but they continue with it because it is basic research which needs to go on, even if it's found in the end that skin cells can be used. I hope skin cells CAN be used instead of embryonic; I suspect just about everyone does. But being able to use embryonic stem cells before they're discarded, to establish new lines, would possibly hasten the day of no longer needing them. I'm as squeamish about using them as anyone (but not on religious grounds) Basic research - the basis of all progress in science.
UCLA team creates functional neurons from adult somatic cells
Researchers at UCLA have accomplished a task that has long vexed stem cell researchers: They’ve created the first electrically active neurons from induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. This is a great leap forward for stem cell researchers, who can apply these neurons to the study of neurodegenerative diseases.
I was told several years ago by a leading AD researcher that stem cell implants wouldn't be helpful to cure/treat AD. To oversimplify it, the brain is too complicated. Sunshyne, can you weigh in on this?
That's what I've been told, too, Marilyn. So far, they've had problems trying to figure out how to treat Parkinson's that way, which theoretically is much "simpler".
But there are many different aspects of stem cell research, and I suspect that some of them might turn out to be helpful. For example, we now know that there are stem cells in the brain. They must be there for a reason. So perhaps we can eventually figure out what signals cause a brain stem cell to start to differentiate, and then turn those signalling molecules into a medicine to treat dementia.
Why don't you work on that (figuring out "what signals cause a brain stem cell to start to differentiate") in your spare time? Sure hope someone is doing it!