Author Archives: Blue Sky Science

First human stem cells created through cloning…thank Mitalipov’s macaques!

Today is one of those days that will go down in medical and scientific history, the day that scientists at Oregon Health and Science University led by Professor Shoukhrat Mitalipov announced that they had successfully created pluripotent human stem cells by cloning  skin cells. This is the first time that this has been accomplished in human cells, and is a major milestone in the developing field of regenerative medicine. It is also an achievement that rests on over a decade of careful studies of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) – the cloning technique they used - in monkeys by Professor Mitalipov and his colleagues.

A donor egg moments after injection of the skin cell nucleus. Image courtesy OHSU photos

A donor egg moments after injection of the skin cell nucleus. Image courtesy OHSU photos

An article on the ONPRC News highlights the importance of research in monkeys to overcoming the barriers that had foiled previous attempts to clone primate cells.

The Mitalipov team’s success in reprogramming human skin cells came through a series of studies in both human and monkey cells. Previous unsuccessful attempts by several labs showed that human egg cells appear to be more fragile than eggs from other species. Therefore, known reprogramming methods stalled before stem cells were produced.

To solve this problem, the OHSU group studied various alternative approaches first developed in monkey cells and then applied to human cells. Through moving findings between monkey cells and human cells, the researchers were able to develop a successful method.

The key to this success was finding a way to prompt egg cells to stay in a state called “metaphase” during the nuclear transfer process. Metaphase is a stage in the cell’s natural division process (meiosis) when genetic material aligns in the middle of the cell before the cell divides. The research team found that chemically maintaining metaphase throughout the transfer process prevented the process from stalling and allowed the cells to develop and produce stem cells.”

While this announcement, coinciding with publication of a scientific paper reporting their work that is published in the prestigious journal Cell (1), was a surprise, the fact that the team was led by Professor Mitalipov was not. Professor Mitalipov is one of the leading experts in reproductive biology, cloning and stem cell biology, and it was only back in March that we discussed how the technique of spindle-chromosomal transfer that he developed to prevent mitochondrial disease had been approved for human trails by the UK’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

The key publication by Professor Mitalipov and his colleagues was in 2007 (2) when they reported that they has successfully produced two rhesus macaque embryonic stem cell lines through SCNT.  In their 2010 commentary “Cloning of non-human primate: the “road less travelled by” “ Professor Mitalipov and his co-authors describe this study and  subsequent modifications that they made to the SCNT technique to further improve its efficiency in primates. Their many modifications covered changes to the way in which the nuclei of the cells were visualised and manipulated, changes in the conditions under which the donor nucleus and enucleated egg are fused, and precise regulation of the reactivation of the fused cell. One key innovation was the use of the coat protein from the Sendai (HVJ-E) virus to improve the efficiency of cell membrane fusion between the skin cell nucleus and egg cytoplasm while prolonging the activity of a protein called  maturation-promoting factor (MPF) that keeps the egg in the correct cell cycle stage to allow the introduced nucleus to integrate. Avoiding premature activation of cell division in the egg turned out to be even more difficult  in human cells. Initially the technique they had used successfully in macaques failed to yield stable stem cell lines from cloned human cells, and the problem appeared to be that the eggs were still activating too quickly following fusion, but as Professor Robin Lovell-Badge of the MRC National Institute for Medical Research explained to the Science Media Centre earlier today, they were able to make an additional tweak to their method, by adding a shot of caffeine to the mix.

The idea of using caffeine came from previous experiments they had performed with monkey eggs. Caffeine inhibits certain protein phosphatase enzymes that are involved in the degradation of “maturation promoting factor (MPF)”, a factor that is essential for controlling the cell cycle machinery in the egg.”

It is worth noting that they found that while they could produce embryonic stem cell lines using this technique, macaque embryos created using it failed to develop normally when implanted into female macaques, indicating that while this technique is viable for therapeutic cloning it cannot be used for reproductive cloning.

Professor Mitalipov discusses the first macaque stem cells produced through cloning in 2007.

The potential uses for stem cells produced through this therapeutic cloning technique are myriad; the fact that you can take a person’s own adult cells and convert then into pluripotent cells that can differentiate into any cell type makes them ideal for many transplant purposes, ranging from bioengineered replacement tissues to genetically engineered cell transplants to cure inherited disorders, and of course stem cells created from cloned adult cells from people with a wide range of diseases can be used to create a huge range of in vitro disease models to improve our understanding of the biological process at work and hasten the development of new therapies.

