Jump to content

Talk:Regenerative medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tychodigital.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2020 and 29 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TimothySullivan2020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 21 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Crystalsncardio.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S. E. N. S.

[edit]

I noticed this edit to List_of_emerging_technologies#Biotechnology.2C_Bioinformatics. I'm not competent in the subject matter, but it looks to me like Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence could well be mentioned here. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, at least Aubrey de Grey's proposed list of seven types of aging damage should be included:

1. Cancer-causing nuclear mutations/epimutations: 2. Mitochondrial mutations: 3. Intracellular aggregates: 4. Extracellular aggregates: 5. Cell loss: 6. Cell senescence: 7. Extracellular crosslinks:

Needs more on...

[edit]

This article is inadequate at present (201107) and needs much more linkage to other medical traditions in which regenerative approaches have long dominated, the most obvious of which is acupuncture. There's also psychoneuroimmunology, biofeedback, and other proven approaches that affect regeneration of cells.

To focus narrowly on stem cell, cord blood, for half or even two-thirds of the article is fine, as these are dominant Western approaches at the moment, but it must be acknowledged that Western medicine is quite late to the regenerative game, and it is a serious POV problem if the field is defined only in those terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.109.73 (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More about on-going studies

[edit]

I think at least in the case of Stephen Badylak more intresting than the "fingertip" case is the case of "Isaias Hernandez". That case is about full muscle and whether it can be grown. The study is on-going and at least I didn't find good information about the current situation. There might be more of studies going-on that can actually prove something.

Few links (there is need for credible updated source):

http://www.mirm.pitt.edu/news/article.asp?qEmpID=534 http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-06/tissue-engineers-regenerate-muscle-cells-saving-afghanistan-veteran%E2%80%99s-leg http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43555405/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/pig-proteins-help-re-grow-human-skeletal-muscle/

Or is this an Internet hoax resurfacing from time to time (it began before 2005) with different doctors' and patients' names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.87.38 (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

212.213.212.230 (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

--Gary Dee 18:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sources (notes for later)

[edit]

recent reviews

regenerative medicine

[edit]

Hello, yesterday I attempted to add a paragraph about Dr. Doris Taylor's contributions to the field of regenerative medicine, but the addition was removed. Can you please offer insight about why the entry was removed, and guidance about what I need to do to have the addition accepted? Dr. Doris Taylor is a scientist at Texas Heart Institute in Houston who is working to grow human hearts in the laboratory. Her work has been celebrated worldwide, and is the basis for many regenerative medicine efforts underway today. Dr. Taylor has achieved a number of "first-in-the-world" scientific breakthroughs which have earned her international recognition. For more about Dr. Taylor, please see her Wikipedia page.Rwendler (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read her Wikipedia page yesterday after seeing the changes here. Her WP:BLP page reads more like a CV than a true biography of somebody that is noteworthy of an encyclopedic entry. Compare her page to someone like William T. G. Morton (there are probably better entries, but I just saw this one). Wikipages are not intended to read like a promo page on an institutes webpage. As for this page, if there is not written evidence by third-party sources that she is pivotal in the development of regenerative medicine (and imo, yesterdays' entry's didn't prove that) it doesn't belong here. Bottom line, is the additions read like a promo rather than advancing the topic. Are you a scientist in the field (or student) that's researching her contributions? Don't mind helping if I've misread things. Ian Furst (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. Based on your feedback, I have modified the addition, and it now reads as follows. Please let me know what you think. And to answer your question, I am employed at the Texas Heart Institute in Houston as a website writer/editor in the Visual Communications Department:

