06-10-2011 17:25 A doctor becomes patient and gives his testimony on stem cell treatment he received to overcome heart failure.

See the original post:
Stem Cell Treatment for Heart Failure - Video

Public release date: 30-Jan-2012
[ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Krista Conger
kristac@stanford.edu
650-725-5371
Stanford University Medical Center

STANFORD, Calif. ? Mouse skin cells can be converted directly into cells that become the three main parts of the nervous system, according to researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine. The finding is an extension of a previous study by the same group showing that mouse and human skin cells can be directly converted into functional neurons.

The multiple successes of the direct conversion method could refute the idea that pluripotency (a term that describes the ability of stem cells to become nearly any cell in the body) is necessary for a cell to transform from one cell type to another. Together, the results raise the possibility that embryonic stem cell research and another technique called "induced pluripotency" could be supplanted by a more direct way of generating specific types of cells for therapy or research.

This new study, which will be published online Jan. 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is a substantial advance over the previous paper in that it transforms the skin cells into neural precursor cells, as opposed to neurons. While neural precursor cells can differentiate into neurons, they can also become the two other main cell types in the nervous system: astrocytes and oligodendrocytes. In addition to their greater versatility, the newly derived neural precursor cells offer another advantage over neurons because they can be cultivated to large numbers in the laboratory ? a feature critical for their long-term usefulness in transplantation or drug screening.

In the study, the switch from skin to neural precursor cells occurred with high efficiency over a period of about three weeks after the addition of just three transcription factors. (In the previous study, a different combination of three transcription factors was used to generate mature neurons.) The finding implies that it may one day be possible to generate a variety of neural-system cells for transplantation that would perfectly match a human patient.

"We are thrilled about the prospects for potential medical use of these cells," said Marius Wernig, MD, assistant professor of pathology and a member of Stanford's Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine. "We've shown the cells can integrate into a mouse brain and produce a missing protein important for the conduction of electrical signal by the neurons. This is important because the mouse model we used mimics that of a human genetic brain disease. However, more work needs to be done to generate similar cells from human skin cells and assess their safety and efficacy."

Wernig is the senior author of the research. Graduate student Ernesto Lujan is the first author.

While much research has been devoted to harnessing the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells, taking those cells from an embryo and then implanting them in a patient could prove difficult because they would not match genetically. An alternative technique involves a concept called induced pluripotency, first described in 2006. In this approach, transcription factors are added to specialized cells like those found in skin to first drive them back along the developmental timeline to an undifferentiated stem-cell-like state. These "iPS cells" are then grown under a variety of conditions to induce them to re-specialize into many different cell types.

Scientists had thought that it was necessary for a cell to first enter an induced pluripotent state or for researchers to start with an embryonic stem cell, which is pluripotent by nature, before it could go on to become a new cell type. However, research from Wernig's laboratory in early 2010 showed that it was possible to directly convert one "adult" cell type to another with the application of specialized transcription factors, a process known as transdifferentiation.

Wernig and his colleagues first converted skin cells from an adult mouse to functional neurons (which they termed induced neuronal, or iN, cells), and then replicated the feat with human cells. In 2011 they showed that they could also directly convert liver cells into iN cells.

"Dr. Wernig's demonstration that fibroblasts can be converted into functional nerve cells opens the door to consider new ways to regenerate damaged neurons using cells surrounding the area of injury," said pediatric cardiologist Deepak Srivastava, MD, who was not involved in these studies. "It also suggests that we may be able to transdifferentiate cells into other cell types." Srivastava is the director of cardiovascular research at the Gladstone Institutes at the University of California-San Francisco. In 2010, Srivastava transdifferentiated mouse heart fibroblasts into beating heart muscle cells.

"Direct conversion has a number of advantages," said Lujan. "It occurs with relatively high efficiency and it generates a fairly homogenous population of cells. In contrast, cells derived from iPS cells must be carefully screened to eliminate any remaining pluripotent cells or cells that can differentiate into different lineages." Pluripotent cells can cause cancers when transplanted into animals or humans.

