So it goes like this... @conorato - Tumblr Blog

How can bioreactors help us to grow cells and tissues? - by Yvonne Reinwald

(Hydrostatic force bioreactor - authors own image)

In the human body, cells are exposed to a variety of physical forces. These include stretching and pulling in the tendon and compression of the spinal cord during daily movement. Other examples are pulsation in the blood vessels due to the heart beat and hydrostatic compression in the knee during jumping and walking. These forces are essential to maintain cell morphology and tissue function.

(Rotary bioreactor - authors own image)

Researchers use bioreactors to mimic these forces in the laboratory. This helps stem cells develop into specific tissue types, such as bone or cartilage in the knee. Numerous different types of these mechanical devices have been developed.

In addition to providing a physical stimulus for cells, bioreactors are also used to scale-up the growth of stem cells when high numbers of cells are needed for treatments. This is especially helpful for stem cell therapies, where stem cells are injected into patients to help regenerate damaged tissues.

Evidence-based medicine makes for boring headlines and the media can’t cope.

The need for clear accurate communication about data and studies in health and science is highlighted this week in two big media stories.

One story about chocolate, the other about cervical cancer vaccines. Both show the danger of poor data interpretation by journalists. The former is a hoax, the latter may result in the avoidable deaths of women whose parents choose not to have them vaccinated against the Human Papilloma Virus as teenagers.

HPV and Cervical Cancer: The UK’s Independent on Sunday’s front page headlined with link between the HPV vaccine and one girl’s serious illness. The article also says that the number of cases of serious side-effects from the vaccine are much higher compared to others. Statistician Adam Jacobs flags the concerns in the reporting, accusing the newspaper of scaremongering. Read the ongoing argument in the comments section. It’s very good.

Correlation does not mean causation is the fundamental concept to grasp. Just because two things occur close to one another, it does not mean one is caused by the other. I eat lunch every day. Eating lunch does not cause me to hug my children when I get home.

The story was also covered on BBC Radio 4’s More or Less: listen here (item begins at 8 min 19 sec). and is immediately followed by:

Chocolate If you haven’t read about it already, the same program covers the story behind the chocolate experiment designed to deliberately fool the press. They bought it, hook, line and sinker – shame on them. And shame on us science communicators for not helping them report science better.

gereports

By Ki Mae Heussner

Over a decade ago, the Human Genome Project gave us the first blueprint of our genetic code, opening the door to a future where medical interventions could be personalized for each patient’s genetic composition. Today, programs like the Human Protein Atlas are...

gereports

By Michael Keller

At the most fundamental level, we are all code. The typical human body is an assembly of some 37 trillion cells, and each holds all the information needed to make a complete human being.

Our DNA, the double-stranded helix responsible for heredity, contains 3 billion...

.@NYTimesHealth offers to assign science reporter to most frustrating science misconception. Mine’s ‘meta’. Here it is:

The media's insistence on "balance in reporting" leading to the absurd situation of media interviews and subsequent argument frenzies in which world-renowned and recognised leaders in their field have to defend their position (based in well-established scientific theory and data) against quacks, flat-earthers, anti-vaxers, celebrity band-wagon jumpers and discredited peddlers of mumbo-jumbo, resulting in muddled public perception on issues of global importance and, sadly, many avoidable deaths of children. There. I said it.

To clarify...the majority of science reporters are very good at what they do a play a critical role in the public advancement of the understanding of scientific and medical progress. It’s rather, I hazard to guess, the editorial habit in broadcast media of pitching one side vs. another. Science is not politics. Seriously, it isn't, as much as some people think it is.

Here’s an infographic that explains #CRISPR gene editing for dummies like me.

Raising the profile of women in science, and making it fun.

Life and death risks: Time to get a Microlife! What's the real risk? #yeahscience

[View the story "Reducing cost and increasing efficiency across the board" on Storify]

This is a really important read for us lay people

txchnologist

Meet The Scientist Who Never Sleeps

by Michael Keller

An infectious disease researcher named Eve has made a surprising discovery—a compound named TNP-470 that stops tumors from growing also shows promise in fighting malaria.