Of course there is already another technology that allows scientists to reprogram cells to a pluripotent state, in 2006 induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell technology burst onto the scene and quickly became the methodology of choice for many stem cell researchers, with the first clinical trial in human patients expected to start later this year. Has human therapeutic cloning missed the boat?  In an excellent commentary in Nature News on today’s announcement David Cyranoski points out that there is evidence (from studies comparing  SCNT with iPS cells in mice) that cells produced through SCNT are more completely reprogrammed to an embryonic state than iPS cells. So, it is likely that each technique will have its advantages and disadvantages depending on the goal of the research…and in scientific research it is always a good idea to have more than one horse in the race.

We congratulate Professor Mitalipov and his colleagues at OHSU on another stunning scientific achievement, one that will advance medicine, and no doubt be read about by students for many years to come!

Speaking of Research

(1) Tachibana M. et al. “Human Embryonic Stem Cells Derived by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer” Cell, published online 15 May 2013 DOI:10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.006

2) Byrne J.A. et al. “Producing primate embryonic stem cells by somatic cell nuclear transfer.” Nature. 2007 Nov 22;450(7169):497-502. PubMed:18004281

A new drug to treat type II diabetes: Thank the…Gila monster?

Earlier this week Lyxumia (generic name Lixisenatide), a new drug that helps to control type II diabetes, was launched in the UK. In addition to being an effective and saft therapy for type II diabeted, including in some patients that do not respond to current first-line therapies, Lyxumia is relatively inexpensive when compared to current therapies for type II diabetes, which will help to save the health services money that can be invested in other therapies.

Lyxumia belongs to a new class of drugs known as the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists that work by increasing the secretion of insulin in response to consumption of food, and is administered by a once daily injection.That animal research played a key role in the development of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for treating diabetes should not be a surprise, but when I took a quick look at the paper (1) reporting the preclinical development of Lyxumia (them called ZP10A)  I got a surprise.

The low half-life of native GLP-1 (90-120 s) (Deacon et al., 1995; Egan et al., 2003) has led to extensive research to find new compounds with pharmakokinetic properties suitable for development of a drug candidate. Exendin-4 was first isolated from the salivary gland of the Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum), and characterization showed that the peptide was structurally related to, but distinct from GLP-1 with a sequence homology of only 52%. Further characterization of exendin-4 showed that the peptide is a potent agonist for the mammalian GLP-1 receptor  with a longer in vivo half-life and prolonged duration of action compared with GLP-1 (Raufman et al., 1992; Young et al., 1999). Recent studies have shown that administration of exendin-4 induces pancreatic endocrine differentiation, islet proliferation and an increase in β-cell mass (Edvell and Lindström, 1999; Xu et al., 1999), indicating that exendin-4 may exert insulinotropic effects on the β-cells (Greig et al., 1999; Parkes et al., 2001).

Yes, you read it correctly, the development of effective GLP-1 receptor agonists started with a discovery made by a scientist studying venom peptides found in the the saliva of a large lizard!

The Gila monster - an unlikely ally in the fight against diabetes. Image courtesy of Jeff Servoss

The Gila monster – an unlikely ally in the fight against diabetes. Image courtesy of Jeff Servoss

This should actually not come as so much of a surprise, venom is an incredibly rich source of bioactive molecules, and scientists around the world are studying the venom of a bewildering array of animals in order to identify everything from better painkillers to therapies for Parkinson’s disease. Recently EU recognized the value of such research by setting up the VENOMICS project to provide tools and resources to the scientists engaged in it.

Lyxumia itself was created as a synthetic analogue of exendin-4, and following   in the db/db mouse model of diabetes the team at Zealand Pharma concluded that:

[T]hese studies demonstrate that ZP10A is an effective antidiabetic compound that effectively improves FBG and glucose tolerance, resulting in a long-term improvement of total glucose control. Furthermore, the sustained effect on glucose metabolism, and pancreatic expression of insulin even after discontinuation of ZP10A treatment indicates that ZP10A preserves β-cell function in diabetic db/db mice. Therefore, it is concluded that ZP10A is not only a promising candidate for the treatment of human type 2 diabetes but also it has the potential to prevent the progression of the disease.

On the basis of these very promising results ZP10A underwent further preclinical evaluation in collaboration with Sanofi-Aventis before entering into successful clinical trials.

The availability of a new and cost effective therapy to help people to manage type-2 diabetes is very welcome, but the story of the development of the Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists reminds us that new therapies can lurk in the most unlikely – and indeed most unpleasant – places!

