Archive for February, 2012

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Feb. 21, 2012 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pathfinder Cell Therapy, Inc. ("Pathfinder," or "the Company") (OTCQB:PFND.PK - News), a biotechnology company focused on the treatment of diabetes and other diseases characterized by organ-specific cell damage, today presented preliminary data highlighting the potential of the Company's unique cell-based therapy for treating diabetes at the 7th Annual New York Stem Cell Summit. Richard L. Franklin, M.D., Ph.D., Founder, CEO and President of Pathfinder, provided an overview of the Company's Pathfinder Cell ("PC") technology, and presented preclinical evidence demonstrating how treatment with PCs was able to reverse the symptoms of diabetes in two different mouse models.

Pathfinder Cells are a newly identified non-stem cell mammalian cell type that has the ability to stimulate regeneration of damaged tissue without being incorporated into the new tissue. In today's presentation, Dr. Franklin showed how recent experiments performed using a non-obese diabetic (NOD) mouse strain were supportive of earlier data that demonstrated complete reversal of diabetes in mice. The earlier results, which used a drug-induced diabetic mouse model, were published in Rejuvenation Research1. Though preliminary, the recent results are encouraging because the NOD mouse model is widely used and highly regarded as being predictive of human type-1 diabetes.

In three separate experiments using this model, 30-50% of the mice treated with PCs at the onset of diabetes returned to normal blood glucose levels. Of the mice that responded well to treatment, the effects tended to be long lasting, up to two months in some cases after just two doses. These results, which were generated by intravenous injection of PC's derived from rat pancreatic tissue, further demonstrate the remarkable ability of Pathfinder Cells to elicit their positive effect regardless of the organ, or even species, of origin.

"We are very encouraged by these preclinical results using NOD mice. This model is the gold standard for type-1 diabetes and the fact that recent experiments mirror what we've seen in previous models may be highly significant," stated Dr. Franklin. "We have many questions to answer about how PCs act in the body, but we believe, based on previous experiments, that PCs may stimulate regeneration of damaged islet cells that produce insulin. The current NOD mouse data also suggest that PCs may have an effect in modulating the auto-immune process in type 1 diabetes. We continue to conduct experiments aimed at elucidating the optimal dosing and other factors that may be responsible for producing a robust and long-lasting response, as this will be critical as we start to think about how PCs may be used in treating human diabetes."

In his presentation today, Dr. Franklin also provided further insight into the mechanism of action of PCs, based on recent animal experiments. It was observed previously that PCs produce microvesicles, which are known to play a role in intercellular communication, but through mechanisms that are poorly understood. In a recent experiment, Pathfinder was able to isolate these microvesicles from the PCs and treat animals directly with an injection containing microvesicles only. Remarkably, both PC- and microvesicle-treated mice exhibited similar reductions in blood glucose compared to controls using the same drug-induced diabetes mouse model. This suggests, not only that the microvesicles produced by PCs are central to the mechanism of action, but that the microvesicles alone appear to be sufficient to produce the full effect.

Dr. Franklin commented, "If confirmed, this finding could have a significant positive impact on the future of PC-based therapy. Due to the relatively small amount of material contained within the microvesicles, determining the specific factor(s) that are responsible for regenerating damaged tissue could be more straightforward than we first anticipated, bringing us closer to understanding the mechanism of action. There may also be a number of potential manufacturing and storage benefits to using microvesicles versus PCs that will be interesting to explore in parallel as we work to advance this innovative new therapeutic approach closer to human clinical development."

The New York Stem Cell Summit brings together cell therapy company executives, researchers, investors and physicians to explore investment opportunities in cell therapy research and innovation. More information can be found at http://www.stemcellsummit.com.

Presentation details Event: 7th Annual New York Stem Cell Summit Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 Place: Bridgewaters New York, 11 Fulton Street, New York, NY Time: 3:35 pm ET

About Pathfinder

Pathfinder is developing a novel cell-based therapy and has generated encouraging preclinical data in models of diabetes, renal disease, myocardial infarction, and critical limb ischemia, a severe form of peripheral vascular disease. Leveraging its internal discovery of Pathfinder Cells ("PCs") Pathfinder is pioneering a new field in regenerative medicine.

PCs are a newly identified mammalian cell type present in very low quantities in a variety of organs, including the kidney, liver, pancreas, lymph nodes, myometrium, bone marrow and blood. Early studies indicate that PCs stimulate regeneration of damaged tissues without the cells themselves being incorporated into the newly generated tissue. Based on testing to date, the cells appear to be "immune privileged," and their effects appear to be independent of the tissue source of PCs. For more information please visit: http://www.pathfindercelltherapy.com.

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

This press release contains forward-looking statements. You should be aware that our actual results could differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements, which are based on management's current expectations and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, our inability to obtain additional required financing; costs and delays in the development and/or FDA approval, or the failure to obtain such approval, of our product candidates; uncertainties or differences in interpretation in clinical trial results, if any; our inability to maintain or enter into, and the risks resulting from our dependence upon, collaboration or contractual arrangements necessary for the development, manufacture, commercialization, marketing, sales and distribution of any products; competitive factors; our inability to protect our patents or proprietary rights and obtain necessary rights to third party patents and intellectual property to operate our business; our inability to operate our business without infringing the patents and proprietary rights of others; general economic conditions; the failure of any products to gain market acceptance; technological changes; and government regulation. We do not intend to update any of these factors or to publicly announce the results of any revisions to these forward-looking statements.

1Karen Stevenson, Daxin Chen, Alan MacIntyre, Liane M McGlynn, Paul Montague, Rawiya Charif, Murali Subramaniam, W.D. George, Anthony P. Payne, R. Wayne Davies, Anthony Dorling, and Paul G. Shiels. Rejuvenation Research. April 2011, 14(2): 163-171. doi:10.1089/rej.2010.1099

Read more:
Pathfinder Presents Preliminary Data on New Regenerative Approach to Diabetes Treatment

By Matt Jones

NEW YORK (GenomeWeb News) –The Supreme Court of the United States on Friday began considering whether to take up the case between Myriad Genetics, the Association of American Pathology, and other plaintiffs and defendants that could either shore up or change current US laws covering gene patenting.

The Myriad gene patents case, officially the Association of Molecular Pathology, et al. v. US Patent and Trademark Office, centers on the assertion by AMP and others that 15 patents exclusively licensed Myriad covering BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes should be invalid because they claim rights to products of nature and as such are not patentable.