It’s an important early-stage drug development find. Around 200 million people suffer from malaria around the world and half a million die from it every year. But this isn’t a story about TNP-470; it’s about Eve.

The scientist worked day and night in a University of Manchester lab in the UK to uncover this promising lead. To link the compound with a new disease target takes a lot of mind-numbing, repetitive tasks from the earliest stages of work. Either in a lab experiment or on a computer, compounds are run through initial tests to see if they might do something useful against a disease. All those that might show promise, which could be in the thousands or millions of experimental compounds, are then tested again in a mass screening. Some will appear to do something useful against the disease; others that must be weeded out will offer false positives. This subset is then retested to confirm the results.

Hurdles continue to be thrown at candidate compounds and the reject list expands until just one really promising molecule remains. This long process is part of the reason why it can take more than 10 years and $1 billion to develop a new drug.

But Eve didn’t care about all the work that goes into the basic research behind drug discovery. And she sped up the discovery curve as she worked, learning from early tests to do better in later ones. When the sun went down and other researchers went home for the evening, the scientist kept working. She didn’t take a break to get caffeinated, or even to turn the lights on. That’s because Eve is a robot, with arms to manipulate samples and advanced instruments to analyze them, that learns as it processes compounds through complex artificial intelligence.

gereports

The parasites that cause malaria, from the plasmodium genus, can lay low in their victims’ blood and organs and hide from common malaria tests. Up to three months can pass before cramps, chills, fever and other symptoms appear, but they can be easily confused for other maladies. During this...

Prevent mitochondrial DNA disorders or not? UK media-fueled debate. Summary of positions #mitoaware @Nuffbioethics @c_of_e @HFEA

The media are kicking up a storm. This is what the pros and cons are actually trying to say but not being given the airplay to say because the press prefers a bolshie argument to a civilized debate, and will poke the players with pointy sticks until they fight.... Science + established bioethicists on one side, the Church(es) and a few campaign groups on the other. The conversation and consultation has been going on for years...why fight now?

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics says: "Provided that the techniques are shown to be sufficiently safe and effective, and an appropriate level of information and support is offered, it would be ethical for families to use these techniques as treatment."

The UK regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority says: "In three years study the expert panel has seen no evidence which suggests that these new mitochondrial replacement therapies are unsafe."

The Church of England says: "We believe that more research into the safety and efficacy of mitochondrial replacement therapy is necessary before regulations are introduced permitting the technique.... Further research, resulting in assured safety and efficacy is likely to be more beneficial in the long-term than premature application of uncertain techniques. The introduction of regulations ought to await the results of such research"

Human Genetics Alert says: "Crossing this line would lead inevitably to a future of ‘designer babies’ and a new consumer-driven eugenics." but also that: "Genetic research should be driven by genuine need rather than commercial imperatives or social and cultural prejudices"

Me? Science. Summarised here: http://www.nature.com/news/reproductive-medicine-the-power-of-three-1.15253

Vote of confidence in precision medicine by @BarackObama

President Obama launched a Precision Medicine Initiative to "bring us closer to curing diseases like cancer and diabetes" in his state of the union address last night. Details are still unclear.

He said: “21st century businesses will rely on American science, technology, research and development. I want the country that eliminated polio and mapped the human genome to lead a new era of medicine — one that delivers the right treatment at the right time. In some patients with cystic fibrosis, this approach has reversed a disease once thought unstoppable. Tonight, I’m launching a new Precision Medicine Initiative to bring us closer to curing diseases like cancer and diabetes — and to give all of us access to the personalized information we need to keep ourselves and our families healthier.”

So what's precision medicine?

Here's my take: Precision medicine is providing the best available care for each individual …with an emphasis on actionable data i.e. using data from whatever source to help make useful clinical decisions that improve the patient's care. Critically, this is not treating each person with an ‘individualized’ therapy.