In 2008, Dr. Doris Taylor who at the time directed the Center for Cardiovascular Repair at the University of Minnesota, led a research team that became the first in the world to create a beating rat heart in the laboratory. The research team accomplished this by injecting cells from a newborn rat heart into a decellularized rat heart. This research is published in the Jan. 13, 2008 issue of Nature Medicine. (“Perfusion-decellularized: Using Nature’s Platform to Engineer a Bioartificial Heart.” Nature Medicine, 2-14-08, pp. 213-21, PubMedID: 18193059) Today, Taylor continues her work at Texas Heart Institute in Houston where she is director of regenerative medicine research. In a Houston Chronicle article published Jan. 23, 2013, (www.chron.com/news/health/article/Saving-lives-with-help-from-pigs-amd-cells-4217384.php), Taylor predicted that in the next two years, she and her team will approach the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and ask to do a first-in-human study with bio-artificial hearts created in the lab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwendler (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K - the question becomes whether or not this accomplishment is worthy of space in the history section of this article. I'm not a core editor of this article, so I'm interested to hear if those who are believe this info should be incorporated. Here is a link from Huffington to the Nature Medicine article in popular press. In the mean time, take a read through the WP:COI rules. WP doesn't allow paid editing, but we recognize that paid editors are sometimes a great asset to information. The fact that you disclose the COI is important, you should probably do it on the talk page of her bio too. Also, it would be worthwhile to restructure the bio to follow the bio templates and guidelines of wikipedia. Ian Furst (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who removed the information. Somebody with a COI should not directly edit articles where they have a COI. See WP:COI. I linked to the relevant wikipedia POLICY about why the text was removed, which is WP:PROMO. I find this kind of activity reprehensible. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion.Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rwendler What is the source for the statement that the beating rat heart was "first in the world"? As for the last sentence, that cannot come in, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dr. Furst, for your valuable and thoughtful input. It was very enlightening and helpful to someone like me who is new to making Wikipedia contributions. My intent was to only add in a small way to the overall body of knowledge included in the article since it has a C rating (which Wikipedia describes as "considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems," and "would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.") Only a handful of scientists are mentioned in the article and regenerative medicine research breakthroughs that occurred within the last few years are missing (hence the C-class rating). For example, a major breakthrough occurred at the Karolinska Instituet in Sweden earlier this year but it is omitted. Since it is not OK for a person who works at a university or research institute to share with Wikipedia information emanating from the university or research institute where they work, perhaps another editor/s would be interested in taking up the cause to update this regenerative medicine page (especially since Wikipedia ranks the topic of "high importance.") A topic of this magnitude needs good stewards, and I'm sure there are editors out there who are up to the challenge. I will leave it in their hands. Again, I thank you for your input, professionalism and integrity (and for using your real name, which in my opinion inspires professional confidence).192.147.26.3 (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwendler (talk • contribs) 20:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you are missing the point of your COI. It is great for everybody to contribute to Wikipedia, including people at universities. The mission of WP is to provide a neutral and accurate source of information for the public, and it is an abuse of your editing privileges to edit WP to make the THI and its scientists look awesome or get public attention. That is perversion. If you cannot see the difference between improving Wikipedia and promoting THI and its scientists then you should spend more time thinking about COI in general (a serious issue for universities) and COI on Wikipedia, through the links I have provided you. If you are unwilling to do that, you indeed should not be editing here. I generally don't bite newcomers and instead find ways to welcome and teach them, but when people blow things off like you have, and try to cover their-blowing off with high-falutin' formal language, I have little patience. Please, take some time and learn how things work here. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your earlier question -- "What is the source for the statement that the beating rat heart was "first in the world"?, I provide the following link: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/22654491#22654491 This work, by the way, was conducted at the University of Minnesota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwendler (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore Jytdog, because Jytdog is not a person, but is instead a group of internet bullies. Groups operating under anonymous usernames such as Yobol and Jytdog have a long history of editing articles to suit their own agendas, and are a large part of the reason Wikipedia has suffered a credibility problem. To put an end to this abuse, Wikipedia founder Larry Sanger is calling for all Wikipedia editors to make their identifies known: http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/09/02/on-the-moral-bankruptcy-of-wikipedias-anonymous-administration/. “If you make serious decisions that affect the livelihoods and personal relationships of real people, or what students believe about various subjects, the price you pay for your authority is personal responsibility. Without personal responsibility, it is simply too easy to abuse your authority. Why should anyone trust the decisions of anonymous Wikipedia administrators? They could easily be personally biased, based on ignorance, or otherwise worthless,” Sanger states. Calling into question a well-intentioned contributor’s COI, or Conflict of Interest, is a common ploy that anonymous editors use to abuse their power: http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/08/12/wikipedia-as-a-political-battleground-after-a-gmomonsanto-content-dispute-longtime-wikipedia-contributor-viriditas-is-blocked/. Scientists, lawyers, and others with significant, documented and verifiable information have attempted to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia, only to have anonymous editors block their submissions. Anonymous editors often use inflammatory and uncivil language to bully new contributors and chase them away. “They (the anonymous editors) like to pretend that their “conflict of interest”, or COI, regulations keep Wikipedia a “neutral” and trustworthy reference. If the encyclopedia’s history, social structure, and its leaders’ dealings are any guide, though, one can only conclude that Wikipedia is an arena of combat for competing groups of propagandists,” states the article documented above. The result is an incomplete, sketchy article, deprived by anonymous editors of important and up-to-date information. So ignore Jytdog and any other so-called editors who operate anonymously. Their input is worthless, and their power is ill-gained. Jytdog will likely respond with something that first feigns concern over your lack of trust in "him" (really them), and then segues into something inflammatory. Just ignore.Jztaylor (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am currently enrolled in the Advanced Genetics course at UWO. Our main project is to update relevant Wikipedia articles and I plan to do so with this article on Regenerative Medicine. Over the next few weeks, I will be updating the article with recent reviews and relevant research. I look forward to working on this article with all of you! Tychodigital (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Macchiarini