The lab's previous success converting skin cells into neurons spurred Wernig and Lujan to see if they could also generate the more-versatile neural precursor cells, or NPCs. To do so, they infected embryonic mouse skin cells ? a commonly used laboratory cell line ? with a virus encoding 11 transcription factors known to be expressed at high levels in NPCs. A little more than three weeks later, they saw that about 10 percent of the cells had begun to look and act like NPCs.

Repeated experiments allowed them to winnow the original panel of 11 transcription factors to just three: Brn2, Sox2 and FoxG1. (In contrast, the conversion of skin cells directly to functional neurons requires the transcription factors Brn2, Ascl1 and Myt1l.) Skin cells expressing these three transcription factors became neural precursor cells that were able to differentiate into not just neurons and astrocytes, but also oligodendrocytes, which make the myelin that insulates nerve fibers and allows them to transmit signals. The scientists dubbed the newly converted population "induced neural precursor cells," or iNPCs.

In addition to confirming that the astrocytes, neurons and oligodendrocytes were expressing the appropriate genes and that they resembled their naturally derived peers in both shape and function when grown in the laboratory, the researchers wanted to know how the iNPCs would react when transplanted into an animal. They injected them into the brains of newborn laboratory mice bred to lack the ability to myelinate neurons. After 10 weeks, Lujan found that the cells had differentiated into oligodendroytes and had begun to coat the animals' neurons with myelin.

"Not only do these cells appear functional in the laboratory, they also seem to be able to integrate appropriately in an in vivo animal model," said Lujan.

The scientists are now working to replicate the work with skin cells from adult mice and humans, but Lujan emphasized that much more research is needed before any human transplantation experiments could be conducted. In the meantime, however, the ability to quickly and efficiently generate neural precursor cells that can be grown in the laboratory to mass quantities and maintained over time will be valuable in disease and drug-targeting studies.

"In addition to direct therapeutic application, these cells may be very useful to study human diseases in a laboratory dish or even following transplantation into a developing rodent brain," said Wernig.

###

In addition to Wernig and Lujan, other Stanford researchers involved in the study include postdoctoral scholars Soham Chanda, PhD, and Henrik Ahlenius, PhD; and professor of molecular and cellular physiology Thomas Sudhof, MD.

The research was supported by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the New York Stem Cell Foundation, the Ellison Medical Foundation, the Stinehart-Reed Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

The Stanford University School of Medicine consistently ranks among the nation's top medical schools, integrating research, medical education, patient care and community service. For more news about the school, please visit http://mednews.stanford.edu. The medical school is part of Stanford Medicine, which includes Stanford Hospital andamp; Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital. For information about all three, please visit http://stanfordmedicine.org/about/news.html.

PRINT MEDIA CONTACT: Krista Conger at (650) 725-5371 (kristac@stanford.edu)
BROADCAST MEDIA CONTACT: M.A. Malone at (650) 723-6912 (mamalone@stanford.edu)

[ | E-mail | Share ]

andnbsp;

AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.

Read more here:
Stanford scientists turn skin cells into neural precusors, bypassing stem-cell stage

Colon Cancer Screening Needed Less Than Every 5 Years - Colon cancer is easily treated if found early enough, but it appears current recommendations for scope screening every 5 years is unnecessarily frequent.

Sigmoidoscopy screening for colon cancer is recommended every five years for people over 50, however a new study found that screening that often may be unnecessary.

Sigmoidoscopy screening allows a doctor to identify polyps, or small growths, in the colon that could turn into cancer. Other colon cancer screening methods include fecal occult blood testing, which identifies blood in the stool, and colonoscopy, which examines the entire colon (sigmoidoscopy only examines the lower part).

While the American Cancer Society recommends that adults over 50 receive sigmoidoscopy screening every five years and a fecal occult blood test annually, some say this may be overly aggressive.

According to experts, it could take up to 15 years for polyps to develop into cancer and it may be that a one-time sigmoidoscopy screening is enough for those at average-risk. Read more...

