I have been trying to learn about stem cells for neurological diseases and the varying clinics that offer the varying treatments. After quite a bit of reading, I am presently quite confused about which source of stem cells is generally (and professionally) considered the most efficacious for neurological damage/diseases.
Presently, I have seen arguments for the use of cord-blood versus hematopoietic-derived versus adipose-derived cells. Reading through the physicians question section, a recent doctor interviewed has argued that the harvest quantity and efficacy of adipose derived stem cells is less promising than their bone marrow counterparts. However, CellTex, as an example, has been able to harvest adipose derived stem cells and claims the ability to generate very large numbers of msc's, and I suppose these cells are as active as their bone marrow counterparts?
To confuse the matter more, there has been the entry of those recommending cord blood derived stem cells. Frankly, of the 3 options, it would appear to me that the POTENTIAL best option would be the cord derived blood stem cells BECAUSE they are MUCH younger stem cells than our own, well for us less who are less than youthful. At least a couple articles provide hints they may indeed be more active for non bone related healing.
---------------------------
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Jan;131(1):27-37. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182729cfc.
The effect of age on human adipose-derived stem cells.
Wu W1, Niklason L, Steinbacher DM.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells are a robust, multipotent cell source. They are easily harvested and exhibit promise in a variety of regenerative applications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the aging impact on adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells, relating to morphology, senescent properties, growth factor expression, and osteogenesis. ...
RESULTS:
The same isolating ratio of mesenchymal stem cells was derived from each donor, regardless of age. The infant adipose-derived stem cells exhibited elongated spindle morphology and increased telomere length compared with older cells. Angiogenic factors were more highly expressed by infant cells, whereas osteogenic expression was similar among all ages. Response to osteogenic induction was more profound in infant than in older stem cells, as evidenced by alkaline phosphatase and alizarin red staining, as was bone-related gene expression.
CONCLUSIONS:
Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells are available across all age groups. Infant-derived cells are morphologically spindle-shaped, with long telomeres, and exhibit enhanced angiogenic and osteogenic capabilities compared with older cells. Conversely, all age groups exhibit similar osteogenic paracrine activity, and the authors posit that clinical applicability is conserved during the adult to elderly period.
------------------------
For those not aware, telomere length is linked to aging and it is theorized to be a cause of aging. Older cells tend to have shorter telomeres, and generally have more genetic damage. Essentially, they are older and less active/responsive. This is called senescence and not only can these cells not communicate well with each other, they can actually hinder healing by broadcasting gibberish, as it were, to other cells interfering in the overall healling process. As we get older, this happens to more and more of our cells. One of the reasons hyperbarics works so well is it has the ability to turn on the cell receptors (ears as it were) so that intercellular communication can more readily take place among these older, more senescent cells for a period of time. Communication is key for proper immune system function and healing processes.
Additionally, older cells seam to have less mitochondria and less active mitochondria. Mitochondria are basically the power plants of the body. Without power, there is no repair, no healing. This might also explain, in part, the greater activity level of younger cells.
So, although this study does not directly pertain to cord derived cells, it does provide some evidence that there is a difference in what younger stem cells are capable versus the older stem cells, and this is not surprising. Certainly, in order to repair tissues we need adequate blood perfusion. Therefore, it would seem logical that chord derived cells might hold greater promise than adult (adipose or hematopoietic) in promoting blood vessel growth and thus better healing outside the realm of orthopedics.
Another article I found seems to support this as well:
(Dykstra B, Olthof S, Schreuder J, Ritsema M, de Haan G. Clonal analysis reveals multiple functional defects of aged murine hematopoietic stem cells. J Exp Med. 2011 Dec 19;208(13):2691-703.) “Blood, the fluid that transports nutrients, gases, immune cells, and a host of other factors throughout our bodies, declines in function with age. For example, hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) from older mice, which give rise to the cellular component of blood, have multiple functional defects, including lineage changes, reduced self-renewal, homing efficiency, and a delayed proliferative response.”