Paul Browne

1) Thorkildsen C, Neve S, Larsen BD, Meier E, Petersen JS. “Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist ZP10A increases insulin mRNA expression and prevents diabetic progression in db/db mice.” J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2003 Nov;307(2):490-6. Epub 2003 Sep 15.

Pro-Test Italia in Milan: A silver lining to a grey cloud

In December 2012 we reported that scientists in Italy had founded Pro-Test Italia to counter the rising tide of ignorance and intimidation that threatens the future of science in Italy. Last weekend we heard about a new animal rights outrage in Italy.  As reported in Nature News, activists broke into the Department of Pharmacology in the University of Milan on Saturday, where they wrecked valuable research projects before leaving with over a hundred mice, rats and rabbits. On previous occasions the response from the scientific community to such raids and theft in Italy has been lacklustre at best, but this time things would be different . Our colleagues in Pro-Test Italia take up the story.

Scientists take to the streets of Milan!

Scientists take to the streets of Milan!

On Saturday the 20th of April, a national rally against “vivisection” took place in Milan, with about 200 people participating. Just before the rally’s beginning, 5 animal rights activists posted on the “Coordinamento Fermare Green Hill” (Coordination to stop Green Hill) Facebook page announcing that they had forced entry inside the Pharmacology Department of Milan’s University. Those activists barricaded themselves inside the animal facilities, tying chains both around their necks and around the doors’ handles to prevent police from breaking in.

They demanded that every animal in the facilities should be released in their hands – about a thousand rats and seventeen rabbits; meanwhile they removed the animals’ tags, rendering them effectively useless and throwing away years of research about Parkinson’s, Multiple sclerosis, autism and such. In an effort to prevent injuries to the people involved, the director of the department started negotiations that ended with the release of the activists from the department. The activists got to take away with them about a hundred mice and rats and a rabbit, with the promise that even more animals released into their hands in the following days. Of course at that point the animals were already useless for research.

Meanwhile, the “anti-vivisection” rally reached the building, and started throwing names at the researchers, calling them “Killers” and “Monsters”.

CNR Researchers in an open letter speak of serious damages. “It’s hard to quantify the damage, but it will be in the order of hundreds of thousands of euros, and goes far beyond the removal of some animals because the activists removed tags from all of the cages: we cannot identify the animals any more, which means years of research have been thrown away, along with the funding.”

Bice Chini, researcher at the CNR Institute of Neuroscience, explained during an interview with La Repubblica why the damage isn’t only monetary.

Everyone expecting new remedies and cures for serious, deadly diseases, has been damaged. Years of studies have been lost, we are unable to determine the consequences this will have on research, namely how much it will be slowed down.”

Some of the animals that activists took away are genetically modified, and are precious models for some degenerative genetic diseases; researchers were hoping to observe these animals and understand the causes and workings of these pathologies, in order to create new treatments. “Sometimes years are needed to select the right animals to observe a specific disease’s development” says Francesco Scaglione, Pharmacology professor in Milan State University, during an interview with TV news La7 Cronache “When animals are studied, there is no useless suffering, and when they have to be euthanised, we always use anesthesia.”

This time the Italian scientific community raised its head. On Saturday afternoon our association, Pro-Test Italia, with help from the organization Federfauna - which supports the interests of people who work with animals - and the Facebook page “A Favore Della Sperimentazione Animale“, managed to get authority’s permission for a peaceful rally on Sunday morning in Milan. About 60 people, mostly students and young researchers, took part in the rally, wearing white coats and carrying banners in support of science and against bullying, ignorance and misinformation..

The first objective of the rally was information: participants were good mannered, never stooping down to insults, and explained to passers by why animal research is important and what makes this latest action by animal rights activists so despicable. A small group of said activists tried to disturb the peaceful rally, but with no success.

Our friends from OMG! Science, took part in the rally with us: they interviewed passers by many of whom did understand the gravity of Saturday’s actions by animal rights activists.

Our rally was reported both on a local (TG3 Regione) and national TV News (Tg1, La7 Cronache), and many leading Italian newspapers and press agencies also spoke of these events, including Corriere della SeraLa Repubblica, ANSA, La Stampa, Il Giornale and  Il Giorno. What has also been striking over the past few days is the volume of messages of support that we have received, and the many new likes on our FaceBook page, all of which shows how many Italians were waiting for somebody to stand up to animal rights extremism.

The biggest animal rights associations in Italy (such as LAV, ENPA, LeIDA) said nothing about Saturday’s activists crimes, and it’s not the first time they avoid condemning such acts. We can only wonder why.

