Talk:Adult stem cell

Rewrite

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Image

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)

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)

Organizing article

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)

transdifferentiation

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)

Misleading/Inaccurate Section

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)

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)

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)

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)

Adult stem cell therapies

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)

Prior?

Perhaps society and the media have forgotten but the first stem cell therapy organ transplant was done in 2006 with a bladder.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/04/03/engineered.organs/index.html

This doesn't make the most recent discovery any less amazing, but we should get our facts straight. Bmgoau (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)