NEW YORK -- Scientists have finally recovered stem cells from cloned human embryos, a longstanding goal that could lead to new treatments for such illnesses as Parkinson's disease and diabetes.


A prominent expert called the work a landmark, but noted that a different, simpler technique now under development may prove more useful.


Stem cells can turn into any cell of the body, so scientists are interested in using them to create tissue for treating disease. Transplanting brain tissue might treat Parkinson's disorder, for example, and pancreatic tissue might be used for diabetes.


But transplants run the risk of rejection, so more than a decade ago, researchers proposed a way around that: Create tissue from stem cells that bear the patient's own DNA, obtained with a process called therapeutic cloning.


If DNA from a patient is put into a human egg, which is then grown into an early embryo, the stem cells from that embryo would provide a virtual genetic match. So in theory, tissues created from them would not be rejected by the patient.


That idea was met with some ethical objections because harvesting the stem cells involved destroying human embryos.


Scientists have tried to get stem cells from cloned human embryos for about a decade, but they've failed. Generally, that's because the embryos stopped developing before producing the cells. In 2004, a South Korean scientist claimed to have gotten stem cells from cloned human embryos, but that turned out to be a fraud.


In Wednesday's edition of the journal Cell, however, scientists in Oregon report harvesting stem cells from six embryos created from donated eggs. Two embryos had been given DNA from skin cells of a child with a genetic disorder, and the others had DNA from fetal skin cells.


Shoukhrat Mitalipov of the Oregon Health & Science University, who led the research, said the success came not from a single technical innovation, but from revising a series of steps in the process. He noted it had taken six years to reach the goal after doing it with monkey embryos.


Mitalipov also said that based on monkey work, he believes human embryos made with the technique could not develop into cloned babies, and he has no interest in trying to do that. Scientists have cloned more than a dozen kinds of mammals, starting with Dolly the sheep.


The new work was financed by the university and the Leducq Foundation in Paris.


Dr. George Daley, a stem cell expert at Children's Hospital Boston who didn't participate in the work, called the new results "one landmark step in a very long journey" toward creating DNA-matched transplant tissue.


Now, Daley said, scientists must compare the embryo-cloning approach with another technology that reprograms blood or skin cells directly into substitutes for embryonic stem cells. This reprogramming approach is technically simpler and doesn't involve embryos or require the donation of human eggs, and it was widely acclaimed when it was reported in 2007. Its Japanese developer shared a Nobel Prize last year.


But these substitute cells show some molecular differences compared to embryonic ones, which has led to questions about whether they can safely be used for treating patients. So it's essential to compare the cells from the two methods, Daley said.


The new results mean "we have another tool," he said. "We have to learn more about this tool."


Daley said he believed scientists will prefer using the reprogramming approach unless it can be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that embryo cloning produces better cells for treating patients.


Mitalipov said he believed his technique would present a particular advantage for treating patients with a certain type of rare diseases. These are caused by mutations in genes of the mitochondria, the power plants of cells. He noted his technique, unlike the cell-reprogramming approach, would supply tissue with new mitochondrial genes that could replace defective ones. Those new genes would come from the egg.


The Rev. Tad Pacholczyk, director of education for National Catholic Bioethics Center, an independent think tank in Philadelphia, reiterated his opposition to embryo cloning, calling the approach unethical.


"It involves the decision to utilize early human beings as repositories for obtaining desired cells," he said. "You're creating them only to destroy them."


Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley, Calif., said she was glad that Mitalipov doubted the embryos could be used to clone babies. She said the report still provides a good opportunity for the federal government to ban the use of cloning for reproduction.


___


Online:


Journal Cell: http://www.cell.com/


___ Malcolm Ritter can be followed at http://www.twitter.com/malcolmritter


Also on HuffPost:






  • Glow-in-the-dark cats


    In 2007, South Korean scientists altered a cat’s DNA to make it glow in the dark and then took that DNA and cloned other cats from it — creating a set of fluffy, <a href="http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/12/13/4349719-cloned-cats-that-glow" target="_hplink">fluorescent felines</a>. Here’s how they did it: The researchers took skin cells from Turkish Angora female cats and used a virus to insert genetic instructions for making red fluorescent protein. Then they put the gene-altered nuclei into the eggs for cloning, and the cloned embryos were implanted back into the donor cats — making the cats the surrogate mothers for their own clones.

    What’s the point of creating a pet that doubles as a nightlight? Scientists say the ability to engineer animals with fluorescent proteins will enable them to artificially create animals with human genetic diseases.