Sunday was something of a milestone: for the first time members of the Italian scientific community took action against animal rights activists’ violence and criminal behavior, and we took part in our very first rally. We look at these brave young scientists and students with trust and expectation, hoping that things will now really start to change.

Pro-Test Italia

Update 13.55 BST, 23 April 2013- The Rector of the University of Milan has stated that there is no agreement between the University and the animal rights extremists, and that no more animals will be handed over to them by the depatement. This is welcome but not entirely surprising as to do so would violate animal welfare regulations – especially those governing the care of genetically modified animals.

Addendum: Pro-Test Italia have informed us that they will be holding another rally in Milan on Saturday June 1st, you can find the details on FaceBook!

Treating Progeria; How GM mice give hope to some very special children

Something big is going on right now in the world of research.

Something very specific for some very special children with a very rare disease. It may not be widely known by name but I am sure you have seen these children. The disease is called Progeria. From the Progeria Research Foundation’s website, we learn:

Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome “Progeria” or “HGPS” is a rare, fatal genetic condition characterized by an appearance of accelerated aging in children*.  Its name is derived from Greek and means “prematurely old.”  While there are different forms of Progeria, the classic type is Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome, which was named after the doctors who first described it in England: in 1886 by Dr. Jonathan Hutchinson, and in 1897 by Dr. Hastings Gilford.

Progeria affects approximately 1 in 4 – 8 million newborns.  There are an estimated 200-250 children living with Progeria worldwide at any one time.  It affects both sexes equally and all races.  Since The Progeria Research Foundation was created in 1999, we have discovered children with Progeria living in over 40 countries.”

Most of us will have come across a picture of one of these children in the papers, on TV, or on the internet. We remember them because they look different from other kids their age. If you ever get the privilege to chat with them, you will find that are some of the wisest people you will ever meet. To speak with them is truly inspiring because of their personalities and outlook on life. It is also heart wrenching because we know most will never reach their twenties.

About eight years ago I was working as a veterinary technician in a research facility. During that time a new investigator moved his lab into our facility, and we received his colony of mice a few weeks before he arrived. After we had cared for the mice for a few days, we started to see some very strange things. The weanlings were sometimes very small, and occasionally they were also thin. It was strange to see mice that were so young but  looked like such old men. The reason was simple, these mice had been genetically modified to carry the same defective Lamin A gene that is responsible for Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome in children. The ‘sick’ mice we saw were actually mice with Progeria!”

GM mice aided the development of a therapy for Progeria

GM mice aided the development of a therapy for Progeria

Several years later Dr. Stephen G. Young and colleagues at UCLA  published a study that detailed what they found within this small population of mice (1). Once a GM model of mice had been developed, cells from these mice were studied (2). When a farnesyltransferase inhibitor  was used in vitro on these cells, it showed this drug was a possible treatment for this terrible disease. Once this was learned, they went on to the next step which was to test farnesyltransferase inhibitor in vitro on cells from actual Progeria patients (3). When these studies looked very promising, confirming that the process occurring in the mouse and human cells were very similar, the GM mice were once again indispensable for the first in vivo study to determine if farnesyltransferase inhibitors could improve the health of mice with Progeria (1). This is the part that cannot be replicated by any calculations, test tube chemicals or computer programs. Without in vivo studies, it is impossible to know what a treatment will do in a living creature. The mice that were born with Progeria were given a farnesyltransferase inhibitor. Would they get better or would they stay the same? Once the study was complete, all results were compared and this therapy looked very promising indeed!

Professor Young gave a talk on his progeria research to the Congressional Medical Research Caucus in 2009, in which he discusses his group’s GM mouse studies in much more detail, and you can watch the video here.

From there, a drug needed to be developed that could be evaluated in children with Progeria. This is a process that can often take many years, but fortunately some farnesyltransferase inhibitors designed as cancer treatments looked promising (see more about it here). lonafarnib was selected for clinical trials in progeria because it had already been assessed in pediatric cancer clinical trials where it had a demonstrated an acceptable safety profile. This is how decades of drug development happened in less than 10 years.

Researchers were able to move many steps ahead, much closer to the Progeria clinical trials that were needed. Remember, the one thing these children do not have is time. They grow old and die, sometimes as young as seven, and very rarely live past twenty. Most die in their teens. If a completely new drug had been needed, nearly every child alive with the disease that day would have passed away by the time it was ready for a clinical trial.