AyurGold for Healthy Blood

Source:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/integratedmedicine

Via Scoop.it – inPharmatics

Oracle Exadata gets into Personlized Medicine & Bioinformatics space dressed as Oracle® Health Sciences Omics Data Bank.    Oracle Health Sciences today announced availability of Oracle® Health Sciences Omics Data Bank, a molecular data model, which is part of Oracle Health Sciences Translational Research Center.   The new data model provides integration and analysis of cross-platform omics data to support translational research. Oracle Health Sciences Translational Research Center runs on Oracle Exadata Database Machine, delivering the extreme performance required for querying vast data sets.
Via http://www.oracle.com

Source:
http://microarray.wordpress.com/feed/

The magazine GEN this week produced two relatively lengthy articles dealing with the current state of affairs and the future of the $3 billion California stem cell agency.

Much of the material is familiar to readers of the California Stem Cell Report, but GEN, which says it reaches "221,035 biotech and life science professionals, also produced an online survey that asked its readers: "How helpful has CIRM been in advancing stem cell science?"

At the time of this writing, the results showed that 40.9 of respondents said CIRM was "very helpful."  An identical percentage said "not very" or were undecided. The survey showed 18.2 percent as ranking the agency "somewhat" helpful. The number of respondents was not disclosed.

The two articles (see here and here)by Alex Philippidis also discussed the possibility of a bond issue in a "few years," before CIRM runs out of cash in 2017. Philippidis wrote,

"By then CIRM hopes to have won what ICOC (the CIRM governing board) chairman Jonathan Thomas, Ph.D., has called the 'communications war' the agency is fighting with California newspapers and the CIRM-focused blog California Stem Cell Report. Both have criticized the agency over a host of governance and pay issues."

For the record, the California Stem Cell Report has not criticized the agency in connection with the level of its executive pay. We have pointed out that many California voters have a highly negative and visceral reaction to high public salaries, which is a matter that CIRM must deal with in connection with retention of public confidence. We have also noted that the salaries represent a tiny, tiny fraction of CIRM spending.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

A promising, positive story on stem cell research in California popped up in the news this week, involving improvements in vision as the result of the only hESC clinical trial in the nation.

The story came after Jonathan Thomas, chairman of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, said in the San Francisco Business Times that what he likes least about his job is that "the coverage in the press chooses to focus on items besides the extraordinary work that our scientists are doing."

The good news about the eye research appeared in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and across the nation. However, it did not involve work at the stem cell agency, probably for reasons that likely have to do in good part with CIRM. The research involves a firm headquartered in Santa Monica, Ca., Advanced Cell Technology, that moved its base to the Golden State in hopes of securing CIRM funding. ACT has applied more than once for CIRM cash but has never received a grant. And it is one of the rare companies that has complained publicly to the CIRM governing board about a conflict of interest on the part of a CIRM reviewer. In ACT's case, its complaints received a public brushoff at a CIRM board meeting in 2008.

ACT's results in its clinical trial are quite tentative. They involve only two persons. One of the UCLA scientists involved said part of the results could have been the result of a placebo effect. Nonetheless, the reports carried the kind of story line that CIRM yearns for. Indeed, Thomas stressed the need for positive news when he told CIRM directors last June that the agency is in a "communications war" that is tied to its ultimate fate. (The agency runs out of cash in 2017.)

The New York Times' Andy Pollock wrote,

"Both patients, who were legally blind, said in interviews that they had gains in eyesight that were meaningful for them. One said she could see colors better and was able to thread a needle and sew on a button for the first time in years. The other said she was able to navigate a shopping mall by herself."

On its research blog, CIRM described the ACT results as a "milestone." CIRM's Amy Adams wrote,

"It’s the first published paper showing that—at least in this small number of patients for the first few months—the cells are safe."

She quoted Hank Greely of Stanford as saying that the news from ACT is "at least, a little exciting – and in a field that saw its first approved clinical trial stopped two months ago, even a little exciting news is very welcome."

Greely's reference, of course, was to Geron's sudden abandonment in November of its hESC trial, only three months after CIRM gave the firm a $25 million loan. It was widely believed that ACT was one of the initial applicants in the round that provided funding for Geron, although CIRM does not release the names of non-funded applicants.

Last week, CIRM directors spent a fair amount of time discussing the agency's future. The talk was of priorities, hard choices and generating results that would resonate with the people of California.

This week's news from a company that was not funded by CIRM will give them more to ponder.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

The blue-ribbon Institute of Medicine panel examining the performance of the $3 billion California stem cell agency has quietly concluded its first public hearing in California without so much as a smidgen of daily coverage in the mainstream media.

