Author Archives: Fredricko
A Positive Popular Press Article on Alcor and Cryonics
The public attitude towards cryonics has shifted greatly over the past ten years, at least as measured by the changing tenor of articles in the popular press. They are more favorable, more respectful, and more accurate on technical details. So greater exposure and publicity over the past decade has brought benefits, and increasing familiarity with the topic has allowed more people to overcome whatever knee-jerk reactions they normally have to all novel ideas. This is a positive trend, perhaps driven as much by the general proliferation of media enabled by the internet as by efforts made by the cryonics community, and will hopefully continue apace.
The Cryonic Man: How Alcor Life Extension preserves your dead body
What is it to die? For some, death is our body's expiration date, for others it is an absolute point where the soul leaves the body. For a group of scientists in Scottsdale, Arizona, however, it is merely an arbitrary natural accident, an engineering problem we have yet to find a solution for.
The Alcor Life Extension Foundation is the world's leading provider of cryonics, the practice of using ultra-cold temperatures to preserve humans until such a time when medicine is advanced enough to restore good health. The widely-held belief that it involves freezing is actually something of a red herring. As soon as possible after legal death is pronounced, cryoprotectant solution - a sort of antifreeze - is administered to a patient through their circulatory system, entering almost every cell in the body. Known as vitrification, this process avoids ice crystal formation and allows the body to be cooled with virtually no freezing damage, before being placed in liquid nitrogen in a Dewar container and moved to storage indefinitely.
For a long time cryonics was dismissed by many as science-fiction, an unnatural or even immoral procedure, but while the company make no bones about cryonics being an entirely speculative process, futurist and Alcor chief executive Max More says that the field is gaining legitimacy in the eyes of others. "People have certainly grown less hostile," he told Metro. "In terms of how science looks at cryonics we've definitely seen an improvement over time." Mr More added that Alcor's teams which intervene at members' deathbeds are also being treated more favourably by doctors. "Our relationship with hospitals and hospices has also improved; they used to be very adversarial and reluctant to even let us in, now hospital staff are usually fascinated and want to help in any way they can. They even let us position our equipment in the room next to the patient before clinical death, their whole attitude has really turned around."
Cryonics is an important industry, the only option for all too many people who will die before the advent of rejuvenation biotechnology. It has not found the level of growth that it deserves, sadly, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still the sole chance at a longer life in the future for those who are very old today.
Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm
Identifying Cancer Stem Cells for Melanoma
The cancer stem cell hypothesis continues to show promise as a way to strike at the root of many different forms of cancer: "Cancer stem cells are defined by three abilities: differentiation, self-renewal and their ability to seed a tumor. These stem cells resist chemotherapy and many researchers posit their role in relapse. A [new study] shows that melanoma cells with these abilities are marked by the enzyme ALDH, and imagines new therapies to target high-ALDH cells, potentially weeding the body of these most dangerous cancer creators. ... We've seen ALDH as a stem cell marker in other cancer types, but not in melanoma, and until now its function has been largely unknown. ... [Researchers] transplanted ALDH+ and ALDH- melanoma cells into animal models, showing the ALDH+ cells were much more powerfully tumorigenic. In the same ALDH+ cells, the group then silenced the gene that creates this protein, finding that with ALDH knocked down, melanoma cells died in cultures and lost their ability to form tumors in animal models. In cell cultures, silencing this ALDH gene also sensitized melanoma cells to existing chemotherapies. When the group explored human tumor samples, they found distinct subpopulations of these ALDH+ cells, which made up about 0.1-0.2 percent of patients' primary tumors. In samples of metastatic melanoma - the most aggressive form of the disease - the percentage of ALDH+ cells was greater, even over 10 percent in some tumors, further implying the powerful danger of these cells."
Link: http://www.coloradocancerblogs.org/news/study-identifies-human-melanoma-stem-cells
Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm
Testing Stem Cells From Amniotic Fluid as a Stroke Therapy
Many different sources of stem cells remain under investigation, such as those derived from amniotic fluid: "We recently reported isolation of viable rat amniotic fluid-derived stem (AFS) cells. Here, we tested the therapeutic benefits of AFS cells in a rodent model of ischemic stroke. Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats received a 60-minute middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAo). Thirty-five days later, animals exhibiting significant motor deficits received intravenous transplants of rat AFS cells or vehicle. At days 60-63 post-MCAo, significant recovery of motor and cognitive function was seen in stroke animals transplanted with AFS cells compared to vehicle-infused stroke animals. Infarct volume [was] significantly reduced, coupled with significant increments in the cell proliferation marker, Ki67, and the neuronal marker, MAP2, in the dentate gyrus (DG) and the subventricular zone (SVZ) of AFS cell-transplanted stroke animals compared to vehicle-infused stroke animals. ... This study reports the therapeutic potential of AFS cell transplantation in stroke animals, possibly via enhancement of endogenous repair mechanisms."
Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22912905
Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm
A Political Party for the 2045 Initiative
I note that the Russian community behind the well-backed 2045 initiative are trying their hands at launching a political party to further the cause. There is a website for the Evolution 2045 party concept; at this point it would seem to be chiefly worthwhile as a way to gain some additional insight into the thinking of those steering the 2045 initiative:
The Initiative 2045 announces the creation of its own political party - "Evolution 2045" - in order to advocate for a new strategy for human development.
This is a Russia-based party, but its goals are international and global. Our ultimate goal is to inspire other countries to follow suit, and compete not in the arms race, but in the race for building a bright future for mankind.
There is a fair amount of money behind this project, so they can certainly afford the luxury of trying a great many different approaches in the course of gathering greater support for their cause. In this sense a nascent political party falls into exactly the same bucket as the series of international conferences being organized: outreach, education, advocacy.
This all seems to be an idea very much in the air at the Russian end of the longevity advocacy community. See this recent and unrelated item, for example:
we made the first step towards the creation of the Longevity Party. The initiative group of 10 people gathered together in Moscow to establish the first political party aimed at extending human lifespan using technological advances. ... . This is the very first step in the long and hard process of legally registering a political party. ... The next big thing we need to do is to finalize the Program of the Party. Then we have to have at least 2 people in 42 regions of Russia as representatives of the Party and have the founding meeting after which the Party can be registered and eventually appear in the voting ballots. Our goal is to influence the authorities to support life extension technologies and increase funding for research aimed at improving people's health and extending longevity.
Single issue political parties are a long-standing and widely used methodology for advancing particular causes in Europe and further East, far more so than across the pond in the US, though they do exist there as well. In most European countries you'll find a range of these organizations, some more successful than others. The Green parties are perhaps the exemplar of the type, formed around a movement and grown to staid success in terms of delivering their message, with the Pirate parties as another, younger and still dynamic example.
Either way, radical optimism about what can be achieved in the near future - if we just worked at it - is in comparatively short supply in our culture. Visionaries who talk about the path to humanity ascendant are a small minority in comparison to the masses and the talking heads who are blinkered by the present and look little further than the bounds of what is. So more vision and more optimism are very welcome, even if harnessed to a program that isn't my first choice for how to proceed towards engineering greatly extended lives.
Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm
An Unseemly Performance: Former Chair of Stem Cell Agency Promotes $20 Million Research Proposal
Bob Klein is nearly an icon in the
history of the $3 billion California stem cell. And when he appeared
before its governing board last month and aggressively touted a $20
million grant proposal already rejected by agency reviewers, his
actions raised eyebrows.
 |
| Robert Klein Elie Dolgin/Nature photo |
Klein's comments carried unusual
weight, given that they were supported by his unique and influential
relationship with the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine(CIRM). He and his associates wrote the 10,000-word ballot
initiative that created the stem cell agency in 2004. He ran the $35
million electoral campaign that convinced voters to buy into the
idea. Klein raised millions on behalf of the effort. He personally
provided the campaign $3 million. And he was the first chairman of
the agency, leaving that office only 13 months ago, when he was
designated chairman emeritus.
weight, given that they were supported by his unique and influential
relationship with the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine(CIRM). He and his associates wrote the 10,000-word ballot
initiative that created the stem cell agency in 2004. He ran the $35
million electoral campaign that convinced voters to buy into the
idea. Klein raised millions on behalf of the effort. He personally
provided the campaign $3 million. And he was the first chairman of
the agency, leaving that office only 13 months ago, when he was
designated chairman emeritus.
The meeting last month marked Klein's
first public appearance before the board on behalf of a specific
application.. He heralded the applicant, StemCells, Inc., as unique
and the “best” in United States with a “huge body of
experience.”
(The full text of his testimony can be found here.)
first public appearance before the board on behalf of a specific
application.. He heralded the applicant, StemCells, Inc., as unique
and the “best” in United States with a “huge body of
experience.”