(As an aside and suggestion to anyone professional reading, our body cells are actually a mix of different aged cells, well by telomere length. It would therefore seem logical to pursue the harvest and then growth promotion of the youngest possible subset of adult stem cells. Yes, by increasing the total number of adult stem cells more young cells are being delivered, but so are more older, more senescent cells, and those cells, for the reasons mentioned above, could hinder optimal healing and outcomes.) However, I don't know how much difference in age there exists generally among these cells, so there may not be as much benefit as I hope. It might be interesting to see if hematopoietic derived stem cells are generally of a different age than adipose derived stem cells too.)
Anyway, this leads me back to thinking that the greatest POTENTIAL for healing may lie with very young cord-derived cells, and the articles above would seem to provide some evidence for this. However, now we enter into realm of allogenic grafts, with the potential to create a graft versus host response, or essentially the rejection of the cord derived cells and out body's cells from each other, creating a potentially terrible reaction. The likelihood of this reaction seems to be far less with cord derived cells when delivered in sufficient quantity, but I am less than clear on the level of graft success when matching the varying HLA components (including subtypes). There is so little data available that I can find. There is also a risk of receiving virally or bacterially infected cells, or even genetically abnormal cells.
Then there is there are so many questions about the ability to deliver these varying cells to the appropriate portion of the brain and get them to integrate/repair the damaged tissue.
So, who can you trust to provide intelligent answers, screening, and preparation?
CellTex has been mentioned and seems legit. I have also read Dr. Centeno's post. I've noted that Israeli companies seem more centered around hematopoietic cells. It is difficult to find and sort through other "legitimate" operations. This forum has been helpful. Thanks to the moderators.
In summary, what I am hoping for is either
1. enlightened commentary from someone with greater experience and/or knowledge of the suitability of cord derived cells versus adult stem cells OR
2. the experience of someone who has received cord versus adipose versus hematopoietic derived blood cells intrathecally (injected into their spinal cord OR the neck veins) to see if it helped them and/or created any side effects. If good outcomes, who did you use?
AND
3. Any advice on legimate asian operations?
Presently, I have seen arguments for the use of cord-blood versus hematopoietic-derived versus adipose-derived cells. Reading through the physicians question section, a recent doctor interviewed has argued that the harvest quantity and efficacy of adipose derived stem cells is less promising than their bone marrow counterparts. However, CellTex, as an example, has been able to harvest adipose derived stem cells and claims the ability to generate very large numbers of msc's, and I suppose these cells are as active as their bone marrow counterparts?
To confuse the matter more, there has been the entry of those recommending cord blood derived stem cells. Frankly, of the 3 options, it would appear to me that the POTENTIAL best option would be the cord derived blood stem cells BECAUSE they are MUCH younger stem cells than our own, well for us less who are less than youthful. At least a couple articles provide hints they may indeed be more active for non bone related healing.
---------------------------
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Jan;131(1):27-37. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182729cfc.
The effect of age on human adipose-derived stem cells.
Wu W1, Niklason L, Steinbacher DM.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells are a robust, multipotent cell source. They are easily harvested and exhibit promise in a variety of regenerative applications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the aging impact on adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells, relating to morphology, senescent properties, growth factor expression, and osteogenesis. ...
RESULTS:
The same isolating ratio of mesenchymal stem cells was derived from each donor, regardless of age. The infant adipose-derived stem cells exhibited elongated spindle morphology and increased telomere length compared with older cells. Angiogenic factors were more highly expressed by infant cells, whereas osteogenic expression was similar among all ages. Response to osteogenic induction was more profound in infant than in older stem cells, as evidenced by alkaline phosphatase and alizarin red staining, as was bone-related gene expression.
CONCLUSIONS:
Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells are available across all age groups. Infant-derived cells are morphologically spindle-shaped, with long telomeres, and exhibit enhanced angiogenic and osteogenic capabilities compared with older cells. Conversely, all age groups exhibit similar osteogenic paracrine activity, and the authors posit that clinical applicability is conserved during the adult to elderly period.