I think it is very important to explain briefly genetic disease and the role GM play in finding treatments and cures. Francis Collins is a well known and oft cited geneticist and physician, and currently Director of the National Institutes of Health, who gave a TED talk in April 2012 about this very topic.  Dr. Collins has long been interested in Progeria, he led the team that first identified defects in the Lamin A gene as a cause of Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome in 2003, and later in 2008 published a study that examine the effect of farnesyltransferase inhibitors on cardiac defects in a mouse model of Progeria (cardiac defects are the most common cause of death in children with Progeria).


At the most basic, a genetic disease is caused when there is a faulty gene somewhere in the genetic code. While the *reason* the gene is broken may be a mystery, there are roughly 4,000 genetic diseases that scientists at least know what gene is causing the problem, which is the case for Progeria. Scientists know what is causing the problem, but how do you fix it? Dr. Collins has a vision of accelerating the transition from the bench to the bedside, and the example of progeria shows that one of best tools for finding the treatments and cures is Genetically Modified mice. Our GM mice.

In the case with Progeria, researchers were able to create the same disease in mice that was found in humans, effectively mirroring the disease. By doing this, they are able to study not just the disease itself, but study treatments on a live organism with the disease. With GM mice, researchers are able to find treatments and cures at an unprecedented pace. As Dr. Mark Kieran, who led the first clinical trial of  lonafarnib to treat progeria (4), said:

PRF (Progeria Research Foundation)provides a model for disease research organizations, and is a good example of successful translational research, moving from gene discovery to clinical treatment at an unprecedented pace,”

There are over 4,000 genetic diseases known to us right now, yet only 250 of them have treatments. If we can find help for these people so quickly, why are there so few cures? One reason is that in many cases there are still no mouse model available to study. In our case of Progeria, a mouse model of the disease was developed which sped up research by years or even decades. Without GM mice, this treatment would not be available now. Progeria clinical trials moved very quickly compared to most treatments and it was announced in September of 2012. Finally, these children had a treatment! While this is not a cure, it is a huge step forward. With early diagnosis and treatment, these children have a much better chance at a normal life!

Because of the extremely rare occurrence of this disease, these children can be hard to find, especially in less developed countries where they may have never seen this disease before. In 2009, the Progeria Research Foundation  (PRF)launched the “Find the Other 150” campaign. As of September 2012, they were aware of 96 of the estimated 200-250 children living with Progeria. If you are aware of any of these children, please visit www.FindTheOther150.org to find information on how to participate in future studies.

I have spent nearly a decade in this field now. I will always remember those mice and those children. To see a treatment developed and to even have played a small part it helping it happen is humbling. Will I make headlines? No. Will my name ever be in a published paper? Probably not. Will I make millions off any of the discoveries I participate it? Never. I went into this field knowing full well I will never get rich or retire early and wealthy. That is not why I am here.  I choose to do what I do because of people out there like these Progeria kids. I do this for them, and all the millions of cancer patients out there like my late husband. I do this so we can find a cure.

And to know I had even a tiny part in making that cure happen, that, is priceless.

Pamela Bass

1)  Yang SH, Meta M, Qiao X, Frost D, Bauch J, Coffinier C, Majumdar S, Bergo MO, Young SG, Fong LG.”A farnesyltransferase inhibitor improves disease phenotypes in mice with a Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome mutation.” J Clin Invest. 2006 Aug;116(8):2115-21

2)  Yang SH, Bergo MO, Toth JI, Qiao X, Hu Y, Sandoval S, Meta M, Bendale P, Gelb MH, Young SG, Fong LG.”Blocking protein farnesyltransferase improves nuclear blebbing in mouse fibroblasts with a targeted Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome mutation.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Jul 19;102(29):10291-6. Epub 2005 Jul 12.

3) Toth JI, Yang SH, Qiao X, Beigneux AP, Gelb MH, Moulson CL, Miner JH, Young SG, Fong LG. “Blocking protein farnesyltransferase improves nuclear shape in fibroblasts from humans with progeroid syndromes.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Sep 6;102(36):12873-8. Epub 2005 Aug 29.

4) Gordon LB, Kleinman ME, Miller DT, Neuberg DS, Giobbie-Hurder A, Gerhard-Herman M, Smoot LB, Gordon CM, Cleveland R, Snyder BD, Fligor B, Bishop WR, Statkevich P, Regen A, Sonis A, Riley S, Ploski C, Correia A, Quinn N, Ullrich NJ, Nazarian A, Liang MG, Huh SY, Schwartzman A, Kieran MW. “Clinical trial of a farnesyltransferase inhibitor in children with Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 9;109(41):16666-71. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1202529109. Epub 2012 Sep 24.

