Category Archives: Stem Cells

This week's announcement of the Nobel
Prize for Shinya Yamanaka brought along some interesting
tidbits, including who was “snubbed” as well as recollections
from the recipient.

“'My father probably still thinks in
heaven that I’m a doctor,' he said in the interview(with Asahi
Shimbun last April). 'IPS cells are still at a research phase and
have not treated a single patient. I hope to link it to actual
treatment soon so I will be not embarrassed when I meet my father
someday.'”

“If he can’t learn simple
biological facts he would have no chance of doing the work of a
specialist, and it would be a sheer waste of time, both on his part
and of those who would have to teach him.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/7J31SRIukpg/yamanaka-rejected-slow-and-clumsy.html

More than one back story exists on
Shinya Yamanaka and his Nobel Prize, but one that has received little
attention this week also raises questions about hoary practice of
peer review and publication of research – not to mention the
awarding of billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars.

“All's fair in love and war, they
say, but science is supposed to obey more noble ideals. New findings
are submitted for publication, the studies are farmed out to experts
for objective 'peer review' and the best research appears promptly
in the most prestigious journals. 

“Some stem cell biologists are crying
foul, however. Last year(2009), 14 researchers in this notoriously
competitive field wrote
to leading journals complaining of "unreasonable or
obstructive reviews". The result, they claimed, is that
'publication of truly original findings may be delayed or rejected.' 

“Triggered by this protest, New
Scientist scrutinised the dynamics of publication in the most
exciting and competitive area of stem
cell research, in which cells are 'reprogrammed' to
acquire the versatility of those of an early-stage embryo. In this
fast-moving field, where a Nobel prize is arguably at stake,
biologists are racing feverishly to publish their findings in top
journals. 

“Our analysis of more than 200
research papers from 2006 onwards reveals that US-based scientists
are enjoying a significant advantage, getting their papers published
faster and in more prominent journals (find
our data, methods and analyses here). 

“More mysterious, given his standing
in the field, is why two of Yamanaka's papers were among the 10 with
the longest lags. In the most delayed of all, Yamanaka reported that
the tumour-suppressing gene p53 inhibits the formation of
iPS cells. The paper took 295 days to be accepted. It was eventually
published by Nature in August 2009 alongside four similar
studies. 'Yamanaka's paper was submitted months before any of the
others,' complains Austin
Smith at the University of Cambridge, UK, who coordinated
the letter sent to leading journals. 

“Yamanaka suggests that editors may
be less excited by papers from non-US scientists, but may change
their minds when they receive similar work from leading labs in the
US. In this case, Hochedlinger submitted a paper similar to
Yamanaka's, but nearly six months after him. Ritu
Dhand, Nature's chief biology editor, says that each paper
is assessed on its own merits. Hochedlinger says he was unaware of
Yamanaka's research on p53 before publication.”

“A common criticism is that peer
review is biased towards well-established research groups and the
scientific status quo. Reviewers are unwilling to reject papers from
big names in their fields out of fear, and they can be hostile to
ideas that challenge their own, even if the supporting data is good.
Unscrupulous reviewers can reject papers and then quickly publish
similar work themselves.” 

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/lESi4gQF2IA/yamanaka-and-frailty-of-peer-review.html

SAN FRANCISCO – A move to tighten
budget controls on grants from the $3 billion California stem cell
agency stalled Monday, but it appears that the plan is headed for
ultimate approval.

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/EqLIk55mLu4/tighter-controls-on-stem-cell-grant.html

The iPierian biopharmaceutical company
in South San Francisco was quick to make a change in its web site
this morning after the Nobel Prize for medicine was announced.

It was all part of the reaction today
in California to the Nobel for Yamanaka, who has substantial links to
the Golden State, including UCSF and the Gladstone Institutes.

“Dr. Yamanaka’s story is a
thrilling tale of creative genius, focused dedication and successful
cross-disciplinary science. These traits, nurtured during Dr.
Yamanaka’s postdoctoral training at Gladstone, have led to a
breakthrough that has helped propel the San Francisco Bay Area to the
forefront of stem cell research. Dozens of labs — often supported
by organizations such as the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine (CIRM) and the Roddenberry Foundation–have adopted his
technology.” 

"There are few moments in science
that are undisputed as genuine elegant creativity and simplicity.
Shinya Yamanaka is responsible for one of those. The induced
pluripotent stem cells he created will allow us to interrogate and
understand the full extent and variation of human disease, will
enable us to develop new medicines and will forever change the way
science and medicine will be conducted for the benefit of mankind. An
extraordinary accomplishment by a genuinely modest and brilliant
scientist. He absolutely deserves a Nobel award.”

“CIRM alone is funding almost $190
million in awards developing better ways of creating iPS cells and
using those cells to develop new therapies (the
full list of iPS grants is on our website).”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/RbQ09EsO8Qc/yamanaka-and-golden-state.html

Going against the grain can be
difficult as UC Davis stem cell scientist Paul Knoepfler learned
again in connection with his research that dealt with similarities
between cancer and iPS cells.

“Not surprisingly...there are certain
members of the stem cell field who would rather focus away from the
ideas that iPS cells are similar in some respects to cancer.”

“Once we had a manuscript together
comparing iPS cells to cancer cells, we sent it to several high
profile journals without much luck. We thought that the fact that our
data indicated that iPS cells are similar to cancer cells might make
reviewers and editors excited. We thought that the paper was novel
and thought provoking in a number of ways. At the same time I
realized the theme of the paper would be controversial. 

“I would say two general things about
the review process at the two journals that turned down the paper.
First, the reviewers at these journals were enormously helpful with
their suggestions and helped us improve the paper substantially.
Second, they were clearly very uncomfortable with the notion that iPS
cells are related in some ways to cancer so unsettled in fact that I
believe it influenced their reviews.”

“Yeah, it may be unsettling that iPS
cells share traits with cancer cells, but if that is the reality,
isn’t it important that people know that and think about it, talk
about it, and address the issue with eyes open?”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/LITB6cXS-ZM/stem-cell-orthodoxy-and-peer-review.html

More than one back story exists on
Shinya Yamanaka and his Nobel Prize, but one that has received little
attention this week also raises questions about hoary practice of
peer review and publication of research – not to mention the
awarding of billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars.

“All's fair in love and war, they
say, but science is supposed to obey more noble ideals. New findings
are submitted for publication, the studies are farmed out to experts
for objective 'peer review' and the best research appears promptly
in the most prestigious journals. 

“Some stem cell biologists are crying
foul, however. Last year(2009), 14 researchers in this notoriously
competitive field wrote
to leading journals complaining of "unreasonable or
obstructive reviews". The result, they claimed, is that
'publication of truly original findings may be delayed or rejected.' 

“Triggered by this protest, New
Scientist scrutinised the dynamics of publication in the most
exciting and competitive area of stem
cell research, in which cells are 'reprogrammed' to
acquire the versatility of those of an early-stage embryo. In this
fast-moving field, where a Nobel prize is arguably at stake,
biologists are racing feverishly to publish their findings in top
journals. 

“Our analysis of more than 200
research papers from 2006 onwards reveals that US-based scientists
are enjoying a significant advantage, getting their papers published
faster and in more prominent journals (find
our data, methods and analyses here). 

“More mysterious, given his standing
in the field, is why two of Yamanaka's papers were among the 10 with
the longest lags. In the most delayed of all, Yamanaka reported that
the tumour-suppressing gene p53 inhibits the formation of
iPS cells. The paper took 295 days to be accepted. It was eventually
published by Nature in August 2009 alongside four similar
studies. 'Yamanaka's paper was submitted months before any of the
others,' complains Austin
Smith at the University of Cambridge, UK, who coordinated
the letter sent to leading journals. 

“Yamanaka suggests that editors may
be less excited by papers from non-US scientists, but may change
their minds when they receive similar work from leading labs in the
US. In this case, Hochedlinger submitted a paper similar to
Yamanaka's, but nearly six months after him. Ritu
Dhand, Nature's chief biology editor, says that each paper
is assessed on its own merits. Hochedlinger says he was unaware of
Yamanaka's research on p53 before publication.”

“A common criticism is that peer
review is biased towards well-established research groups and the
scientific status quo. Reviewers are unwilling to reject papers from
big names in their fields out of fear, and they can be hostile to
ideas that challenge their own, even if the supporting data is good.
Unscrupulous reviewers can reject papers and then quickly publish
similar work themselves.” 

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/lESi4gQF2IA/yamanaka-and-frailty-of-peer-review.html

The iPierian biopharmaceutical company
in South San Francisco was quick to make a change in its web site
this morning after the Nobel Prize for medicine was announced.

It was all part of the reaction today
in California to the Nobel for Yamanaka, who has substantial links to
the Golden State, including UCSF and the Gladstone Institutes.

“Dr. Yamanaka’s story is a
thrilling tale of creative genius, focused dedication and successful
cross-disciplinary science. These traits, nurtured during Dr.
Yamanaka’s postdoctoral training at Gladstone, have led to a
breakthrough that has helped propel the San Francisco Bay Area to the
forefront of stem cell research. Dozens of labs — often supported
by organizations such as the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine (CIRM) and the Roddenberry Foundation–have adopted his
technology.” 

"There are few moments in science
that are undisputed as genuine elegant creativity and simplicity.
Shinya Yamanaka is responsible for one of those. The induced
pluripotent stem cells he created will allow us to interrogate and
understand the full extent and variation of human disease, will
enable us to develop new medicines and will forever change the way
science and medicine will be conducted for the benefit of mankind. An
extraordinary accomplishment by a genuinely modest and brilliant
scientist. He absolutely deserves a Nobel award.”

“CIRM alone is funding almost $190
million in awards developing better ways of creating iPS cells and
using those cells to develop new therapies (the
full list of iPS grants is on our website).”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/RbQ09EsO8Qc/yamanaka-and-golden-state.html