The case began its journey toward the highest court in 2009 when it was first filed in the Federal District Court, Southern District of New York against Myriad. The AMP suit was joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Public Patent Foundation, patient advocacy groups, and the academic research community, all with different interests in gene patenting policies.

The lawsuit claimed that Myriad maintains a monopoly over any genetic testing to determine the presence or absence of mutations on the human BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, thereby stifling research and limiting women's options regarding their medical care.

In 2010, Judge Robert Sweet ruled that the Myriad patents are invalid, because the isolated DNA the patents covered are not markedly different from native DNA as it exists in nature, and are not patentable.

That ruling, however, which left Myriad and other companies holding similar genetic patents on uncertain ground, was mostly overturned on appeal – which was requested by both plaintiffs and defendants – by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last summer.

The Court of Appeals decided that some kinds of DNA can be patented, such as cDNA molecules and other engineered molecules that are not found in nature, so most of Myriad's claims would be valid.

"We disagree [with the district court], as it is the distinctive nature of DNA molecules as isolated compositions of matter that determines their patent eligibility rather than their physiological use or benefit," the court stated in its decision. "The claimed isolated DNA molecules are distinct from their natural existence as portions of larger entities, and their informational content is irrelevant to that fact."

It also said that the company's claim on an assay for cancer therapeutics is valid because it involved several transformative steps. However, the judges said that five of Myriad's broadest method claim patents are invalid because they effectively referred to a mental act, a way of comparing sequences to look for differences, which cannot be patented.

One aspect of this case that could affect the court's decision is that the Office of the Solicitor General in the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief with the appeals court siding with the plaintiffs and against Myriad.

Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued that the court should uphold what the Supreme Court has historically supported, the notion that there is "a cardinal distinction" between products of nature on the one hand and human-made inventions on the other. The process of isolating DNA would not be enough of a transformation to make it patentable, Katyal argued, otherwise "[the element] lithium would be patentable."

Because the solicitor general joined in the case, Robert Cook-Deegan, director of the Duke University Center for Genome Ethics, Law & Policy, thinks that the Supreme Court may not make an immediate decision to hear the case, but instead it may opt to bounce the case over to the DOJ for another review.

"The two majority judges from the CAFC went out of their way to criticize the solicitor general's oral arguments [in their ruling], and I would think the Supreme Court might want to hear if the solicitor general has changed their mind in light of those arguments, or if they want to have a chance to rebut the judge's arguments," Cook-Deegan told GenomeWeb Daily News.

"This is apparently fairly common. Sometimes the solicitor general is said to be the tenth justice on the Supreme Court," Cook-Deegan said.

Under that scenario, if the solicitor general's office still holds the same position it had in 2011 against gene patents, then the Supreme Court would be likely to take up the case.

After the CAFC ruling, Myriad and companies with similar technologies are in a stronger patent position than they were in the wake of the New York court's decision, Cook-Deegan said, but the field of gene patents can involve unique complexities, and any certainties about patent protections could quickly become less firm in an environment of constantly-evolving technologies. For example, how will deep sequencing in the clinic affect the business models of labs that center on ownership of a few patents?

Cook-Deegan said that the case has already had an impact. "It is actually a pretty big deal that the courts have resettled the matter of whether you can patent a cDNA or an engineered DNA. … It is also a big deal that they threw out the method claims," he said. "Those claims were much more likely to get in the way of whole genome sequencing, whole exome sequencing, and the new technologies, than the DNA molecule claims."

Cook-Deegan said the court could decide what its next step will be as early as this week.

Meanwhile, an Australian federal court this week is hearing arguments in a case challenging Myriad's gene patents there.

See the article here:
Supreme Court Considering Taking on Gene Patents Case

The study is set for publication the week of Feb. 20 in the early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Many disease-causing microbes can evade one defensive action by a host plant, but we believe that most microbes would have difficulty overcoming a combination of two immune-system defenses," said UC Davis plant sciences professor Abhaya Dandekar, the lead researcher.

He and his colleagues tested this hypothesis on Xylella fastidiosa, the bacteria responsible for Pierce's disease in grapevines. Strains of the bacteria also attack and damage other host plants, including citrus, stone fruits, almonds, oleander, and certain shade trees, such as oaks, elms, maples and sycamores.

The findings further strengthen UC Davis' standing as a world leader in the science of plant improvement through advances in genetics, genomics, plant breeding and biodiversity.

First noted in California near Anaheim around 1884, Pierce's disease in grapevines is now known to exist in 28 California counties. From 1994 to 2000, the disease destroyed more than 1,000 acres of northern California grapevines, causing $30 million in damages. There is currently no known cure for Pierce's disease.

In grapevines, Xylella fastidiosa is carried from plant to plant by half-inch-long insects known as sharpshooters. The bacteria infect and clog the plant's water-transporting tissue, or xylem. Grapevines with Pierce's disease develop yellow and brown leaves and die within a few years.

To block such infections, the researchers engineered a hybrid gene by fusing together two genes that are responsible for two key functions of the plant's innate immune response: recognizing Xylella fastidiosa as a bacterial invader and destroying its outer membranes, causing the bacteria to die.

The researchers then inserted this hybrid gene into grapevines.

They found that sap from plants genetically engineered with the hybrid gene effectively killed Xylella fastidiosa in the laboratory. And grapevines engineered to carry the hybrid gene had significantly less leaf scorching and xylem clogging, indicating resistance to Pierce's disease.

Provided by University of California - Davis

Read this article:
Fused genes tackle deadly Pierce's disease in grapevines

The Federal Court has been asked to decide if patents granted over segments of human DNA are valid. Photo: Phil Carrick

COMPANIES do not have the right to a patent over human gene sequences and genetic mutations because such biological material is a product of nature, a court has been told.

The patient advocacy group Cancer Voices has launched legal action against two biotechnology companies that hold patents over a genetic mutation linked to breast and ovarian cancer, known as BRCA1.

The Federal Court has been asked for the first time to decide if patents granted over segments of human DNA are valid.

Advertisement: Story continues below

The US biotech company Myriad Genetics and the exclusive Australian licensee, Genetic Technologies, have a monopoly right to control the use of the BRCA1 mutation for research and development as well as diagnostic testing.

It was granted on the basis that the process of isolating the gene in a laboratory constituted an ''invention''.

In 2008, Genetic Technologies threatened to invoke its patent by ordering all laboratories to stop BRCA1 diagnostic testing but withdrew after a public backlash. The patent is enforced in the United States.

Rebecca Gilsenan, from Maurice Blackburn lawyers, which is running the case pro bono, said isolating a gene cannot amount to a patentable invention, as it is a ''discovery''.