  • Enviropig


    The <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100330-bacon-pigs-enviropig-dead-http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100330-bacon-pigs-enviropig-dead-zones/" target="_hplink">Enviropig</a>, or “Frankenswine,” as critics call it, is a pig that’s been genetically altered to better digest and process phosphorus. Pig manure is high in phytate, a form of phosphorus, so when farmers use the manure as fertilizer, the chemical enters the watershed and causes algae blooms that deplete oxygen in the water and kill marine life.

    So scientists added an E. Coli bacteria and mouse DNA to a pig embryo. This modification decreases a pig’s phosphorous output by as much as 70 percent — making the pig more environmentally friendly.




  • Pollution-fighting plants


    Scientists at the University of <a href="http://www.mnn.com/local-reports/washington" target="_hplink">Washington</a> are <a href="http://wa.water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/fs082-98/" target="_hplink">engineering poplar trees that can clean up contamination sites</a> by absorbing groundwater pollutants through their roots. The plants then break the pollutants down into harmless byproducts that are incorporated into their roots, stems and leaves or released into the air.

    In laboratory tests, the transgenic plants are able to remove as much as 91 percent of trichloroethylene — the most common groundwater contaminant at U.S. Superfund sites — out of a liquid solution. Regular poplar plants removed just 3 percent of the contaminant.




  • Venomous cabbage


    Scientists have recently taken the gene that programs poison in scorpion tails and combined it with cabbage. Why would they want to create <a href="http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v12/n2/full/7290120a.html" target="_hplink">venomous cabbage</a>? To limit pesticide use while still preventing caterpillars from damaging cabbage crops. These genetically modified cabbages produce scorpion poison that kills caterpillars when they bite leaves — but the toxin is modified so it isn’t harmful to humans.




  • Web-spinning goats


    Strong, flexible spider silk is one of the most valuable materials in nature, and it could be used to make an array of products — from artificial ligaments to parachute cords — if we could just produce it on a commercial scale. In 2000, Nexia Biotechnologies announced it had the answer: <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news194539934.html" target="_hplink">a goat that produced spiders’ web protein</a> in its milk.

    Researchers inserted a spiders’ dragline silk gene into the goats’ DNA in such a way that the goats would make the silk protein only in their milk. This “silk milk” could then be used to manufacture a web-like material called Biosteel.




  • Fast-growing salmon


    AquaBounty’s genetically modified salmon grows twice as fast as the conventional variety — the photo shows two same-age salmon with the genetically altered one in the rear. The company says the fish has the same flavor, texture, color and odor as a regular salmon; however, the debate continues over whether the fish is safe to eat.

    <a href="http://www.aquabounty.com/products/products-295.aspx" target="_hplink">Genetically engineered Atlantic salmon</a> has an added growth hormone from a Chinook salmon that allows the fish to produce growth hormone year-round. Scientists were able to keep the hormone active by using a gene from an eel-like fish called an ocean pout, which acts as an “on switch” for the hormone.

    If the FDA approves the sale of the salmon, it will be the first time the government has allowed modified animals to be marketed for human consumption. According to federal guidelines, the fish would not have to be labeled as genetically modified.




  • Flavr Savr tomato


    The <a href="http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.org/landingpage.cfm?article=ca.v054n04p6&fulltext=yes" target="_hplink">Flavr Savr tomato</a> was the first commercially grown genetically engineered food to be granted a license for human consumption. By adding an antisense gene, the <a href="http://www.mnn.com/local-reports/california" target="_hplink">California</a>-based company Calgene hoped to slow the ripening process of the tomato to prevent softening and rotting, while allowing the tomato to retain its natural flavor and color.

    The FDA approved the Flavr Savr in 1994; however, the tomatoes were so delicate that they were difficult to transport, and they were off the market by 1997. On top of production and shipping problems, the tomatoes were also reported to have a very bland taste: “The Flavr Savr tomatoes didn’t taste that good because of the variety from which they were developed. There was very little flavor to save,” said Christ Watkins, a horticulture professor at Cornell University.




  • <a href="http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/photos/12-bizarre-examples-of-genetic-engineering/banana-vaccines" target="_hplink"><strong>CLICK HERE</strong></a> to continue on to <a href="http://www.mnn.com" target="_hplink">Mother Nature Network</a> to see the rest of these bizarre genetically engineered creations, including <a href="http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/photos/12-bizarre-examples-of-genetic-engineering/banana-vaccines" target="_hplink">banana vaccines</a>, <a href="http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/photos/12-bizarre-examples-of-genetic-engineering/less-flatulent-cow" target="_hplink">less-flatulent cows</a>, <a href="http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/photos/12-bizarre-examples-of-genetic-engineering/medicinal-eggs" target="_hplink">medicinal eggs</a> and more!