Blind mice see after cell transplant - Study suggests newborn cells best for transfer.

news@nature.com ^ | 8 November 2006 | Helen Pearson

[neverdem]

Close window

Published online: 8 November 2006; | doi:10.1038/news061106-10

Blind mice see after cell transplant

Study suggests newborn cells best for transfer.

Helen Pearson

A transplanted cell (green) connects up to the host retina (blue). MacLaren et al

Using a technique that may one day help blind people to see, researchers have shown in mice that retinal cells from newborns transplanted into the eyes of blind adults wire up correctly and help them to detect light.

The finding challenges conventional biological thinking, because it shows that cells that have stopped dividing are better for transplantation than the stem cells that normally make new cells.

For decades, researchers have sought a way to replace the light-detecting cells that carpet the back of our eyes — and which break down in diseases such as retinitis pigmentosa and macular degeneration. But they have struggled to find cells that will work normally after being transplanted into the eye.

To find the best cell type, researchers led by Anand Swaroop at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Robin Ali at University College London, UK, extracted cells from the retinas of mice at various times when photoreceptors are normally being generated, as embryos and after they are born. They then injected these cells into adult mouse retinas and counted how many new photoreceptors were generated.

Cells produced in the few days after birth generated the most new photoreceptors after transplantation and connected to the retina correctly, they found. These cells were destined to be photoreceptors but had not fully matured into rods, the cells that detect low light. The results are published in Nature¹.

It's very, very, very exciting.  Robert MacLaren, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London.

Injecting these cells into the eyes of partially blind mice improved the animals' sight, making their pupils react to light. "For us ophthalmologists it's very, very, very exciting," says Robert MacLaren, one of the study's authors at Moorfields Eye Hospital, London. "We can suddenly see in our minds a potential treatment."

From mice to man

It would be difficult to obtain equivalent human cells for transplantation, because they would have to come from fetuses in the first or second trimester of pregnancy. But Maclaren says that it may soon be possible to grow the correct retinal cells from adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells.

In the past there have been many attempts at transplanting tissue into the adult retina. Some researchers have transferred whole sheets of fetal retina into animals — a method that is now showing good results in tests on humans, says Robert Aramant of the company Ocular Transplantation in Louisville, Kentucky.

But these sheets do not join properly to the rest of the retina, says Thomas Reh, who studies retinal development at the University of Washington, Seattle. And transplanted stem cells have not efficiently generated new photoreceptors or restored sight. "This new work is head and shoulders above most of the other studies," Reh says.

MacLaren thinks that his cells are well suited to transplantation, because they are only one step from being adaptable stem cells and can tolerate being moved from one eye to another. Also, they are newly committed to becoming photoreceptors, so that they continue to grow into photoreceptors even after the move.

Researchers will now want to test whether newborn cells, rather than stem cells, are successful in other transplants, Reh says: "We've been doing it all wrong". Grafting new spinal neurons, for example, might help treat spinal-cord injuries.

Visit our newsblog to read and post comments about this story.

	Top

References

1. MacLaren R. E. , et al. Nature, 444 . 203 - 207 (2006). | Article |

	Top

Story from news@nature.com:
http://news.nature.com//news/2006/061106/061106-10.html

		© 2006 Nature Publishing Group | Privacy policy

[neverdem]

It would be difficult to obtain equivalent human cells for transplantation, because they would have to come from fetuses in the first or second trimester of pregnancy.

I wonder how many comments will come from that sentence.

But Maclaren says that it may soon be possible to grow the correct retinal cells from adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells.

Versus adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells? Once all this stuff is figured out, watch out!

[Coldwater Creek]

I would rather be blind!!

[neverdem]

The hidden cost of 'choice'

U of MN researchers turn cord blood into lung cells

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

[L.N. Smithee]

It would be difficult to obtain equivalent human cells for transplantation, because they would have to come from fetuses in the first or second trimester of pregnancy. But Maclaren says that it may soon be possible to grow the correct retinal cells from adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells.

Isn't it sad that this possible breakthrough will be played down because it doesn't promote the media-driven hunger for exclusively embryonic stem cell research?

[kinoxi]

I would rather be blind!!

I would not.

[kinoxi]

This article is bunk.

[chuckles]

The second sentence says they are better after they have stopped dividing. That would be ADULT stem cells. Adult means that cells are finished, not from grown up people. Cord blood cells are considered adult cells. The problem with fetal cells is they aren't finished yet. They have been implanted and grow into tumors that kill the patient in a painful horrific death.

It's time for Fox News or some other channel to have an hour show on this before it gets out of hand. The idea for fetal cells was to grow them in a petri dish. If you have to abort a baby in the 4th month or so, fetal cells have stopped changing and you might as well get them from anywhere. The political angle is "dead babies are good, and even necessary". If they can't kill a baby, there is no political use for this. If it turns out cord blood is as good as it gets, the politics will die out and cures will come forth. The Dems want a trillion dollar boondoggle that gives a science excuse to murder babies.

The reason they want federal money is to put babies in a blender and see what happens without any guilt and have a grant money job for the next 30 years. We pay people to sit in jungles and study animal feces for 20 years. You can go almost anywhere and find these people. They study ozone holes until the money runs out and then call in a panic phone call and get another 5 years to play checkers in Antarctica. We have them on the Texas coast that study crabs and mercury content. They don't do anything but catch crabs, crush them, put the sample in a machine and post the results. They drive BMW's and Hummers to their houses on the beach. Others collect pine needles and cones to check for disease and moisture content. If anyone were to decide the trees have survived for thousands of years without a gubint worker studying them, we might cut some fat from the budget. If you really want to see how this works, look up the studies done after Mt St. Helens. The scientists were all set to retire out in the woods for 20 years, but the Earth healed itself in a couple of years. The animals came back, fish in the lakes, lake cleared of debris, all on its own, without a government dollar to fix it. They had all their answers in 2-3 years, and 100% of their dire predictions were wrong.

The same people that want to grow embryo's in petri dishes and use them for science, call DNA modified vegetables "Franken Food". This is about money and abortion and always will be. It has nothing to do with cures. If there were any promise in fetal stem cells, money would be poured in from Merk, Johnson, and Johnson, etc. They already know it hasn't worked. Just saying "Stem Cells" doesn't mean anything. You need to find out if it is adult cells or fetal.

[Coldwater Creek]

Why not? You would rather be a part of the murder of little babies?

[kinoxi]

The article is bunk.

[Coldwater Creek]

you have said that article is bunk twice, but you still did not answer my question.

[kinoxi]

extracted cells from the retinas of mice at various times when photoreceptors are normally being generated

[neverdem]

The article is bunk.

Please tell me, what's so wrong with the science?

[chinche]

Why doesn't PETA protest this type of animal-abusing research? - This is just more anthro-centric cruelty toward little, blind mice! Just to see how they run.

[kinoxi]

The article is bunk. Unless you are a very wealthy mouse...

[kinoxi]

You want mouse parts transplanted inside of you enjoy. I'll watch.

[kinoxi]

The article is rat/mice experimentation.

[ReignOfError]

Why doesn't PETA protest this type of animal-abusing research?

They do.

[chinche]

Maybe I don't get around much anymore, but where do such PETA protests against baby-stem-cell-using, blind-mice-abusing research show up in the news?

[ReignOfError]

Maybe I don't get around much anymore, but where do such PETA protests against baby-stem-cell-using, blind-mice-abusing research show up in the news?

PETA opposes all animal research. Emory University here in Atlanta is one of the leading centers in the country for primate research, and the protesters drop by at least once a month. It doesn't make the news very often, because it's a dog-bites-man story.

The press, and the vast majority of Americans, have tuned them out. That's why they have to storm the stage at fashion shows or recruit naked celebrities to get attention these days.