
Japanese woman is first recipient of next-generation stem cells - mmastrac
http://www.nature.com/news/japanese-woman-is-first-recipient-of-next-generation-stem-cells-1.15915?WT.mc_id=FBK_NatureNews
======
carbocation
One advantage of iPS (induced pluripotent stem cells) is the lack of rejection
- these are derived from your own fibroblasts.

I initially wondered if these would grow connections to the optic nerve, and
it seems that in the mouse model they do [1]. "Researchers observed that the
cells seemed to develop normally, integrating into the existing retina and
forming the nerve connections needed to transmit visual information to the
brain."

I'm curious to know if these are expected to develop into normal retinae -
including the macula densa and fovea centralis - or if they instead provide
peripheral-equivalent vision throughout, even at the center of vision.

1 = [http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/first-successful-
transpla...](http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/first-successful-transplant-
retinas-made-embryonic-stem-cells/2013-07-22)

~~~
final
> I'm curious to know if these are expected to develop into normal retinae

I don't think so. My life is working in US on stem cell regeneration of limbs.
As far as I understand the development of macro structures requires an inter
cell grid, than no one so far has managed to artificially create.

------
delinquentme
TLDR from reddit: "For the first time ever, a patient's own skin cells were
reverted to induced pluripotent stem cells, differentiated into retinal cells,
and transplanted back into the patient as an experimental therapy for macular
degeneration."

~~~
turing
An important note from the article:

 _" The procedure Kurimoto performed is unlikely to restore his patient's
vision. However, researchers around the world will be watching closely to see
whether the cells are able to check the further destruction of the retina
while avoiding potential side-effects, such as bringing about an immune
reaction or inducing cancerous growth."_

Seems that at this point they're still evaluating safety rather than actual
therapeutic benefits. Still exciting progress :)

~~~
JMStewy
Being able to "check the further destruction of the retina" _is_ a therapeutic
benefit when it comes to macular degeneration. It's the best outcome you can
hope for on any of our current treatments for it. The retina is still
relatively poorly understood, and our treatments for the pathologies of it are
unfortunately limited.