(The full text of his testimony can be found here.)
 |
| Irv Weissman Stanford Photo |
StemCells Inc. is a publicly traded company based in Newark, Ca., that was founded by renown Stanford
scientist Irv Weissman, who sits on its board. Weissman also played
an important role in the Prop. 71 ballot campaign that created the
stem cell agency. StemCells, Inc.'s application was turned down by
CIRM reviewers who gave it a score of 61, but the company appealed the action to the agency's governing board. Following the appearance by Klein, Weissman and others, the CIRM board sent the application back for more review.
The board will reconsider it next month or in October.
scientist Irv Weissman, who sits on its board. Weissman also played
an important role in the Prop. 71 ballot campaign that created the
stem cell agency. StemCells, Inc.'s application was turned down by
CIRM reviewers who gave it a score of 61, but the company appealed the action to the agency's governing board. Following the appearance by Klein, Weissman and others, the CIRM board sent the application back for more review.
The board will reconsider it next month or in October.
One California stem cell researcher,
who requested anonymity, said it is “highly inappropriate for Bob
Klein to be advocating for any grant application from a public
company.”
who requested anonymity, said it is “highly inappropriate for Bob
Klein to be advocating for any grant application from a public
company.”
The scientist said,
“He has
considerable influence with the ICOC(the CIRM governing board), and
is closely associated with biotech in the Bay Area. Even if he
doesn't make a lot of money himself from this, then he certainly has
friends who will. Irv Weissman would be one of those friends."
In response to questions asked on Aug. 7 by the
California Stem Cell Report, Klein today defended his actions. He was asked if he had “any sort of
financial ties” to firms or individuals that would benefit from
approval of the award. Klein, who is a real estate investment banker and also an attorney, said he has
“no financial interest” in the firm or individuals that might
benefit.
California Stem Cell Report, Klein today defended his actions. He was asked if he had “any sort of
financial ties” to firms or individuals that would benefit from
approval of the award. Klein, who is a real estate investment banker and also an attorney, said he has
“no financial interest” in the firm or individuals that might
benefit.
Klein also indicated his appearance was
entirely appropriate. He defined his role as a patient advocate –
not as a lobbyist who is paid for advocating on behalf of a company.
Klein said he had “a particular responsibility to contribute my
background knowledge and experience.”
entirely appropriate. He defined his role as a patient advocate –
not as a lobbyist who is paid for advocating on behalf of a company.
Klein said he had “a particular responsibility to contribute my
background knowledge and experience.”
Klein said he hoped other former board
members would follow his example. He said,
members would follow his example. He said,
“(I)t would be a tragedy if the
expertise of board members built up over six or more years is lost.”
(The full text of his response can be found here.)
Klein's appearance came at a propitious
time for financially strapped StemCells, Inc. The company's
financial information shows that it is losing $5.4 million a quarter
as of the end of June and had only $9 million in cash on hand. It
also had liabilities of $11.6 million, up substantially from $8.5
million in September of last year.
time for financially strapped StemCells, Inc. The company's
financial information shows that it is losing $5.4 million a quarter
as of the end of June and had only $9 million in cash on hand. It
also had liabilities of $11.6 million, up substantially from $8.5
million in September of last year.
The researcher who criticized Klein's efforts as inappropriate also said,
"StemCells Inc has been on the
stock market for 20 years, without producing anything of value for
the investors. The stock price has been sinking fast: it
was 60 cents this June; last year at this time, it was around $5 a
share.
“On July 17, when the CIRM Disease
Team Award review results became available, the stock rose from 87
cents to $1.80 – a person who could anticipate the outcome of the
CIRM applications could have made considerable money in that 24 hour
period.”
Weissman's role
with the StemCells, Inc., is more than scientific. According to the
company's financial statements, he holds 88,612 shares. His wife,
Ann Tsukamoto, is executive vice president of the firm. She holds
185,209 shares in the firm.
with the StemCells, Inc., is more than scientific. According to the
company's financial statements, he holds 88,612 shares. His wife,
Ann Tsukamoto, is executive vice president of the firm. She holds
185,209 shares in the firm.
Weissman played a significant role in
the Prop. 71 campaign. He did the “billionaire circuit,” raising
money for the initiative, according to an article by Diana Kapp in
San Francisco magazine. Among other things, Weissman worked the
exclusive Bohemian Grove in Northern California and “pitched”
Bill Bowes, a co-founder of Amgen, who, along with his wife, gave
$1.3 million to the campaign. Weissman was the key to securing a
$400,000 contribution from Microsoft's Bill Gates. Weissman also plumped for Prop. 71 in a TV campaign ad.
the Prop. 71 campaign. He did the “billionaire circuit,” raising
money for the initiative, according to an article by Diana Kapp in
San Francisco magazine. Among other things, Weissman worked the
exclusive Bohemian Grove in Northern California and “pitched”
Bill Bowes, a co-founder of Amgen, who, along with his wife, gave
$1.3 million to the campaign. Weissman was the key to securing a
$400,000 contribution from Microsoft's Bill Gates. Weissman also plumped for Prop. 71 in a TV campaign ad.
In addition to StemCells, Inc., Klein
and Weissman supported a successful attempt last month to overturn
reviewers' rejection of another $20 million application by Judith Shizuru
of Stanford. The application received a score of 53 from reviewers.
and Weissman supported a successful attempt last month to overturn
reviewers' rejection of another $20 million application by Judith Shizuru
of Stanford. The application received a score of 53 from reviewers.
One of the application's problems cited
by reviewers was the availability of antibodies for the study. The
antibodies were developed by Systemix, a company founded by Weissman.
Systemix was acquired by Novartis in 1997 for about $70 million.
Weissman said he has “negotiated back” rights to key antibodies,
which he said are now held by Stanford.
by reviewers was the availability of antibodies for the study. The
antibodies were developed by Systemix, a company founded by Weissman.
Systemix was acquired by Novartis in 1997 for about $70 million.
Weissman said he has “negotiated back” rights to key antibodies,
which he said are now held by Stanford.
Klein said that reviewers believed the
research was “a showstopper” but did not think the documentation
was adequate. He told the CIRM directors that they now have a letter
with proprietary information that supports the grant application.
research was “a showstopper” but did not think the documentation
was adequate. He told the CIRM directors that they now have a letter
with proprietary information that supports the grant application.
Our take: The stem cell agency has long
labored under the perception that it is something of an insiders'
club. Even the prestigious journal Nature warned in 2008 about what
it called “cronyism” at CIRM. If anything, the situation is worse today, four years later. Enterprises associated with persons on the CIRM board of directors have received more than 90 percent of the funds handed out by the agency. Klein's efforts last month
reinforce the not-so-pleasant image of the stem cell agency as an
old boy's club and create an impression – at the very least – of
unseemly insider influence.
labored under the perception that it is something of an insiders'
club. Even the prestigious journal Nature warned in 2008 about what
it called “cronyism” at CIRM. If anything, the situation is worse today, four years later. Enterprises associated with persons on the CIRM board of directors have received more than 90 percent of the funds handed out by the agency. Klein's efforts last month
reinforce the not-so-pleasant image of the stem cell agency as an
old boy's club and create an impression – at the very least – of
unseemly insider influence.
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
CIRM Board Member Prieto Defends Klein's Right to Appear Before Board
A member of the governing board of the
California stem cell agency, Francisco Prieto, has commented
in an email about the “unseemly performance” item concerning the
agency's former chairman, Robert Klein. Prieto is a
Sacramento physician who serves as a patient advocate member of the
board. He has been on the board since its inception. Here are his
remarks.
California stem cell agency, Francisco Prieto, has commented
in an email about the “unseemly performance” item concerning the
agency's former chairman, Robert Klein. Prieto is a
Sacramento physician who serves as a patient advocate member of the
board. He has been on the board since its inception. Here are his
remarks.
“I wanted to comment on this piece
from the perspective of another patient advocate. While I think
you know that I did not always agree with Bob Klein during his tenure
on the ICOC(the agency's governing board), I would strongly defend
his right to appear and give his opinions to the Board. He is a
private citizen now, albeit one with considerable experience and
expertise, and I think his greatest vested interest in this case
stems (you should pardon the expression) from being the child of a
parent with Alzheimers. As you point out, some eyebrows may be
raised, and I can imagine that some board members might be swayed in
either direction by his testimony, but he is a passionate and
committed advocate, and he has the right to advocate before us.”
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
CIRM Board Member Prieto Defends Klein’s Right to Appear Before Board
A member of the governing board of the
California stem cell agency, Francisco Prieto, has commented
in an email about the “unseemly performance” item concerning the
agency's former chairman, Robert Klein. Prieto is a
Sacramento physician who serves as a patient advocate member of the
board. He has been on the board since its inception. Here are his
remarks.
California stem cell agency, Francisco Prieto, has commented
in an email about the “unseemly performance” item concerning the
agency's former chairman, Robert Klein. Prieto is a
Sacramento physician who serves as a patient advocate member of the
board. He has been on the board since its inception. Here are his
remarks.