Instead, the big state news in California yesterday was a lawsuit filed by lawmakers against the state's top fiscal officer to prevent him from cutting their pay again when they fail to pass a balanced budget.

It would have been extremely unlikely, however, to have seen any daily coverage of the IOM session. The mainstream media generally ignores the affairs of the California stem cell agency.

Other than what has appeared on the California Stem Cell Report, the most comprehensive look at the $700,000, IOM examination of CIRM was provided on Tuesday by Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society, which has followed CIRM, and the ballot measure that created it, since 2004.

Darnovsky brought her readers on the Biopolitical Times up to speed on CIRM matters. She noted that CIRM will need more cash in a few years when its bond funding runs out. She concluded,

"But ballot measure or no ballot measure, CIRM will continue to disperse the public money it controls - another billion and a half dollars. This is a public agency spending increasingly scarce public resources. It is funding a field of research in which we place great hopes for medical and scientific advances. These factors make it all the more crucial that CIRM follow the basics of good governance and public accountability, and eschew the hyperbole and exaggerated promises that have tainted stem cell research for so long."

The California Stem Cell Report emailed a 1,370-word statement to the panel. The study director of the IOM panel said the statement would be placed in the panel's record.

The document provided perspective on the formation of CIRM, the political context in which it operates and discussed some of the potential pitfalls of CIRM's necessary but delicate courting of industry. Suggestions were offered for changes to ease potential conflicts of interest and to open to the public the statements of the economic interests of the grant reviewers who make the de facto decisions on CIRM's funding.

Here is the full statement from the California Stem Cell Report.
CSCR Statement to IOM-CIRM Performance Inquiry

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Overuse and overprescription of antibiotic drugs has become a widely known culprit in causing the emergence of antibiotic-resistant "superbugs," as well as the onset of digestive and other health problems, caused by the elimination of beneficial gut flora. But a new review published in the journal Nature suggests that such gut flora alterations could be permanent.

Professor Martin Blaser from New York University's (NYU) Langone Medical Center has been studying the long-term effects of antibiotics on gut flora, which has already confirmed a definitive link between antibiotics and the disruption of beneficial bacteria in the digestive system. But what his research also seems to confirm is the possibility that such disruption might be permanent, at least in some individuals, and thus carry with it lifelong health consequences. Read more...

AyurGold for Healthy Blood

Source:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/integratedmedicine

Who said India lags behind in the arena of stem cell research? The country is growing at the rate of fifteen percent per year in the stem cell market arena and will reach the figures of $ 540 million by 2010. India has around fifteen centers which are undertaking research in the arena of stem cell. Of them five centers are involved in undertaking extensive trials in the arena of cardiology. India has all the strength to emerge as a global hub for undertaking stem cell research. Since U.S has banned stem cell research India can surely prosper in this field as it has both knowledge and technology for undertaking research in this area. With medical field making rapid moves researchers are opting for advanced techniques which can help in targeting the root cause of the diseases rather than just treatment of the symptoms and in this respect stem cell research is gaining a stronger position. One questions which is troubling my mind is if India emerges as a hub for stem cell research how will it handle the sensitive topics such as cloning and breeding of human cells. Via prminds

Source:
http://www.biotechblog.org/rss.xml

Scientists have found ways to prepare stem cells from skin of an adult rat, without harming embryos. The discovery, which was done successfully on rats, will remove the ethical concerns of using stem cells for various medical purposes. Researchers have shown that it is possible to create stem cells similar to those present in embryos from skin. So far, mature cells were considered incapable of producing stem cells. The success of the research on rat has made scientists hopeful of being able to do this in case of humans as well. If this happens, the stem cells obtained from skin cells of a person will be able to produce cells and tissues that would be genetically an exact copy of the original, dispelling any rejection by the body that was probable for a stem cell obtained from an embryo. Stem cells are totipotent–capable of developing in any kind of tissue present in the body. Such a capability is of immense benefit as they can be used to replace the damaged cells and tissues, thus providing possible cure for several diseases like diabetes, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. The use of stem cells from embryo had ethical and moral concerns as the collection of stem cells damages the embryos. This many said is tantamount to murder or cannibalism. The new discovery, if successful for humans, will pave new ways for curing several diseases including those which were till now could not be treated. This will surely help cure many diseases and body defects. An advancement in this technique may also provide body organs for transplantation. The possibilities are immense but some concerns will continue to remain. The stem cells could be used rampantly for cosmetic purposes like skin grafts. This may also open a new arena of spare parts for human bodies as is available for machines. This will obviously dent the magical power of life. The cliche remains valid even here – every coin has two sides. It’s all up to us to choose the positive side. Learn more about stem cells. Source: BBC, Daily Mail Image Source: Canada.com

