Stem cell therapy may restore hearing to the totally deaf in 50 years

jillio said:
Since stem cells are not being routinely used, there is no way of knowing whether it is true for 100% of recipients 100% of the time. That's why I said "in many cases". Especially when it comes to medicine, there will always be variance in individual response.

No, I can't cite the paper. I read it, retained the information, and went on to something else. It caught my attention, so I delved into it out of curiosity.
Click to expand...
Thanks
 
jillio said:
Thanks for the article, Bott. Further research is showing that they are getting a greater rate of rejection from this line of stem cells than was previously thought. That is what the article I read was about.
Click to expand...

Too bad, I was hopeful this came after your article. I would not mind being repaired by stem cells if it was feasible.
 
Bottesini said:
Too bad, I was hopeful this came after your article. I would not mind being repaired by stem cells if it was feasible.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the research continue. I think there are some great possibilities for stem cells. We simply do not have enough information and there hasn't been enough research done that can answer the questions. We are at the point, with the research, that everytime a question is answered, it creates several more questions that must be researched. I am hopeful, though.
 
jillio said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Agreed to a certain point identical twins have the same DNA. So it would not work. If the hearing loss is natural. One identical twin is the same make of another. Personality is what differs them.

Unless they were born hearing and one twin had nerve damage due to illness or anyother damage not relating to the genes. That could be quite possible.
 
Babyblue said:
Agreed to a certain point identical twins have the same DNA. So it would not work. If the hearing loss is natural. One identical twin is the same make of another. Personality is what differs them.

Unless they were born hearing and one twin had nerve damage due to illness or anyother damage not relating to the genes. That could be quite possible.
Click to expand...

It is possible, but the risk of rejection of the implanted tissue is still quite high.
 
Bottesini said:
Too bad, I was hopeful this came after your article. I would not mind being repaired by stem cells if it was feasible.
Click to expand...

jillio said:
I'd like to see the research continue. I think there are some great possibilities for stem cells. We simply do not have enough information and there hasn't been enough research done that can answer the questions. We are at the point, with the research, that everytime a question is answered, it creates several more questions that must be researched. I am hopeful, though.
Click to expand...

which is why I think MEMS-based CI/HA is a logical approach. It is more feasible and has less unknowns than stem cell solution.
 
Jiro said:
which is why I think MEMS-based CI/HA is a logical approach. It is more feasible and has less unknowns than stem cell solution.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It will no doubt provide an alternative treatment long before stem cell solutions become viable.
 
jillio said:
They have successfully cloned bladders, as well.
Click to expand...
Seems like this might be a viable solution in less than 50 years. If what they say is true about "perfect match" tissue, I would imagine the rejection rate would decrease if not be eliminated alltogether. Seems promising to me.
 
rockdrummer said:
Seems like this might be a viable solution in less than 50 years. If what they say is true about "perfect match" tissue, I would imagine the rejection rate would decrease if not be eliminated alltogether. Seems promising to me.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is promising, but extremely controversial. But then, stem cell research is as well, even though they can now revert any cell in the body to a stem cell, and not have to use fetal tissue.

One could reasonably assume that it would reduce rejection rates, but that is one of those things than cannot be predicted with much accuracy. They originally thought that stem cells would reduce the rejection rates as well, but practice is showing something else.
 
jillio said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

No?

"Doctors regard transplants performed between identical twins very differently from those between people who do not have identical genes. Transplanting an organ between identical twins can be likened to taking tissue from one area of a person's body and putting it in another area of the body. The transplant recipient does not need antirejection drugs."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/28/health/28organ.html


"Ms. Yarber had no need for antirejection drugs, because her sister was a perfect match genetically. In women who are not identical twins, drugs would be needed to prevent rejection."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/science/08transplant.html


"1954 American doctors performed the first successful kidney transplant between identical twin brothers. No anti-rejection drugs were used."
SK Branch KFoC - HIstory of Transplantation

So that does support my belief that identical twin doesn't need anti-rejection drugs if the organ came from the other twin.

Just curious... where does it says otherwise? Link, please.
 
Buffalo said:
No?

"Doctors regard transplants performed between identical twins very differently from those between people who do not have identical genes. Transplanting an organ between identical twins can be likened to taking tissue from one area of a person's body and putting it in another area of the body. The transplant recipient does not need antirejection drugs."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/28/health/28organ.html


"Ms. Yarber had no need for antirejection drugs, because her sister was a perfect match genetically. In women who are not identical twins, drugs would be needed to prevent rejection."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/science/08transplant.html

"1954 American doctors performed the first successful kidney transplant between identical twin brothers. No anti-rejection drugs were used."
SK Branch KFoC - HIstory of Transplantation

So that does support my belief that identical twin doesn't need anti-rejection drugs if the organ came from the other twin.

Just curious... where does it says otherwise? Link, please.
Click to expand...

In the case of some monozygotic twin transplants, that can be the case, but not all. Even in the case of, for instance, skin transplants that come from one area of a person's body to a different area of the same person's body, rejection of the transplanted tissue is still a risk. Transplants in monozygotic twins certainly reduces the chance of rejection, but it doesn't eliminate it altogether.
 
jillio said:
In the case of some monozygotic twin transplants, that can be the case, but not all. Even in the case of, for instance, skin transplants that come from one area of a person's body to a different area of the same person's body, rejection of the transplanted tissue is still a risk. Transplants in monozygotic twins certainly reduces the chance of rejection, but it doesn't eliminate it altogether.
Click to expand...

Same goes for fraternal twins. They come from two different eggs...therefore, two different sets of DNA. While it may be similar in some parts of DNA, but most part of it is different.
 
LadySekhmet said:
Same goes for fraternal twins. They come from two different eggs...therefore, two different sets of DNA. While it may be similar in some parts of DNA, but most part of it is different.
Click to expand...

Correct. Transplantation between fraternal twins would be the same as between any siblings.
 
Back
Top