Stem Cells Regenerate Human Lens After Cataract Surgery, Restoring Vision | Hacker News Reader

Stem Cells Regenerate Human Lens After Cataract Surgery, Restoring Vision

ucsdnews.ucsd.edu

166 pointskevindeasis23 comments

I wonder - since the lens is new, would it behave like a young persons lens? Is it a cure for presbyopia?

It seems likely. An already much used option for adult cataracts is a multifocal replacement lens:

http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/multifocal-iols.htm

If I understand correctly, this is quite different, as such IOLs offer no accommodation, but only different areas with varied optical powers, which isn't as convenient (ever seen an elderly man trying to read a menu hanged on the wall?).

You're right. I was thinking of accommodation (I remember reading someones anecdote about having one installed) but didn't remember well enough or check carefully enough.

http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/accommodating-iols....

There are IOLs that do accommodation. http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/accommodating-iols....

This treatment is actually only for infants.

Pros: no worries about materials biocompatibility or lifetime. Restoration of accommodative ability. Less surgical complications and faster healing.

Cons of trying to extend this approach to adults using exogenous stem cells: significantly increased risk of cancer.

> Cons of trying to extend this approach to adults using exogenous stem cells: significantly increased risk of cancer.

What makes you think this?

1) https://www.ipscell.com/2012/04/the-real-but-oft-ignored-dan...

2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070641/

The abstract from 2) : "Stem cell therapy holds the promise to treat degenerative diseases, cancer and repair of damaged tissues for which there are currently no or limited therapeutic options. The potential of stem cell therapies has long been recognised and the creation of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) has boosted the stem cell field leading to increasing development and scientific knowledge. Despite the clinical potential of stem cell based medicinal products there are also potential and unanticipated risks. These risks deserve a thorough discussion within the perspective of current scientific knowledge and experience. Evaluation of potential risks should be a prerequisite step before clinical use of stem cell based medicinal products.

The risk profile of stem cell based medicinal products depends on many risk factors, which include the type of stem cells, their differentiation status and proliferation capacity, the route of administration, the intended location, in vitro culture and/or other manipulation steps, irreversibility of treatment, need/possibility for concurrent tissue regeneration in case of irreversible tissue loss, and long-term survival of engrafted cells. Together these factors determine the risk profile associated with a stem cell based medicinal product. The identified risks (i.e. risks identified in clinical experience) or potential/theoretical risks (i.e. risks observed in animal studies) include tumour formation, unwanted immune responses and the transmission of adventitious agents.

Currently, there is no clinical experience with pluripotent stem cells (i.e. embryonal stem cells and iPSC). Based on their characteristics of unlimited self-renewal and high proliferation rate the risks associated with a product containing these cells (e.g. risk on tumour formation) are considered high, if not perceived to be unacceptable. In contrast, the vast majority of small-sized clinical trials conducted with mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSC) in regenerative medicine applications has not reported major health concerns, suggesting that MSC therapies could be relatively safe. However, in some clinical trials serious adverse events have been reported, which emphasizes the need for additional knowledge, particularly with regard to biological mechanisms and long term safety."

If you read the article you'll see they're not relying on introduced stem cells.

This was the third post of the story within 24 hours. One story almost past the tipping point. HN readers in Europe or Asia must have propelled this one. Wish we could do more analytics on stories posted here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11255649

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11255882

Exciting! I wonder, how many body parts will become replaceable? Bones? Skin? Kidney?

We've been growing skin (from somatic skin cells) in dishes for years. Organovo's 3-D printed kidneys (made from somatic kidney cells) are from last April, although there had been earlier attempts, and 3-D printed kidneys have been implanted into living patients now. 3-D printed bones are from 2010, because it's adequate to print a mineral "skeleton" that living cells then colonize after implantation.

Could you link to any good sources on the kidneys? I might need one one of these days...

I'll go down as saying the best candidates are perhaps teeth and kidneys.

As someone who had just experienced the first of what will be a few (but might be many) corneal transplants, this stirs a little excitement.

Fuch's Dystrophy?

Keratoconus.

How long until this treatment is available to buy (for whatever reasonable price for new treatments such as this is)?

Probably several years. They've only had a small scale human trial of 12 patients so far, and a larger scale human trial is likely to take some time to organize, then of course the post-trial monitoring for possible side effects will need to continue for some time, probably 24-36 months.

Everyone hopes of course that these patients will enjoy permanently repaired vision, but there's no way to know for a long time. Also, stem cells have an unfortunate tendency to turn into cancer. The field is really still in its infancy, but the potential is enormous.

When they figure out how to mark it up 20,000%.

Can't they just do it? (mark it up)

How big are those results actually ?? Looks big to me !

Reply on news.ycombinator.com