Source:
http://www.biotechblog.org/rss.xml

Stephen Hawking turns 70 on Sunday, beating the odds of a daunting diagnosis by nearly half a century. [More]

Source:
http://rss.sciam.com/sciam/topic/gene-therapy

They look like ordinary baby rhesus macaques , but Hex, Roku and Chimero are the world's first chimeric monkeys, each with cells from the genomes of as many as six rhesus monkeys.

[More]

Source:
http://rss.sciam.com/sciam/topic/gene-therapy

The Los Angeles Times web site today carried a sharply worded piece about the upcoming Institute of Medicine hearing on the performance of the $3 billion California stem cell agency.

Written by Pulitzer-prize winning columnist Michael Hiltzik, the item was headlined,

"Stacking the deck on the stem cell program."

The piece referred to Tuesday's meeting of the Institute of Medicine panel looking into the stem cell agency's affairs. The Times article was based largely on a piece yesterday on the California Stem Cell Report that reported that six of the 11 witnesses at the IOM hearing were coming from institutions that had received $418 million from CIRM. The item also reported that the only other witnesses were either CIRM employees or on its governing board.

Hiltzik wrote,

"The insular character of the stem-cell research community always has made objective evaluations of CIRM difficult -- most of the experts in the field are in a position to seek grants from the program or work with it on grant review. The IOM study could have been a counterbalance to that. But that doesn't look like it's about to happen."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

The Institute of Medicine opens its inquiry in San Francisco next week into the performance of the $3 billion California stem cell agency with testimony from representatives of enterprises that have received $418 million from the agency. No independent witnesses are scheduled to appear.

The IOM is being paid $700,000 by the stem cell agency to conduct the study, which was authorized by the CIRM board in 2010, with the hope that the findings would bolster voter support for another multibillion dollar bond measure for the agency.

So far the IOM-CIRM panel has held one day of public hearings in Washington, D.C., only involving CIRM representatives. Next week's session will be one of two days of public hearings in California before the inquiry is concluded. Another one-day public session is scheduled for Washington. So far the IOM-CIRM panel has not publicly heard any independent analysis of CIRM operations.

Earlier this week, the California Stem Cell Report asked Harold Shapiro, chairman of the IOM-CIRM panel, whether the IOM actually expected to receive forthright assessments of CIRM from individuals linked to institutions that have received hundreds of millions of dollars from the agency.

Shapiro did not reply but referred the inquiry to a public relations person at the IOM, Christine Stencel. She said that next week's meeting is one of "several means" by which the panel will gather information. She pointed to a short note on the IOM website linking to survey forms for others who may be interested in communicating with the panel.

Eleven witnessesses are scheduled for next Tuesday's meeting. Five are CIRM employees or members of the CIRM governing board. The remaining six come from institutions that have received $418 million from CIRM: Stanford ($193 million), UC San Francisco ($115 million), UC Davis($62 million) and UC Berkeley ($48 million). Five of the witnesses have received grants directly from CIRM: Alice Tarantal of UC Davis($5 million), Howard Chang of Stanford ($3.2 million), Irina Conboy of UC Berkeley ($2.2 million), Helen Blau of Stanford ($1.4 million) and John Murnane of UC San Francisco ($1 million).

We asked Shapiro how the witnesses for next week were selected. Stencel replied,

"The list of presenters and topics you see on the agenda reflect information and insights that the committee considered useful at this point in its work."

We asked,

"Why weren't representatives from other well-informed California organizations invited, such as the Little Hoover Commission, which performed a lengthy study of CIRM, and the Center for Genetics and Society, which has followed CIRM since 2004.?  Are there any plans to seek them out for public comment?"

