Can anyone tell me whyBMP is used to prevent stem cell differentiation in vitro?
599131
bmps can be used to stimulate stem cells to differentiate along certain lineages (osteogenesis for example), and can also be used to prevent stimulation into specific cell types (for example embryonic cells into neural)
27073
There are several possible reasons.  These include the fact that 2-mercaptoethanol (also known as 2- Hydroxyethylmercaptan) contains sulfur and is needed as a growth factor for T-cells cultures (see below).  For the same reason, the compound also inhibits the growth of some organism by interfering with some of the enzymes that they need to reproduce.\nLike most culture medium ingredients, the compound is added when helpful and left out when it is not.
270070
ByungSun Min is in the Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Taejon (Daejeon), Korea. One of the 2004 publications lists ByungSun as in the Laboratory of Immunomodulator of that Institute. \n\nI quote from the website of KRIBB:\n" Laboratory of Immunomodulator\n\nOne major facet of research is dedicated to the screening and development of immunomodulating agents for controlling inflammatory diseases (asthma, arthritis, allergy, lupus, rheumatoids, cancer metastasis) from natural products using biochemical assay methods based on disease mechanisms. In addition, optimization research on bioactive compounds isolated from natural products has been carried out through organic synthetic methods.\n\n- Development of therapeutic agents for chronic inflammatory diseases (asthma, arthritis, rheumatoids)\n- Development of protease inhibitors\n- Development of cancer metastasis inhibitors\n- Development of modulators of aging and apoptosis"\n\nThe link for KRIBB is:\nhttp://www.kribb.re.kr/kribbe/index_main.asp?li=main.asp?ht=./activitie/activitie.html&ca=1&se=1
416224
Therapeutic cloning: \n(a.k.a. Somatic cell nuclear transfer or research cloning): \n\nThis starts with the same procedure as is used in adult DNA cloning. The resultant embryo would be allowed to grow for perhaps 14 days. It's stem cells would then be extracted and encouraged to grow into a piece of human tissue or a complete human organ for transplant. The end result would not be a human being; it would be a replacement organ, or piece of nerve tissue, or quantity of skin. The first successful therapeutic cloning was accomplished in 2001-NOV by Advanced Cell Technology, a biotech company in Worcester, MA.\n\nUnfortunately, although adult DNA cloning and therapeutic cloning are quite different procedures leading to very different goals, both terms contain the word "cloning." This causes a great deal of confusion among the public. Many transfer their disgust at the concept of creating cloned babies to therapeutic cloning whose goal is to create an organ to heal people. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), a pro-life senator has suggested the term "somatic cell nuclear transfer" to replace therapeutic cloning. \n\nWhat are its possible benefits?\n\nIf therapeutic cloning using embryos is successful, then perfectly matched, replacement organs could become freely available to sick and dying people. That would save countless numbers of lives, and increase the quality of life of countless others. Three possible examples of therapeutic cloning "might include the use of insulin-secreting cells for diabetes; nerve cells in stroke or Parkinson’s disease; or liver cells to repair a damaged organ." 4 There would probably also be side benefits resulting from the research. "Further advances in understanding of how organs regenerate would increase the range of possible treatments that could be considered." \n\nThis procedure would have a number of advantages, when compared to regular organ transplant donated by a second person: \nbulletThere would be presumably be no danger of rejection of the transplant because the organ's DNA would match the patient's DNA exactly. \nbulletFor transplants involving kidney (or theoretically any other organ that is duplicated in the body), another individual would not have to experience pain, inconvenience, and potentially shortened life span in order to donate the organ.\nbulletThe patient would not have to wait until an unrelated donor dies to obtain a transplant. A new organ could be grown for them as needed.\nbulletThe patient would not have to make-do with a replacement organ that is old and may have reduced functionality; a brand-new organ would be grown specifically for them.\nbulletThe procedure would save lives which would otherwise be lost waiting for a transplant that did not come in time.\nbulletThe potential exists to cure, or at least treat, certain diseases and disorders that cannot be effectively handled today
556113
If a foreign substance (an antigen) is injected into a vertebrate such as a mouse or a human, some of the immune system's B-cells will turn into plasma cells and start to produce antibodies that bind to that antigen. Each B-cell produces only one kind of antibody, but different B-cells will produce structurally different antibodies that bind to different parts ("epitopes") of the antigen. This natural mixture of antibodies is known as polyclonal antibodies.\n\nTo produce monoclonal antibodies, one removes B-cells from the spleen of an animal that has been challenged with the antigen. These B-cells are then fused with myeloma tumor cells that can grow indefinitely in culture (myeloma is a B-cell cancer). This fusion is done by making the cell membranes more permeable. The fused hybrid cells (called hybridomas), being cancer cells, will multiply rapidly and indefinitely and will produce large amounts of antibodies. The hybridomas are sufficiently diluted and grown, so that one obtains a number of different colonies, each producing only one type of antibody. The antibodies from the different colonies are then tested for their ability to bind to the antigen (for example with a test such as ELISA), and the most effective one is picked out.