Under Australian law, patents can only be granted over ''inventions'' which constitute a ''manner of manufacture'' or ''manner of new manufacture''.

The court, sitting in Sydney, must decide whether a natural biological material when isolated from its natural environment is a ''manner of manufacture''. Ms Gilsenan said the plaintiffs would argue there were no material structural or functional differences between a BRCA1 gene inside the body and one isolated from the body.

David Shavin, QC, for Myriad, told the court that when removed from the body and used to predict a person's predisposition to breast or ovarian cancer, the isolated nucleic acid is different to that in the cell.

''We are not seeking to patent the BRACA1 gene,'' he said. ''The thing that has been created and isolated is an artificially constructed state of affairs.''

Cancer Voices says allowing genetic mutations linked to specific diseases to be patented could restrict access to life-saving diagnostic procedures and discourage research.

''More and more research is leading to the genetic diagnosis of cancer,'' the group's executive director, John Stubbs, said outside court. ''They are our genes, we want to make sure they and the diagnostic tests that go along with them are protected.''

The second applicant, cancer survivor Yvonne D'Arcy, said she had taken action because she believed biological material should not be used for profit.

The hearing before Justice John Nicholas is expected to last up to eight days.

See the original post:
Court to consider gene patent

"More and more research is leading to the genetic diagnosis of cancer" ... Cancer Voices executive director John Stubbs. Photo: Anthony Johnson

COMPANIES do not have the right to a patent over human gene sequences and genetic mutations because such biological material is a product of nature, a court has been told.

The patient advocacy group Cancer Voices has launched landmark legal action against two biotechnology companies that hold patents over a genetic mutation linked to breast and ovarian cancer, known as BRCA1.

The Federal Court has been asked for the first time to decide if patents granted over segments of human DNA are valid.

Advertisement: Story continues below

The US biotech company Myriad Genetics and the exclusive Australian licensee, Genetic Technologies, have a monopoly right to control the use of the BRCA1 mutation for research and development as well as diagnostic testing.

It was granted on the basis that the process of isolating the gene from the human body in a laboratory constituted an "invention".

In 2008, Genetic Technologies threatened to invoke its patent by ordering all other laboratories to stop performing BRCA1 diagnostic testing but withdrew after a public backlash. The patent is enforced in the US.

Rebecca Gilsenan, from Maurice Blackburn lawyers, which is running the case pro bono, said isolating a gene from the human body cannot amount to a patentable invention, as it is merely a ''discovery''.

Under Australian law, patents can only be granted over "inventions" which constitute a "manner of manufacture" or "manner of new manufacture".

The court will have to decide whether a naturally occurring biological material when isolated from its natural environment is a ''manner of manufacture''.

Ms Gilsenan said the plaintiffs would argue there were no material structural or functional differences between a BRCA1 gene that is inside the body and a BRCA1 gene that has been isolated from the body.

However, David Shavin, QC, for Myriad, told the court that when removed from the body and used to predict a person's predisposition to breast or ovarian cancer, the isolated nucleic acid is, in fact, different to that which exists in the cell.

''We are not seeking to patent the BRACA1 gene,'' he said. ''The thing that has been created and isolated … is an artificially constructed state of affairs.''

Cancer Voices says allowing genetic mutations linked to specific diseases to be patented could restrict access to life-saving diagnostic procedures and actively discourage scientific research.

''More and more research is leading to the genetic diagnosis of cancer,'' the group's executive director, John Stubbs, said outside court. ''They are our genes, we want to make sure they and the diagnostic tests that go along with them are protected.''

The second applicant, breast cancer survivor Yvonne D'Arcy, said she has taken legal action as she believes biological material should not be used for profit.

''If you're really sick and its a genetic form of cancer, then everyone female down the line should be able to get the testing done at a price they can afford and if its patented, it won't be,'' she said.

In 2010, a US District Court ruled the same patent was invalid, but the decision was overturned on appeal last year. The American Council for Civil Liberties has petitioned the US Supreme Court to review the decision.

The hearing before Justice John Nicholas is expected to last up to eight days.

The rest is here:
Patient advocates test law on human gene patents

ScienceDaily (Feb. 20, 2012) — On the surface, it's simple: when night falls, our bodies get sleepy. But behind the scenes, a series of complex molecular events, controlled by our genes, is hard at work to make us groggy. Now, research suggests that a newly identified gene known as insomniac may play a role in keeping us asleep. By cloning and testing this gene in fruit flies, Rockefeller University researchers say they have discovered an entirely new mechanism by which sleep is regulated.

Nicholas Stavropoulos, a postdoc, and Michael W. Young, Richard and Jeanne Fisher Professor and head of the Laboratory of Genetics, conducted a genetic screen of approximately 21,000 fruit flies. Using a device that employs infrared beams to detect when the flies nod off, they discovered that mutations in the insomniac gene were associated with a dramatic reduction in sleep. While a typical fruit fly sleeps for average of 927 minutes a day, insomniac flies snoozed for just 317. The mutant flies also slept for shorter periods of time, and slept and woke more frequently.

"The results showed a dramatic loss of both the duration of the flies' sleep and their ability to remain asleep after they dozed off," says Stavropoulos. "But what's especially interesting is that the insomniac gene may function through homeostatic mechanisms. These are distinct from the well-studied circadian clock pathways linked to sleep, and have an effect on the body regardless of the time of day."

The scientists believe that insomniac works by engaging a specific series of protein degradation pathways in neurons through a complex known as Cul3. If correct, this would be the first time that a protein degradation pathway, in which specific proteins are eliminated within a cell, has been linked to sleep.

The researchers also examined the link between sleep and lifespan, finding that flies with mutations to the insomniac gene lived only about two-thirds as long as unaltered flies (other studies have suggested similar effects in both flies and rats that are deprived of sleep). But when the scientists eliminated insomniac only in neurons -- allowing it to remain in the rest of the flies' bodies -- this disparity was eliminated; the resulting animals slept poorly but lived just as long.

"This suggests that reduced sleep can be 'uncoupled' from reduced lifespan, supporting the idea that some disruptions of sleep do not affect overall health, at least as far as lifespan is concerned," Stavropoulos says.

Although flies and humans would appear to have little in common when it comes to lifestyle, scientists say that the mechanisms of sleep and wakefulness are likely to be quite similar.

"Sleep is a fundamental behavior in all animals, and it is poorly understood from a scientific standpoint," says Stavropoulos. "This work gives us several new clues about how sleep is controlled at the molecular level, and could prove useful in understanding and treating sleep disorders."

