is it possible to cure diseases with the help of gene therapy in humans?
465916
In general, a gene cannot be directly inserted into a person’s cell. It must be delivered to the cell using a carrier, or “vector.” The vectors most commonly used in gene therapy are viruses.\n\nIn one form of therapy cells from the patient’s blood or bone marrow are removed and grown in the laboratory. The cells are exposed to the virus that is carrying the desired gene. The virus enters the cells and inserts the desired gene into the cells’ DNA. The cells grow in the laboratory and are then returned to the patient by injection into a vein. This is called ex vivo because the cells are grown outside the body.\n\nIn another form of therapy, vectors (again viruses) or liposomes (fatty particles) are used to deliver the desired gene to cells in the patient’s body. This form of gene therapy is called in vivo, because the gene is transferred to cells inside the patient’s body.\n\nUsing these approaches researchers are trying a variety of theraputic options, namely:\n\n1) Replacing a mutated gene that causes disease with a healthy copy of the gene.\n2) Inactivating a mutated gene that is functioning improperly.\n3) Introducing a new gene into the body to help fight a disease.
341599
Like most advances in technology, it is a double-edged sword, meaning it can be both good and bad. \n\nOn the good side, genetic engineering promises to enhance the quality of life and to extend it to greater lengths.  Cures to most diseases may be solved through genetic engineering.\n\nOn the bad side, it allows for incredibly destuctive tools to be levied against others.  More lethal viruses could be produced, custom tailored to affect only specific people or specific parts of the body.  \n\nThis is just a mere glimpse into the possibility of what genetic engineering has to offer.
103980
In gene therapy, no one actually changes the original DNA of the patient. Typically they simply provide a correct copy of the gene in question in the tissues/organs/cells that need the correct gene for the patient to be healthy again. Therefore it is not very important to have the gene-therapy cells/DNA in every cell of the patient; at least in case of SCID. But in some other cases like muscular dystrophy, the gene therapy would need to be done in literally 70% of the body tissues.. now that's a real challenge still waiting to be solved!
1011711
Depends if you are the biotech godzilla or the person with the disease.  If you have a disease and actully want to live then curing it would be the only viable solution.  However if you are the drug maker you are going to want to run people dry to fill your pocket..  that is what is happening only in this country as medical is government fed in virtually every other country around.
192964
it depends from which angel u are looking at this?\nif you are sceintist: it is the discovery of the milennium, becoz with DNA structure u can play with gene to cure any disease in the world.\ncreate a genome map,\ncann create a history of genes in an family,\nget to the root of the diseases\nand so on......\nBut if you are conservative: it is useless to talk about.
561843
The most interesting question of the day, so I had to do some research. While I thought it was impossible because of the antigens present in blood types, this article seems to indicate that it can be done. That sure will relieve blood supply issues.
383688
Can be an interesting business venture once the human genome is completely understood. But I dont think it is possible at the moment.
708612
The question is too general.  It depends on what type of gene you are asking about.  For gene related to human diseases, one most likely will need to study patient population with the disease and consider are the gene(s) playing equal role in different patients.  Human diseases often involve many genes and they are likely involved in a common pathway for example.  Defect in any component of a pathway may generate the same disease phenotype.  \n\nIf there is a great animal model for the human disease, investigators will likely use the model to determine disease gene.  However, very often the gene affected in animals is not exactly the same that causes problem in human.  \n\nIf, however, you mean gene of interest in a bacteria, the ball game is quite different.  It is much more easy to work with simple organism.  One can isolate mutants affecting the gene of interest.