\n\nMonoclonal antibodies can be produced in cell culture or in animals. When the hybridoma cells are injected in mice (in the peritoneal cavity, the gut), they produce tumors containing an antibody-rich fluid called ascites fluid.\n\nIn the above process, one uses myeloma cell lines that have lost their ability to produce their own antibodies, so as to not dilute the target antibody. Furthermore, one employs only myeloma cells that have lost a specific enzyme (hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase, HGPRT) and therefore cannot grow under certain conditions (namely in the presence of HAT medium). Fusions between healthy B-cells and myeloma cells are rare, but when one succeeds, then the healthy partner supplies the needed enzyme and the fused cell can survive in HAT medium. This is the trick to detect the successfully fused cells.\n\n\nPolyclonal antibodies are antibodies that are derived from different cell lines.\n\nThese antibodies are typically produced by immunization of a suitable mammal, such as a mouse or rabbit. An antigen is injected into the mammal. This induces the B-lymphocytes to produce IgG immunoglobulins specific for the antigen
899422
Measurement of cell proliferation and cell mediated contraction in 3-dimensional hydrated collagen matrices \n\nSummary  This report describes simplified methods for the preparation of reconstituted collagen gels containing a uniform distribution of anchorage dependent cells in 96-well microtitration plates, their dissolution with collagenase allow harvesting of either cells or medium, and objective analytical methods for measuring cell mediated contraction of collagen gels and [3 H]thymidine incorporation rates.\nKey words  collagen - cell proliferation assay - contraction assay - micro cell-culture methods\n\nTo whom requests for reprints should be addressed at Opthalmic Research Unit, University of Western Australia, Royal Perth Hospital, GPO Box X2213, PERTh 6001, Western Australia.\n\n:>peace
860270
Hi - here are some ideas without seeing your actual data.  First - the system was too hot during transfer to  the membrane - be sure you aren't running it at too high  a voltage.   Second, not an issue with the  blot,  but with  the gel  - was it expired?  not fully polymerized? were the  wells free of debris when loading  samples?   sometimes with highly concentrated samples, especially cell lysates,  this  can  happen  because  of  viscosity  in t he  sample  (from  DNA for example). good  luck.
736228
stem cell research itself isn't bad. What's bad (many agree) is where the stem cells are harvested. Stem cells are unique cells in that they have the capability to "become" almost any other type of human cell. They are used to help regenerate injured or diseased tissues in many areas of the body. Stem cells can be found in several areas, including bone marrow. Bone marrow stem cells have been used for many uses, such as helping subjects rebuild muscular proteins. The stem cells join with and become the cells they are partnered with.\n\nWhat makes many people upset is when stem cells, which are readily available from adult bone marrow (including the subject's own bone marrow), are, instead, harvested from aborted embryos. This practice has led to many arguments over sanctity of life, when life actually begins, etc. Many suggest that rather than enrage the controversy and destroy embryos, the stem cells should be taken from the vastly more available adult bone marrow in a process which is much less damaging to human life.
381101
"Adult" stem cells can be isolated from tissues in living people, however these cells are not considered "pluripotent", meaning they cannot become ANY cell but are confined to generation of a single tissue, etc.  For example, the reason that bone marrow transplantation works to treat diseases like leukemia is because blood stem cells in the marrow are able to regenerate the spectrum of blood cells in a chemotherapy patient.  There is little ethical concern for these types of stem cells and government funding is available.\n\nPluripotent (or "embryonic") stem cells, as their name suggests, must be collected from embryonic tissue, such as a fertilized blastocyst, and currently this involves destroying the embryo.  Aborted fetal tissues, particularly late-term, are not good sources of embryonic cells, since many of these cells have already differentiated into tissue-specific stem cells.  Thus, researchers have tended to use discarded eggs from fertility clinics that have been kept frozen at the blastocyst stage.\n\nRegardless, this is where the moral delemma begins.  Since many people believe that life begins at conception, this fertilized blastocyst is a human and destroying it is therefore murder.  Based on this argument, the US government has halted funding of research to create new embryonic stem cell lines, but will allow researchers to use cell lines generated by this method prior to the government's decision.  This leaves a handful of available lines, each of which has its own limitations technically or experimentally.\n\nThe flaw in this argument, in my view, is that fertility clinics are allowed to dispose of frozen eggs with the consent of the donors (often following successful IVF treatment), but these same cells cannot be used by doctors for legitimate medical research purposes, even with consent of the donors, without their destruction being labeled "murder".