The IOM did not respond directly but made the general statement about using "several means" to gather information.

We also asked,

"Why is 50 percent of (next week's) meeting being held behind closed doors? Who is expected to testify? What will be the nature of the business to be discussed? CIRM is a public enterprise, engaged in spending $6 billion (including interest) of taxpayer funds. It would seem that almost nothing that it does should be  barred from public scrutiny."

Stencel replied,

"The closed portion of the meeting will be devoted to internal committee discussions; there will be no presentations. This is per the National Academies study process."

(The National Academies are the parent organization of the IOM.)

Two members and the study director of the IOM-CIRM panel also made an unannounced trip to California last year, visiting Stanford and UC San Francisco in addition to CIRM offices. The IOM did not respond directly to questions from the California Stem Cell Report about whether the trip was at the invitation of CIRM and whether the traveling members met with any representatives of institutions or groups that have not received CIRM funds. Stencel said the trip was undertaken to gain a "better understanding" of the task before the panel.

The text of the questions asked by the California Stem Cell Report and the IOM response can be found here.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Scientist Stuart Orkin of Harvard, who headed the grant review group of the California stem cell agency for three years, today was named as a member of the blue-ribbon Institute of Medicine panel conducting an examination of the perfomance of the $3 billion enterprise.

Orkin left the grant review group in November of 2008. The IOM posted information about Orkin today but did not mention his earlier connection to CIRM. The grant review group makes the de facto decisions on grants by the stem cell agency.

During Orkin's tenure, the agency began to come under fire from businesses for what they said were deficiencies in the grant review process.

Orkin replaces David Scadden, also of Harvard, who  resigned from the IOM-CIRM panel in December month because of his ties to Fate Therapeutics of San Diego, which lists him as a scientific founder.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

The only state body specifically charged with oversight of the $3 billion California stem cell agency and its board will meet next Friday in Los Angeles for a look at the enterprise's financial affairs.

The group is the Citizens Financial Accountability and Oversight Committee, chaired by the state's top fiscal officer, Controller John Chiang. It was created by Proposition 71, the ballot initiative that established the stem cell research effort.

The agenda is a tad shy of details on what is likely to be brought up although it does mention a briefing by CIRM on "CIRM’s financial performance, current budget,update of grants awarded and grant process."

CIRM Chairman Jonathan Thomas is expected to attend along with the agency's new and first chief financial officer, Matt Plunkett.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Directors of the California stem cell agency today rejected a $6.3 million grant to recruit an unidentified researcher to the Buck Institute after some of CIRM's grant reviewers raised questions about his/her research, achievements and experience.

The CIRM governing board voted 3-16 with two abstentions on the grant, which scored 76 out of 100 during a closed-door session of reviewers earlier this month. Directors were told that the grants review group voted 11-6 to approve the application.

The CIRM board almost never rejects a recommendation from grant reviewers.

During the board's discussions, several directors raised questions about whether CIRM would be paying -- with the grant -- for research that did not fit within its objectives. Others said the intent of the agency's recruitment grant program was to attract the best scientists to California.

The research proposal was the subject of an unusual, dissenting minority report by reviewers. The CIRM staff-prepared review summary said,

"A motion to recommend the application for funding carried with a majority vote. Because the motion was opposed by more than 35% of members, opponents have exercised their right to have that position reported to the ICOC(the CIRM governing board). The GWG(grant review group) members raised three main opposing points. First, some GWG members were not convinced that the research program proposed by the candidate, despite its scientific merits in a simple model organism (the fruitfly Drosophila), would be translated effectively to mammalian models and human studies. Thus, they questioned whether the work would have significant impact on CIRM's mission of advancing stem cell research toward therapies. Second, some GWG members felt that the candidate's research vision did not extend far beyond significant discoveries to which the candidate has already contributed, and was, therefore, solid and safe but not venturesome or compelling. Third, although the candidate is clearly a rising star, some GWG members were concerned that the candidate's achievements and experience were not yet sufficiently mature for the leadership position expected under this award."

