“Latest Stem Cells News”

A 41-site clinical trial, testing the restorative effect that adult bone marrow stem cells have on damaged or injured myocardium in heart attack patients, is being led at Wake Forest Baptist by Sanjay Gandhi, MD.

Phase I of the research study found that stem cells derived from bone marrow (mesenchymal stem cells) were safe for patients and may have the ability to limit scar formation, improve heart function and preserve tissue following a first heart attack.

Phase I was a multicenter study of 53 patients which demonstrated that the treatment was safe in adults, and those patients given this stem cell therapy actually experienced improvement in their overall ejection fraction. The earlier phase of the study showed that these mesenchymal stem cells could target the damaged myocardial tissue and initiate a process for recovery of heart muscle that could hopefully result in improvement of the overall heart.

Wake Forest is currently participating in a Phase II multicenter study investigating the efficacy of a one-time infusion of adult bone marrow stem cells in heart attack patients. Patients who experience a first time heart attack and undergo coronary angioplasty and stenting are eligible. Investigators are studying whether treatment with stem cells results in less heart muscle damage and improved heart function following a heart attack.

Wake Forest Baptist is the only trial site in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia.

Incoming search terms:

Researchers at Johns Hopkins have found a better way to create induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells—adult cells reprogrammed with the properties of embryonic stem cells—from a small blood sample. This new method, described last week in Cell Research, avoids creating DNA changes that could lead to tumor formation.

“These iPS cells are much safer than ones made with previous technologies because they don’t involve integrating foreign viruses that can potentially lead to uncontrolled, cancerous cell growth,” says Linzhao Cheng, Ph.D., an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Hematology and a member of the Johns Hopkins Institute of Cell Engineering. “This is important if iPS cells are to be used as therapies one day.”

Cheng says the higher-quality iPS cells will also be more reliable in research studies, “since we don’t have to worry about extra genetic changes associated with previous technologies interfering with study results.”

Incoming search terms:

New technique removes several hurdles in generating induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, smoothing the way for disease research and drug development.

Stem cells are ideal tools to understand disease and develop new treatments; however, they can be difficult to obtain in necessary quantities. In particular, generating induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells can be an arduous task because reprogramming differentiated adult skin cells into iPS cells requires many steps and the efficiency is very low – researchers might end up with only a few iPS cells even if they started with a million skin cells.

A team at Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute (Sanford-Burnham) set out to improve this process. In a paper published February 1 in The EMBO Journal, the team identified several specific microRNAs (miRNAs) that are important during reprogramming and exploited them to make the transition from skin cell to iPS cell more efficient.

“We identified several molecular barriers early in the reprogramming process and figured out how to remove them using miRNA,” said Tariq Rana, Ph.D., director of the RNA Biology program at Sanford-Burnham and senior author of the study. “This is significant because it will enhance our ability to use iPS cells to model diseases in the laboratory and search for new therapies.”

Incoming search terms:

A Guest Post from Sandra Ochoa…

Sandra Ochoa

Well.. .my idea is always that prior you decide to set yourself on one of these paths do a little clinical shadowing and several lab research.

Some definitions first….
MD: Indicates Doctor of Medicine, a doctor’s education in medicine
PhD: Is the highest qualification obtained at a college or university, usually requiring 3 to 5 years of original analysis in a specific field of study.
MD/PhD: refers to an education consisting of both the medical training of a medical doctor (MD or DO) with the rigor of a scientific examiner (PhD)

You could also consider to get involved in some clinical research. This can get you a taste of the different fields. Some MDs do clinical research, if you decide to get interested in that, you would not need an MD/PhD.

You actually must gain some quality exposure before you make any decisions. Neither clinical work nor lab bench job is what it really may appear like in theory. You will need to get your hands dirty. Make an effort to request information, learn about them, and have a couple of tastes of each one.

I do think it’s more easy to find a personality niche when you find yourself delighted by the specific work you’re doing daily, rather than make an effort to enjoy doing work you hate, even if you fit the “typical profile” of the career.

Generally a double degree is made for those who find themselves interested in both, basically. However, you will possibly not wind up doing a lot of the actual bench work if you are an MD/PhD. The MD/PhD that’s the P.I. of the research laboratory I currently work for NEVER does the actual experiments we currently do, he simply manages administrational stuff and discusses problems/ideas together with his henchmen.

All his time throughout the week is spent on clinical work. I am not sure this may be the way it always works, but this really is my own experience. However , if you might be equally interested in both, then I would still think an MD/PhD will probably be worth considering.

MD/PhD will place you at some advantage in grant-writing when you are a new researcher. (Eventually, the degree matters less because research employers assess you according to your actual accomplishments.)

Imagine that studying scientific research can be easier if you have been trained as being a physician. This advantage just isn’t well worth the extra 3 years, however it is somewhat of an advantage. It offers you the flexibleness to determine patients if you want. A slight majority of the MD/PhD’s I have come across don’t, but some do and in any case all of them could. It may help out with the pursuit of an academic position too.

So you? What are your advantages and disadvantages of choosing a MD, MD/PhD or PhD career?

About the writer: S. Ochoa is writing for the clinical research training program blog, her own and non-commercial in nature hobby blog to deliver free ideas for clinical research training newbie’s/experts to help them get a new job.

Incoming search terms: