Scientists Use Virus To Reprogram Adult Cells In Mice 36
n2hightech writes "Harvard University scientists figured out how to activate a trio of dormant genes that commanded non-insulin producing pancreas cells to switch to the Beta type insulin producing cells. The method uses an engineered virus to infect the cells and deliver special proteins that activate the dormant genes. This technology has the potential to make all stem cell based methods obsolete because it does not pose the risk of rejection and cancer associated with stem cells. A simple injection into the area where cells need to be reprogrammed is all that is required." Gospodin adds a link to coverage at the Washington Post.
Think of the pr0n implications! (Score:4, Funny)
How could you not highlight the most important implication! It may now be possible to inject different body parts and grow genitals on all sorts of different parts of the body! Double penetration!? Try Quadruple! See that man - he's a dickhead. No really, we injected his head and there is now a penis growing out of his scalp! I propose all politicians be injected in the scalp.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
See that man - he's a dickhead. No really, we injected his head and there is now a penis growing out of his scalp! I propose all politicians be injected in the scalp.
As opposed to just Republicans as it is now.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I Am Legend in real life? (Score:1)
I just watched that durned movie recently, and now this? :)
Hah ok (Score:5, Interesting)
I did research in this field as far back as '01! Using viruses to induce genetic changes is neither novel or new.
The biggest challenge isn't engineering the genes you want to inject or getting the virus, or using the virus as a transport for those genes. Instead the hardest part is by far the delivery - which the author so callously disregards as being trivial and why it will replace stem cells.
Its extremely difficult to achieve targeted delivery of the virus and even more so for a diffuse dissemination of the virus as to coat multiple cells.
So yea it works, it has worked in animals due to their diminutive size. However, it is difficult, if not impossible to ever implement it in humans - mice yes, humans no.
If this gets reported on slashdot so should the dozens of similar articles that get published yearly with similar procedures for various other congenital conditions - neurological, muscular etc.
Re:Hah ok (Score:5, Interesting)
You're mis-interpreting the article. This isn't sending viruses to introduce new DNA into species where it never was, this is getting cells to "switch on" dormant genes in that cell type, so that they act like another.
For example, in your body, different genes are active in nerve cells, than in cardiac cells. That's WHY they're "differentiated" into those cell types, even though the underlying genetic code is identical for every cell in your body. The technique being talked about in this article is to "switch on" the genes they want in a specific place, not introducing new DNA.
So while you may be right about your points on spreading new DNA, that is not what is occurring here.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Plasmids are "small" DNA molecules, usually ring shaped. Using plasmids would be introducing new DNA into the cell. This article is about activating existing DNA.
Quite interesting implications in treating any disease that is caused by body cells no longer doing what they're supposed to do (such as diabetes)... And probably deactivation would be about as easy as activation, so also implications for diseases that are caused by cells doing stuff they aren't supposed to do (maybe even generic cancer treatment,
Re: (Score:1)
Super Mice? (Score:2)
Tag this "supermice". Once again, advances in super mouse research have delivered another break through to further separate man from mouse. As no one was watching, smarter, strong, custom tailored mice one day took over the world...
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome our genetically engineered mouse overlords!
Re: (Score:1)
I sure hope not. I like that meme. Besides, our current overlords are so incompetent and pathetic, genetically-engineered mice surely must be better.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought viruses targeted cellular membrane surface molecules (glycoproteins? It's been a while) unique to a given tissue, which is why cold viruses don't infect your liver, etc.? If this assumption is correct, then the problem is in both identifying that unique surface marker and figuring out how to use it to enable the virus to deliver it's contents.
Impressive on many levels (Score:5, Interesting)
I think what we'll see in the decades to come is a clear roadmap of the cellular signals that differentiate cells from one another. This is the basis of more practical technologies such as organ replacement and repair, which has a good chance of extending longevity.
Re:Impressive on many levels (Score:5, Informative)
Just to point out, the more informative full article is at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature07314.html [nature.com]
Don't know if you can get the PDF, I think it needs a subscription, but in the paper, they are in fact using viral delivery.
Also a technical note, induced pluripotent stem cells, the ones that made headlines last year, can definitely be adult cells. I believe they took fibroblasts from a 60 year old man, transformed them using viruses, and made the pluripotent cells. So it's not correct to say "they didn't use pluripotent cells, but rather adult cells."
Link to the article here (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature07314.html [nature.com]
This is absurd, I had to go through three different links to find it.
In case any of you were wondering, the mysterious three genes they used were the transcription factors "Ngn3 (also known as Neurog3) Pdx1 and Mafa," which are NOT the same as the induced pluripotent stem cell magic transcription factors. In those cases I think it was Oct4, Nanog, and c-myc.
Anyway, I find it interesting that an Ngn was used, I thought those caused neuronal differentiation.
Re:Link to the article here (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, also to point out, the differences between this and that is that in the induced pluripotent stem cells, there was a high chance of causing tumors. Two of the virally transfected genes (I think nanog and c-myc) were oncogenes, and the IPS cells caused teratomas. These people found that you didn't have to revert the cells all the way back to something that could produce a teratoma.
In other words, you probably are far less likely to develop horrible tumors as a result of this treatment than the previous ones.
It is worth pointing out that viruses tend to deliver genes without reguard for location. There could be some that are targeted and I wouldn't know about it, but from what I've heard, there is still a possibility these viral vectors could plant the genes in the middle of a gene that prevents cancer, destroying it's function, and giving you cancer.
(The inevitable "I am legend" reference, on the other hand, has no theoretical basis, and is a little like me saying "Terminator!!!" every time someone talks about linux.)
Re: (Score:2)
(The inevitable "I am legend" reference, on the other hand, has no theoretical basis, and is a little like me saying "Terminator!!!" every time someone talks about linux.)
Sure it has no basis, but can you really be 100% sure that what you are doing won't somehow go wrong? And in I Am Legend this was very very similar to what happened, with the terminator it was basically machines that could think, and no matter how great Linux is, it can't really think now can it? (Well, perhaps the kernel running on Linus' box might be able to...)
Re: (Score:2)
WHEN IS THAT NOT TRUE?!? 100% certainty in anything is impossible. You can't be 100% certain that by sitting down right now you won't damage some cells in your butt just right to make a horrible earth-ending virus which will kill everyone on earth. Astronomically, unimaginably unlikely, but can you really take that risk?
Yes. Much the same, given proper animal testing first, we can safely assume we're no
Hope it doesn't cause cancer (Score:2)
I hope it doesn't cause cancer. Pancreas cancers are the worst killers, because they are very hard to operate.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I hope it doesn't cause cancer. Pancreas cancers are the worst killers, because they are very hard to operate.
What doesn't cause cancer these days?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What doesn't cause cancer these days?
Dying young.
this is great news (Score:1)
It's clear they're using a viral capsule ... (Score:2)
It's clear they're using a viral capsule for delivery - from a virus that normally targets the cell type the want to transform.
But I'm curious as to what they're delivering:
1) The transcription regulatory proteins?
2) Messenger RNA coding for the proteins (resulting in limited production of the proteins until the RNA "times out").
3) DNA (or RNA plus a RNA-directed DNA polymerase) to add new code to the cell iteslf?
4) A modified virus deleting most of the virus code and adding
"Penis" enlargement program now available... (Score:1)