96827
unlike conventional pharmaceutical treatments... which address the manifestation of disease or illness, i.e., symptoms, gene therapy is a potential permanent therapy or cure. \n\nthink about taking daily doses of insulin to treat diabetes or the drug lipitor to lower cholesterol levels... whether its a natural biological product (insulin) or a chemical compound, a patient needs to intake these drugs because they can not be manufactured in the body.\n\nwhat if instead of taking manufactured insulin, you were able to restore the body's natural ability to produce insulin by transfering the insuling gene with a subset of cells or the appropriate organ... you'd end up with a lifetime therapy... not a short term treatment.\n\nI participated in the first ever human clinical gene therapy trials at the NIH... it was to treat a girl with ADA (adenosine de-aminase) deficiency... essentially an immune suppression that leads to the 'boy in the bubble' syndrome where the person is ultra hypersensitive to external antigens. \n\nsome of the challenges and issues then still remain and some are advanced...  gene identification, gene cassette construction, gene transfer, gene expression, longevity, immune rejection, \n\ngene identification - with the completion of the human genome project, many more genes have been identified and available to be used as a cure... \n\ngene cassettes - the genes need to be engineered to produce the appropriate gene product (protein) within the body...\n\ngene transfer - the gene needs to be transfered from outside the body (ex vivo) to the appropriate organ in the body... engineered (think neutered) viruses serve as vehicles to carry the genes... they are further engineered to target specific organs or cells... e.g., liver, T-cells... pros & cons with different viruses exist, e.g., size, infection rate, immune reactivity, etc...\n\ngene expression - once the gene arrives at the desired location, it has to borrow the cells machinery to produce the proteins... the delivered gene can be express transiently or more permanently... usually when its transient, it requires on-going treatment (... not desirable)... but in order to establish a permanent footprint in the DNA, it must be careful not to cause insertional mutagenesis (get stuck in the middle of an essesntial gene and cause untoward damage)\n\nimmune rejection - colds are caused by viruses... viruses are used as gene transfer vehicles... the body tries to fight off a cold... the body tries to fight off the gene transfer vehicles... a severe inflammatory reaction to a gene transfer event can lead to death...\n\nbesides the technical difficulties, there are ethical, legal, social implications (ELSI) associated with gene therapy... so far gene therapy has been discussed in terms of somatic cell thereapy (adult body cells), not germ line therapy (sperm or egg)... it's one thing to affect a single person, but if you make changes to a sperm or egg, then there is the potential now to pass along the changes to the next generation... \n\ngene therapy, much like other advances in biotech/medicine, was overhyped in its early days... the promise of a cure for intractable diseases raised hopes for patients (and investor)... because the expectations were so high the initial results failed to meet them, but continued progress in this area occurrs each year and soon I believe we will realize the full promise of gene therapy.
147249
Stem cell research can lead to discoveries of cures for diseases.  Transplants save people with bad organs from dying.
821240
First of all antibiotics are designed to kill microorganisms like bacteria and fungi by interacting specifically with some of their molecules. Therefore antibiotics anyway do not harm human cells (otherwise they would poison/kill us) since they don't interact with the human cellular machinery and in a way we are already "resistant" to antibiotics.\n\nWhen you digest food proteins that provide resistance to antibiotics are broken down and the genes encoding for these proteins are also broken down. So no they will not enter into your cells or change your DNA...\n\nThe only issue is that there is the possibility that this gene might be transfered through viruses to microorganisms and make them resistant to that antibiotic. Then you could have e.g. a bacterium that is resistant to that antibiotic and therefore infection by it will not be treatable with this antibiotic. HOWEVER it can be treated by other antibiotics. Or it might be specific for microorganisms that are pathogenic eg for plants  but not humans so anyway there wouldn't be any risk for humans.\nMoreover there are other methods that ensure that the final GMO will not have an anibiotic resistance gene.\n\nInserting "new" genes or genes from other organisms in organisms that will be consumed has the risk of generating allergies. It would be poisonous only if you clone a gene that  codes for a toxin but that would be stupid or ill-purposed.
593396
I'm sorry to say, no there is no cure for it.  There is a lot of research, but no cure yet.  They are coming out with medications that can help.