Recommend this story on Facebook, Twitter,
and Google +1:

Other bookmarking and sharing tools:

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Rockefeller University.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

Journal Reference:

Nicholas Stavropoulos, Michael W. Young. insomniac and Cullin-3 Regulate Sleep and Wakefulness in Drosophila. Neuron, 2011; 72 (6): 964 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.12.003

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

Go here to see the original:
Gene affecting the ability to sleep discovered in fruit flies

Biomedical research lost one of its titans with the death of Marshall Nirenberg, the Nobel Prize-winning biochemist who, with the help of colleagues at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and elsewhere, cracked the genetic code in 1961. His experiment showed how RNA transmits encoded information in DNA and directs the building of proteins (the National Museum of American History owns a copy of his chart of 64 3-letter combinations describing all possible amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, and the NIH has an excellent virtual exhibit about Nirenberg's work).

Nirenberg was the first federal employee to win the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine. It made him an instant celebrity. While tempted by job offers in academe and elsewhere -- they were surely his for the asking -- Nirenberg ended up spending his entire career at the NIH. He said he just couldn't see giving up the freedom they gave him to pursue his research.

I had the privilege of meeting this quietly modest man a couple of times, as NIH is just up the pike from the museum in downtown D.C. That's Rockville Pike, the spine of the so-called I-270 biotech corridor, but Nirenberg worked there long before the region acquired its current moniker. The area's great research organizations, like NIH and the nearby National Institute of Standards and Technology -- which has garnered its own share of Nobel Prizes -- are cornerstones of the new technology corridor. But they rest on over a century of institution building, both private and public.

Federal science agencies tend to treasure their Nobel laureates. It's the sort of thing that private industrial research labs used to do, but say they can no longer afford. We are fortunate indeed that government agencies like NIH continue to do the far-horizon research that launches and sustains our nation's high-tech networks, the incubators of new technologies. A clear case, in my view, of government money well spent.

Image: Nirenberg performing an experiment in his lab c. 1962/National Institutes of Health.

This post also appears on the Smithsonian's O Say Can You See? blog, an Atlantic partner site.

Here is the original post:
Cracking the Genetic Code

MONTREAL, QUEBEC--(Marketwire -02/20/12)- The Centre of Excellence in Personalized Medicine (Cepmed), announced today that they have launched a web-based Personalized Medicine Portal for Canadians and joined DNA Direct by Medco's Genomic Medicine Network (GMN).

Cepmed's Personalized Medicine Portal (Portal) provides information and decision making tools that will help patients understand how genetic testing can be used to inform treatment decisions and enable better communication between patients and providers. The Portal, available at http://www.cepmed.com, provides information about access to specific genetic tests in each Province. "Many of the stakeholders have told us that there is a dearth of reliable, evidence based information concerning personalized medicine tests. A centralized source of information about which tests exist, who should take them and how they should be interpreted is what we are offering through our partnership with DNA Direct by Medco. We believe this resource will contribute to improved patient outcomes and savings to the health care system." - Dr. Clarissa Desjardins - CEO, Cepmed.

According to the Personalized Medicine Coalition, there are more than 50 genetic tests currently available that can inform treatment decisions and drug therapy for a wide range of diseases.(i) With the availability of these tests, support and demand for personalized medicine is growing internationally. However, effective integration of personalized medicine into clinical care is challenging. It is widely thought that effective adoption of personalized medicine will require the participation of informed and engaged patients and healthcare providers.

Cepmed plans to use the Portal as a key element of implementation studies in personalized medicine, collaborating with healthcare providers, patient organizations and the public to define how personalized medicine is best applied within the Canadian health care system. These studies will be informed by Cepmed's participation in DNA Direct by Medco's GMN. The GMN brings together leaders in personalized medicine and offers opportunities to establish multi-site studies in genomics, with a particular focus on real-world or implementation studies.

"We are excited about this opportunity to expand our Genomic Medicine Network to include a premier personalized medicine organization in Canada," said Joan Kennedy, President of DNA Direct by Medco. "Cepmed will add a unique perspective and new types of collaboration opportunities across the network."

About DNA Direct

DNA Direct, a wholly owned subsidiary of Medco Health Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: MHS - News), delivers guidance and decision support for genomic medicine to patients, providers and payers. The company's comprehensive clinical programs are unique to genomic medicine and combine proprietary technology with genetic expertise; including a national call center of genetic experts, web-based applications, and educational resources and training. DNA Direct is based in San Francisco. For more information, visit http://www.dnadirect.com.

About Cepmed

Cepmed is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting personalized medicine through research, commercialization, and education. Cepmed participates in several public-private partnerships that have funded studies in translational medicine and pharmacogenomics. Cepmed has established expert physician panels in cardiology, oncology, and a multi-disciplinary Strategic Advisory Panel. Cepmed is working with these panels to ensure that personalised medicine is effectively incorporated into routine medical practice, resulting in improved health care in Canada.

Founded by Dr. Jean Claude Tardif at the Montreal Heart Institute, Cepmed makes use of the Beaulieu-Saucier Pharmacogenomics Centre, the Montreal Heart Institute Coordinating Centre (MHICC) and the Montreal Heart Institute Biobank in its projects. It is a Centre of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (CECR) and supported by the Canadian Government and Genome Quebec as well as private partners including Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Novartis.

(i) "The Case for Personalized Medicine, 3rd Edition", published by the Personalized Medicine Coalition in 2011.

Read more:
Cepmed Launches Online Personalized Medicine Portal

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 3:15 PM on 17th February 2012

Created 5:25 PM on 6th February 2012

Bio-hazard: Scientists found three out of 234 people were virtually insensitive to the anthrax toxin. They said this could have implications for other pathogens like HIV

Some people have a natural genetic resistance to anthrax, according to scientists.

Research into anthrax found susceptibility to the deadly disease caused by the bacterium Bacillus anthracis varied from person to person - revealing that susceptibility to the toxin is a heritable genetic trait.

Among 234 people studied by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine in the United States, the cells of three people were virtually insensitive to the toxin, while the cells of some people were hundreds of times more sensitive than those of others.

The findings may have important implications for national security, as people known to be more resistant to anthrax exposure could be effective first-line responders in times of crises.

The research also highlights the fact that many lethal pathogens - including HIV, malaria, leprosy and hepatitis - rely on interactions with host genes to infect and replicate within human cells.

Inherited differences in the level of expression of these genes can lead to large variations in the relative susceptibility of different individuals to the pathogen.

