FirstSynapse t1_j71ttjq wrote
Reply to comment by Zondartul in Back in the late 90s, I remember hearing that scientists “cloned a sheep”. What actually happened with the cloning, and what advancements have been made as a result of that? by foxmag86
Yes, pretty much. You can produce them from many different tissues, but most scientists (myself included) use iPSCs derived from fibroblasts (connective tissue), which can be easily obtained from a biopsy and cultured. Another main advantage of iPSCs over ESCs is that you can obtain iPSCs from patients of any genetic disease and produce any kind of cell you want to study, which will express the dysfunctions associated with that disease.
ElxirBreauer t1_j724ftc wrote
That is a HUGE boost to research for both treatments and potential cures, I'd imagine.
FirstSynapse t1_j727ikl wrote
It is pretty nice, and the models get better every day. As a caveat, I must say that there are LOTS of things to consider when doing research with iPSCs, mainly related to how accurately your cells represent actual human cells. For example, I work with iPSC-derived neurons and any change in the process of maturation of iPSCs into neurons vastly changes the properties of the final cells. Also, neurons and other cell types take long to mature from iPSCs. In the case of my cells, it takes around two months until they are at a stage I can use for my experiments, and they have to be maintained for that long and lots of things can go wrong.
All of this is, of course, also a problem with ESCs, but not with animal models. If human genetics are important for your experiments, iPSC models are almost the only choice you have. If there is a good animal model for the disease you're studying and organism physiology is more important, then animal models are better.
[deleted] t1_j73d3s0 wrote
[removed]
Foreign_Implement897 t1_j724gzo wrote
So do you actually need stem cells for anything after this? Is it a complete substitute?
FirstSynapse t1_j72b0mn wrote
If you mean embryonic stem cells, their main advantage over iPSCs is that ESCs have been around for longer and can be considered somewhat more reliable. iPSCs need to be generated in the first place from mature cells, and although this process is relatively simple (only four factors in the case of Yamanaka's Nobel prize-winning research), there is still a lot of debate over how it should be done and how it can affect the resulting phenotypes.
ESCs, on the other hand, are already naturally capable of generating tissues, so there is a larger likelihood that the resulting mature cells will resemble more the actual human ones. In studies in which the mutations of the diseases that are being studied are generated by genetic manipulation, ESCs are still preferred by many labs because of this reason.
But this is an issue for iPSCs just because it is still a very young technology, and huge advances are being made constantly that make ESCs less relevant. Being able to obtain cells directly from patients is a huge advantage as it allows to study diseases that have an important but not entirely known genetic component, like most neurological disorders.
[deleted] t1_j72esyr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j71v7r3 wrote
[removed]
baumpop t1_j74uyv9 wrote
What about regrowing tissue? And does this tangentially related to the new knowledge that cells are sending information and can be "reprogrammed" (like in the anti aging studies on mice).
aotus_trivirgatus t1_j75ysk0 wrote
When iPSCs first appeared, many people doubted that they would truly be functionally identical to ESCs. After a few years, I stopped following the field. Is the verdict in?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments