New human clinical trials using derivatives of pluripotent stem cells in China for Parkinson’s Disease (PD) have raised expectations and some eyebrows. PD is a neurodegenerative condition, sometimes diagnosed or followed by PET scans such as the one at left, characterized by loss of dopaminergic neurons leading to severe and sometimes life-threatening symptoms. Continue reading
By Jeanne Loring
“Mutation” and “cancer” are eye-catching words for a headline; add “stem cells” and there is a good chance that a lot of people will hear about it. These words have been liberally used in the press to describe the results of a recent publication: “Human pluripotent stem cells recurrently acquire and expand dominant negative P53 mutations.”
Every time a scientific report suggests that human stem cells are dangerous, I feel the need to reassure both scientists and non-scientists that we should not panic. The sky is NOT falling (contrary to Henny Penny), and pluripotent stem cells remain valuable for cell replacement therapies.
Human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) have been around for 20 years, and the NIH has registered 384 different hESC lines that meet ethical guidelines and are eligible for use with NIH grant funding. The cell lines are held by their owners, and Kevin Eggan, the senior author on the mutation publication, spent years convincing the owners to give him samples of 140 of them for genomic analysis.
His research group sequenced all of the protein coding regions of the genomes of these cells, looking for errors that might affect their suitability for both clinical and research use. They found many differences among the cells, but focused on one particular gene, TP53, because of its association with many kinds of cancers. The protein, called p53, is a tumor suppressor. This means that having two healthy copies of the TP53 gene protects cells from becoming cancerous. The publication reported that about 5% of the cell lines tested had only one good copy of TP53. This means that they are less protected and more likely to form tumors.
Problems with TP53 in hESCs have been reported before by two papers from my research group: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25714340 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27888558. But the current study went to the heart of the potential problem: scientists who provided the cells to Eggan DID NOT KNOW that they carried TP53 mutations. This is definitely something to be concerned about.
Why didn’t the scientists know?
Allow me to have a small rant…I have been on this soapbox since 2000, when I received my first NIH grant for genomic analysis of human stem cells (NIH). I’ve been telling anyone who will listen that they need to use genomic and epigenetic methods to ensure the safety of stem cell derivatives used for transplantation. Our cell replacement project to treat Parkinson’s disease with autologous dopamine neurons has numerous quality control steps, including whole genome sequencing (WGS), epigenetic profiling, and gene expression analysis. These measures go far beyond what is required by the FDA, but we want to use all of the tools we can to make sure that the transplanted cells won’t harm the patients.
But stem cell scientists without a background in DNA sequencing can often find the huge datasets to be daunting and some researchers are concerned that they won’t be able to understand the results. I’ve been lucky that I have a background in genomics and close colleagues who specialize in bioinformatics. And I’ve had my own genome sequenced (three times, but that’s another story), which makes me more comfortable about the normal variations among different people and the significance of disease-causing mutations. Luckier still, CIRM has funded my lab for 9 years to perform extensive genetic analysis of human pluripotent stem cells and their derivatives.
What can a stem cell scientist do now (instead of panicking)? I can’t invite everyone to collaborate with me, but I can recommend that researchers look around them to find scientists down the street or across campus who can analyze WGS datasets. WGS costs about $2,000, a tiny fraction of the cost of developing a bank of stem cell-derived cells for cell replacement therapy or of potentially stopping an actual trial that inadvertently used insufficiently validated cells later found to contain functionally important mutations.
Last year my lab reported ways to identify dangerous mutations that might occur in induced pluripotent stem cells, using WGS. Once a bioinformaticist agrees to work on stem cell sequences, this would be a good place to start.
Don’t panic! Check your cells instead.
About the author. Jeanne Loring is a professor in the Department of Molecular Medicine at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, CA. Her lab focuses on stem cell applications for Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, Fragile X Syndrome, and rescue of endangered species.
There is a growing trend of apparently unhappy patients suing stem cell clinics, which have faced more lawsuits recently and some of these cases are proposed class action suits that could have much broader impact.
The latest case is against San Diego-based Stemgenex, a clinic that has claimed amongst other things that it can treat numerous diverse afflictions and that it has had a 100% customer satisfaction rate.
KPBS reporter David Wagner also has more on this story. Wagner also noted that Stemgenex has publicly argued for less FDA oversight of stem cells even as this case was starting to unfold. Amongst the around 600 stem cell clinics in the U.S., many of these businesses also argue for less FDA oversight.
What’s the back story on the Stemgenex case?
Earlier this year there were some indications of attorneys being interested in a possible class action suit in part against a stem cell clinic in San Diego, but specifics had been lacking. Now a court document has provided new detailed information.
This case is Moorer v. StemGenex Medical Group. et at. The main named plaintiff on behalf of all the potential others in the class is Selena Moorer. A second plaintiff, Stephen Ginsberg, is mentioned later in the document as part of the “financial abuse of elders” subclass.
The defendants include the following businesses and individuals: Stemgenex, Stemgenex Medical Group, Stem Cell Research Centre, Rita Alexander, Andre Lallande D.O., Scott Sessions M.D., and DOE defendants 1-100. For the first three businesses listed as defendants, I don’t know at this time how they are interrelated versus different.
There are nine separate causes of action mentioned:
- “Violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq
- Violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code .§ 17500 et seq.
- Violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq
- Violation of Human Experimentation Law – Cal. Health &; Safety Code § 24170, et seq
- Violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Unjust Enrichment
- Financial Elder Abuse”
I’m not sure why earlier in the document it lists only 8 complaints and then later the 9 complaints listed above are mentioned. There are a lot of other potentially notable things mentioned in the document as well such as that Stemgenex charges $14,900 per treatment. If I understood the document correctly, this case has now gone from being a California suit to a federal case. I’m not sure on why and what implications that might have.
Importantly, keep in mind that we do not know if any of these allegations are factual and there is no court ruling on any of them. Stemgenex reportedly did not respond to requests from KPBS for comment. If the company comments on the case I’ll do a post on that.
What about the stem cell clinic area more broadly?
More generally, as mentioned earlier, it’s been an active year for lawsuits against stem cell clinics. The community learned last week about the second of two different stem cell lawsuits against Florida-based U.S. Stem Cell, Inc. At the end of August there were indications of a possible class action lawsuit against The Lung Institute, another stem cell clinic.
I’m not a lawyer, but I wonder if class action suits, if approved, could be combined and then end up encompassing many different clinics across the U.S. as defendants. Continue reading
Vote on your pick for the top stem cell outside the box thinker and positive impactor in 2016 from the 20 choices below. The top 10 vote getters will be finalists from which I will have the tough task of picking the one winner as Stem Cell Person of the Year along with the $2,000 prize and recognition.
You can vote once per day. The voting closes in 10 days on December 15th at 11:59pm Pacific Time. Read more about the 20 nominees here.
I received a score of great nominations for the Stem Cell Person of the Year 2016 Award and have briefly described the twenty nominees below. The point of the award is to honor the top positive stem cell leader who specifically thinks outside the box and takes risks.
I’ve started an on-line vote where you can vote once per day for your favorite nominee(s) for Stem Cell Person of the Year. The top half or so of nominees getting the most votes will be the finalists from which I will choose the final winner, who receives the $2,000 prize and international recognition as a global leader in the stem cell and regenerative medicine field.
Past winners of the Stem Cell Person of the Year Award include the following:
- Top stem cell scientist Jeanne Loring in 2015.
- Pioneering vision and pluripotent stem cell clinical researcher, Masayo Takahashi in 2014.
- Neural stem cell scientist and very effective Italian politician Elena Cattaneo in 2013.
- Stem cell patient advocate Roman Reed in 2012.
Here are the 2016 nominees in alphabetical order by first name with some description of who they are and a bit of the words from the person(s) who nominated them in some cases. Where I could find a link to websites describing their accomplishments, I have provided those.
Amy Wagers, Professor at Harvard. She has a long track record of cutting edge research on stem cells including recently very provocative work on the role of stem cells in human aging and approaches to reversing aging.
Arnold Caplan, Professor at Case Western Reserve. He is often considered the “father” of the mesenchymal stem/stromal cell (medicinal signaling cell) field and has done important research on MSCs over many years.
Connie Eaves, Distinguished Investigator at Terry Fox Laboratory at UBC. She has a remarkable track record of innovative research on stem cells including both normal and cancer stem cells and a reputation as a fantastic mentor and leader in the field more generally. “Brilliant scientist with unmatched piercing view of science”.
Hiroshi Nagashima, Professor at Meiji University, Tokyo. “A true translational scientist (with a wicked sense of humor!)” He works in part on cloning technology and could revolutionize organ transplantation approaches leading to huge impact.
Jim Gass. Jim is a patient who suffered a stroke and then sought stem cell treatments to try to reverse some of the damage. Somewhere along the lines, one or more of the unproven stem cell therapies he received caused him to develop a spinal tumor. He had the courage to go public with his story and describe his experiences, potentially risking litigation. “A gutsy man who has prevented others from getting injured.”
John Pimanda, Associate Professor of Medicine and Stem Cell Biology, UNSW Australia. He researches transcriptional regulation of adult stem cells and now the use of fat stem cells for spine injury.
Judy Roberson. She is a tireless Huntington’s Disease (HD) advocate, always working to make a positive difference. “She is a straight shooter who will tell you what she thinks and work to make it a reality.”
Jun Takahashi. He is a Professor at CiRA and pluripotent stem cell biology researcher. Jun has done pioneering IPSC research and is working to start a very exciting Parkinson’s Disease clinical trial using IPSC in Japan.
Margaret Goodell, Professor at Baylor College of Medicine. She is an internationally respected scholar in the stem cell field. She conducts cool, innovative research on transcriptional and epigenetic regulation of hematopoietic stem cells and how this goes awry in leukemias.
Mike West. Often mentioned as one of the founders of the regenerative medicine field, he is the leader of BioTime and is a thought leader in the field. “Mike knows all about taking risks in regenerative medicine leading to big, positive leaps forward.”
Nissim Benvenisty, Professor of Genetics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is a super-prolific, long-time stem cell researcher. His latest work this year was on revolutionary production of haploid ES cells.
Oliver Brustle, Professor and Director of the Institute of Reconstructive Neurobiology and Professor of Reconstructive Neurobiology at the University of Bonn Medical Center. He conducts innovative neural stem cell research and is a globally respected stem cell leader.
Randy Mills, President and CEO of CIRM. He has been a leader in stem cell biotech for years and has shaken things up at the helm of CIRM with a much more translational emphasis. “Randy has CIRM on track to meaningful clinical outcomes in a way that I cannot imagine another leader could have achieved. The outcome will change the world.”
Richard Ambinder, Johns Hopkins Hospital. Professor Ambinder has done pioneering work in the area of stem cells and viruses, including HIV, as well as stem cells for patients with hematopoietic malignancies. A scientist with a prodigious publication record of high-impact papers.
Robert Lanza. He has been a regenerative medicine leader for, what, decades? Long time scientific leader behind ACT and then its new incarnation as Ocata, which was purchased by Astellas and he leads global regenerative medicine at Astellas.”We expect something new and big from Bob at every turn”.
Sally Temple, Scientific Director, Co-Founder, and Principle Investigator at the Neural Stem Cell Institute. She is also the President of ISSCR. Scholar and innovative researcher in the stem cell field with a focus on stem cells in the brain. Past MacArthur Fellow. “One of the brightest developmental biologists in the world and a natural leader.”
Sheng Ding, Senior Investigator, Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease. Dr. Ding has done some of the most creative and impactful research in the stem cell field to date, and continues to crank out new discoveries in particular related to chemical reprogramming. He also has co-founded a number of exciting biotechs including Fate Therapeutics. “He has been a positive leader in the stem cell field, and his outside-of-the-box thinking has greatly enhanced our collective efforts to advance the field.”
Shoukhrat Mitalipov, Professor at ONPRC and OHSU. Shoukhrat is a top researcher in the stem and germ cell arenas of research including cloning and mitochondrial transfer, with cutting edge high impact papers published every year. “Fearless and one of the premier innovators in the field”.
Ted Harada (posthumous). Ted was one of the most prominent patients participating in a stem cell clinical trial ever. He fought for patients and efforts such as right to try every step along the way, and brought people together in the field. You can see his obituary and tributes here.
Theresa Liao. Powerful advocate for the use of stem cells to treat recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB). Through relentless advocacy she has made a profound difference in this area of clinical research. “A parent and visionary patient advocate.”