IVF pioneer Sir Robert Edwards dies aged 87

We are saddened to learn that IVF pioneer Professor Sir Bob Edwards has died at the age of 87, following a long illness. The University of Cambridge announced his death earlier today, noting that through his work Professor Edwards had improved the lives of millions of people around the world. Speaking about his former colleague, Professor Martin Johnson, Emeritus Professor of Reproductive Science at the University of Cambridge noted that Professor Bob was not only a scientific pioneer, but recognized the importance of explaining your research to the public:

Bob Edwards was a remarkable man who changed the lives of so many people. He was not only a visionary in his science but also in his communication to the wider public about matters scientific in which he was a great pioneer.”

Professor Sir Robert Edwards, Nobel Laureate and IVF pioneer

Professor Sir Robert Edwards, Nobel Laureate and IVF pioneer

With his colleague Dr Patrick Steptoe, Professor Edwards performed the first human in-vitro fertilization procedure, which resulted the birth of Louise Joy Brown in 1978.  35 years later more than 4 million children have been born through IVF around the world, and in 2010 Professor Edwards was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine “for the development of in vitro fertilization”. Unfortunately, as the University of Cambridge statement notes, Professor Edwards was already in poor health when the prize was announced.

The developments for which Edwards and Steptoe were responsible attracted much publicity, some of it, not least from the Vatican, highly critical.

Formal recognition therefore came late, but when it did come, it was decisive, with the award of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 2010 ‘for the development of in vitro fertilization.”

For Professor Edwards the Nobel Prize came late, but for his colleague Dr. Steptoe, who had predeceased him in 1988, it came too late. Dr. Steptoe was not alone in this. When Professor Edwards was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2010 we published a blog post welcoming the award and discussing the key contribution of animal research to the development of IVF, noteing that Dr. Min Chueh Chang – whose studies in rodents and rabbits led directly to the techniques used by Professor Edwards and Dr. Steptoe – was also denied a share in the 2010 Nobel prize as he had died in 1991. Knowing this adds to the poignancy of a moment when we remember the achievements of some of the greatest scientists of the 20th century.

Today our thoughts are with Professor Edwards’ family, friends and colleagues, but we also remember those other scientists and surgeons who worked with him to usher in a revolution in medical care that has brought happiness to millions of people across the globe.

Speaking of Research

From Macaques to Humans: UK regulator gives cautious thumbs up to advanced IVF techniques to prevent mitochondrial disease

Yesterday the UK’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) advised the government that there is no evidence the two advanced forms of IVF developed to prevent mitochondrial diseases are unsafe, recommending that research using human embryos should continue, with close monitoring of the  health of children born through these two techniques, which are known as maternal spindle transfer and pronuclear transfer. At the same time the HFEA announced that a public consultation undertake last year had found broad support for the techniques.

The UK parliament will need to make the final decision on whether these techniques – somewhat misleadingly dubbed “three person embryos” - should be allowed, and it’s important to note that even if they give their approval the HFEA stressed in its assessment that further studies of human embryos in the lab will need to take place over the next 3 to 5 years before they can move into the clinic. These further studies will help to minimize any risks associated with the procedures, though Professor Robin Lovell Badge, a member of the HFEA panel that undertook a thorough scientific review of the science underpinning the techniques, did stress in a statement to the BBC that the ultimate test of the techniques would only cone then they were tried in the clinic.

Safety is absolutely not a black and white issue. In reproductive medicine in particular it is not possible to be absolutely certain about the consequences of any new treatment until children are born.

“Someone at some point is going to have to take the brave decision to go ahead with it.”

This announcement demonstrates that 35 years after the birth of the first IVF baby, the UK still leads the way in pioneering reproductive medicine. The UK did not get here alone though, as scientists in other countries – particularly the USA – have played a vital role in the development of these techniques.

In particular just a few months ago we discussed how Professor Shoukhrat Mitalipov of the Oregon National Primate Research Center  had developed the technique of spindle–chromosomal complex transfer – a.k.a. maternal spindle transfer, and one of the two techniques that the HFEA assessed  – through studies of Rhesus macaque monkeys. These studies included one where the health of four monkeys created using these techniques was followed closely for three years, with no ill effects observed.

Mitochondrial Gene Therapy. Source Mitalipov Lab/OSHU

Mitochondrial Gene Therapy. Source Mitalipov Lab/OSHU

The development of offspring born through the technique of pronuclear transfer, which was originally developed through research in mice, has not yet been studied in primates. Professor Douglass Turnbull of Newcastle University , who has demonstrated the technique is viable in human embryos in vitro, has cited the Rhesus macaque studies undertaken by Professor Mitalipov as evidence for the safety of the approach.