Inherited differences in the level of expression of these genes can lead to large variations in the relative susceptibility of different individuals to the pathogen.

The senior author of the report, funded by the Defence Threat Reduction Agency of the U.S. Department of Defence, is Professor of genetics Stanley Cohen.

'Every pathogen has its own virulence strategy,' said Stanford professor of microbiology and immunology David Relman, who was not involved in the research.

'We already knew that infection by the same organisms in different people can have different outcomes.

'But until now it’s been very difficult to determine whether this variability was due to genetic or environmental factors.

'This is one of the few studies that has successfully identified a host-genetics-based molecular cause of this variability.'

In the new study, Prof Cohen and his colleagues found that variation in the level of expression of a gene that produces a cell-surface protein called CMG2 affects the success of the anthrax toxin in gaining entry into human cells.

The research suggests that analogous effects may occur in people exposed to anthrax bacteria.

Anthrax disease is caused by infection with the anthrax bacteria. Spores of the bacteria exist naturally in the environment.

When inhaled by humans or animals, the spores are transported by immune cells to lymph nodes, where the bacteria begin to multiply and are secreted into the bloodstream.

Once in the bloodstream, the bacteria begin to produce the anthrax toxin that infiltrates and kills host cells.

Many lethal pathogens - including HIV (pictured) malaria, leprosy and hepatitis - rely on interactions with host genes to infect and replicate within human cells

Untreated, anthrax infection can cause widespread tissue damage, bleeding and death.

The researchers studied immune cells called lymphocytes collected from 234 people of varying ethnic and geographic backgrounds: 84 Nigerians, 63 Americans whose ancestors came from northern and western Europe, 44 Japanese and 43 Han Chinese.

They found that, of the 234 samples, lymphocytes from three individuals of European ancestry were thousands of times more resistant to killing by an engineered hybrid toxin brought into the cells by protective antigen.

The extent of variation in sensitivity was surprising to the scientists.

Even excluding the virtually resistant cells, they sometimes had to apply as much as 250 times more toxin to kill a similar number of cells in one sample as in another.

In addition, they observed that cells isolated from parents and their children responded similarly, indicating that toxin sensitivity is an inherited trait.

Prof Relman said: 'This research offers an important proof of principle.

'They’ve showed that genetically-determined variations in the level of expression of a human protein can influence the susceptibility of host cells to anthrax toxin.

'The findings also provide a possible means for predicting who is likely to become seriously ill after exposure, which could be extremely useful when faced with a large number of exposed people, such as was the case during the 2001 anthrax attacks.

'Finally, they could lead to the development of novel treatment strategies, perhaps by blocking the interaction between the toxin and the receptor, or by down-regulating its expression.'

The authors note in the study that the research has implications beyond anthrax exposure.

Prof Cohen added: 'Our findings, which reveal the previously unsuspected magnitude of genetically determined differences in toxin sensitivity among cells from different individuals, suggest a broadly applicable approach for investigating pathogen susceptibility in diverse human populations.'

The research was published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Read more from the original source:
Genetic make-up determines whether we die from anthrax exposure

It's personal now: Alexis Borisy (left) and Michael Pellini lead an effort to make DNA data available to help cancer patients. Credit: Christopher Harting

Michael Pellini fires up his computer and opens a report on a patient with a tumor of the salivary gland. The patient had surgery, but the cancer recurred. That's when a biopsy was sent to Foundation Medicine, the company that Pellini runs, for a detailed DNA study. Foundation deciphered some 200 genes with a known link to cancer and found what he calls "actionable" mutations in three of them. That is, each genetic defect is the target of anticancer drugs undergoing testing—though not for salivary tumors. Should the patient take one of them? "Without the DNA, no one would have thought to try these drugs," says Pellini. 

Starting this spring, for about $5,000, any oncologist will be able to ship a sliver of tumor in a bar-coded package to Foundation's lab. Foundation will extract the DNA, sequence scores of cancer genes, and prepare a report to steer doctors and patients toward drugs, most still in early testing, that are known to target the cellular defects caused by the DNA errors the analysis turns up. Pellini says that about 70 percent of cases studied to date have yielded information that a doctor could act on—whether by prescribing a particular drug, stopping treatment with another, or enrolling the patient in a clinical trial.

The idea of personalized medicine tailored to an individual's genes isn't new. In fact, several of the key figures behind Foundation have been pursuing the idea for over a decade, with mixed success. "There is still a lot to prove," agrees Pellini, who says that Foundation is working with several medical centers to expand the evidence that DNA information can broadly guide cancer treatment.

Foundation's business model hinges on the convergence of three recent developments: a steep drop in the cost of decoding DNA, much new data about the genetics of cancer, and a growing effort by pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs that combat the specific DNA defects that prompt cells to become cancerous. Last year, two of the 10 cancer drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration came with a companion DNA test (previously, only one drug had required such a test). So, for instance, doctors who want to prescribe Zelboraf, Roche's treatment for advanced skin cancer, first test the patient for the BRAFV 600E mutation, which is found in about half of all cases.

About a third of the 900 cancer drugs currently in clinical trials could eventually come to market with a DNA or other molecular test attached, according to drug benefits manager Medco. Foundation thinks it makes sense to look at all relevant genes at once—what it calls a "pan-cancer" test. By accurately decoding cancer genes, Foundation says, it uncovers not only the most commonly seen mutations but also rare ones that might give doctors additional clues. "You can see how it will get very expensive, if not impossible, to test for each individual marker separately," Foundation Medicine's COO, Kevin Krenitsky, says. A more complete study "switches on all the lights in the room."

So far, most of Foundation's business is coming from five drug companies seeking genetic explanations for why their cancer drugs work spectacularly in some patients but not at all in others. The industry has recognized that drugs targeted to subsets of patients cost less to develop, can get FDA approval faster, and can be sold for higher prices than traditional medications. "Our portfolio is full of targets where we're developing tests based on the biology of disease," says Nicholas Dracopoli, vice president for oncology biomarkers at Janssen R&D, which is among the companies that send samples to Foundation. "If a pathway isn't activated, you get no clinical benefit by inhibiting it. We have to know which pathway is driving the dissemination of the disease."

Cancer is the most important testing ground for the idea of targeted drugs. Worldwide spending on cancer drugs is expected to reach $80 billion this year—more than is spent on any other type of medicine. But "the average cancer drug only works about 25 percent of the time," says Randy Scott, executive chairman of the molecular diagnostics company Genomic Health, which sells a test that examines 16 breast-cancer genes. "That means as a society we're spending $60 billion on drugs that don't work."