877465
Please see Google search on Secreted Alkaline Phosphatase (SEAP). Highly technical- difficult to explain.
406585
Scientists are leagues away from using stem cells to produce organs.  Below are a few sites that will help you understand where the field is now, and how far we have yet to go:\n\nhttp://www.bioteach.ubc.ca/Bioengineering/StemCells/\nhttp://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/About/FAQ.htm
137217
I think there are far too many people who have never actually examined stem cell research that make assumptions about unborn babies being involved. Embryonic stem cells are only a small part of the issue here. I myself have a hard time figuring out where the dividing line is on embryonic cells, since every time a human being has sex they kill more potential unborn babies, and every time a woman menstruates she is killing a potential baby. I can't figure that one out. Why draw the line at fertility? I know I don't have an answer. \n\nAnd where do you get millions of embryonic stem cells? That many don't exist. Since they are taken from in vitro fertilization with the permission of the donors, and would have been disposed of anyway as waste, how does this translate into killing innocent babies?\nhttp://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp\n\nBut, for adult stem cells there is absolutely no connection to this argument about abortion. I quote: \n\nA. Where are adult stem cells found and what do they normally do?\nAdult stem cells have been identified in many organs and tissues. One important point to understand about adult stem cells is that there are a very small number of stem cells in each tissue. Stem cells are thought to reside in a specific area of each tissue where they may remain quiescent (non-dividing) for many years until they are activated by disease or tissue injury. The adult tissues reported to contain stem cells include brain, bone marrow, peripheral blood, blood vessels, skeletal muscle, skin and liver."\n\nWhere in adult stem cell research is the ethical or religious problem? I just don't see it. I'm not so sure that religion has taken over science, but am worried that ignorance has taken over government.\n\nFinally, why is this under EARTH SCIENCE and not BIOLOGY?
730714
1)  EVERY advance gained from stem cell research has come through adult stem cells\n\n2)  ZERO advances have come through embryonic.\n\n3)  When ZERO advances come along, private funding for research dries up.  Who wants to throw money at a losing proposition?\n\n4)  Stem cell research is not illegal.\n\n5)  The push for stem cell research is a veiled move to push for public funding for FAILED avenues of research.\n\n"To date there is no evidence that cells generated from embryonic stem cells can be safely transplanted back into adult animals to restore the function of damaged or diseased adult tissues. The level of scientific rigor that is normally applied (indeed, legally required) in the development of potential medical treatments would have to be entirely ignored for experiments with human embryos to proceed. As our largely disappointing experience with gene therapy should remind us, many highly vaunted scientific techniques frequently fail to yield the promised results. Arbitrarily waiving the requirement for scientific evidence out of a naive faith in "promise" is neither good science nor a good use of public funds."
752091
Go read this article from the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research \nhttp://www.wi.mit.edu/news/archives/1996/pk_0828.html
335816
there are various stem cell lines but they are not all totipotent (meaning they can convert to any cell line in the body) most of them are in locations where constant renewal of cells are necessary like the lumen of the gut or the bone marrow or the reproductive tract. They are caller pluripotent (they can form multiple cell lines but not all) and are used in as i said repairng the organ as cells from that are worn out or simply die or ejaculated (blood and sperm or egg respectively)\n\nthey are also pretty useful in performing genomic assays in adult organisms to see how they react to injury or chemical stress
985708
I am for stem cell research because last year I was diagnosed with cancer and met some amazing toddlers with cancer.\nSo stem cells would help save there lives.
871453
To one of the posters before me, I can only say that some people need to get educated before telling others to check their facts!  Most embryonic stem cell research is done on the stem cells of embryos that would have been discarded anyway; fertility clinics routinely thrash embryos that aren't showing satisfactory growth rates suitable for In vitro.  So the embryo dies no matter what!  Might as well put the tissue to use so that the death isn't in vain--who knows how many lives the research on one embryo could save?  And as far as grouping OTHER stem cell research into this whole "morality" issue... I'd hope these soapbox preachers realize that blood cells come from stem cells that are produced by bone marrow--and we all have 'em.  No lives (other than cellular) are lost for research--and many bone marrow transplant patients owe their lives to what's been done so far.  Blood stem cells aren't capable of forming anything other than blood cells, while embryonic stem cells have the potential of becoming any of the body's tissues.  Honest to goodness, do a little research!\n\nNOW, to answer the question asked... yeah, I think he'll veto it.  He'll kick himself if he or someone he loves becomes ill with a disease that might have been curable if he'd have actually helped the research.  But for now, I'd see him standing on the Biblewagon and doing whatever he can to make sure nothing useful happens.  (Kind of like he's been doing from day one, eh?)