<edit: more on precision medicine>

When physicians think about lots of variables when a patient presents: e.g. a 45 year-old diabetic is very different from an 85 year-old diabetic. This affects care: you're unlikely to suggest radical treatment to an older prostate cancer patient, but you might for a younger one.

It seems obvious that basic information like age, patient preference, lifestyle, family history, and any other diseases (co-morbidities) are part of planning treatment. But what about the legions of new data that are available? How can we bring those to bear on each decision doctors and patients need to make? This is precision medicine - using all the available actionable data to make the best decision for the patient.

It's difficult to bring together all that data together to help give a precise answer to whether a patient will respond or not to a therapy. In many common cancer therapies, response rates are not very high, but bio-marker targeted therapies have improved care for many cancers by better predicting patient response; and biomarker combinations could help make those predictions even more accurate. It doesn't just save money, it saves patients being treated with ineffective medicines, often with horrible side-effects.

That is good, but still only uses a fraction of data that could be available. Doctors are starting to add data such as (in cancer, for example) lesion diameter and volume, fuzzy edges vs. smooth edges, composition of the lesion, in-vitro pathology data etc etc etc...this is big data for medical decision making...it requires a systematic approach.

Systematically combining diagnostic and patient data to help make clinical decisions that lead to patient outcomes....precision medicine - part of the future of healthcare.

Forbes: "very good, but how do we pay for it?": http://onforb.es/1587ebB

#precision medicine #precision diagnostics

What's the difference? Regenerative Medicine, Cell Therapy, Advanced Therapies - layman explainer #atday14

For those newer to the field, a quick word on terminology.

Regenerative medicine and cell therapy are not the same thing, although they do overlap, and very often, even those of us steeped in the industry use the terms interchangeably, for better or for worse.

Regenerative medicine is an approach to therapy that uses any way of replacing damaged cells, tissues or organs to restore normal function. Some regenerative medicine approaches use cell therapy as the platform for regeneration, others do not.And not all cell therapies are regenerative. Some cell therapies use cells as vectors for delivering therapies.

There's a really good summary by real experts on the differences between cell therapy, regenerative medicine and other advanced therapies here by @Prof_ChrisMason and others.

http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/rme.11.28

Pragmatic, realistic, positive: Regenerative Medicine at #atday14

Today, at the Alliance of Regenerative Medicine European Advanced Therapy Investor Day, presenting companies, ranging from small biotech start-ups to big pharma such as Novartis, and industrial giants such as GE, are overwhelmingly positive about the future of the space, but acknowledging that it is still early days. That said, the clinical results being discussed are extraordinary.

It sort of feels like: "We know what we can do, we just need to figure out how". It's hugely encouraging to see the calibre of talent and the amount of funding, public, private and third sector that is flowing into the space.

The potential of regenerative medicine is so compelling because it offers the promise of allowing doctors to address, not just the symptoms of a disease, but the underlying causes of disease as well. With many of these therapies, the body is essentially being taught to heal itself.

It’s this transformation, and the hope that it offers in some of our most prolific diseases, that has led to so much focus and attention. It has captured the imagination of so many people – scientists, clinicians, the pharmaceutical industry, investors, governments and the public at large. The consensus, or the hype, depending on where you stand, is that we have a chance to change the face of medicine as we know it.

More and more therapies are entering into clinical trials. If you look only at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, it has 90 development-stage programmes in place. It intends to have made 10 investigational new drug filings by the end of this year. Here in the UK, the Cell Therapy Catapult’s clinical trial database counts more than 40 clinical trials underway in cell therapy, three-quarters of them in academia, and a quarter company-led.

Globally, the clinical pipeline is really maturing with more than 200 cell therapy trials in stage II or III, and we’re expecting to see the first FDA-approval for a cellular immunotherapy in 2016. Cell Therapy and more widely, regenerative medicine, is already now fundamentally beginning to change medical practice in a way that biologics began to change medicine in the early 1970s.

This is a really exciting time to be in the industry.

#cell therapy #regenerativemedicine

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

So it goes like this...