However, the review summary also said,

"The goal of the proposed research is to expand the study of molecular pathways mediating stem cell aging and to extend these investigations into mammalian cells....The proposed studies will investigate the regulation of stem cell activity and aging in response to nutritional conditions and environmental stress. These efforts could yield new insights into a range of chronic diseases and lead to therapeutic approaches to maintain or restore adult stem cell function in humans. "

"The candidate’s emerging leadership and recognition by the field has been reflected in numerous invitations to speak at major meetings and to contribute reviews and commentaries to leading journals. The PI (applicant) was lauded in outstanding letters from leaders in the field of stem cell aging research. They described the candidate as a highly energetic, innovative, and focused scientist who is recognized internationally as a critical thought leader making fundamental contributions to the understanding of aging mechanisms."

Normally the names of institutions connected to grant applications are not disclosed prior to board approval. However, the name of the Buck Institute was mentioned during the discussion about the application. Votes by the grants review group are also not normally disclosed during board discussions.

The award would have been the fourth in CIRM's $44 million programt to help recruit stem cell researchers to California.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Here is the text of the questions posed this week by the California Stem Cell Report to the Institute of Medicine concerning its performance assessment of the $3 billion California stem cell agency and the IOM hearing Jan. 24 in San Francisco.

Also included is the text of the responses from the IOM, which is being paid $700,000 by the agency to conduct the study. The initial question was addressed to Harold Shapiro, chairman of the IOM-CIRM panel. Christine Stencel, senior media relations officer for the IOM, replied. The second question was addressed directly to Stencel.

Here are the questions sent Jan. 16 to Shapiro.

"Dr. Shapiro --

"I am working on an  article dealing with the upcoming meeting of the CIRM IOM panel Jan. 24. It will discuss the topics to be discussed and the witnesses. I would like your comments particularly in regard to the selection of the witnesses.

"Other than CIRM-connected individuals and media representatives(based on the agenda as of Jan. 16), they come from institutions that have received $356 million from the stem cell agency. Several of them have personally received grants. (UC Davis representatives were later added to the agenda, boosting the figure from $356 million to $418 million.)

"My questions:
"How were these witnesses selected? Does the IOM actually expect to receive forthright assessments of CIRM from individuals that have received hundreds of millions of dollars from the agency?

"Why weren't representatives from other well-informed California organizations invited, such as the Little Hoover Commission, which performed a lengthy study of CIRM, and the Center for Genetics and Society, which has followed CIRM since 2004.?  Are there any plans to seek them out for public comment?

"Why is 50 percent of the meeting being held behind closed doors? Who is expected to testify? What will be the nature of the business to be discussed? CIRM is a public enterprise, engaged in spending $6 billion (including interest) of taxpayer funds. It would seem that almost nothing that it does should be  barred from public scrutiny.

"Finally, who is Larry Fisher? He is listed on the IOM agenda as having a connection with the Los Angeles Times. However, an employee of the Times tells me that Fisher is not listed in any of the directories that he has access to.

"Dr. Shapiro, I will carry any comments that you make verbatim on the California Stem Cell Report. If you would like to add more than responses to the questions, I would welcome your thoughts."

Here is the response Jan. 17 from Stencel.

"Dr. Shapiro forwarded your query to the IOM for response. Our offices were closed yesterday for the MLK holiday, so we are catching up on all the correspondence we’ve received. The upcoming meeting is one of several means by which the committee will gather information and perspectives to inform its deliberations. The list of presenters and topics you see on the agenda reflect information and insights that the committee considered useful at this point in its work. This meeting is not the sole means by which committee members will gather information. For example, you will note that there are links to surveys posted on the project page (http://www.iom.edu/Activities/Research/CIRMReview.aspx) on the IOM website that request information from a variety of sources. The committee has also requested specific data from CIRM; a list of what was requested is in the Public Access File for this study, which is accessible via the Public Access Records Office. In addition, the committee expects to hold another information gathering meeting in California later this year.

"To your query about the extent to which the meeting is open, the committee is holding a day-long open meeting to gather information on Jan. 24. The closed portion of the meeting will be devoted to internal committee discussions; there will be no presentations. This is per the National Academies study process. Please see Stage 3 in the explanation of the National Academies study process on this webpage: http://www.nationalacademies.org/studyprocess/index.html. 