“I wanted to comment on this piece
from the perspective of another patient advocate. While I think
you know that I did not always agree with Bob Klein during his tenure
on the ICOC(the agency's governing board), I would strongly defend
his right to appear and give his opinions to the Board. He is a
private citizen now, albeit one with considerable experience and
expertise, and I think his greatest vested interest in this case
stems (you should pardon the expression) from being the child of a
parent with Alzheimers. As you point out, some eyebrows may be
raised, and I can imagine that some board members might be swayed in
either direction by his testimony, but he is a passionate and
committed advocate, and he has the right to advocate before us.”
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
Text of Klein's Response to Questions Concerning His Advocacy on Rejected Grant Applications
Here is the text of Robert Klein's response today to the California Stem Cell Report concerning his appearance before the governing board of the California stem cell agency July 26, 2012. Klein, former chairman of the agency, real estate investment banker and attorney, promoted two applications seeking $20 million each from the agency. Both applications had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. Here is a link to an item on the subject.
"Dear David,
"You have posed two
questions related to my continuing role as a Patient Advocate in
contributing information to the Board of the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, in an effort to optimize decisions on medical
and scientific grants and loans for research that could mitigate
and/or cure chronic diseases or injuries.
"Q: Do you have any sort
of financial ties to StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or
firms that would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC(the CIRM governing board)?
"A: I have no financial
interest in StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or firms that
would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC. In fact, I
have no financial interest in any biomedical research company."Q: Do you think it is
appropriate for the former chairman of the ICOC to lobby that body on
behalf of awards to specific companies or individuals?
"A: First, it is
fundamental that the terms be defined to properly respond to your
question. A “Patient Advocate” is a member of a patient family or
a medical/scientific care /support group who advocates for medical
and scientific advances that might potentially mitigate and/or cure a
patient’s chronic disease or injury. A “Patient Advocate” is
not paid for his/her advocacy, unless they are staff members of a
non-profit institution dedicated to a specific disease or group of
diseases or injuries.
"Second, a “lobbyist”
is a paid representative of a company or a for-profit institution(s)
with a financial interest in the outcome of a governmental decision.
"I am serving as a
Patient Advocate in my presentations to the Board of the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine. As the former Chairman of the
Board, I have a particular responsibility to contribute my background
knowledge and experience for the Board to consider, along with all
new information, in reaching their best decision. I hope other former
Board members, who possess a wealth of scientific, medical, and
institutional knowledge that can benefit the Board, would consider
the value they can contribute to future decisions. As Board terms
expire, it will be important not to lose that institutional knowledge
and medical/scientific expertise that has been built up over the last
seven plus years of the Agency’s existence.
"In an outline format,
I would suggest the following areas where the knowledge of former
Board members can be especially valuable in optimizing the input for
Board decisions in the future.
"A number of Board
members have participated in up to 20 or more Peer Review meetings,
some of which cover multiple days. Current grant or loan requests
represent the result of scientific and medical advancement that has
been intensely vetted in prior peer reviews; the information gained
in those peer reviews should not be lost, when a subsequent grant or
loan request – built on the earlier research outcomes – is
considered. Each peer review session has the benefit of different
specialists and scientists and/or biotech representatives with
unique backgrounds and areas of expertise. The value of the prior
contributions may be pivotal, in considering a later application,
developed from the earlier medical or research advances funded
through CIRM’s grants or loans. The current peer review,
scientific staff presentation, and Board expertise, is not the limit
of the Board’s information, in reaching the best current decision.
To the extent the Board can draw from prior peer reviews (unique
insights), prior scientific staff presentations, and prior Board
expertise, additional information that can enhance a potential
decision, the Board has the opportunity to optimize its decision
making process. This is particularly valuable, when there is a high
standard deviation – a substantial split – in the scoring
positions from the current peer review.
"Beyond peer review
participation, Board members have intensely engaged in another 35
plus Working Group sessions on Facilities and Standards, in addition
to more than 70 Board meetings and over 125 Subcommittee meetings,
as of August 2012. Retiring Board members possess a treasury of
information on policy development, process, federal and state laws
and regulations, and the regulations of the agency, as well as in
depth information on research facilities and capabilities throughout
California, the nation, and the world. It takes a substantial length
of time for a new Board member to gain a comprehensive knowledge in
all of these areas and each Board member will develop unique
insights, which it would be a tragedy to lose. As Chairman, I
frequently reached back to consult with former Board members on
areas of their special expertise and I would hope that all current
and future Board members utilize the significant asset in developed
knowledge of the prior Board members. To the extent prior members
can be available for public meetings, this would be a substantial
benefit to the agency to broadly inform the Board, the scientific
staff, and the public.
"The Board has a
unique contribution to make on programmatic resource allocations and
risk management of the research and clinical investments in each
disease area. The opportunities in some disease areas for major
advancement are numerous, whereas there are major diseases and/or
critical research areas where the potential, high-value advancement
options are relatively limited. For Board members who have
participated in over 20 peer reviews and 70 Board meetings, the
programmatic perspective on the opportunities in each disease area
has been highly developed. Concurrently, those Board members or
former Board members have substantial knowledge that is of critical
value in reaching programmatic decisions on the number of
opportunities for advancement in any specific disease area and the
relative risk that needs to be taken to accomplish meaningful
breakthroughs in advancing the research and clinical opportunities
in a disease and/or injury area.
"I hope these examples
of how former Board members can contribute to the current Board’s
information in reaching decisions on the best medical/scientific
grants and loans are helpful. As I stated earlier, it would be a
tragedy if the expertise of Board members built up over six or more
years is lost. The field is extremely complicated and the Board needs
the opportunity to consider all of the information available. The
Board can choose to accept or reject any past advice or opinions
gained from prior peer review sessions or Board meetings, but the
Board should have access to the full spectrum of information and the
treasury of scientific and medical advice the agency has received
since its inception.
"There are areas that I
have not addresses in this short response, such as the institutional
value of applicants being able to rely upon prior scientific and/or
policy direction, in their current applications. From a historical
perspective, prior Board members and/or the Chairman can have
significant information that is relevant to these evaluations,
especially if the individual Board member served on a special Task
Force , Subcommittee or peer review. These more complicated areas of
individual contribution by former Board members I can address in a
future communication; but, this specific subject – alone – could
comprise several pages and I would like to obtain critical advice and
perspective from other former Board members and the scientific
community before discussing this area in greater detail.
"Bob Klein
"Chair Emeritus
"California Institute
for Regenerative Medicine"
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
Text of Klein’s Response to Questions Concerning His Advocacy on Rejected Grant Applications
Here is the text of Robert Klein's response today to the California Stem Cell Report concerning his appearance before the governing board of the California stem cell agency July 26, 2012. Klein, former chairman of the agency, real estate investment banker and attorney, promoted two applications seeking $20 million each from the agency. Both applications had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. Here is a link to an item on the subject.
"Dear David,
"You have posed two
questions related to my continuing role as a Patient Advocate in
contributing information to the Board of the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, in an effort to optimize decisions on medical
and scientific grants and loans for research that could mitigate
and/or cure chronic diseases or injuries.
"Q: Do you have any sort
of financial ties to StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or
firms that would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC(the CIRM governing board)?
"A: I have no financial
interest in StemCells Inc. or any of the individuals or firms that
would benefit from approval of those awards by the ICOC. In fact, I
have no financial interest in any biomedical research company."Q: Do you think it is
appropriate for the former chairman of the ICOC to lobby that body on
behalf of awards to specific companies or individuals?
"A: First, it is
fundamental that the terms be defined to properly respond to your
question. A “Patient Advocate” is a member of a patient family or
a medical/scientific care /support group who advocates for medical
and scientific advances that might potentially mitigate and/or cure a
patient’s chronic disease or injury. A “Patient Advocate” is
not paid for his/her advocacy, unless they are staff members of a
non-profit institution dedicated to a specific disease or group of
diseases or injuries.
"Second, a “lobbyist”
is a paid representative of a company or a for-profit institution(s)
with a financial interest in the outcome of a governmental decision.
"I am serving as a
Patient Advocate in my presentations to the Board of the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine. As the former Chairman of the
Board, I have a particular responsibility to contribute my background
knowledge and experience for the Board to consider, along with all
new information, in reaching their best decision. I hope other former
Board members, who possess a wealth of scientific, medical, and
institutional knowledge that can benefit the Board, would consider
the value they can contribute to future decisions. As Board terms
expire, it will be important not to lose that institutional knowledge
and medical/scientific expertise that has been built up over the last
seven plus years of the Agency’s existence.
"In an outline format,
I would suggest the following areas where the knowledge of former
Board members can be especially valuable in optimizing the input for
Board decisions in the future.
"A number of Board
members have participated in up to 20 or more Peer Review meetings,
some of which cover multiple days. Current grant or loan requests
represent the result of scientific and medical advancement that has
been intensely vetted in prior peer reviews; the information gained
in those peer reviews should not be lost, when a subsequent grant or
loan request – built on the earlier research outcomes – is
considered. Each peer review session has the benefit of different
specialists and scientists and/or biotech representatives with
unique backgrounds and areas of expertise. The value of the prior
contributions may be pivotal, in considering a later application,
developed from the earlier medical or research advances funded
through CIRM’s grants or loans. The current peer review,
scientific staff presentation, and Board expertise, is not the limit
of the Board’s information, in reaching the best current decision.