It is good to see the positive but cautious approach being adopted by the HFEA  as these techniques developed through a synergy of in vivo research on mice and monkeys and in vitro research on human embryonic cells in vitro move closer to becoming a clinical reality for the many parents who are waiting for them.

Speaking of Research

Liver transplant breakthrough set to save thousands of lives: Thank the pigs!

On Friday the BBC reported that Ian Christie, a man who developed cirrhosis of the liver after being infected with hepatitis C during a blood transfusion 25 years ago, had become the first person in the world to receive a transplanted liver that had been preserved at room temperature rather than being cooled after being removed from the donor. A month after the operation, which was performed at Kings College Hospital in London, Mr. Christie is doing very well, and further clinical trials are planned.

The transplant was made possible by the development of the OrganOx Metra system that allows blood containing oxygen and nutrients to be pumped through the living liver after it has been removed from the donor, and which also allows doctors to closely monitor the condition of the liver during this time.  The system was developed by Constantin Coussios, Professor of Biomedical Engineering, and Peter Friend, Professor of Transplantation, at Oxford University, who founded the spin-out company OrganOx to further develop and commercialize their technology 5 years ago.

In a press release announcing the successful transplant operation, Prof. Coussios describes the revolutionary new system.

The device is the very first completely automated liver perfusion device of its kind: the organ is perfused with oxygenated red blood cells at normal body temperature, just as it would be inside the body, and can for example be observed making bile, which makes it an extraordinary feat of engineering.

‘It was astounding to see an initially cold grey liver flushing with colour once hooked up to our machine and performing as it would within the body. What was even more amazing was to see the same liver transplanted into a patient who is now walking around.’

‘Whilst for these two transplants we only needed to keep the livers alive for up to 10 hours, in other experiments we have shown we can preserve a functioning liver and monitor its function outside the body for periods up to 24 hours.’”

The other experiments that Prof. Coussios mentions are studies that they undertook in pigs -a species that is often used in transplant research due to the similarity in size and structure of the liver and its veins and arteries in human and pig and the strong similarity in many key physiological systems – including a key paper published in 2009 (1) which determined that their system could greatly increase the survival rate in pig liver transplants. Their system could even enable livers that would not be used for transplants using standard transplant techniques because they had been deprived of oxygen at body temperature for up to 40 minutes before being hooked up to the machine to be successfully transplanted, which may make it possible to obtain more livers for transplantation from non-beating heart donors, thereby greatly increasing the pool of possible donors. Of course this system did not come out of nowhere; it was the result of years of research by Prof. Friend and colleagues at Oxford University’s Nuffield Department of Surgery. In a series of studies they demonstrated the advantages of perfusion of pig livers with body temperature oxygenated blood over cold storage, when a range of biochemical and physiological parameters of liver function were examined in the laboratory (2).

Image courtesy of Understanding Animal Research.

Image courtesy of Understanding Animal Research.

In Friday’s press release Prof. Friend highlighted the benefits of normothermic – or body temperature – transplantation relative to the current practice of cooling organs.

Transplant surgery is a victim of its own success with far more people needing transplants than there are donor organs available. This device has the potential to change that situation radically. By enabling us to transplant many organs that are unusable with current techniques, this technology could bring benefit to a large number of patients awaiting transplants, many of whom currently die whilst still waiting.

‘At present, organ transplantation depends upon cooling the organ to ice temperature to slow down its metabolism, but this does not stop it deteriorating and, if the organ is already damaged in some way, perhaps by being deprived of oxygen, then the combined effect can be disastrous. Many potential donor organs are declined as being unsuitable for this reason.

‘This new technique allows us to assess how well an organ is working before having to decide whether to commit a patient to the operation. So this technology promises to quality-assure organs which would otherwise be discarded. This would increase the number of transplants without increasing the risks. It will make a real difference to what happens to patients on the waiting list without requiring any change in current donation practices.”

So, while the work of liver transplant pioneers like Sir Roy Calne and Professor Thomas Starzl (which depended on animal research for its success), has saved the lives of tens of thousands of people, this latest advance has the potential to double the number of lives that can be saved. It is a striking example of the crucial but, as still is too often the case, unsung role of animal research  in developing new surgical techniques.

Paul Browne

1)      Brockmann J, Reddy S, Coussios C, Pigott D, Guirriero D, Hughes D, Morovat A, Roy D, Winter L, Friend PJ. “Normothermic perfusion: a new paradigm for organ preservation.” Ann Surg. 2009 Jul;250(1):1-6. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181a63c10.

