Comments on: Scientists Grow World’s First Engineered Urethra, Created From Patients’ Cells http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/03/08/scientists-grow-worlds-first-engineered-urethra-created-from-patients-cells/ 80beats is DISCOVER's news aggregator, weaving together the choicest tidbits from the best articles covering the day's most compelling topics. Wed, 23 May 2012 16:07:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Sam http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/03/08/scientists-grow-worlds-first-engineered-urethra-created-from-patients-cells/comment-page-1/#comment-702335 Sam Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:18:59 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=27171#comment-702335 Discovery Blog, You are correct! That's my point, but more succinct. And, yes, it has opened a new horizon in medical science. These types of things have been done in mice and rats, but it is very encouraging to see success in humans. Thank you for the article. Discovery Blog,

You are correct! That’s my point, but more succinct. And, yes, it has opened a new horizon in medical science. These types of things have been done in mice and rats, but it is very encouraging to see success in humans. Thank you for the article.

]]> By: Discovery Blog http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/03/08/scientists-grow-worlds-first-engineered-urethra-created-from-patients-cells/comment-page-1/#comment-701142 Discovery Blog Fri, 11 Mar 2011 05:02:34 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=27171#comment-701142 I am not a science guy like you people. But whatever info I could get from this post is really exciting and interesting. Grafting an engineered-from-scratch urethras by using the patients’ own cells has opened up a new horizon in medical science... I think I am not a science guy like you people. But whatever info I could get from this post is really exciting and interesting. Grafting an engineered-from-scratch urethras by using the patients’ own cells has opened up a new horizon in medical science… I think

]]> By: Sam http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/03/08/scientists-grow-worlds-first-engineered-urethra-created-from-patients-cells/comment-page-1/#comment-700947 Sam Fri, 11 Mar 2011 03:30:42 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=27171#comment-700947 Wow, David... That's a pretty biased opinion you have there. I guess it's not surprising you throw a plug in there glorifying your own research (and your company!). Let's not kid ourselves, though; it's no Nature paper. If you are so thoroughly convinced that your drug is THE method for reversing kidney disease, then you have shared in the proverbial ball dropping. I'm also not sure from where you derive your opinion that, "...a drug has already proven to be far superior to efforts at tissue engineering." Tissue engineering is in its infancy, whereas drug therapeutics date back to before history was being kept. It's disheartening to witness someone with your credentials poo-poo these types of findings. You also cherry-pick your example, citing the kidney, an organ with which you obviously have much expertise. How about the liver, though? It consists primarily of two cell types. Could one not recapitulate these types of results toward hepatic application? How about cardiac muscle? Neurons? I think you know the answer to those questions. Also, if you know anything about mesoderm progenitor cells, then you would know one cell is capable of forming many different cell types, and once committed to this lineage the frequency of teratoma formation is extremely low (even in unsorted cells). This is like taking the ingredients that can be combined to build your house AND your driveway, and squashing them into one component: it can become anything you please with the proper instructions. Therefore, Dr., your argument is flawed. The author of your post (you) are clearly not a stem cell biologist or a scientist. I do agree that your approach toward the kidney may be a viable option, but stem cell and iPS cell-based therapy are the future, like it or not. If you fail to recognize this then you may again "drop the ball public health-wise". Wow, David… That’s a pretty biased opinion you have there. I guess it’s not surprising you throw a plug in there glorifying your own research (and your company!). Let’s not kid ourselves, though; it’s no Nature paper. If you are so thoroughly convinced that your drug is THE method for reversing kidney disease, then you have shared in the proverbial ball dropping. I’m also not sure from where you derive your opinion that, “…a drug has already proven to be far superior to efforts at tissue engineering.” Tissue engineering is in its infancy, whereas drug therapeutics date back to before history was being kept.
It’s disheartening to witness someone with your credentials poo-poo these types of findings. You also cherry-pick your example, citing the kidney, an organ with which you obviously have much expertise. How about the liver, though? It consists primarily of two cell types. Could one not recapitulate these types of results toward hepatic application? How about cardiac muscle? Neurons? I think you know the answer to those questions.
Also, if you know anything about mesoderm progenitor cells, then you would know one cell is capable of forming many different cell types, and once committed to this lineage the frequency of teratoma formation is extremely low (even in unsorted cells). This is like taking the ingredients that can be combined to build your house AND your driveway, and squashing them into one component: it can become anything you please with the proper instructions. Therefore, Dr., your argument is flawed. The author of your post (you) are clearly not a stem cell biologist or a scientist.
I do agree that your approach toward the kidney may be a viable option, but stem cell and iPS cell-based therapy are the future, like it or not. If you fail to recognize this then you may again “drop the ball public health-wise”.

]]> By: terry http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/03/08/scientists-grow-worlds-first-engineered-urethra-created-from-patients-cells/comment-page-1/#comment-698312 terry Wed, 09 Mar 2011 23:14:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=27171#comment-698312 Fantastic. I suffered circumcision under the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons directive to circumcise every boy born in Ontario starting around 1946. I suffered like any rape victim would with flash backs and fear, eventually complaining to and then abandoning my mother. By 1997 I was restoring but here it is 2011 and I am still in trouble physically and mentally. I see hope finally in fixing something that was not broken. How about it Ontario politicians ? terry Fantastic.
I suffered circumcision under the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons directive to circumcise every boy born in Ontario starting around 1946. I suffered like any rape victim would with flash backs and fear, eventually complaining to and then abandoning my mother. By 1997 I was restoring but here it is 2011 and I am still in trouble physically and mentally. I see hope finally in fixing something that was not broken. How about it Ontario politicians ?
terry

]]> By: David Moskowitz MD FACP http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/03/08/scientists-grow-worlds-first-engineered-urethra-created-from-patients-cells/comment-page-1/#comment-697660 David Moskowitz MD FACP Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:07:59 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/?p=27171#comment-697660 The author of this blog is clearly not a biochemist. Life depends on molecules, and a drug has already proven to be far superior to efforts at tissue engineering. There's a big difference between a urethra, which has only one or two cell types, and an entire kidney, which has hundreds, put together in the most intricate way, which we still don't understand. It's roughly the difference between your driveway and your house: building one doesn’t mean you have a clue how to build the other. It's fair to say that we won't be printing kidneys any time soon. On the other hand, my paper showing how to prevent 90% of kidney failure just by popping the right dose of the right pill was published in 2002. If it had gotten the slightest media attention, there would be no waiting list now for cadaver kidneys; there'd be more than enough kidneys for the relatively few kidney patients who still needed them. No living donors would be necessary. And money wouldn't be wasted on trying to print kidneys. Indeed, 450,000 American dialysis patients wouldn't have died unnecessarily, the equivalent of 9 Vietnam Wars, and $225 billion could have been saved from unnecessary dialysis. The tragic waste of taxpayers’ lives and money continues. With silly stories like this one, one gets the feeling the waste may be deliberate. My paper, and the three confirmatory papers that appeared after 2002, are referenced in http://www.genomed.com/images/guyot_dec09nl.pdf, along with a surprising list of who's dropped the ball public health-wise (hint: everybody). My company, GenoMed (www.genomed.com), nevertheless intends to make the world dialysis-free by 2020. Anybody with diabetes or high blood pressure should contact us before they lose more than half their kidney function. Above a serum creatinine of 2 mg/dl, we can't help them, any more than Dr Atala and his printer will ever be able to. As we Baby Boomers first learned how to say in the 1960s, it's time to get real. The author of this blog is clearly not a biochemist. Life depends on molecules, and a drug has already proven to be far superior to efforts at tissue engineering.

There’s a big difference between a urethra, which has only one or two cell types, and an entire kidney, which has hundreds, put together in the most intricate way, which we still don’t understand. It’s roughly the difference between your driveway and your house: building one doesn’t mean you have a clue how to build the other. It’s fair to say that we won’t be printing kidneys any time soon.

On the other hand, my paper showing how to prevent 90% of kidney failure just by popping the right dose of the right pill was published in 2002. If it had gotten the slightest media attention, there would be no waiting list now for cadaver kidneys; there’d be more than enough kidneys for the relatively few kidney patients who still needed them. No living donors would be necessary. And money wouldn’t be wasted on trying to print kidneys.

Indeed, 450,000 American dialysis patients wouldn’t have died unnecessarily, the equivalent of 9 Vietnam Wars, and $225 billion could have been saved from unnecessary dialysis. The tragic waste of taxpayers’ lives and money continues. With silly stories like this one, one gets the feeling the waste may be deliberate.

My paper, and the three confirmatory papers that appeared after 2002, are referenced in http://www.genomed.com/images/guyot_dec09nl.pdf, along with a surprising list of who’s dropped the ball public health-wise (hint: everybody).

My company, GenoMed (www.genomed.com), nevertheless intends to make the world dialysis-free by 2020. Anybody with diabetes or high blood pressure should contact us before they lose more than half their kidney function. Above a serum creatinine of 2 mg/dl, we can’t help them, any more than Dr Atala and his printer will ever be able to. As we Baby Boomers first learned how to say in the 1960s, it’s time to get real.

]]>