High school students get stem cell experience in California labs

UC Davis interns Rex Reyes, Jaskaran Dhillon, Thomas Gepts and Kalani Ratnasiri

Last week CIRM gathered together the Creativity Award interns to learn about their summer projects. These high school students came from UC Davis, UC San Francisco, UC Santa Barbara and Stanford to congregate at the Children's Hospital Oakland, home of CIRM board member Bert Lubin.



The goal of the awards was to give high school students experience in research labs, and to encourage those students to think broadly about science with the idea that novel therapies will come from creative thinking. The students all carried out additional projects in humanities or other areas of science. (We blogged about the program here.)



The students I met were incredible, and I'm apparently not the only person to think so. Charlie Casey at UC Davis did a story about the program quoting Jan Nolta, who directs the school's Institute for Regenerative Cures.

“These students truly exceeded our expectations,” said Jan Nolta, director of the UCD Institute for Regenerative Cures and a mentor for several of the students. “One of our other interns was so determined to learn about stem cell science that he traveled two hours from Vallejo and back each day to work in our Sacramento lab.

“All of these young people performed fabulously, and they represent a very bright future for science, particularly, I hope, in stem cell research.”

The Sacramento Bee wrote about the four UC Davis interns.

Program directors selected the students based on their award-winning presentations of biotechnology concepts on websites they designed for UCD's 2011 Teen Biotech Challenge.



The four took a course in the procedures and techniques of stem cell production with master's-degree students from California State University, Sacramento, and worked on individual projects with scientist mentors.

When I talked to Gerhard Bauer, who taught that master's-level course, he said the high school students held their own among those more senior students. It'll be a while before we know where these students end up. For now, it's exciting to see high school students—many from lower socioeconomic homes—get excited about college and about the potential for stem cell research.



A.A.

Top questions in iPS cell research

Every once in a while CIRM grantee Paul Knoepfler at UC Davis posts an update on his blog about what he considers to be the big ticket question in research using reprogrammed adult cells, known as iPS cells. This time, he's posted five questions for the upcoming year.

1. Will any new methods for creating iPS cells be truly transformative in the coming year? On this one, he urges patience with the apparent lack of visible progress. We've blogged here about the glacial speed and incremental nature of research.


2. Will transdifferentiation make iPS cells obsolete? More and more papers are coming out about directly converting one type of cell into another, skipping the slow step of creating iPS cells. On this topic Knoepfler says, "I personally think transdifferentiation has enormous potential, but I’m betting that for some areas, for generating some types of differentiated cells, iPS cells are going to be needed."


3. Are the various differences between embryonic stem cells and iPS cells going to be a concern? Yes, he says, but, "It seems likely that at least some of the mutations and differences will have functional meaning, but a key area in the coming year will be mapping out the meaning of these differences."


4. What's the best way of making better cells, rather than more cells? In the past, new methods of generating iPS cells focused on making the cells in higher numbers. Knoepfler argues that making better cells—cells with fewer abnormalities—is more important than making more cells.


5. How tumorigenic are iPS cells? As a cancer survivor and tumor biologist, Knoepfler has a personal interest in this question. He argues that studying whether or not iPS cells themselves cause tumors is irrelevant, because nobody is ever going to inject iPS cells into a patient. What scientists hope to do is convert those iPS cells into a therapeutically useful cell type (insulin-producing cell, neuron progenitor, skin cell) and transplant THAT cell to a patient. So the question isn't whether the iPS cells forms tumors. The question is whether these more mature cell types can form tumors.

It'll be interesting to see where these questions stand a year from now.

A.A.

A welcome voice in stem cell communication - a new podcast launches

CIRM grantee Paul Knoepfler at UC Davis has been blogging about stem cell science for a while now. He recently expanded his outreach to include a regular podcast. It's worth checking out. He's listing the most recent podcast at the top of his main blog page: http://www.ipscell.com/ .

Knoepfler includes some science, some policy, and a nice comment on the value of CIRM's funding in advancing stem cell science. As he admits, he's not exactly unbiased. He has a New Faculty II award from CIRM and is at an institution with a shared lab and major facility funded in part by CIRM. Still, we think he's right when he says:

"In a state where there s so much going wrong Californian's should be proud of their foresight in creating CIRM and in all that CIRM has already accomplished. CIRM is one of the things in ca that is actually going really well and we should be happy about it."

There are a few groups competing for the public's attention on stem cell topics. Those opposed to stem cell science have a few blogs, which they promote heavily. These generally tout advances with adult stem cells. Many of those advances are very hopeful, and we tout them too, but telling one side of the story doesn't ever give a complete picture of the field.

Several organizations such as CIRM, the Canadian Stem Cell Network and the Australian Stem Cell Centre also have blogs that promote stem cell science and attempt to put recent scientific advances into context. However, to my knowledge Knoepfler is the only stem cell scientist attempting to reach the public online. I look forward to hearing more podcasts from Knoepfler, and wish him much success in providing accurate information about stem cell research at a time when it is so clearly needed.

A.A.

Blood from stem cells?

Blood has been among the most sought after and hardest to achieve tissue that CIRM grantees are attempting to derive from embryonic stem cells. It's an obvious target. The medical system needs a constant influx of blood, which comes entirely from volunteer donors. Creating that blood in an unlimited supply from human embryonic stem cells would significantly ease concerns about blood shortages at hospitals. We blogged about a Los Angeles Times story last January that discussed the value of this type of work.

The National Blood Data Resource Center has this to say about how much blood was used in 2001:

U.S. hospitals transfused nearly 14 million units of whole blood and red blood cells to 4.9 million patients in 2001 - that's an average of 38,000 units of blood needed on any given day.

Given those needs, the findings in a Nature paper by CIRM grantee David Traver at the University of California, San Diego could prove helpful. He and his team have discovered a gene called Wnt16 that, in the lab animal zebrafish, is key to the animal eventually developing a pool of hematopoietic stem cells, which are the source of all blood in the body.

In a press release from UCSD Traver said:

“What we need is the ability to generate self-renewing [human embryonic stem cells] from patients for treatments. But accomplishing this goal means first understanding the mechanisms involved in creating HSCs during embryonic development.”

Traver's work follow that of another CIRM grantee Inder Verma of the Salk Institute, who last month published a protocol for creating blood-forming progenitor cells from human embryonic stem cells and reprogrammed iPS cells. Discussing this work in his monthly stem cell research update, CIRM President Alan Trounson wrote:

Many more cancer and blood disorder patients could benefit from stem cell transplants if large numbers of blood forming stem cells could be grown in the laboratory. Because mature hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) don’t expand well in culture, researchers have been trying to grow these cells from pluripotent stem cells, both embryonic stem cells and reprogrammed iPS cells. Most of these attempts have generated very low numbers of bone marrow colonizing blood precursors, and none have shown robust generation of transplantable HSCs. Now, Verma’s team has shown that with five iPS cells lines and two embryonic lines that they can efficiently generate precursors and progenitors of HSCs.

This work brings up another point often made by CIRM grantee Paul Knoepfler at the University of California, Davis. In his blog and in the Sacramento Bee Knoepfler has argued that supporting stem cell research is a matter of national security. Soldiers wounded on the battlefield need a source of blood for transfusions. Knoepfler wrote in his Sacramento Bee Op-Ed:

I hope that in the future stem cell research can perhaps slightly lessen the burden on our servicepeople and their families through technologies to save the lives of wounded soldiers.

Nature, June 9, 2011
CIRM funding: David Traver (RN1-00575-1)

A.A.

CIRM a leader in iPS cell publications

Yesterday, stem cell blogger and newly tenured CIRM grantee at UC Davis Paul Knoepfler had an interesting blog entry on iPS cell publications.

After mining the literature for publications with the phrases iPS cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, induced pluripotent or induced pluripotency in the title, he found a consistent increase in publications each year after the first creation of mouse iPS cells in 2006 by Shinya Yamanaka. That is, a consistent increase until this year, where the first third of the year contained fewer than expected publications. Knoepfler doesn't speculate on what this decrease means—and by the end of the year the discrepancy might disappear.

He did find more diversity in the researchers publishing in the iPS field and in the journals where those papers were published. That makes sense for a field that is becoming ever more mainstream. Knoepfler writes:

I think this is a good thing as the iPS cell field grows. The range of journals publishing iPS cell papers has greatly broadened, which is also a positive for the field as it matures.

Knoepfler doesn't speculate on what his findings mean for the field of iPS cells, either as potential therapies or as disease in a dish models. The cells have been the source of much consternation recently as they are shown to differ in significant but clinically unknown ways from embryonic stem cells (as we blogged about here). At the same time, they are also proving their worth in mimicking genetic disease (blogged about here, here, and here).

One discovery that stands out is CIRM's rank as second most prominent funder of iPS papers, following only the NIH. CIRM funds 4.8% of papers that Knoepfler found in his search. Coming in third was the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

CIRM's searchable grants database shows 66 awards to grantees working with iPS cells, worth a total of $146,882,748 or 12% of CIRM funding. You can see those awards here. By contrast, CIRM provides $384,709,412 toward awards working with embryonic stem cells, or 32% of our funding, and $194,221,598 or 16% toward grants working with adult stem cells.

Some CIRM grants fund work using more than one type of stem cell, including several awards to grantees trying to understand differences between iPS and embryonic stem cells.

- A.A.

CIRM grantees begin testing stem cells to prevent amputations

CIRM grantees at UC Davis have begun a trial that, if successful, could help prevent some amputations caused by blockages in the blood vessels.

Jan Nolta, who is director of the UC Davis Stem Cell Program and Institute for Regenerative Cures, came to CIRM offices last year and spoke about the animal studies that led up to this trial. The Davis team harvested a form of stem cells called mononuclear stem cells from the bone marrow — these are different than the blood-forming stem cells that recreate the blood system in a bone marrow transplant. Instead, these cells form blood vessels and other tissues.

In the data Nolta showed us, the mononuclear stem cells injected into the legs of animals with induced blood vessel blockages were able to restore circulation in those limbs. If the cells work as effectively in people as in the animals studies, they could unblock the arteries and save the people from possible amputation.

A story in the Daily Democrat quotes Jan Nolta:

"Our own research in mice has shown that adult human stem cells are very efficient at targeting areas of low oxygen and promoting the formation of new blood vessels. This next stage of our research will determine if the treatment truly offers hope for people without other options and who are at risk of losing a limb."

That same story has a good description of how the blockages form:

An estimated 85,000 leg amputations are performed each year in the U.S. due to advanced atherosclerosis -- also known as critical limb ischemia -- which occurs when the buildup of fatty deposits, calcium and plaque in arteries greatly reduces blood flow to lower extremities. Current treatments for the condition include opening blockages with balloon angioplasty, bolstering weakened arteries with metal stents or bypassing damaged arteries with vein grafts. When the disease progresses to the point of limb-threatening ischemia and when angioplasty, stents or surgery are not viable, amputation becomes the only option.

CIRM doesn't fund the research that led to this study, but we did help fund the sterile Good Manufacturing Practice lab where the team manufactures the cells that they'll use in the study. We did a video about that state-of-the-art facility right before it opened. With their own GMP lab, Davis scientists are able to manufacture cells that pass muster with the US. Food and Drug Administration, who has to approve all cells used in clinical trials.

As is always the case with preliminary human trials, it's too soon to know whether or not the technique will work. More initial trials fail than succeed. We'll be watching for news out of Davis over the next years to see how the technique fares in this and in subsequent trials.

- A.A.

UC Davis scientist on a quest for cures in the cleanest of labs

Gerhard Bauer in the UC Davis GMP facility

One of the real thrills of working at CIRM is talking to the researchers who are so excited about finding new therapies. As part of our lunchtime talk series, today we heard from Gerhard Bauer of UC Davis. The only thing more exciting to Bauer than new therapies is the thought of having those therapies come out of his beautiful new GMP lab.

A GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) lab is a clean facility that can be used to process the cells and other products that might one day go in people. When you see photos of scientists in white suits looking through microscopes, they’re likely in a GMP facility. If the lab sparkles so brightly you need sunglasses to look at the photos, it’s probably one of Bauer’s six GMP labs he’s built since moving from Austria to the U.S. in the 1980s to work on HIV/AIDS. He’s like the MacGyver of GMP labs. Nothing already manufactured was quite perfect enough for his facility, so in his spare time, you know, when he wasn’t running a lab and picking paint colors for the building, he also designed better GMP equipment.

Do I sound smitten? My apologies. I do aim for professional disinterest, but I am only human and I also really, really want to see therapies for some of the diseases they are tackling in that facility. It’s inspiring to see such enthusiasm in the people who are working toward those cures. Among the many diseases under investigation in the facility (Huntington’s disease, peripheral artery disease, bone fractures, liver disease) Bauer is part of the Stanford Disease Team working toward a therapy for the horrific childhood skin disorder epidermolysis bullosa. He and other members of that team recently spoke about the work at a governing board meeting. Videos of those talks are available here, but be warned that the disease is awful and the images are graphic. Personally, I can’t look.

One fun thing we learned is that Bauer has been taking on CIRM Bridges interns and training them in GMP procedures (here's a video about the Bridges program if you aren't familiar with it). He’s hired one, and has another working in the lab now. That’s exactly what we were hoping for in the Bridges program. Undergrad or masters students are learning stem cell science and getting trained for jobs in California’s expanding stem cell biology sector.

The lunch talks are a great opportunity for CIRM staff to hear about how those disease teams are progressing and to understand the challenges. Getting to a cure isn’t easy. One thing we all learned from Bauer’s talk is that whatever therapy the team comes up with, it’s going to be absolutely, totally, completely GMP certified. And clean? It’s going to be clean. Because when Bauer wasn’t dreaming up better lab equipment he was also certifying the cleaning protocols.

Here’s a video we made last year about the GMP facility:



- A.A.

Stem cell research like picking stocks? We don't think so.

A story by Nick Wade in Monday’s New York Times rubbed some scientists the wrong way — and I must admit the piece was not too popular around CIRM headquarters.

Wade equated research funding with picking stocks. His idea is that a broad portfolio is bound to include some winners (he attributes this approach to the NIH and NSF) whereas attempts to only buy the big winners can produce a risky portfolio (an approach he attributes to CIRM).

Writing for the science portal Science 2.0, Michael White writes:

This is not right.* Wade goes astray in thinking of science in terms of hits and misses. Basic research is not like being at bat, with the occasional single base hit or home run being the exception in a sea of strikeouts.

Most research is simply conventional and incremental. Most of the time it's not a miss, a disaster, or a failure - it's a small, sometimes not too surprising addition to our knowledge of a subject. Most research projects and NIH grants end in success, not failure - but the successes are usually small. In fact, there probably aren't enough failures, because, unlike the venture capitalists Wade compares it to, the NIH is very unwilling to take risks in search of the spectacular winner. Funded projects are the ones almost guaranteed to work.

CIRM grantee Paul Knoepfler at UC Davis also takes objection to the piece. His point: CIRM isn’t just investing in one big thing. Three billion dollars to just fund one area of stem cell research, that would be narrow. But CIRM has funded an incredible range of research, from the most basic science to translational work, and in approaches spanning stem cell transplantation therapies to modeling disease, drug testing, and models of regeneration (the very research Wade suggests we should fund).

Knoepfler writes:

Clearly [Wade] knows very little about CIRM and about stem cell research. He makes the argument that because CIRM only funds research in 'a single field' that chances are high that Californians will lose out. First, he is wrong that CIRM only funds one field. The breadth of research funded by CIRM spans a few dozen fields from cancer biology to neurological disorders, to heart disease, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, etc. Second, Mr. Wade ignores the substantial accomplishments that CIRM has already made in just its first few years.

Where CIRM agrees with Wade’s piece is in his suggestion that we look to how animals such as zebrafish and newts naturally regenerate, and use that knowledge to improve human regeneration. Deepak Srivastava from the Gladstone Institutes, who has been looking at tissue regeneration in mouse hearts, is making tremendous progress in part through CIRM funding (here is his research summary), as is USC’s Gage Crump, studying zebrafish jaw regeneration as a model for bone regeneration (here is his research summary). 

For people interested in seeing the range of what CIRM has funded, we have this searchable list of all our funded stem cell research awards. We also have this list of our rounds of funding, explaining the role that funding plays in creating CIRM’s broad research portfolio.

A.A.

Federal stem cell legislation unlikely in lame duck session

Science had a story this morning about what yesterday’s elections mean for stem cell funding. In it they suggest it’s unlikely that the lame duck congressional session will bring legislation to expressly legalize federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, writing:

"I don't think it's going to be a priority for them," says Jennifer Zeitzer of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Bethesda, Maryland. Her bottom line: "The outlook for stem cells is even less certain now than it was yesterday."

A legal challenge to federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research is set to be heard Dec. 6. Until then, the NIH is continuing to fund existing grants that involve human embryonic stem cells, but is not giving out new awards. Some CIRM grantees including Joanna Wysocka of Stanford University and Paul Knoepfler of UC, Davis have received scores on NIH proposals that would normally result in getting grants funded. Instead, they are putting projects on hold that could lead to insights in developmental disorders and tumor formation.

Wisconsin, which the home of the first human embryonic stem cell line, voted in both a governor and senator who oppose the research their state helped create.

A.A.

Growing space for California stem cell research

On left and right, Berkeley Stem Cell Center co-directors
David Schaffer and Randy Shekman, and center,
Mary West, manager of the new lab. (Photo by Jan Ambrosini)

Berkeley is the most recent institution to open new stem cell space funded by CIRM. Their CIRM-funded stem cell facility, which had its opening Oct. 5, is also a core facility for QB3, a bay area biotech incubator. David Shaffer, co-director of the Berkeley Stem Cell Center, said of the facility:

“The new facility will serve as a central resource to greatly enhance stem cell research amongst Berkeley and QB3 investigators, as well as collaborators at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute.”

To date, University of California campuses at Irvine and Davis have both opened their new stem call buildings amidst much fanfare. By the end of October, UCLA, University of Southern California, and Stanford will all have cut their respective ribbons.

These buildings are, to a one, beautiful, gleaming, well equipped centers for cutting edge research. But they are more than that. They are also a safe haven for stem cell research, protected from the ups and downs of federal funding. CIRM first dreamed up and approved funding for these stem cell buildings when President Bush was in office and most stem cell research had to occur in isolation from the microscopes, the pipettes, the refrigerators, the reagents, and the latex gloves most labs purchase with their NIH funds. The research had to take place in space and on lab benches supported only through private or state dollars.

That space was hard to come by, making the early days of stem cell research a considerable challenge. Take Susan Fisher at UCSF who lost her stem cell lines to a power outage while working in a converted dentist office in San Francisco in order to put distance between her cells and federal dollars. (Here's a video about Fisher's experience)

In the past year President Obama opened up federal funding for more stem cell research, but now recent events put that funding back in question. During this time of uncertainty, it’s reassuring to know that so many institutions in California have space where their work toward new therapies can continue uninterrupted by political turmoil.




A.A.

Human embryonic stem cells give clues to Huntington's disease origins

Researchers in Australia studying human embryonic stem cells have found evidence of the always-lethal Huntington’s disease when the cells are just a few days old. The disease, caused by a mutation in a single gene, normally starts causing symptoms when people are in mid-life.

This research shows the value of being able to study how a disease progresses in a lab dish. It would normally not be possible extract brain cells from people and study them in a lab dish. But in this case the scientists started with IVF embryos that contained the Huntington’s disease mutation, given by people using IVF to screen for the mutation before implantation. The embryos would otherwise be destroyed. They could extract embryonic stem cells, and then planned to mature those cells into the types of neurons damaged in Huntington’s disease as a way of understanding how the disease forms.

What the group learned is that the first indication of a problem is visible within days, in the mitochondria that generate power for the cell. An ABC story quotes senior author Leon McQuade from the Macquarie University's Australian Proteome Analysis Facility (APAF) in Sydney as saying:

“Human embryonic stem cells provide us with a very good model for doing drug toxicology and efficacy testing - it's a model that we really haven't had before.”

The scientists can use these cells to screen for drugs that might one day treat the disease.

CIRM funds two research projects, both being carried out by University of California, Davis scientists, working toward new therapies for Huntington’s Disease (links to research projects available here). One is generating new stem cell lines that contain the disease-causing mutation, such as those used in the Australian study. The other is working toward a therapy involving implanting a form of tissue specific stem cell into people with Huntington’s disease.

Learn more about CIRM work towards a stem cell based therapy for Huntington's Disease on our Huntington's Disease Stem Cell Fact Sheet.

Here's more on Huntington's disease and the search for a cure:

The fate of embryonic stem cell research funding is in the hands of...

Thanks to UC Davis stem cell scientist and CIRM grantee Paul Knoepfler for ferreting out the three judges who will preside over the September 27 D.C. Circuit Court hearing regarding the August 23 injunction on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research.

In his blog entry, Knoepfler writes that of the three judges one is a Clinton appointee and two were appointed by Bush Jr.

After some speculation about the outcome of this hearing, Knoepfler goes on to say:

However, keep in mind, as far as I understand the process, even a longer-term stay will only allow ES cell research to proceed until Lamberth makes a final ruling in the case and as we've said before, be assured he will against ES cell research. The questions are when will he rule, what happens then, and will a law already have been passed making the whole thing moot?

Bills have been introduced in both the House and Senate that would secure the legality of federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research

A.A.

Stem cells and preventive medicine

CIRM grantee and UC Davis stem cell scientist Paul Knoepfler has an important new entry on his blog: Five simple ways to protect your stem cells. In it he says:

If one can prevent a problem for occurring in the first place, it is far better than trying to treat it after the fact.

So true. Of course, many of the diseases CIRM scientists are involved in trying to treat aren't ones with known causes. We can't prevent our way out of all disease. But in the process of making discoveries to develop therapies, CIRM scientists are learning more about our own natural stem cells and how to keep them healthy. For example, exercise seems to fortify the neural stem cells that rebuild our brain.

Among his recommendations:

• Protect your skin stem cells
• Avoid plastics exposure
• Eat food, not chemicals
• Exercise
• Avoid radiation

So for the good of your stem cells get outside and exercise. But first, put on sunscreen.

A.A.

Cancer genes also involved in embryogenesis, stem cell maintenance

CIRM grantee Paul Knoepfler at UC Davis just published an interesting paper. He also publishes a blog, so we'll let him describe this findings in his own words:

We just published a paper supported by CIRM funding showing that knocking out c- and N-myc in mESC leads to a wave of differentiation-associated gene expression, decreased cell cycling, and a moderate elevation of apoptosis.  The myc-deficient mESC also fail to contribute to early embryogenesis. This is the first analysis of a role for myc genes in early embryogenesis.

We think that in part that Myc contributes to iPS formation by repressing differentiation-associated gene expression (ala Sridharan, et al).

So to induce pluripotency Myc appears to be doing what much the same job as it does to maintain pluripotency in ESC.  A role in cell cycle is also involved.

Differentiation, May 26, 2010
CIRM Funding: Paul Knoepfler (RN2-00922)

A.A.

Stem cell therapies: Not just transplants

Paul Knoepfler, a CIRM grantee at UC Davis, has a recent blog entry in his Stem Cell Myths series. The myth he debunks this time: Stem cell therapies are all transplants. As he so rightly points out, embryonic, iPS or tissue-specific stem cells can also be studied in the lab as a way of developing drugs that activate our own body's stem cell to heal the diseased organ or tissue. He writes:

In this way of thinking, specific drugs are given to a patient to put their own stem cells to work against the disease. Such drugs may stimulate the endogenous stem cells to expand and increase greatly in numbers as well. This kind of stem cell therapy is inherently far safer than anything done with a transplant.

 Knoepfler's previously debunked myth was that embryonic stem cells are no longer needed.

A.A.

Questions About iPS Cells

In his blog, CIRM grantee Paul Knoepfler at UC Davis posted a response to the journal Stem Cells, which had published a list of the most pressing questions about iPS cells:

“What I found most striking is that not one of their 10 questions had anything to do with safety or tumorigenicity, the question I rank #1, but otherwise my top 5 most important questions about IPS cells are similar to theirs. I know they think safety is a crucial issue, which is why I'm so surprised it wasn't on their list.”

Knoepfler's focus on tumorigenicity stems from his lab's work, which he discusses in this video about the safety of stem cell-based therapies (embryonic or iPS).



Knoepfler is taking suggestions for additional top 5 lists.

A.A.

Neural Cells Can Mature into Ear Sensory Cells

Researchers at the University of California, Davis have coaxed cells from the brain to mature into the minute hair cells in the ear that are required for hearing. For many people with hearing loss, these tiny hair cells have died, leaving people unable to sense vibrations caused by sound. Regrowing functional hair cells that will sway in response to sound and send appropriate signals to the brain has been a major goal for stem cell researchers. In this work, the team found a population of cells in the lateral ventricle of the brain that they were able to transform into the delicate hair cells. The team is now testing whether those cells are able to transmit sound signals in animal models.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: December 30, 2008
CIRM funding: Dongguang Wei (T1-00006), Ebenezer Yamoah (RS1-00453)

Related Information: Press Release, UC Davis Health Care System, Yamoah bio