2)      Imber CJ, St Peter SD, Lopez de Cenarruzabeitia I, Pigott D, James T, Taylor R, McGuire J, Hughes D, Butler A, Rees M, Friend PJ. “Advantages of normothermic perfusion over cold storage in liver preservation.” Transplantation. 2002 Mar 15;73(5):701-9.

Brain Awareness Week: The Role of Animals in Neuroscience

If you’re a regular reader of the Speaking of Research science blog you will know that we are very interested in neuroscience – in fact several of us are neuroscientists – so you won’t be surprised to learn that we have been following events during Brain Awareness Week (#brainweek on twitter).  Brain Awareness Week is a global campaign to increase public awareness of the progress and benefits of brain research that is organized every year by the Dana Foundation in partnership with over 100 research institutes, medical charities and universities around the world.

We thought it was a good opportunity to see what new resources on the use of animals in brain research are available from key organizations involved in Brain Awareness Week, and BrainFacts.org – a public information initiative whose launch we reported last May – delivered the goods. Brainfacts.org have been busy since we last reviewed their website, and their pages on animal research in neuroscience have grown into an excellent resource that covers a wide variety of topics including how animal research is planned, undertaken and regulated, and case studies of where animal research has made key contributions to advancing neuroscience.  Among the resources are articles written by neuroscientists and excellent videos.

The contribution of animal research to brain research has been highlighted by several recent media reports of important advances in brain science. These have ranged from a study in mice that demonstrated that high salt intake can increase the activity of a class or immune cells known as Th17 cells that have been implicated  in the early development autoimmune disorders such as Multiple Sclerosis, to a study that showed how brain implants could enable rats to sense infra red light with great potential for the development of sensory prosthetics to complement recent advances on the control of robotic limbs, to the identification in rats of a protein that plays a key role in enabling some brain cells to survive following a stroke and may lead to new therapies.

Today there was another great piece of research (1) to report as a team of stem cell researchers at UW Madison led by Professor Su-Chun Zhang  and Professor Marina Emborg chalked up another first, demonstrating for the first time that it is possible to transplant neurons generated using iPS cell techniques from a monkey’s own skin cells into their brain, where they develop into several types of mature brain cell.

GFR labelled neuron. Image courtesy of Yan Liu and Su-Chun Zhang, Waisman Center

GFR labelled neuron. Image courtesy of Yan Liu and Su-Chun Zhang, Waisman Center

The success of this study is enormously promising for the future of personalized stem cell therapies for Parkinson’s disease, stroke and other brain disorders, as the report in the University of Wisconsin Madison News makes clear.

Because the cells were derived from adult cells in each monkey’s skin, the experiment is a proof-of-principle for the concept of personalized medicine, where treatments are designed for each individual.

This neuron, created in the Su-Chun Zhang lab at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, makes dopamine, a neurotransmitter involved in normal movement. The cell originated in an induced pluripotent stem cell, which derive from adult tissues. Similar neurons survived and integrated normally after transplant into monkey brains—as a proof of principle that personalized medicine may one day treat Parkinson’s disease.

And since the skin cells were not “foreign” tissue, there were no signs of immune rejection — potentially a major problem with cell transplants. “When you look at the brain, you cannot tell that it is a graft,” says senior author Su-Chun Zhang, a professor of neuroscience at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Structurally the host brain looks like a normal brain; the graft can only be seen under the fluorescent microscope.”

Rhesus macaques play a key role in brain research...

Rhesus macaques play a key role in brain research…

It’s interesting to note that the development of green fluorescent protein (GFP) labelling that played a crucial role in allowing Profs. Zhang and Emborg’s team to distinguish transplanted cells from host cells in the monkey brain was made possible by research in the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans , a tiny worm that itself plays a perhaps surprisingly important role neuroscience.

...as do nematode worms!

…as do nematode worms!

These discoveries and advances impact on many areas of brain research, and have the potential to benefit those suffering from a wide variety of brain diseases and injuries, so it is fitting that in Brain Awareness week we salute the researchers whose ingenuity and hard work makes them possible.

Speaking of Research

1) Marina E. Emborg, Yan Liu, Jiajie Xi, Xiaoqing Zhang, Yingnan Yin, Jianfeng Lu, Valerie Joers, Christine Swanson, James E. Holden, Su-Chun Zhang “Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Neural Cells Survive and Mature in the Nonhuman Primate Brain” Cell Reports, Published online 14 March 2013, DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.02.016