A new found, healing process?
In terms of healing mental and physical disorders stem cell research has gained momentum giving great optimism to Parkinson’s disease sufferers. Scientists, most notably Lorraine Lacovitti a PhD professor and interim director of the Farber Institute for Neurosciences of Thomas Jefferson University, along with her research team have found that neural progenitor cells that express the gene Lmx1a are committed to the midbrain dopamine neuron lineage, but still retain proliferative capacity. As a result of these characteristics, the stage at which Lmx1a is expressed may be ideal for transplantation.
The main direction of this issue is “Identifying the subset of developing dopamine neurons and selecting those cells at the stage appropriate for their transplantation has been challenging,” according to Dr. Lacovitti. "Our research demonstrates that we are now able to grow neurons and select the ones that may work as a therapy, without the use of synthetic genes. This advance represents an important leap forward in the quest to devise a viable cell replacement therapy for Parkinson's disease”.¹
Dr. Lorraine Lacovitti and her team method to allow the repair of damaged neurons which cause Parkinson’s disease is as followed:
- Dr. Lorraine Lacovitti and her team found that a large percentage of the Lmx1a-positive cells express a cell surface protein called TrkB.
- With TrkB as a cell surface marker, dopamine neuron progenitor cells derived from human embryonic stem cells can be selected from a heterogeneous population using magnetic-activated cell sorting.
-
This has led Dr. Lacovitti and her team to test whether these cells have the ability to counteract Parkinson's disease in animal models. They will also be adapting these procedures developed in human embryonic stem cells to adult-derived human induced pluripotent stem cells¹.
This information was provided by Science Daily, they are a respectable source and I believe that they publicise accurate information to their readers. It is an online news based information source being active since 1995. It has been criticized for its refusal to provide links to the specific release on which each article is based; listing the home page of the institution responsible for the article instead. This makes it difficult for researchers and those interested to consult the actual scientific paper discussed, meaning it may not be reliable or valid. Furthermore it is not scrutinised by scientists who test the theory or discovery before publication in comparison to the New Scientist.
According to The National Parkinson Foundation, Parkinson’s disease affects one in a hundred people over the age of 60. Dopamine neurons help control movement, cognition and other critical brain functions of the individual; the problem has been finding an effective method which can reproduce these neurons¹. There have been treatments for the symptoms faced by sufferers, unfortunately none of these treatments appear to have slowed or stop the progression of the disease. Human embryonic stem cell transplantation represents the most promising method for replacement of the loss dopamine neurons, since mature dopamine cells do not survive harvest and transplantation.
New Scientist have publicised a different method that has been researched, according to them iPS cells can help with curing Parkinson’s disease having already reduced symptoms of the disease in mice. Researchers led by Rudolf Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts had announced that they had done so by first creating iPS cell lines from mouse skin cells. The iPS cells were then turned into dopamine-producing neurons and implanted into the brain of the mice in which dopamine-producing neurons had been killed, to result in the Parkinson’s disease. After four weeks the mice had showed a vast amount of improvement compared to controls, which were he suffering mice. This demonstrates the iPS cells capacity to heal Parkinson’s disease in organisms which take any shape or form. Despite there being a huge difference between treating mice and human patients it is still a major breakthrough in terms of discovering yet another method for curing Parkinson’s disease and proves that the key to achieving this is by the manipulation of dopamine cells.
The New Scientist is a reliable source which publishes accurate information for all users who are researching into a spectrum of scientific knowledge. It is scientist community based which means that any scientist will be able to voice their opinion on a particular article. Before an article is published, it may attract controversy with a new discovery, many scientists will seek out any problems it may have by testing it themselves. If they obtain the same results that would mean it is reliable and valid as a source of information because it has been scrutinized by many other experienced scientists.
Any Problems?
Stem cell research must be funded and it involving large investments, according to the Parkinson’s disease society they had funded £170k to the University of Bristol in order to make stem cells produce dopamine neurones. They have been working on a similar technique to that of Dr. Lorraine Lacovitti. The key difference in recent years has been the restraining policies which have been forced upon the American scientists; this has affected their rate of progress.
When George W. Bush was President of the US he enforced a policy which restricted federal funding on research for nearly all human embryonic stem cells. George W. Bush took this action because of the manner in which embryonic stem cells were extracted; at the expense of a healthy living embryo however a solution to overcome this delicately ethical issue has been found.
Stem cell research has been at the centre of great controversy, and the main reason for this is because of the extraction technique used, which, up until a certain point involved the death of an embryo. This means it has been portrayed as an extremely unethical practice especially because it was being backed by federal funding; taxpayers’ money was aiding the destruction of innocent life in the form of embryos. Stem cell research being funded by taxpayer’s money this means it has a huge impact on the economy, considering the costs of equipment, staff etc. The LA Times had published this article containing the diagram it has a long prestigious history in the newspaper industry and therefore the information it gives out must be respected. It is not possible to access the original source from which it obtained its report from. There are quotes from those involved in the event reported and considering this is a well established newspaper not a magazine it is likely to be genuine.
In November 2004 California spent a total of $3billion on stem cell research but allowed $295 million to annually fund projects and researchers for ten consecutive years; it is a very high profiled investment and considerably more than the UK. The UK has struggled to raise money compared to the US and it is known that some societies face an uphill task to raise just £1 million for funding.
In figure 1 it shows the number of cells which the embryo contains, it tends to vary from eight to ten. The process of the new stem cell extraction technique is displayed in the figure 2 diagram. There are three main stages, but it is important that it is used early at 3 days old. The previous method damaged a blastomere, a mass of organic stem cells and the cells removed caused the embryo to lose its structure and got damaged beyond repair however this method leaves the embryo unscathed.
This technique was developed after the old method was fiercely criticised for the destruction of an embryo. This is a very unethical issue and it is the main reason why George W. Bush decided to prevent federal funding however due to this recent development it has been overturned4.
The fact that this new development has caused a change in a US policy enforced by the former President of the US highlights the validity it has concerning the problem. It is obviously reliable due to the fact it generates the same results, this is achieved by avoiding the destruction of an embryo, it is also hugely significant to influence the reverse of a highly contested US policy.
Although arguments against it are not as forceful as the original stem cell extraction method this alternative method also attracts relative controversy due to the strong ethical issues that surrounds it, such as, the fear that an embryo that has had a cell extracted from it will be less likely to be able to implant in the womb or will not develop properly, leading to health problems in the developed child.
There are concerns with the life of the embryo after it develops into a baby, worries whether it will be healthy or damaged as a result of stem cell extraction. This is undoubtedly the most frightening risk but it is not definite that such an event will occur; these are just fears whilst the benefits of this method are evident, many lives will be saved and the elderly will stop suffering. Despite the visible difference in harm to the embryo there are still criticisms of the new method but it does not destroy embryos and this is very reassuring.
Thomas Jefferson University, “Ideal time for stem cell collection defined for Parkinson’s disease therapy”, Science Daily, November 2008, at
Wikipedia, “Parkinson’s disease”, Wikipedia, at
Peter Aldhous, “Grown to order”, New Scientist, May 2008
Noam N. Levey and Karen Kaplan, “Obama to reverse Bush policy on embryonic stem cell research”, LA Times, March 2009, at