Scientists studying mice may have found a master cardiac stem cell, which changes into three major cell types in the mammal's heart.
Writing in the journal Cell on Wednesday, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston said they identified these cells in mice, then demonstrated that they can transform into the contracting cardiac muscle cells and the smooth muscle and endothelial cells that make up blood vessels...
These findings, the researchers said, could move scientists nearer to being able to use stem-cell therapies to regenerate tissues to repair congenital heart defects in children and damage caused by heart attacks in adults. They stressed, however, that they were not yet anywhere close to that goal.
More interesting is that the researchers used embryonic stem cells for this research. Apparently, journalists are now gun shy about identifying which stem cells are used in research, since we don't find this out until the eighth paragraph:
Chien noted that both studies involved the use of mouse embryonic stem cells, and said greater emphasis was needed on exploring the potential of human embryonic stem cells for repairing damaged hearts. He said it is probable the qualities seen in the mouse cells would be present in human cells, too.
"These studies together make a compelling case for unlocking the potential of embryonic stem cells," Chien said in an interview.
Compare and contrast that statement to what was said in this story in which we find that non-embryonic stem cells help dogs with dystrophy:
The study was published online Wednesday by the journal Nature. It used stem cells taken from the affected dogs or other dogs, rather than from embryos. For human use, the idea of using such "adult" stem cells from humans would avoid the controversial method of destroying human embryos to obtain stem cells.
What? No quote from a researcher about how we should "unlock the potential" of stem cells which are not embryonic? I wonder why that is?
|