Cell/Tissue Regeneration

[Buffalo Souljah]

...Researchers think a gene called p21 may control regenerative healing, and that by switching it off, humans could perform our own regeneration. The new research suggests that the potential to heal without scarring -- or possibly even to regrow a limb, albeit in a limited manner -- may lie dormant in human cells, kept in check by the p21 gene. A group of lab mice engineered to lack p21 were able to regenerate surgically removed tissue to the point that no evidence of the surgery remained. Holes punched in their ears -- a standard procedure for tagging lab animals -- also healed perfectly, leaving behind no traces of scar tissue or previous damage. Essentially, switching off the p21 gene allows adult cells to behave like pluripotent stem cells, reorienting themselves into whatever kind of tissue they need to be. But naturally there is a give-and-take; p21 is closely intertwined with another gene, p53, a cell-division regulator that, if allowed to run amok, can lead to many types of cancers. The p21 gene acts as a safety valve for p53, stopping cell division in the case of DNA damage. So switching off p21 can allow cells to engage in regenerative healing, but the risks of doing so include rampant cell division (read: cancer). However, in the p21-free lab mice there was no cancer surge as one might expect, but rather an increase in apoptosis, or cell suicide, which directs damaged cells to destroy themselves. So it would appear that by striking some kind of controlled balance between allowing regenerative cells to work, while letting apoptosis regulate out-of-control cell division, could lead to regenerative treatments for humans somewhere down the road.
article (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/humans-could-regenerate-tissue-newts-switchin-single-gene)

Some of the individuals on that forum have quite the imagination. Some of the responses:


How scary would that be if the process could be accelerated to the point were you could heal instantaneously like wolverine from the x-men? Enemies of the U.S. would be sh**ing bricks facing an Army that can't be killed or at least very hard to kill.
you might want to consider the fact that other countries that despise the US (or worse, terrorists) may come across this bio-tech and use it against us (imagine a whole bunch of terrorists blowing up a city, then regenerating and doing it all over again)(I know thats not at all plausible, but just use your imagination for once).!!!

[Widerstand]

So I take it the mice turned out somewhat Axolotl'ish? Interesting, but this cell suicide and cancer thing bugs me. Not to mention that, for whatever reason, transgenic organisms have an increased cancer risk anyway.

[Buffalo Souljah]

So I take it the mice turned out somewhat Axolotl'ish?


Interesting, but this cell suicide and cancer thing bugs me. Not to mention that, for whatever reason, transgenic organisms have an increased cancer risk anyway.

Not necessarily true. Genetically-modified food , for instance has been consumed for roughly fifteen years by people (and even longer by animals), and we have noticed no adverse effects from this, and while we're talking about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we're not necessarily talking about GM crops (which nevertheless have not been found to contribute to cell mutation), but animals. As the article suggests, the effects of rapid cell division that the deactivation of this genome causes are inhibited by the increased apoptosis, which is a natural regulatory agent most multi-cellular organisms display. [Note: Of course, if you managed to find proof to the contrary, I would of course retract my opinion, but until that has been found, I don't think we can equate GMOs with higher cancer risks, when leading evidence suggests that this is not the case.[1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_mammal)] ]

Nevertheless, I think it's an interesting and exciting area of research, that can only improve with the advancement of technology and expanded data (the discovery of cell regeneration in mammals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_Roths_Large) is relatively recent). We may yet see this (as you call it) "Axotl'ish" ability in humans, within a few generations.

Gene therapy and biogerontology, by the way, are also interesting areas, in general, the latter studying aging and its effects (certain branches of which (http://www.nature.com/gt/journal/v16/n1/pdf/gt2008166a.pdf) are focused on prolonging or diminishing these effects).

[NGNM85]

Two exciting new developments, courtesy of SingularityHub;
http://singularityhub.com/

The FDA has cleared the way for Geron co. to begin clinical trials using stem cells to treat spinal cord injury. There's an interview, and some video of a test mouse that is amazing.

http://singularityhub.com/2010/08/02/gerons-embryonic-stem-cell-clinical-trials-for-spinal-cord-injury-have-returned/

Also, while it isn't really tissue regeneration, per se, here's another article about a company called Arteriocyte that has just filed for a patent from the FDA on artificial blood grown from stem cells. If cleared this product could ensure an inexhaustible supply of compatible blood for trauma victims or surgical patients who need it. The potential is HUGE.

http://singularityhub.com/2010/08/04/arteriocyte-produces-artificial-blood-sends-to-fda-for-approval/

[Invincible Summer]

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2009/07/24/chinese-scientists-grow-live-mice-from-skin-cells/

[Blackscare]

Not necessarily true. Genetically-modified food , for instance has been consumed for roughly fifteen years by people (and even longer by animals), and we have noticed no adverse effects from this, and while we're talking about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we're not necessarily talking about GM crops (which nevertheless have not been found to contribute to cell mutation), but animals.

I may be wrong, but I think he was referring to increased rates of cancerous mutations in the organisms themselves.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Excellent news. What's even better is that biotechnology is relatively easy to set up, so this has the potential for widespread (and cheap!) rollout once it becomes a viable course of treatment.


Not to mention that, for whatever reason, transgenic organisms have an increased cancer risk anyway.

Source? Because this is completely at variance with what I understand concerning genetics and biology.

[NGNM85]

I'm really getting sick of this shit. A federal judge just blocked a move by the Obama administration to expand stem cell research due to a lawsuit filed by a religious group.

Here's the article;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/stem-cell-regulations-tem_n_691738.html

[Widerstand]

I may be wrong, but I think he was referring to increased rates of cancerous mutations in the organisms themselves.

Yeah. If I remember correctly that's what my source said.


Source? Because this is completely at variance with what I understand concerning genetics and biology.

Wow, I thought I posted the source on this ages ago. Apparently I didn't? Hm.

It is somewhere in there, I think around the middle of the video:

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational/watch/v8968165kYRdfmYC

I didn't hear anything about it in Biology education either, and we covered the basics of genetics and it's dangers rather well I'd say.

[TheSultan]

The whole reason humans don't regrow lost limbs is because of the sheer amount of energy/resources such a feat would require. We aren't as simple as an earthworm or a starfish, we have many different layers/types of tissue, bone (which is very complex with its own network of blood vessels within, marrow, etc.) and not to mention the size of our limbs comparatively speaking.

I'm sure it would be possible to unlock such a gene, whether or not it would be practical... Almost definitely not.

[NGNM85]

Thom Hartmann debates lawyer from religious group responsible for impeding Stem Cell research;

G7j8eRi7VWA