Stem Cells

Admittedly I haven't researched each nuanced detail over the variety of therapeutic stem cells. (Embyronic, Fetal, Adult, Amniotic, Induced pluripotent) Needless to say each of these have their own particular advantages or disadvantages in the prospective treatments they're intended for.

For instance, the use of embryonic stem cells achieves a greater breadth in generating new cells, but also carries the risk of inducing host autoimmune reactions which can be more devastating than the illness they were intended to treat.

I'm no expert on these issues, but I am much more excited about the clinical research that has been undertaken thusfar (using the author's preference of stem cell type) in treating previously intractable chronic illnesses.
-----------------------------------------

My attention is mainly focused on diseases of the brain. Current medicine is able to slow progression of neurodegenerative diseases as well as treat symptoms in the various types of illnesses. But in issues of neurodegeneration, there hasn't been a time when scientists could replenish the mind. Damage done by stroke or other vascular damages were in most regards permanent. A man in the mid 1800s suffered a severe TBI when a pipe went through his skull, he however was able to recover from his illness and retain nearly complete mental faculty. The illustration of which, is that throughout history and to this time period as well, we have more or less relied on the brain's innate ability for plasticity in recovering from damage.

I say more or less, because certain medications, such as ssris have been shown to increase a phenomenon known as neurogenesis which has been able to effectively grow new neurons in the adult brain in the dentate gyrus region and extending throughout the CA divisions (some studies showing growth in the CA1 region of the hippocampus after neurogenesis)

But, considering that for all intents and purposes most neurodegenerative diseases as we know them (parkinsons, dementia, Battens disease etc etc) are damaging areas that modern and historical science has not been able to remedy.

Until now.

We know that neurons grown from stem cells are able to provide added functionality to the adult brain. That structural growth of the brain is not limited to the embryonic, prenatal, perinatal, and early post natal periods. We know this early on from the study of the hippocampus. That the brain naturally is growing neurons in this structure, and that after the growth occurs, it results in functional improvement in symptoms of depression and anxiety as well as improved memory of both the working and spatial type have been confirmed by a myriad of studies.

The significance of these findings is that it is possible for stem cells to become neurons within the brain's environment and in addition for them to grow connections to the existing neuronal network, and to have the effect of improving functional ability.

This is all that is needed to provide the sound theoretical framework of the use of stem cells in the treatment of all types of neurodegenerative disorders.

Now, a critical reader will say, not so fast! The framework is not complete. What about the safety of stem cells? What is to prevent these cells from growing too fast and creating tumors? A series of case studies on children with Batten's disease in which stem cells were injected in multiple areas all across the brain showed that the stem cells were safely incorporated into the brain and the result of which shows that it is indeed theoretically safe to inject massive amounts of stem cells into the brain. This completes the framework.

The simplest disorders to treat, will most probably be those whose area of pathology is focused into discrete regions of the brain, and whose types of cells are rather homogenous in this region and of a smaller area of destruction.

Take for example Parkinson's disease. From pathological studies of this disease, it results from a critical loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra region of the midbrain. A case study from earlier in this decade in which a young patient with parkinson's underwent a stem cell trial in the half of the brain that corresponded with their symptoms (in this case the bradykinesia was present in the left side only) experienced complete remission of their motor symptoms in a period of a few months. The progress was upheld for many years thereafter until, the other side (the side the stem cells did not treat for) began experiencing motor symptoms. What this shows us, is that the stem cells were able to again mature into fully integrated neurons in a region that brain had not previously designated an area for stem cell growth (i.e. outside of the hippocampus)

The results of this case study again: show us that the stem cells were able to grow and mature into neurons, that they were able to integrate into the surrounding neuronal network and that they were able to provide functional (i.e. improvement in motor symptoms) improvement in the patient. In addition, the patient did not experience brain tumors nor other signiciant adverse effects. It remains to reason then, the the stem cells are being instructed by surrounding biosignals of some type unknown to me but that of course lies in the surrounding integrity of the DNA in the cells. That these instructions are precise enough so as to do the work essentially for us in integrating these new cells into functional structures.

The treatment of parkinsons in this manner has been furthered by recent work on mice with parkinsons disease which have again shown functional improvement of the motor symptoms.

To my knowledge there are now studies being conducted in the UK on using stem cells for treating stroke damage.

This is an incredibly exciting time and I look forward to reading the results.