Dhanasekaran lab”
Cancer stem cells are stem cell-like cells in many tumors that are key contributors to the ability of tumors to persist and recur after treatment. For those reasons, they are also thought to be major targets, including of emerging therapies. Data also suggest that some therapies may create new types of cancer stem cells leading to problems down the road. As a cancer and stem cell biologist as well as a cancer survivor, I find cancer stem cells to be particularly interesting.
Cancer and cancer stem cells
- Cellular adaptation to cancer therapy along a resistance continuum, Nature.
- New Cell Targets Offer Hope for Treating Glioblastoma, Neuroscience News.
- Cancer neuroscience at the brain–body interface, G&D. We’ve seen striking research on pediatric glioma interacting with adjacent largely normal brain tissue.
Encouraging news reads
- Human iPSC-derived neural stem cells displaying radial glia signature exhibit long-term safety in mice, Nat. Comm.
- HIV-1 remission following stem cell transplant without CCR5Δ32 mutation, Nat. Med.
- Life-long functional regeneration of in vivo airway epithelium by the engraftment of airway basal stem cells, Nature Protocols.
- CRISPR Nobelists surrender their own European patents, Nature Biotech News.
More reads
- Trump won. Is NIH in for a major shake-up?, Science.
- TurboID goes extracellular, Science Signaling.
- Nasal Spray Made From Stem Cell-Derived Vesicles Could Treat Alzheimer’s Disease, Texas A&M. This is interesting work on exosomes, but the title is too aspirational for me based on the data. The idea of intranasal delivery of stem cells or other regenerative products has generated much interest but poses unclear risks. Many clinics are selling this idea of snorting stem cells without good evidence to back it up.
Hi Dr. Paul,
I love your blog. I know you can’t give medical advice, definitely not asking for any here, just curious what your thoughts are on the research.
You likely know that Dr. Centeno put out the research testing 5 umbilical cord/tissue makers in the USA, and found no living cells according to CFU-f, but his BMAC from older patients did.
He’s since mentioned every single Wharton’s Jelly offering in the USA is a scam, citing this study, but it doesn’t quite add up to me as he only tested 5 manufacturers, all of which seem to be defunct now, and he has a pretty clear conflict of interest. It’d be a massive bombshell if Ways2Well was actually scamming people, and I’ve been chatting with Utah Stem Cells who says that study is bogus, and a handful of others.
To be fair, a lot do appear to be blatant scams… but not everybody, especially with the new Utah laws.
What are your thoughts? Think they’re all scams?
Thank you
A lot depends on how one defines a “scam.”
It sure seems that many Wharton’s jelly preps may have no living cells in them so if firms market as though there were living stem cells or other cells in the product, that’s a problem.
Wharton’s jelly could have other useful stuff still even if no cells remain alive. However, whether it’s cells or matrix or matrix, or whatever, it has to be proven first to be safe and effective for a given condition and that hasn’t happened so that’s another problem in this space. A tough question is how do you ensure sterility of birth-related products without destroying all the possible cellular and molecular goodies inside (cells, GFs, etc.) such with heat or radiation?
Many birth product manufacturers also have been cited the FDA for bad sterile technique issues. Liveyon’s product sent 30+ people to the hospital because of contamination so it’s not just a hypothetical.
Wharton’s jelly products are also cellular/tissue drugs requiring pre-approval from the FDA before clinical use, which on one has and that’s another problem regardless of the Utah law. Will the FDA find itself in conflicts with Utah firms that cite the new state law and could this then end up in court in some cases? It’s quite possible. Same for NV.