Analyzing tumor DNA is also important because research over the past decade or so has demonstrated that different types of tumors can have genetic features in common, making them treatable with the same drugs. Consider Herceptin, the first cancer drug approved for use with a DNA test to determine who should receive it. The FDA cleared it in 1998 to target breast cancers that overexpress the HER2 gene, a change that drives the cancer cells to multiply. The same mutation has been found in gastric, ovarian, and other cancers—and indeed, in 2010 the drug was approved to treat gastric cancer. "We've always seen breast cancer as breast cancer. What if a breast cancer is actually like a gastric cancer and they both have the same genetic changes?" asks Jennifer Obel, an oncologist in Chicago who has used the Foundation test.

The science underlying Foundation Medicine had its roots in a 2007 paper published by Levi Garraway and Matthew Meyerson, cancer researchers at the Broad Institute, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. They came up with a speedy way to find 238 DNA mutations then known to make cells cancerous. At the time, DNA sequencing was still too expensive for a consumer test—but, Garraway says, "we realized it would be possible to generate a high-yield set of information for a reasonable cost." He and Meyerson began talking with Broad director Eric Lander about how to get that information into the hands of oncologists.

In the 1990s, Lander had helped start Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a genomics company that had boldly promised to revolutionize oncology using similar genetic research. Ultimately, Millennium abandoned the idea—but Lander was ready to try again and began contacting former colleagues to "discuss next steps in the genomics revolution," recalls Mark Levin, who had been Millennium's CEO.

Levin had since become an investor with Third Rock Ventures. Money was no object for Third Rock, but Levin was cautious—diagnostics businesses are difficult to build and sometimes offer low returns. What followed was nearly two years of strategizing between Broad scientists and a parade of patent lawyers, oncologists, and insurance experts, which Garraway describes as being "like a customized business-school curriculum around how we're going to do diagnostics in the new era."

In 2010, Levin's firm put $18 million into the company; Google Ventures and other investors have since followed suit with $15.5 million more. Though Foundation's goals echo some of Millennium's, its investors say the technology has finally caught up. "The vision was right 10 to 15 years ago, but things took time to develop," says Alexis Borisy, a partner with Third Rock who is chairman of Foundation. "What's different now is that genomics is leading to personalized actions."

One reason for the difference is the falling cost of acquiring DNA data. Consider that last year, before his death from pancreatic cancer, Apple founder Steve Jobs paid scientists more than $100,000 to decode all the DNA of both his cancerous and his normal cells. Today, the same feat might cost half as much, and some predict that it will soon cost a few thousand dollars.

So why pay $5,000 to know the status of only about 200 genes? Foundation has several answers. First, each gene is decoded not once but hundreds of times, to yield more accurate results. The company also scours the medical literature to provide doctors with the latest information on how genetic changes influence the efficacy of specific drugs. As Krenitsky puts it, data analysis, not data generation, is now the rate-limiting factor in cancer genomics.

Although most of Foundation's customers to date are drug companies, Borisy says the company intends to build its business around serving oncologists and patients. In the United States, 1.5 million cancer cases are diagnosed annually. Borisy estimates that Foundation will process 20,000 samples this year. At $5,000 per sample, it's easy to see how such a business could reward investors. "That's ... a $100-million-a-year business," says Borisy. "But that volume is still low if this truly fulfills its potential."

Pellini says Foundation is receiving mentoring from Google in how to achieve its aim of becoming a molecular "information company." It is developing apps, longitudinal databases, and social-media tools that a patient and a doctor might use, pulling out an iPad together to drill down from the Foundation report to relevant publications and clinical trials. "It will be a new way for the world to look at molecular information in all types of settings," he says.

Several practical obstacles stand in the way of that vision. One is that some important cancer-related genes have already been patented by other companies—notably BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are owned by Myriad Genetics. These genes help repair damaged DNA, and mutations in them increase the risk of breast or ovarian cancer. Although Myriad's claim to a monopoly on testing those genes is being contested in the courts and could be overturned, Pellini agrees that patents could pose problems for a pan-cancer test like Foundation's. That's one reason Foundation itself has been racing to file patent applications as it starts to make its own discoveries. Pellini says the goal is to build a "defensive" patent position that will give the company "freedom to operate."

Another obstacle is that the idea of using DNA to guide cancer treatment puts doctors in an unfamiliar position. Physicians, as well as the FDA and insurance companies, still classify tumors and drug treatments anatomically. "We're used to calling cancers breast, colon, salivary," says oncologist Thomas Davis, of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, in Lebanon, New Hampshire. "That was our shorthand for what to do, based on empirical experience: 'We tried this drug in salivary [gland] cancer and it didn't work.' 'We tried this one and 20 percent of the patients responded.'"

Now the familiar taxonomy is being replaced by a molecular one. It was Davis who ordered DNA tests from several companies for the patient with the salivary-gland tumor. "I got bowled over by the amount of very precise, specific molecular information," he says. "It's wonderful, but it's a little overwhelming." The most promising lead that came out of the testing, he thinks, was evidence of overactivity by the HER2 gene—a result he says was not picked up by Foundation but was found by a different test. That DNA clue suggests to him that he could try prescribing Herceptin, the breast-cancer drug, even though evidence is limited that it works in salivary-gland cancer. "My next challenge is to get the insurance to agree to pay for these expensive therapies based on rather speculative data," he says.

Insurance companies may also be unwilling to pay $5,000 for the pan-cancer test itself, at least initially. Some already balk at paying for well-established tests, says Christopher-Paul Milne, associate director of the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, who calls reimbursement "one of the biggest impediments to personalized medicine." But Milne predicts that it's just a matter of time before payers come around as the number of medications targeted to people's DNA grows. "Once you get 10 drugs that require screening, or to where practitioners wouldn't think about using a drug without screening first, the floodgates will open," he says. "Soon, in cancer, this is the way you will do medicine."

Adrienne Burke was founding editor of Genome Technology magazine and is a contributor to Forbes.com and Yahoo Small Business Advisor.

