alexa Finally, A Routine Use for ES and iPS Cells | OMICS International
ISSN: 2153-0777
Journal of Bioengineering and Bioelectronics

Like us on:

Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Finally, A Routine Use for ES and iPS Cells

David T. Harris*
Department of Immunology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Corresponding Author : Dr. David T. Harris
Department of Immunology
University of Arizona Tucson
Arizona, USA
E-mail:
[email protected]
Received December 19, 2010; Accepted December 20, 2011; Published December 22, 2011
Citation: Harris DT (2011) Finally, A Routine Use for ES and iPS Cells. J Biochip Tissue chip 1:e103. doi:10.4172/2157-0777.1000e103
Copyright: © 2011 Harris DT. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Bioengineering and Bioelectronics

Abstract

For more than a decade now the scientific community has been waiting for embryonic stem (ES) and induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells to mature from an interesting research observation to a useful clinical tool. Unfortunately, it has become readily apparent that there are many barriers to clinical implementation for both ES and iPS cells. Allogenicity and the threat of immune rejection by the host, the risk of teratogenicity and development of tumors in anatomical locations that would be life-threatening (e.g., the brain), and the time and cost involved to derive differentiated tissues for clinical use (estimated to be 6 months or more and in excess of $50,000 per tissue) have thwarted the rapid transition of these cells from the bench to the bedside. Although the use of iPS cells can alleviate the concern of immune rejection found with ES cells, it does not remove the other problems and reports of extensive genomic instability only serve to further limit this technology from clinical use. These issues have put this field under intense scrutiny which has increased costs as well as federal regulatory oversight. In fact, these difficulties have resulted in one of the major players in this field, Geron, to withdraw from these endeavors. It is doubtful that either ES or iPS cells would ever be given directly to patients, and it is very difficult to conceive of even bringing tissues and cells derived from either source to fruition for patient benefit (although some companies are trying).

For more than a decade now the scientific community has been waiting for embryonic stem (ES) and induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells to mature from an interesting research observation to a useful clinical tool. Unfortunately, it has become readily apparent that there are many barriers to clinical implementation for both ES and iPS cells. Allogenicity and the threat of immune rejection by the host, the risk of teratogenicity and development of tumors in anatomical locations that would be life-threatening (e.g., the brain), and the time and cost involved to derive differentiated tissues for clinical use (estimated to be 6 months or more and in excess of $50,000 per tissue) have thwarted the rapid transition of these cells from the bench to the bedside. Although the use of iPS cells can alleviate the concern of immune rejection found with ES cells, it does not remove the other problems and reports of extensive genomic instability only serve to further limit this technology from clinical use. These issues have put this field under intense scrutiny which has increased costs as well as federal regulatory oversight. In fact, these difficulties have resulted in one of the major players in this field, Geron, to withdraw from these endeavors. It is doubtful that either ES or iPS cells would ever be given directly to patients, and it is very difficult to conceive of even bringing tissues and cells derived from either source to fruition for patient benefit (although some companies are trying).
Thus, how is the scientific and medical community ever to routinely benefit from the enormous medical potential of these cells? Extensive work is currently being performed to derive iPS cells from individuals with certain diseases (e.g., ALS) in order to create disease models for further study. Although this approach is commendable and should provide insight into various disease mechanisms, it is my thought that if iPS cells were used on chips for high throughput screening (HTS), and was combined with specific disease and patient targeting, it could be an approach that should be more routinely useful for drug discovery targeted to these particular diseases and patients. In fact, such an approach might prove quite useful in developing personalized medicines and novel therapeutic approaches. As the costs of drug development and the regulations involved are so onerous such an approach (particularly if combined with the various large libraries of small molecules freely available) should be an economical and rapid method by which to identify possible “hits” for further exploration and development. This approach would also be suitable with tissues derived from such disease and patient-specific iPS cells in order to further define novel therapeutic approaches. The ability to use robotics to further accelerate the discovery process and to cut costs could reduce the expense of drug development significantly, as well as bringing targeted therapies to the clinic sooner. Such an approach would also be useful in the search for small molecules that could be used for regenerative therapies to treat such problems as myocardial infarction, stroke and Parkinson’s disease.
When considering such an approach the availability of both positive and negative findings as presented in “Open Access” journals is of utmost importance. The rapid dissemination of such information to as wide an audience as possible will assist in the refinement of current and future research, as well as cut costs to bring these discoveries to the clinic. The Journal of Biochips and Tissue Chips should be one such journal that should be strongly considered when deciding upon where to publish such information. Only with such an approach can we hope
Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Article Usage

  • Total views: 11814
  • [From(publication date):
    December-2011 - May 29, 2020]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 8033
  • PDF downloads : 3781
Top