Patient-Specific Embryonic Stem Cells Derived from Human SCNT Blastocysts

Abstract

Patient-specific, immune-matched human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) are anticipated to be of great biomedical importance for studies of disease and development and to advance clinical deliberations regarding stem cell transplantation. Eleven hESC lines were established by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) of skin cells from patients with disease or injury into donated oocytes. These lines, nuclear transfer (NT)–hESCs, grown on human feeders from the same NT donor or from genetically unrelated individuals, were established at high rates, regardless of NT donor sex or age. NT-hESCs were pluripotent, chromosomally normal, and matched the NT patient's DNA. The major histocompatibility complex identity of each NT-hESC when compared to the patient's own showed immunological compatibility, which is important for eventual transplantation. With the generation of these NT-hESCs, evaluations of genetic and epigenetic stability can be made. Additional work remains to be done regarding the development of reliable directed differentiation and the elimination of remaining animal components. Before clinical use of these cells can occur, preclinical evidence is required to prove that transplantation of differentiated NT-hESCs can be safe, effective, and tolerated.

The Inherent Drawbacks of the Pressure to Publish in Health Sciences: Good or Bad Science

“…Hwang Woo-suk ( i.e. the pride of South Korea) was sentenced to two years in prison with suspended sentence after distorting the results published in two Science articles related to cloning of human embryonic stem cells 23, 24 .…”

Research integrity: Cell-induced stress

“…In February 2004, South Korean researcher Woo Suk Hwang announced that he had generated stem-cell lines from cloned human embryos 3 , creating a potential source of versatile, therapeutic cells that would be genetically matched to any patient. A frenzy of excitement followed this and a subsequent publication 4 , but that didn't compare with the media firestorm when the results were revealed to be fabricated. The two main cloning papers were retracted 5 , and the careers of some dozen scientists were devastated.…”

Maintaining confidence in the reporting of scientific outputs

“…Further, the history of publishing has shown that peer review does not necessarily guarantee scientific integrity [15][16][17]. There are numerous cases of influential peer-reviewed articles that were later retracted [15], such as articles correlating vaccination and autism [3,4], reporting the cloning of human embryos [5,18], and attributing morphology of the human hand to Intelligent Design [6]. As pointed out by Sheldon [1], uncritical reporting based on peer-reviewed articles can spread misinformation and harm.…”