"To your question about Mr. Fisher, due to an oversight in drafting the agenda, he is misidentified as being affiliated with the LA Times. As the agenda you last saw indicated, he was an invited speaker, but since he has not responded, he will not be speaking at the meeting and is being removed from the agenda.

"Thank you for your ongoing interest in this IOM review."

Here are the California Stem Cell Report questions Jan. 17 to Stencel:

"I understand that some members of the CIRM - IOM panel made a publicly unannounced trip to California to visit some recipient institutions. What was the purpose of the trip? Who went? How long did it last? What institutions were visited? Who put together the agenda for the visit? Was it at the invitation of CIRM and facilitated by CIRM? Did the traveling members of the panel meet with any representatives of institutions or groups that have not received CIRM funds? Please feel free to add any other thoughts on this subject if you wish. Thank you."

Here is Stencel's response:

"Harold Shapiro and Terry Magnuson, who had been asked to serve as chair and vice chair of the committee, visited CIRM and two universities conducting stem cell research in September 2011 before the full committee was assembled.  Drs. Shapiro and Magnuson wanted to visit CIRM to gain a better understanding of the task that their committee, when formed, would be undertaking given the many questions being posed (per Statement of Task) and the limited timeframe to complete the review. They also met with leaders of Stanford and the University of California, San Francisco and toured laboratories on the two campuses to get a better feel for the type of stem cell research supported by CIRM. IOM study director Adrienne Stith Butler accompanied them."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

The California stem cell agency plans to spend $40 million to create two stem cell genomic research centers, including possibly one at a for-profit research enterprise.

The proposal was approved today by CIRM directors on a vote by show of hands.

CIRM said the objective of the effort is "to transformatively advance the stem cell field." The grant program was touted by CIRM President Alan Trounson as a way for California to gain a "firm and lasting grip" on global stem cell leadership.

Writing in the January issue of Nature Biotechnology, Trounson and CIRM scientists Natalie DeWitt and Michael Yaffe said an "urgent need" exists "to ramp up efforts to establish stem cells as a leading model system for understanding human biology and disease states and ultimately to accelerate progress toward clinical translation."

They continued,

"For California to take a firm and lasting grip on leadership in stem-cell research—and, as stated in Proposition 71,'advance the biotech industry in California to world leadership as an economic engine for California’s future'— its scientists must have access to these technologies and moreover create a coordinated international enterprise to maximize the reach and impact of stem cell genomics. Genomics is creating a sea change in biomedical research and medicine, and accordingly, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM; San Francisco) can create a process through which stem-cell research can participate and even provide leadership in a new era of medicine."

The stem cell agency staff proposal to directors said,

"Genomics technologies and the data sets they yield are fast becoming the currency of biology and medicine. The cost of genome sequencing is dropping exponentially, a trend that will soon make genome-scale characterization a practical tool for fundamental studies of stem cell biology and for advancing therapeutic applications. Meanwhile, cell therapeutics are advancing toward clinical trials, and hES and hiPS cells have become the gold standard for studying human cell biology, tissue and organ development and repair, and disease. Combining genomic technologies with stem cell research will accelerate fundamental understanding of human biology, disease mechanisms, tissue engineering and cell therapies...."

Awards for the centers of up to $20 million each are scheduled to be awarded next winter.

Here is a link to the CIRM press release on the proposal.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

The California stem cell agency is slated to secure additional bond funding this spring when the financially troubled Golden State initiates a new round of borrowing.

CIRM Chairman Jonathan Thomas told directors today that the $3 billion agency will be involved  in the upcoming round. He did not specify the amount that CIRM would receive or the timing of the bond issue.

The agency's only significant funding comes from state bonds, whose funds flow directly to CIRM. The governor and legislature cannot touch the CIRM funds under the terms of the ballot measure that created the research effort in 2004.

Last year at this time, the state suspended bond sales. At the time, CIRM had sufficient funds to meet its commitments until about June of this year. Late last year, Thomas worked out a temporary funding arrangement with the governor's financial aides to cover any possible shortfall.

Thomas made the announcement at the beginning of today's CIRM board meeting in San Diego.

Currently CIRM President Alan Trounson is reviewing new stem cell research that has been published recently.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss