A group of scientists claim that they have treated Parkinson's disease in mice by using cloned embryonic stem cells.
The researchers at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City said they used somatic-cell nuclear transfer , also known as "therapeutic cloning," in creating a customized treatment for Parkinson's in mice, according to an announcement released Sunday by the organization.
In their research, the scientists used skin cells from the tail of mice to generate dopamine brain cells, the neurons that are found missing in victims of Parkinson's disease.
When the so-called dopamine brain cells were inserted into the mice which provided the initial cells, the subjects showed neurological improvement, according to the study's results, which were published in the March 23 online edition of the journal Nature Medicine.
However, mice that received brain cells not derived from their own skins cells did not recover.
This is the first time that researchers have used "therapeutic cloning" to treat disease in the same subjects from whom the initial cells were derived," the cancer center stated in the news release.
"It demonstrated what we suspected all along – that genetically matched tissue works better," Viviane Tabar, one of the study's researchers, told Reuters.
"When you give the other type of tissue, non-autologous tissue, you get more inflammation than we anticipated. This is in a lab animal where we expect it to be tolerant. Normally when you do this in mice, you don't give matched cells," she added.
Taber described the process as "incredibly hard."
Scientists have noted that the treatment has only been applied to mice and not humans.
"Therapeutic cloning" is controversial because it involves creating an embryo for the purpose of harvesting its stem cells. Stem cells are prized as the master cells of the body with the potential to develop into other cells and tissue.
Pro-life groups, who consider harvesting tantamount to destroying human life, say the application of the cloning technique in humans would undermine the sanctity of human life.
They maintain that embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce a single cure or treatment for degenerative diseases and implore scientists to consider more promising stem cell research, including adult stem cell research.
Last year, scientists in Japan said they were able to produce cells with embryonic-like qualities by re-programming the genes in adult skins cells.
Although pro-life groups originally hailed the breakthrough technique as the answer to their ethical concerns in stem cell research, some later objected to the use of embryonic stem cells in the re-programming process.
Tabar said in the Reuters report that her team will also attempt apply these so-called induced pluripotent stem cells to treat mice in the method described in the study.
I wasn't referring to the sheep, simply to the comments of the sheep's creator, to indicate apparent procedural differences.
You said "What I am saying is this, if we can harvest growable stemcells from skin cells ....." This falls into the category of "adult stem cell research". And I, for one, am unclear as to the final product these two apparently different procedures actually end up producing. Do we end up with an actual viable embryo that would produce a living entity of the kind used (i.e. a mouse, a cat, a sheep, or a human), or do we end up with simply a non-viable (as to producing an actual living entity of it's kind) product that acts as a host for living simple stem cells that will then be used to create the actual cells that we need. You might think that there is a simple answer to this question, but I'm not sure it's so simple. Procedures devised by man oftentimes don't result in the expected outcome. Take Dolly the sheep for example. She was a clone, the idea is that she would be exactly the same as the original. And indeed she was born a sheep, but the truth was that she had all kinds of problems not found in the original.
With my medical background, I am somewhat more versed in the complexity of a living cell than the average citizen. There will no doubt need to be much more research before we actually do know the final outcome of what we are now producing. However, to answer your question, if we could produce a stem cell fully capable of retaining the capability to produce variable differentiated cells, without causing the destruction of a viable embryo, then I agree the benefit for treatment would be very significant. I just wish I could generate a more hopeful outlook on man's willingness to do so within a fully ethical construct.