Talk:Embryonic stem cell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of High-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · history · refresh · how to use this template) There are three articles that can be made into one: Stem cells, Adult stem cells, and embryonic stem cells. Changed rating from top to high to make it consistent with adult stem cell and because this is also covered by stem cell and stem cell controversy. - tameeria 17:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
 |
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | ||||||||
 |
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 To-do list for Embryonic stem cell: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
== Rewrite ==olga Jocelyn De Leon
I rearranged a good portion of this article to bring it into better form for describing "Embryonic Stem Cell" and less about the controversy (which has its own wikipedia page). I ended up removing descriptions about the controversy in about 5 different locations, not including the newly added section called "Controversy".
I also tied the Developments and History sections together rather than seperately because once the controversy was removed there wasn't much meat to either section alone.
I'd like to see this article remain more about Embryonic Stem Cells and what they are, how research is being done with them, and why they are of scientific interest. I feel the current article is still lacking in non-human information (researchers have been using mouse and other Embryonic Stem Cells for much more than just the latest bits related to HESC research). The history section behind ESCs is really weak also in that regard. There's people working with MESC...then HESC...then the last 4 years of developments. There needs to be some work done to better describe how biology found ESCs and worked all the way up until we started wanting to use HESC for medical research.
I'll add a to-do list to this page to try and help keep the focus on creating an encyclopedia/reference article on ESCs and less on the controversy or other goings-on that distract from the facts about ESCs specifically. ju66l3r 20:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] What I think would help in a re-write
I think this page is quite poor for a science Wiki page that is on such a hot topic. Many of the "known facts" about ES cells are based on mouse experiments, but this page doesn't always distinguish between the mouse model and the human condition.
I think breaking up the article into mouse and human sections would make things a bit more clear. Also, the main reason for interest in ES cells has always been their application to stem cell threatments, and I think the link to this page could be made stronger. Dr Aaron 05:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent Controversial Research, reported in Nature
In summary, I would like to revert to my edits for Revision as of 03:25, 25 August 2006.
The article at [1] has generated some misunderstandings. It is not true that this is a technique proven safe to human fetuses: The tests performed actually destroyed the fetuses in the experiment. Also, it's not true that preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has been demonstrated safe in human fetuses: It was in fact demonstrated safe only in mice, in another study.
I had included a link to Nature [2] that showed the opposing viewpoints, but Badreligion consistently removes the opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately, he throws out the baby along with the bath water: Besides removing opposing viewpoints, he is removing a number of great references, including a great link to the entire research paper. He hasn't sufficiently researched this issue.
Research on any viewpoints contrary to the above will show they are contained in pop media news, which misunderstood information that was not presented correctly in the first place. Some references:
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/25/AR2006082501248.html
- http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2U3ZTNhYWZmZTU5ZWQzYWViYTZjNzk1NWVjODFlNWE=
- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5696557
I'm making the revert to correct misstatements such as: "his team, who headed the research, had found a way to extract stem cells without destroying the actual embryo.", "Excising a cell at this point doesn't interfere with the embryo's development.", and "The approach described here does not involve the destruction of an embryo, nor does the biopsied cell ever develop into an embryo at any point."
These are all either very incorrect, or possibly incorrect and definitely unproven.
Israel Steinmetz 05:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that this article is for information about embryonic stem cells...what they are, where they come from, how they are interesting/important. It should not be about the controversy over stem cell research methodologies. Leave that for stem cell controversy. Also, www.lifenews.com is not a reliable source, the same way a company blog is not a reliable source and using them to apply weasel words into text about a technique in order to force a controversy to what is reported as research results isn't acceptable editing...again, feel free to weasel away over at stem cell controversy. Thanks. ju66l3r 21:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] link at the top of this page needed...
... to direct users looking to read about stem cell controversy to the appropriate page. Or at least mention it (with link) in the fist paragraph. I would do the first option, but I don't know how. Oplossing is duidelijk 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Not all embryonic stem cell lines are created equal
Sun, Südhof and their colleagues found that the two ES cell lines differentiated into two distinct types of neurons that are actually found in different parts of the brain. [3] Brian Pearson 02:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External Link Video Add
I'd like to add a video series "Understanding Biomedical Research Series" produced by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. This series illuminates how advances in molecular biology and information science are changing our views of biology and human medicine. Some of the videos in this series includes "Understanding Embryonic Stem Cells," "Coaxing Embryonic Stem Cells," "Adult Stem Cells and Regeneration," and "Stem Cells and the End of Aging." The link is http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayseries.aspx?pID=868&fID=1649 (this does not automatically open a video). Please let me know what you think. --ResearchChannel 04:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stem cell pluripotent vs. totipotent
I don't know how to create a new section but embryonic stem cells are TOTIPOTENT not pluripotent - ADULT stem cells are pluripotent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.225.44 (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Embryonic stem cells are not totipotent. Totipotent cells are capable of forming the entire organism. So far the only cells that can do that are embryos. Embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst, consequently they do not contain any trophoectoderm (cells that make the placenta). They can form all three germ layers so they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are rarely pluripotent, most are lineage restricted and only capable of forming cell types within a single germ layer or less. See the papers cited on this subject in the article on adult stem cells. Id711 04:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Your response is indeed quite correct. SteveD 1st June 2008. 12:18 am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.90.52 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