[edit]

Given the findings and controversy on Macchiarini's work I suggest removing any information regarding him from this article.

Abrionesl (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Macchiarini

[edit]

Might not the Macchiarini section be in need of some updating in the light of the huge scandal surrounding his research at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.69.150.4 (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young blood transfusion

[edit]

Ongoing arguments at Young blood transfusion may be of interest to editors of this article. violet/riga [talk] 11:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hair follicles

[edit]

Hello, I posted about recent research about hair follicles and hair regenerative medicine by a group of Japanese scientists yesterday. The source is credible. I was wondering if you can put it back on.

[1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142961219302674?via%3Dihub


Jessicawg415 (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Jessicawg415[reply]

Wikipedia has special sourcing requirements for medical content which you can read at WP:MEDRS. In this case we should wait for this study to be evaluated by a review article, and then we can cite the review. - MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History and Research sections

[edit]

I am considering editing this article. What are other editors' thoughts on these additions?

I am considering adding this to the History section:

The ancient Greeks postulated whether parts of the body could be regenerated in the 700s BC.[1] Skin grafting, invented in the late 19th century, can be thought of as the earliest major attempt to recreate bodily tissue to restore structure and function.[2] Advances in transplanting body parts in the 20th century further pushed the theory that body parts could regenerate and grow new cells. These advances led to tissue engineering, and from this field, the study of regenerative medicine expanded and began to take hold.[1] This began with cellular therapy, which led to the stem cell research that is widely being conducted today.[3]

The first cell therapies were intended to slow the aging process. This began in the 1930s with Paul Niehans, a Swiss doctor who was known to have treated famous historical figures such as Pope Pius XII, Charlie Chaplin, and king Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia. Niehans would inject cells of young animals (usually lambs or calves) into his patients in an attempt to rejuvenate them.[4] [5]In the year 1956, a more sophisticated process was created to treat leukemia by inserting bone marrow from a healthy person into a patient with leukemia. This process worked mostly due to both the donor and receiver in this case being identical twins. Nowadays, bone marrow can be taken from people who are similar enough to the patient who needs the cells to prevent rejection.[6]

And this to the Research section:

In Dentistry

[edit]

Regenerative medicine has been studied by dentists to find ways that damaged teeth can be repaired and restored to obtain natural structure and function.[7] Dental tissues are often damaged due to tooth decay, and are often deemed to be irreplaceable except by synthetic or metal dental fillings or crowns, which requires further damage to be done to the teeth by drilling into them to prevent the loss of an entire tooth.

Researchers from King’s College London have created a drug called Tideglusib that claims to have the ability to regrow dentin, the second layer of the tooth beneath the enamel which encases and protects the pulp (often referred to as the nerve).[8]

Animal studies conducted on mice in Japan in 2007 show great possibilities in regenerating an entire tooth. Some mice had a tooth extracted and the cells from bioengineered tooth germs were implanted into them and allowed to grow. The result were perfectly functioning and healthy teeth, complete with all three layers, as well as roots. These teeth also had the necessary ligaments to stay rooted in its socket and allow for natural shifting. They contrast with traditional dental implants, which are restricted to one spot as they are drilled into the jawbone.[9] [10]