1049445
Hi,\n\nI don't think there is a cure for this disease but there are several drugs available and coming through the system that may help ease the problems or slow them down.  \n\nTry these links:\n\nhttp://www.clevelandclinic.org/health/health-info/docs/2100/2112.asp?index=8877\nhttp://armor.typepad.com/bastardsword/2004/08/potential_cure_.html\nhttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=35418
704129
Allow me to address your questions in a different order than you have asked:\n\nFirst of all, there is a reason why it seems like they're saying stem cells might cure just about anything.  The reason is that it seems that way to scientists too!  Let's put it this way - given the right set of stimuli, we KNOW a stem cell can grow into any cell in your body.  We know this because that is what stem cells already do on their own.  The potential for medicine is staggering.\n\nImagine what repairing a car would be like if all you could use were whatever parts happened to be in the nearest junkyard.  You might be able to use duct tape to hold things together a little longer, or if you're lucky you'll have exactly the right part available, but otherwise mostly you're making do and hoping.  That's kind of where medicine is now with major problems.\n\nIf some of the promise of stem cells pan out, however, the potential exists that any time something goes wrong, doctors could produce a new part and replace the old one.  Like having a catalogue of custom car parts at your fingertips.  Lost your arm in a car accident?  Your pancreas stopped producing insulin and now you're diabetic?  You don't like that old, wrinkly skin you have and want something new?  NO PROBLEM.  (You can see, I hope, why that might make people excited)\n\nBut it's not easy.  There HAS been some success with stem cells of various types.  An experimentor in Asia caused some stem cells to grow into new capillary tissue in a patient, replacing something which medicine is otherwise completely incapable of fixing right now (those capillaries are just too small).  Some isolated tisue has also been grown from stem cells such as cartilage and heart tissue, demonstrating the possibility of growing just one organ for a graft.\n\nMajor diseases are still in the works, however... in large part because we still have a lot to learn!  One study just recently started injecting stem cells into the brains of terminally ill children - not intending to cure them, but just intending to learn how many they have to use, how and where they will implant, and what risks they pose to the patients.  As you can see, we're still kind of at the beginning of this whole thing, even though there has been some very promising work.\n\nAs to why the government has to pay for it... it actually is the case that the government pays for MOST scientific research that goes on.  Who else is going to pay in a capitalistic society?  Companies only want to fund things that are going to pay off directly for them; in this field they ARE competing with other countries and applicable results are probably still a ways off for things that would be massively profitable.  Private citizens don't usually have the resources to fund research much themselves, though Howard Hughes' vast monetary legacy would be one notable exception.\n\nThe bottom line, really, is that if researchers can't find money to do their work here, they will go someplace where they can.  That is why Missouri was trying to pass a law explicitly allowing such research - biotech companies in that state found that they were completely incapable of attracting scientists to work for them at any price that they could afford.  Some countries DO have different research structures:  in Japan the government can get all affected companies to pool resources and share the resulting technology, for example.  And perhaps for humanity as a whole it hardly matters whether Sweden, South Africa, or America makes all these discoveries... but it CERTAINLY matters for the economies of those specific countries!
459713
Hopefully, Stem Cell Research may be of help
714120
Genetic engineering can, indeed solve many health and ecological issues such as preventing diseases involved in transcription, etc. and increasing crop yield.  Whether or not it's the hope of the future is unique to each person.
1049935
Not currently, however there are treatments and preventative measures. \n\nA cure means you will be completely absolved of the problem forever.  \n\nA treatment is a management. Like chemo can rid a person of cancer for awhile but there's still a chance it will come back. \n\nCancer happens on a cellular level so it's going to be a tough one to find a 'cure' for.  \n\n(Quoted)\nCancer can be treated by surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, immunotherapy or other methods. The choice of therapy depends upon the location and grade of the tumor and the stage of the disease, as well as the general state of the patient (performance status). A number of experimental cancer treatments are also under development.\n\nComplete removal of the cancer without damage to the rest of the body is the goal of treatment. Sometimes this can be accomplished by surgery, but the propensity of cancers to invade adjacent tissue or to spread to distant sites by microscopic metastasis often limits its effectiveness. The effectiveness of chemotherapy is often limited by toxicity to other tissues in the body. Radiation can also cause damage to normal tissue.\n\nBecause "cancer" refers to a class of diseases, it is unlikely that there will ever be a single "cure for cancer" any more than there will be a single treatment for all infectious diseases