Continued here:
Foundation Medicine: Personalizing Cancer Drugs

LONDON (ShareCast) - Strong growth in sales volumes in Asia has seen animal genetics firm Genus (Xetra: 762548 - news) increase revenue by almost a tenth in the first half of its financial year. Furthermore, after reviewing its dividend policy last year, the firm has decided to start paying an interim dividend for the first time this year. The board has approved an interim dividend of 4.5p per share payable on March 30th. Revenue for the six months ended December 31st rose 9% from £153.2m to £166.9m, a 10% increase at constant exchange rates (CER). Bovine sales volumes were up 8%, helped by strong increases in China and India particularly, while Porcine volumes, up 13%, were driven by growth in Asia as a whole. Genus, which focuses on creating advances in animal breeding through naturally applied biotechnology and quantitative genetics, said that the North American and Latin American markets also traded well, while European profits were affected by weak demand in a depressed European pig market. Higher sales, along with the benefits of refinancing in 2011 and lower interest rates, helped adjusted pre-tax profits rise 22% to £23.3m, from £19.1m the year before (+25% at CER). Adjusted results exclude the valuation movement on biological assets, amortisation of acquired intangible assets, share-based payment expense and exceptional items. Finance costs were £1.1m, well below the £3.8m recorded in the corresponding period in 2010. Statutory pre-tax profits were 13% higher at £26m, compared with Panmure Gordon's forecast of £22m. "Global (Chicago Options: ^RJSGTRUSD - news) population growth and increased urbanisation in developing countries is accelerating demand for protein in diets," said Chief Executive Karim Bitar. "This demand increase and pressure on prices, driven by higher feed costs, can only be met through improved efficiency and greater application of technology in farming. Genus' market-leading genetics are key ingredients in this quest for improved productivity," he said. Net (Frankfurt: A0Z22E - news) debt was £69.6m at the end of the period, compared with £78m the year before, but slightly ahead of the £67.9m at June 30th 2011. "The group is continuing to trade well in market conditions that remain favourable in most markets. As a result, the board expects the group to make further progress in the second half of the year in line with market expectations," the statement said. BC

Link:
Emerging markets boost sales at Genus

AMSTERDAM, The Netherlands, February 21, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --

Amsterdam Molecular Therapeutics (Euronext: AMT - News), a leader in the field of human gene therapy, announced today that it has received a request to provide additional information to the Committee for Human Medicinal Products (CHMP) on Glybera® (alipogene tiparvovec) by March 8, 2012. The CHMP request follows the announcement on January 30, 2012 that the European Commission Standing Committee was requesting additional information from the CHMP. The CHMP has indicated that a final decision on Glybera could be made by May 2012.

Glybera is a gene therapy for patients with the genetic disorder LPLD, a very rare inherited condition that is associated with increased levels of chylomicrons. These particles carry certain types of fat in the blood, which because they are not removed from the body can cause recurrent bouts of pancreatitis. There is no treatment currently available for these patients.

On October 23, 2011, AMT received a non-approvable opinion from the CHMP (following a re-examination of the marketing approval dossier originally rejected in June 2011) despite a recommendation to approve Glybera by the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT). The CAT is an expert body implemented by the European Commission to prepare and advise the CHMP on decisions regarding advanced therapeutics, in particular gene and cell therapies. 

AMT's proposed acquisition of assets by uniQure BV announced on February 17, 2012, was developed on the basis that Glybera is not approvable. This transaction will proceed as planned. In the event that Glybera could be commercialized in Europe, uniQure will evaluate how achieving this important milestone could be realized most efficiently.

About Glybera®

AMT has developed Glybera as a treatment for patients with the genetic disorder lipoprotein lipase deficiency.

LPLD is an orphan disease for which no treatment exists today. The disease is caused by mutations in the LPL gene, resulting in highly decreased or absent activity of LPL protein in patients. This protein is needed in order to break down large fat-carrying particles that circulate in the blood after each meal. When such particles, called chylomicrons, accumulate in the blood, they may obstruct small blood vessels. Excess chylomicrons result in recurrent and severe acute inflammation of the pancreas, called pancreatitis, the most debilitating and life threatening clinical complication of LPLD. Glybera has orphan drug status in the EU and US.

About Amsterdam Molecular Therapeutics

AMT is a world leader in the development of human gene based therapies. AMT has a product pipeline of gene therapy products in development for hemophilia B, acute intermittent porphyria, Parkinson's disease and SanfilippoB. Using adeno-associated viral (AAV) derived vectors as the delivery vehicle of choice for therapeutic genes, the company has been able to design and validate probably the world's first stable and scalable AAV manufacturing platform. This proprietary platform can be applied to a large number of rare (orphan) diseases caused by one faulty gene and allows AMT to pursue its strategy of focusing on this sector of the industry.  AMT was founded in 1998 and is based in Amsterdam. Further information can be found at http://www.amtbiopharma.com.

About uniQure

uniQure BV is a private company created specifically for the transaction with AMT. It is funded by Forbion Capital Partners, an existing investor in AMT. uniQure will act as the new holding company for the gene therapy business currently carried out by AMT.

Certain statements in this press release are "forward-looking statements" including those that refer to management's plans and expectations for future operations, prospects and financial condition. Words such as "strategy," "expects," "plans," "anticipates," "believes," "will," "continues," "estimates," "intends," "projects," "goals," "targets" and other words of similar meaning are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. Such statements are based on the current expectations of the management of AMT only. Undue reliance should not be placed on these statements because, by their nature, they are subject to known and unknown risks and can be affected by factors that are beyond the control of AMT. Actual results could differ materially from current expectations due to a number of factors and uncertainties affecting AMT's business. AMT expressly disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statements herein except as required by law. 

Not for release, publication or distribution in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, in or into the United States or to US persons. This announcement is not a prospectus and does not contain or constitute an offer for sale or the solicitation of an offer to purchase securities in the United States or any other jurisdiction.

The securities mentioned herein have not been and will not be registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), or under the securities laws of any state or other jurisdiction of the United States and may not be offered, sold, resold, taken up, exercised, renounced, transferred or delivered, directly or indirectly, within the United States except pursuant to an applicable exemption from, or in a transaction not subject to, the registration requirements of the Securities Act. No public offering of the securities mentioned herein is being made in the United States or any other jurisdiction.

This announcement does not constitute or forms a part of any offer or solicitation to purchase or subscribe for securities in any jurisdiction or jurisdictions in which such offers or sales are unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction.

The materials contained herein have not been submitted to or reviewed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") or any state securities commission, and neither the SEC nor any such state securities commission has (a) approved or disapproved, (b) passed upon the merits or fairness of, or (c) passed upon the adequacy or accuracy of the disclosure of any materials contained herein. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offence in the United States.

Follow this link:
Amsterdam Molecular Therapeutics Receives Request for Further Information From CHMP on Glybera®

08-02-2012 18:45 (October 18, 2011) Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering Beth Pruitt discusses his work in human embryonic stem-cell-derived cardiac myosites and future opportunities to use heart cells for regenerative therapy. This course is a single-quarter, focused follow-up to the the yearlong Mini Med School that occurred in 2009-10. The course focuses on diseases of the heart and cardiovascular system. The course is sponsored by Stanford Continuing Studies and the Stanford Medical School. Stanford University http://www.stanford.edu Stanford Continuing Studies http://www.continuingstudies.stanford.edu Stanford University School of Medicine http://www.med.stanford.edu Stanford University Channel on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com

Read the original here:
4. Bioengineering Cardiovascular Tools | Mini Med School - Video

18-11-2011 13:50

Go here to read the rest:
GPEC: What is personalized medicine? - Video

16-02-2012 15:07 Watch video of Dr. Dan Roden speaking about personalized medicine. Roden spoke Jan. 25 as part of the Osher Lifelong Learning class, "Medical Advances." The course is presented by faculty of the Vanderbilt University Medical Center and focuses on what the future of medicine holds. Physicians are now able to use a patient's DNA to select the right drug for treatment. Oncologists can 'read' the DNA of a patient's tumor and tailor treatment for their particular version of cancer. New medical devices have provided new heart valves, 'pace-makers' for the brain, and the tools needed to rebuild a spine. This series of lectures introduces medical and surgical treatments that are changing lives today and a preview of the discoveries that are still "works in progress" at Vanderbilt. The class is part of the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at Vanderbilt. The non-credit classes are intended for older adults who want to pursue lifelong learning with the stimulus of lectures and discussions in an informal and relaxed environment.

See the article here:
Dr. Dan Roden: "Personalized Medicine: Your genome and the future of medicine" - Video

14-02-2012 10:17

Visit link:
Skin Care after Spinal Cord Injury Treating Pressure Ulcers - Video

09-01-2012 07:00 link to online store pillsrx24.com Side affects of Lexapro Lexapro - generic escitalopram - is an antidepressant in the SSRI class that is approved to treat major depression and generalized anxiety disorder. Lexapro (Escitalopram) 5 mg Designing Environments You left me now it’s time to go Inspiration: what is inspiring you today? Beautiful new colored pencils? A triple espresso? Your grandparents? Tell us about it, and receive more inspiration for your trouble. Allergy Relief Store offers replacement allergy Filters for air conditioning filters, furnace filters, air conditioner filters, ac filters, a/c filters and. side affects of lexapro

View original post here:
Side affects of Lexapro - Video

27-01-2012 00:12 Mouse embryonic stem cells were coaxed into becoming heart cells. Protocol adapted from Maltsev et al 1993. The cells can be seen beating under low magnification. Sweet!

View post:
Stem cells becoming heart cells - Video

08-02-2012 01:41 A UCSF stem cell study conducted in mice suggests a novel strategy for treating damaged cardiac tissue in patients following a heart attack. The approach potentially could improve cardiac function, minimize scar size, lead to the development of new blood vessels -- and avoid the risk of tissue rejection. In the investigation, reported online in the journal PLoS ONE, the researchers isolated and characterized a novel type of cardiac stem cell from the heart tissue of middle-aged mice following a heart attack. Then, in one experiment, they placed the cells in the culture dish and showed they had the ability to differentiate into cardiomyocytes, or "beating heart cells," as well as endothelial cells and smooth muscle cells, all of which make up the heart. In another, they made copies, or "clones," of the cells and engrafted them in the tissue of the mice who had had the heart attacks. The cells induced angiogenesis, or blood vessel growth, or differentiated, or specialized, into endothelial and smooth muscle cells, improving cardiac function. Because the cells were transplanted back into the mice from which they originated, the body did not reject them.

View post:
Stem Cell Study in Mice Offers Hope for Treating Heart Attack Patients - Video

08-02-2012 18:24 (October 25, 2011) Associate Professor at the Stanford School of Medicine, Joseph Wu explores how stem cells may be used in the future to repair hearts that have failed. This course is a single-quarter, focused follow-up to the the yearlong Mini Med School that occurred in 2009-10. The course focuses on diseases of the heart and cardiovascular system. The course is sponsored by Stanford Continuing Studies and the Stanford Medical School. Stanford University http://www.stanford.edu Stanford Continuing Studies http:///continuingstudies.stanford.edu/ Stanford University School of Medicine med.stanford.edu Stanford University Channel on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com

See the original post:
5. Stem Cells for Cardiac Repair | Mini Med School - Video

08-02-2012 18:45 (October 18, 2011) Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering Beth Pruitt discusses his work in human embryonic stem-cell-derived cardiac myosites and future opportunities to use heart cells for regenerative therapy. This course is a single-quarter, focused follow-up to the the yearlong Mini Med School that occurred in 2009-10. The course focuses on diseases of the heart and cardiovascular system. The course is sponsored by Stanford Continuing Studies and the Stanford Medical School. Stanford University http://www.stanford.edu Stanford Continuing Studies http://www.continuingstudies.stanford.edu Stanford University School of Medicine http://www.med.stanford.edu Stanford University Channel on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com

View post:
4. Bioengineering Cardiovascular Tools | Mini Med School - Video

04-01-2012 22:37 If I told you that you could cure blood cancer, would you believe me? Well it's true. Watch this video to find out how easy it is to save a life, then go to GetSwabbed.org to register as a lifesaving bone marrow donor today.

Go here to read the rest:
HOW TO BECOME A DKMS BONE MARROW DONOR - Video

09-01-2012 06:07 Bone marrow stem cells versus cord blood stem cells : Prof.Dr. Virginia

Read the original here:
Bone marrow stem cells versus cord blood stem cells : Prof.Dr. Virginia - Video

10-01-2012 19:46 If you match a patient you will be asked to donate stem cells from either your bloodstream or bone marrow. Learn how it's done by watching this video.

Visit link:
PBSC vs. BONE MARROW DONATION - Video

31-01-2012 13:21 Ronald W. Hanson, Jr., MD lectures at the 11th Clinical Applications for Age Management Medicine in November 2011, in Las Vegas, Nevada This focused conference track cocentrated on regenerative and cell-based medicine continue to grow in use by physicians across the world. From platelet rich plasma to culture expanded stem cells, the need for information about the applications of these therapies to treat patients has never been greater. This track will focus on the latest developments in cell-based medicine with speakers who are driving the research and using these technologies as part of their everyday practice of medicine. For more information contact conference@agemed.org Visit our website at agemed.org

Read more:
The Use of Guided Bone Marrow Nucleated Cell Fraction Injections - Ronald W. Hanson, Jr., MD - Video