Talk:Adult stem cell

A news item involving Adult stem cell was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 November 2008.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Molecular Biology: MCB This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as High-importance).

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): KatJackson66.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the "development" section to "properties" to avoid confusion. Added key features of the cell cycle of tissue stem cells to the cell division subsection since this helps distinguish them from embryonic stem cells and is very relevant clinically, specifically for cancer stem cell therapy. Kschach2, 19:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's April 2013 as I add this note on the top of the REWRITE section. A quick Internet search shows clinics using Adult stem cells to treat various conditions. Some claim cures. Two men got a Nobel Prize for adult stem cell research...etc. Article is getting out of date. Please have some knowledgeable medical/scientific people review, revise and... UPDATE this article. PLEASE!!!.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a bit of a mess at the moment. It reads like a disjointed collection of interesting facts (to which I myself have contributed [: ). I think it would be a good idea to rewrite it into a more organised version that would link in with all other existing articles on the subject (eg haematopoietic stem cells and neural stem cells). I have some experience in this area and could volunteer to do this. Any opinions? Peter Znamenskiy

I agree with you, the article requires considerable improvement. Please, feel free to help. I've been forced to concentrate my efforts on the pedia recently as I'm kinda short on time, but I'd be happy to review the progress of the article in due course. --Nicholas 20:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. My past cleanups merely were attempts to move treatment info to the appropriate article and to break it up in sections. I think the introduction needs to be briefer and kept to biology. Perhaps it should have a section that explains why they are less controversial than embryonic, and how they are different, and yet not so different from them.

I also wonder if there should be a disambiguation page for "Stem cells" that branches out to articles on , e.g., adult, embryonic, endothelial, cancer stem cells, cord blood stem cells, fat stem cells, mesenchymal, pluripotential hemopoietic. I'll try to help if I can, but prefer to rely on your expertise. Thank you! --Aaron charles 21:07, 1 June 2006

Okay, here we go, the proposed structure of the article:

• Overview
• Properties of adult stem cells: multidrug resistance, senescence, signalling pathways, distinction from progenitor cells - possibly one of the most confused concepts in cell biology
• Isolation: how stem cells are enriched and studied - suspension culture, surface markers etc.
• Adult stem cell types: go wild here, appropriate subsections for well studied cells, e.g. NSCs and HSCs, and hopefully pretty IHC pictures

I think Stem cell does a pretty good job as a disambiguation page. For a start the introduction could explain the distinction from ESCs, but if we write up enough it could have its own section. Another thing - as far as I understand it is Wikipedia not to use plurals in article titles, so this one should move to Adult stem cell... Peter Znamenskiy 21:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article adult stem cell should be single.

Also, have you looked at Embryonic stem cells? I prefer your 'Properties' instead the pedestrian term 'Definition.' Do you think it's worth having 'History' and 'Development' sections?

I agree now that diambig is not necessary. After I wrote that, it seems we both added the main article formats to sections of types the Stem cell page which stylistically is a better method. That and the Stem cells category will suffice.

There are some Wikipedians willing to make graphics. ACMe 19:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will be quite difficult to make a general History section, since stem cells from different organs are usually studied independently. Perhaps a timeline diagram? What do you mean by Development? Peter Znamenskiy 00:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like the embryonic page, I was suggesting Developments (sorry, I meant plural) could be helpful as a section for advances. Where else do you see breakthroughs fitting? Again, I'll end saying that I defer to your expertise. Thank you. ACMe 03:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put Embryonic stem cells forward for a move to Embryonic stem cell, see Talk:Embryonic stem cells. Peter Znamenskiy 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is a draft for new introduction: User:Peter Znamenskiy/Adult stem cell. I think the subject of transdifferentiation is a bit too complex to go into in the intro. We could keep the link to Tulane University collection, but I think it should be in External links or some place like that. Peter Znamenskiy 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, the intro you wrote looks great and is easy to understand. Never mind about the university notes. When appropriate they can be placed in the treatment/research article/sections or in footnotes. Is there are rationale for the order of the types, or could they work in alpha order? ACMe 10:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I didn't really think about it when I set them out... I think alpha order is a good idea. Feel free to edit User:Peter Znamenskiy/Adult stem cell by the way. Peter Znamenskiy 18:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've replaced this article with the new shiny version. I'd like to thank Aaron for his help in putting it together and everyone who contributed to the article previously. I tried to incorporate as much of the old material as possible. If you feel that your contribution was missed out, either mention it here or add it directly to the article. Also consider Stem cell treatments and Stem cell line. There are still some things I'd like to add (such as stem cell isolation), I'll work on them in the future. Peter Znamenskiy 21:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the image I've pinched from the NIH website? I think this site[1] could make a good reference for a reorganised version of the article. I'm also trying to get permission from a couple of stem cell labs to use their photographs. Peter Znamenskiy 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should adhere too closely to any single website, especially not a website with a vested interest in furthering stem cell research. --Nicholas 20:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

Was just wondering if we wanted to re-start the effort to clean up and organize this article. The section at the end, "Open questions in adult stem cell research", seems particularly unprofessional to me, seeming more like a Q&A than actual categorized information.

Cheers,

RR ^[iTalk] 21:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition includes stem cells the Transdifferentiation page explicitly says non-stem cells. Could s.o. please clean that up. One of you has their definition wrong looks like. THKS Lisa4edit71.236.23.111 (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the full sentence in transdifferentiation it says "Transdifferentiation in biology takes place when a non-stem cell transforms into a different type of cell, or when an already differentiated stem cell creates cells outside its already established differentiation. Richerman (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section "First transplanted human organ grown from adult stem cells" is misleading. The section seems to imply that a new trachea was fully grown from stem cells, whereas all the cited news articles state that a donor trachea was used as the basis for further development with stem cells.

--Wizardjoe7 (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was grown from a decelluralized matrix.

anway, was it really the "first" one? AFAIK a corporation in the US had already tried growing artificial bladders from stem cells (and without using decellularized organs as a base), and implanted them: http://www.tengion.com/

--217.127.191.232 (talk) 07:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/health/research/20stemcell.html as a reference and fix the statement about "growing a new trachea"? 62.142.196.215 (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the sentence "This section of trachea was then "seeded" with stem cells taken from Ms. Castillo’s bone marrow and a new section of trachea grown in the laboratory over four days." is 100% copied from one of the source sites with out a refrence to it. Minor I know but just thought I sshould mention it. Got to go Skeletor 0 (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems to be in rather a strange place in the article. Shouldn't the properties of stem cells come first, so that the terms used in this section have already been defined? Richerman (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it now. Richerman (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has placed a reference to a medical provider with peer reviewed references being "controversial", which is an opinion and not appropriate, this was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.238.245 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that having peer reviewed references automatically precludes the possibility of being controversial is odd, to say the least. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The note of "Controversial" is still referenced in this article which seems strange to me as this doctor's work has been peer reviewed Mccartjt (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science Update: Stem Cells and Cardiovascular Health

Thanks to a growing body of research, scientists are now recognizing that having more stem cells in one’s bloodstream could be one of the greatest strategies for optimal health. For example, a number of recent studies have shown that a greater number of circulating stem cells equated to greater cardiovascular health.

Let’s look at some of these studies in a little more detail so you can grasp the potential benefits of supporting your body’s natural release of stem cells into the bloodstream …

In 2001, Vasa et al reported that compared to healthy individuals, people with cardiovascular problems had fewer endothelial progenitor cells (EPC’s) in their bloodstream. EPC’s are a type of stem cells responsible for the development of new blood vessels. The study also demonstrated that the EPC’s isolated from people with cardiovascular problems showed less ability to migrate in tissues. The Vasa group also reported that smokers had fewer EPC’s in their blood.

In 2004 Schmidt-Lucke et al measured the number of EPC’s in the bloodstream of 120 individuals (43 controls and 77 individuals at risk for cardiovascular problems) and observed these individuals for ten months. At the end of this time, the authors reported that a reduced number of circulating EPC’s was linked to a poor cardiovascular health prognosis.

The next year, in a similar but more extensive study, Werner et al measured the number of EPC’s in the bloodstream of 19 individuals, and observed these individuals for one year. Overall, the people with more circulating EPC’s experienced fewer cardiovascular problems and, conversely, the people who had fewer EPC’s in their blood showed increased incidences of cardiovascular events.

Thanks to recent studies, scientists now understand why greater numbers of stem cells in the bloodstream equate to better cardiovascular health. In essence, when a tissue has poor blood circulation, it lacks oxygen. And when a tissue lacks oxygen, it releases compounds that accomplish two specific tasks: 1) attraction of EPC’s into the tissue, and 2) conversion of EPC’s into capillary cells. Therefore, whenever a tissue is lacking oxygen, a process is triggered whereby circulating stem cells migrate to the tissue and contribute to the development of new capillaries. This leads to greater delivery of oxygen and nutrients, thereby helping the tissue maintain better health.

When we understand that poor oxygen and insufficient nutrient delivery to organs and tissues are two of the most common underlying causes for a wide variety of health problems, it is clear that increasing the number of circulating stem cells becomes one of the most valuable strategies for maintaining optimal health.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and any products mentioned, while supported by science, are not intended to diagnose, mitigate or treat any disease or illness.

For information on supporting your body’s natural ability to release stem cells, and to take advantage of financial opportunities in this exciting arena, visit: http://www.healthiswealth101.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.111.95 (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard these being considered adult stem cells before... get rid of the section? Or move to stem cell? Narayanese (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Adult stem cell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927044751/http://lib.bioinfo.pl/auth:Heidaran,M to http://lib.bioinfo.pl/auth:Heidaran,M

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Adult stem cell/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Changed rating to "high" for consistency with embryonic stem cell. - tameeria 22:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adult stem cell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060708052521/http://www.umdnj.edu:80/gsbsnweb/stemcell/ to http://www.umdnj.edu/gsbsnweb/stemcell/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adult stem cell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://lccn.loc.gov/2004212209
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090404110914/http://www.painphysicianjournal.com/linkout_vw.php?issn=1533-3159&vol=11&page=343 to http://www.painphysicianjournal.com/linkout_vw.php?issn=1533-3159&vol=11&page=343
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lib.bioinfo.pl/auth%3AHeidaran%2CM
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.umdnj.edu/gsbsnweb/stemcell/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ending section of this article says "exaggerate claims of success and minimize or omit risks". I think it is fitting to add what exactly the risks are, bc i believe the article does not adequately address this.

Otherwise, i have seen many news articles talking about how various stem cell therapies have helped many people with many conditions. I suspect there would be scientific articles that should be included on this page talking about new uses. Mermaidthrone (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soma means body in Greek but somatic is the opposite of germ line. Are adult testicular stem cells somatic? The article states that adult stem cell is the same as somatic stem cell with a meaning opposite to embryonic stem cell. I think the correct opposite pairs are somatic/germ line and adult/embryonic, but not necessarily or not always somatic/embryonic. --Miguelferig (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 26 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Austintaylor0818 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Austintaylor0818 (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]