------------------------
For those not aware, telomere length is linked to aging and it is theorized to be a cause of aging. Older cells tend to have shorter telomeres, and generally have more genetic damage. Essentially, they are older and less active/responsive. This is called senescence and not only can these cells not communicate well with each other, they can actually hinder healing by broadcasting gibberish, as it were, to other cells interfering in the overall healling process. As we get older, this happens to more and more of our cells. One of the reasons hyperbarics works so well is it has the ability to turn on the cell receptors (ears as it were) so that intercellular communication can more readily take place among these older, more senescent cells for a period of time. Communication is key for proper immune system function and healing processes.
Additionally, older cells seam to have less mitochondria and less active mitochondria. Mitochondria are basically the power plants of the body. Without power, there is no repair, no healing. This might also explain, in part, the greater activity level of younger cells.
So, although this study does not directly pertain to cord derived cells, it does provide some evidence that there is a difference in what younger stem cells are capable versus the older stem cells, and this is not surprising. Certainly, in order to repair tissues we need adequate blood perfusion. Therefore, it would seem logical that chord derived cells might hold greater promise than adult (adipose or hematopoietic) in promoting blood vessel growth and thus better healing outside the realm of orthopedics.
Another article I found seems to support this as well:
(Dykstra B, Olthof S, Schreuder J, Ritsema M, de Haan G. Clonal analysis reveals multiple functional defects of aged murine hematopoietic stem cells. J Exp Med. 2011 Dec 19;208(13):2691-703.) “Blood, the fluid that transports nutrients, gases, immune cells, and a host of other factors throughout our bodies, declines in function with age. For example, hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) from older mice, which give rise to the cellular component of blood, have multiple functional defects, including lineage changes, reduced self-renewal, homing efficiency, and a delayed proliferative response.”
(As an aside and suggestion to anyone professional reading, our body cells are actually a mix of different aged cells, well by telomere length. It would therefore seem logical to pursue the harvest and then growth promotion of the youngest possible subset of adult stem cells. Yes, by increasing the total number of adult stem cells more young cells are being delivered, but so are more older, more senescent cells, and those cells, for the reasons mentioned above, could hinder optimal healing and outcomes.) However, I don't know how much difference in age there exists generally among these cells, so there may not be as much benefit as I hope. It might be interesting to see if hematopoietic derived stem cells are generally of a different age than adipose derived stem cells too.)
Anyway, this leads me back to thinking that the greatest POTENTIAL for healing may lie with very young cord-derived cells, and the articles above would seem to provide some evidence for this. However, now we enter into realm of allogenic grafts, with the potential to create a graft versus host response, or essentially the rejection of the cord derived cells and out body's cells from each other, creating a potentially terrible reaction. The likelihood of this reaction seems to be far less with cord derived cells when delivered in sufficient quantity, but I am less than clear on the level of graft success when matching the varying HLA components (including subtypes). There is so little data available that I can find. There is also a risk of receiving virally or bacterially infected cells, or even genetically abnormal cells.
Then there is there are so many questions about the ability to deliver these varying cells to the appropriate portion of the brain and get them to integrate/repair the damaged tissue.
So, who can you trust to provide intelligent answers, screening, and preparation?
CellTex has been mentioned and seems legit. I have also read Dr. Centeno's post. I've noted that Israeli companies seem more centered around hematopoietic cells. It is difficult to find and sort through other "legitimate" operations. This forum has been helpful. Thanks to the moderators.
In summary, what I am hoping for is either
1. enlightened commentary from someone with greater experience and/or knowledge of the suitability of cord derived cells versus adult stem cells OR
2. the experience of someone who has received cord versus adipose versus hematopoietic derived blood cells intrathecally (injected into their spinal cord OR the neck veins) to see if it helped them and/or created any side effects. If good outcomes, who did you use?
AND
3. Any advice on legimate asian operations?