A person’s baby teeth are known to contain stem cells that can be used for regeneration of the dental pulp. These cells can also be used to repair damage from periodontitis, an advanced form of gum disease that causes bone loss and severe gum recession. Research is still being done to see if these stem cells are viable enough to grow into completely new teeth. Some parents even opt to keep their childrens' baby teeth in special storage with the thought that, when older, the children could use the stem cells within them to treat a condition.[11] [12]

References

  1. ^ a b "What is Regenerative Medicine?". University of Nebraska Medical Center. University of Nebraska. Retrieved 27 June 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Rahlf, Sidsel Hald. "The Use of Skin Grafting for the Treatment of Burn Wounds in Denmark 1870-1960". PubMed. The National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved June 27, 2020.
  3. ^ Sampogna, Gianluca; Guraya, Salman Yousuf; Forgione, Atonello (September 2015). "Regenerative medicine: Historical roots and potential strategies in modern medicine". Science Direct. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure. Retrieved 27 June 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ New York Times (September 4, 1971). "Dr. Paul Niehans, Swiss Surgen, 89". New York Times. Retrieved 27 June 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. ^ Milton, Joyce (1998). Tramp: The Life of Charlie Chaplin. HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 0060170522.
  6. ^ "1956: The First Successful Bone Marrow Transplantation". Australian Cancer Research Foundation.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  7. ^ Steindorff, Marina M.; Lehl, Helena; Winkel, Andreas; Stiesch, Meike (February 2014). "Innovative approaches to regenerate teeth by tissue engineering". Science direct. Retrieved 27 June 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  8. ^ King's College London (March 10, 2020). "Teeth That Repair Themselves – Study Finds Success With Natural Tooth Repair Method". SciTech Daily. Retrieved 27 June 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  9. ^ "Japanese scientists grow teeth from single cells". Reuters. February 20, 2007. Retrieved 27 June 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  10. ^ Normile, Dennis (August 3, 2009). "Researchers Grow New Teeth in Mice". Science Magazine – via sciencemag.org.
  11. ^ Childs, Dan (April 13 , 2009). "Could Baby Teeth Stem Cells Save Your Child?". ABC News. Retrieved 27 June 2020. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  12. ^ Ratan-NM, M. Pharm (April 30, 2020). "Repairing Teeth using Stem Cells". News Medical Life Sciences. Retrieved 27 June 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

TimothySullivan2020 (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I'd like to use

[edit]

Regenerative medicine:

https://mirm-pitt.net/about-us/what-is-regenerative-medicine/

https://www.sports-health.com/treatment/regenerative-medicine/types-regenerative-medicine-sports-injuries

https://www.cryo-cell.com/blog/july-2017/differences-where-stem-cells-found#:~:text=Stem%20cells%20are%20pretty%20ubiquitous,%2C%20heart%2C%20and%20liver%20tissues.

https://www.unmc.edu/regenerativemed/about/whatis/history.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X1500053X

https://www.nytimes.com/1971/09/04/archives/dr-paul-niehans-swiss-surgeon-89-expert-in-cellular-therapy-against.html#:~:text=Paul%20Niehans%20was%20a%20former,unborn%20lambs%20and%20other%20animals.

Tramp: The life of Charlie Chaplin by Joyce Milton (book)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20509454/#:~:text=Following%20the%20revolutionary%20work%20by,was%20abandoned%20for%20ointment%20treatments. Bone marrow/cancer: https://home.cancerresearch/1956-the-first-successful-bone-marrow-transplantation/

Regenerative medicine(dentistry):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003996913003427?via%3Dihub

https://scitechdaily.com/teeth-that-repair-themselves-study-finds-success-with-natural-tooth-repair-method/

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/08/researchers-grow-new-teeth-mice

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-teeth-mice/japanese-scientists-grow-teeth-from-single-cells-idUSN1834654020070220#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20Japanese%20researchers,and%20transplanted%20them%20into%20mice.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41368-019-0060-3

TimothySullivan2020 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul II Medical Research Institute and Cellular Engineering Technologies

[edit]

Dr Alan Moy of JP2MRI and CET has been working for 15 years to produce ethical cell lines from adult cells. His group has produced specific therapies and is proposing to create an ethical(no fetal cells) vaccine for COVID19. See his entry on Linked In, and JP2MRI.org and CET.com websites. 2603:9009:B09:669E:F4F8:A3A3:4906:1BAC (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regenerative_medicine&oldid=1205031939"