A paralyzed man regained the ability to stand and walk with assistance after receiving a transplant of specialized stem cells derived from embryonic stem cells. The injected cells, designed to develop into specific spinal cord cells, were implanted at the site of his injury. Months later, he showed improved muscle control and sensation, eventually achieving assisted standing and walking with a frame. This marks the first clinical trial demonstrating functional recovery in chronic spinal cord injury using this type of stem cell therapy, offering hope for future treatments.
Japanese scientists have successfully used induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells to treat spinal cord injuries in monkeys, achieving significant functional recovery. The team transplanted iPS cell-derived neural precursor cells into monkeys with spinal cord lesions. This treatment led to improvements in limb function, allowing the monkeys to regain the ability to walk on a treadmill with support within six weeks. While the research is still pre-clinical, it represents a promising step towards developing effective stem cell therapies for human spinal cord injuries.
Hacker News users discussed the potential impact and limitations of the stem cell treatment highlighted in the linked article. Some expressed cautious optimism, emphasizing the early stage of the research and the need for larger, longer-term studies to confirm the efficacy and safety of the treatment. Others pointed to previous instances of promising stem cell therapies that ultimately failed to deliver in larger trials. A few commenters discussed the regulatory hurdles and the potential cost of such a treatment if it becomes widely available. Several users also questioned the specific type of stem cells used and the mechanism of action, wishing the article provided more scientific detail. The general sentiment leaned towards cautious hope tempered by a realistic understanding of the complexities of translating early research findings into effective clinical treatments.
UC Santa Cruz scientists have successfully programmed human stem cells to mimic the earliest stages of embryonic development, specifically the initial cell divisions and lineage segregation leading to the formation of the embryo, placenta, and other extraembryonic tissues. This breakthrough, using a "cocktail" of growth factors and signaling molecules, allows researchers to study a previously inaccessible period of human development in the lab, offering insights into early pregnancy loss, birth defects, and placental development. This model system avoids the ethical concerns associated with using real embryos, opening new avenues for research into early human development.
HN users discuss the ethical implications of this research, with some arguing that creating synthetic embryos raises concerns similar to those surrounding natural embryos. Others focus on the scientific implications, questioning the study's claim of mimicking the "first days" of development, arguing that the 14-day limit on embryo research refers to development in utero and not the developmental stage itself. Several commenters debate whether the research is truly groundbreaking or merely an incremental improvement on existing techniques. Finally, the limited access to the Cell Stem Cell paper behind a paywall is mentioned as a barrier to informed discussion.
A phase I clinical trial has demonstrated promising results for treating corneal scarring and vision loss using cultivated limbal stem cells. Researchers were able to successfully restore the corneal surface and improve vision in patients with damaged corneas previously considered untreatable. The therapy involves cultivating limbal stem cells taken from the patient's healthy eye, expanding them in a lab, and then transplanting them onto the damaged eye. This procedure offers a potential cure for limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD), a condition that can lead to blindness, and has shown positive outcomes even in patients with severe and long-standing damage.
HN commenters express cautious optimism about the stem cell therapy for corneal damage, noting the small sample size (6 patients) and the need for longer-term follow-up to confirm lasting effects. Some raise concerns about the definition of "irreversible" damage, suggesting the cornea may have had some regenerative capacity remaining. Others point out the high cost and potential accessibility issues of such therapies, while also highlighting the significant quality-of-life improvement this could offer if proven effective and widely available. A few commenters discuss the potential for this technology to address other eye conditions and the broader implications for regenerative medicine. Several users shared personal anecdotes of corneal injuries and expressed hope for future advancements in this field.
Summary of Comments ( 22 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43463779
HN commenters discuss the incredible breakthrough allowing a paralyzed man to regain some leg function via stem cell injections. Several express cautious optimism, emphasizing the early stage of the research and small sample size. Some highlight the potential for future advancements in spinal cord injury treatment, while others question the long-term viability and accessibility of such a treatment. A few commenters delve into the specifics of the procedure, mentioning the use of oligodendrocyte progenitor cells and their role in myelin sheath repair. The overall sentiment leans towards excitement tempered by a realistic understanding of the research's limitations. Some skepticism remains about the article's presentation and the potential for overhype in media coverage.
The Hacker News post "First-of-its-kind trial enables paralysed man to stand via stem cell injection" generated a moderate amount of discussion with several insightful comments.
A significant portion of the discussion revolves around the cautious optimism surrounding the news. Many commenters express excitement about the potential of stem cell therapy for paralysis but also emphasize the early stage of the research and the need for further trials. The fact that this is a single-patient study is repeatedly mentioned, highlighting the limitations of drawing broad conclusions at this point. Some users point out the long road to wider availability and affordability, even if the treatment proves consistently effective.
Several commenters delve into the specifics of the treatment, discussing the type of stem cells used (oligodendrocyte progenitor cells) and their role in myelin repair. The importance of myelin for nerve function is explained, and some users speculate on the potential benefits for other neurological conditions. There's also a discussion about the specific injury the patient sustained (a knife wound severing the spinal cord), and how this particular injury might influence the effectiveness of the treatment compared to other types of spinal cord injuries.
The ethical considerations of stem cell research are briefly touched upon, with one user raising questions about the source of the stem cells.
Some commenters share personal anecdotes related to spinal cord injuries, either their own experiences or those of people they know. These comments add a human dimension to the discussion and underscore the significant impact such injuries have on individuals and their families.
Finally, a few commenters share links to related research and articles, providing additional context and information for those interested in learning more about stem cell therapies and spinal cord injuries. One commenter also provides a link to the original research paper in Cell Stem Cell, suggesting a desire to engage with the scientific details behind the news report.
While the overall tone is hopeful, there's a clear understanding among the commenters that this is a preliminary result and that much more research is needed before this treatment becomes a viable option for a wider population of patients with spinal cord injuries.