It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Canadian scientists have discovered how to turn a simple blood sample from a man or woman into a variety of nerve cells, including those that are responsible for pain, numbness and other sensations.
The technology will allow researchers to test potential drugs for treating pain using the nerve cells in a lab, all based on an individual patient's own genetic signature, said Mick Bhatia, who led the team of researchers at McMaster University in Hamilton.
The new technique involves extracting stem cells from blood — ones that normally have the potential to become red blood cells or various kinds of white blood cells involved in fighting off pathogens. The blood stem cells are converted over about a month into neural stem cells using a patented technique. Those can survive for several months in a petri dish.
These neural stem cells are then manipulated in the lab to give rise to several types of nerve cells, including those that make up the peripheral nervous system throughout the arms, legs and the rest of the body.
His lab hopes to further develop the blood-generated neural stem cells into motor and other kinds of neurons that could conceivably one day be transplanted into patients to restore healthy brain cells as a treatment for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or Lou Gehrig's disease, for instance.
The technology could also be used to produce retinal nerve cells to treat people who are losing their sight due to age-related macular degeneration, he said.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: anonentity
No they weren't.
They were produced as red blood cells.
No. Hemocytoblasts are not much like stem cells, they can only form blood cells.
At one stage they were so immature, as to be indistinguishable, from stem cells.
originally posted by: anonentity
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: anonentity
No they weren't.
They were produced as red blood cells.
At one stage they were so immature, as to be indistinguishable, from stem cells. Like the human foetus was at one stage indistinguishable from a fish.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: anonentity
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: anonentity
No they weren't.
They were produced as red blood cells.
At one stage they were so immature, as to be indistinguishable, from stem cells. Like the human foetus was at one stage indistinguishable from a fish.
I agree. Both are very easy to distinguish from each other. Human Foetus never looks just like a fish. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is an unscientific falsehood.
originally posted by: anonentity
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: anonentity
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: anonentity
No they weren't.
They were produced as red blood cells.
At one stage they were so immature, as to be indistinguishable, from stem cells. Like the human foetus was at one stage indistinguishable from a fish.
I agree. Both are very easy to distinguish from each other. Human Foetus never looks just like a fish. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is an unscientific falsehood.
So you maintain that the human foetus during its development hasn't got gills.?
human fetuses have pharyngeal or branchial pouches that are sometimes called gill slits. They are transitory structures that eventually become parts of the jaw and the upper respiratory tract and they do not function like gills at all.
originally posted by: rickymouse
I read this article last week but couldn't quite understand it. I was under the impression that blood cells did not have DNA like our body cells do. Maybe there is a stem cell in it though or just RNA. Every fat cell has a stem cell from what I have read. The nerve cells need to match our DNA to communicate right or there will be rejection.
Maybe I'll just have to hunt down the whole research article to see what it says.