To the extent the Board can draw from prior peer reviews (unique
insights), prior scientific staff presentations, and prior Board
expertise, additional information that can enhance a potential
decision, the Board has the opportunity to optimize its decision
making process. This is particularly valuable, when there is a high
standard deviation – a substantial split – in the scoring
positions from the current peer review.
"Beyond peer review
participation, Board members have intensely engaged in another 35
plus Working Group sessions on Facilities and Standards, in addition
to more than 70 Board meetings and over 125 Subcommittee meetings,
as of August 2012. Retiring Board members possess a treasury of
information on policy development, process, federal and state laws
and regulations, and the regulations of the agency, as well as in
depth information on research facilities and capabilities throughout
California, the nation, and the world. It takes a substantial length
of time for a new Board member to gain a comprehensive knowledge in
all of these areas and each Board member will develop unique
insights, which it would be a tragedy to lose. As Chairman, I
frequently reached back to consult with former Board members on
areas of their special expertise and I would hope that all current
and future Board members utilize the significant asset in developed
knowledge of the prior Board members. To the extent prior members
can be available for public meetings, this would be a substantial
benefit to the agency to broadly inform the Board, the scientific
staff, and the public.
"The Board has a
unique contribution to make on programmatic resource allocations and
risk management of the research and clinical investments in each
disease area. The opportunities in some disease areas for major
advancement are numerous, whereas there are major diseases and/or
critical research areas where the potential, high-value advancement
options are relatively limited. For Board members who have
participated in over 20 peer reviews and 70 Board meetings, the
programmatic perspective on the opportunities in each disease area
has been highly developed. Concurrently, those Board members or
former Board members have substantial knowledge that is of critical
value in reaching programmatic decisions on the number of
opportunities for advancement in any specific disease area and the
relative risk that needs to be taken to accomplish meaningful
breakthroughs in advancing the research and clinical opportunities
in a disease and/or injury area.
"I hope these examples
of how former Board members can contribute to the current Board’s
information in reaching decisions on the best medical/scientific
grants and loans are helpful. As I stated earlier, it would be a
tragedy if the expertise of Board members built up over six or more
years is lost. The field is extremely complicated and the Board needs
the opportunity to consider all of the information available. The
Board can choose to accept or reject any past advice or opinions
gained from prior peer review sessions or Board meetings, but the
Board should have access to the full spectrum of information and the
treasury of scientific and medical advice the agency has received
since its inception.
"There are areas that I
have not addresses in this short response, such as the institutional
value of applicants being able to rely upon prior scientific and/or
policy direction, in their current applications. From a historical
perspective, prior Board members and/or the Chairman can have
significant information that is relevant to these evaluations,
especially if the individual Board member served on a special Task
Force , Subcommittee or peer review. These more complicated areas of
individual contribution by former Board members I can address in a
future communication; but, this specific subject – alone – could
comprise several pages and I would like to obtain critical advice and
perspective from other former Board members and the scientific
community before discussing this area in greater detail.
"Bob Klein
"Chair Emeritus
"California Institute
for Regenerative Medicine"
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
Text of Klein's Comments Supporting Rejected Applications
Robert Klein, who served 6 ½ years as the first chairman
of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, testified before the agency's board for the first time on July 26, 2012. Klein, a real
estate investment banker and attorney, spoke on behalf of two applicants whose
grants had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. The appearance
has raised questions about the propriety of Klein's actions.
Here is a link to an item on his appearance. Here is the text of
his comments as reported in the transcript of the meeting.
“As the board knows, I've never addressed any grant from the
floor. It is critical here to understand that we have here
StemCells, Inc., which is the only company in North America
and, for that matter, maybe in the world, that has had two stem cell
therapies in the brain with these specific neural stem cells. They
have a huge body of experience here.
“Secondly, one of the fundamental issues here that it (the
company's grant application) was downgraded on was the issue of the
fundamental concept, the platform concept, of injecting two focal
injections in the brain, in the hippocampus of the brain. It's
important to note that I've sat on three (CIRM)peer reviews where the
scientists really affirmed this specific approach with extremely high
scores, three different views. All right.
“So it's very important to realize we have a standard deviation
here of 12 (on the review scores). These scientists were completely
split. With some recusals on that panel, if you have 12 or 13 that
can really vote, three or four very low scores can bring it out of
the funding category all the way down. It is in the region where
this board is looking where the other three peer reviews, right,
early translation, the one before that was the planning grant review,
that the hippocampus was a good platform.
“Then they said the key weakness was you can't show migration.
Dr. Laferla (a co-PI on the application) has told me that
today the Journal of Neuroscience accepted the publication of
the data demonstrating migration. It was stated previously in the
application, but it wasn't accepted for publication. It now is.
That is the fundamental weakness that they identified in this
approach.
“So we have a reaffirmed approach to the hippocampus by three
different peer review groups and a substantial portion of these
reviewers along with data dealing with the weak point. I'm sorry it
happened today. The data was out there, accepted for publication
today, means that it should definitely fall into this category. And,
of course, Dr. (Alan) Trounson (president of CIRM) wouldn't
have been able to review that in process because he was recused from
this grant by his own voluntary recusal. So the progress of this
data being accepted for publication is new information today.
“If I look at the entire history of CIRM, as Leeza (Gibbons,
a CIRM director) says, building up to this point, we have reaffirmed
this approach from the very beginning with Dr. Laferla, with multiple
scientific approvals, and board approval, and we have the best
company in North America with the greatest experience with these
neural stem cells, with the best researcher we have for the potential
to address this disease, and we have brand-new data that demonstrates
and totally contradicts the key weakness on which it was downgraded.”
Here is the text of Klein's remarks on
behalf of a second application, also rejected by CIRM reviewers.
behalf of a second application, also rejected by CIRM reviewers.
“This is the only other disease team grant I will address. Very
specifically, this was a disease team grant that I was on the peer
review in the planning grant stage. There are some fundamental
issues here. Is the international company on which the one antibody
that's not coming from Stanford, the two for sorting are
coming from Stanford, is the other antibody coming from this
international company a commitment that you can rely on?
“The reviewers said this was a showstopper. That's the word they
used. They made a decision this was a showstopper because they did
not believe the company because they thought that the documentation
was inadequate. You now have a letter that goes into great
proprietary depth about the depth of this company's commitments
written by the head of development and translation internationally
for the company.
“If we cannot depend on company commitments of this type, and
you will review the letter in executive session, if you have one, I
will not understand how we'll be able to collaborate with companies
with proprietary products and processes where they're making
commitments to academic institutions of the highest standard. I
believe this company is going to perform. I was on an hour call to
confirm with eight members of that company their level of commitment,
and I am completely convinced by that point.
“The review is completely factually wrong on this issue about
the other two antibodies for sorting this. Dr. (Irv) Weissman
has just said they have not only been developed, they have been used
in clinical trials. There's data on them. And they are, in fact,
being thawed under FDA direction to reuse in this trial.
“So I believe there's a major factual difference. Remember with
Karen Aboody there was a major factual error that was pivotal
in elevating that, and we found tremendous performance on that grant
by Karen Aboody of City of Hope.
“So you have a decision to make. As a risk issue, do we believe
this company? Finally, this is broader than SCID.
“Donald Kohn has written a letter that's in the public
domain that I suggest you read. It makes it very clear that opening
the niche for repopulating the immune system without chemotherapy and
radiation is a key contribution to every form of genetically modified
stem cells for an entire range of childhood diseases and other
genetic diseases in addition to therapies like sickle cell or aids.
“I suggest that that profound contribution that can be made to
the field is a risk that is worth taking early on because of his
contribution to so many other areas. You have 12 other letters from
North America's leading pediatric geneticists that fundamentally
provide extraordinary support for this position and this approach.”
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
Text of Klein’s Comments Supporting Rejected Applications
Robert Klein, who served 6 ½ years as the first chairman
of the $3 billion California stem cell agency, testified before the agency's board for the first time on July 26, 2012. Klein, a real
estate investment banker and attorney, spoke on behalf of two applicants whose
grants had been rejected by the agency's reviewers. The appearance
has raised questions about the propriety of Klein's actions.
Here is a link to an item on his appearance. Here is the text of
his comments as reported in the transcript of the meeting.
“As the board knows, I've never addressed any grant from the
floor. It is critical here to understand that we have here
StemCells, Inc., which is the only company in North America
and, for that matter, maybe in the world, that has had two stem cell
therapies in the brain with these specific neural stem cells. They
have a huge body of experience here.
“Secondly, one of the fundamental issues here that it (the
company's grant application) was downgraded on was the issue of the
fundamental concept, the platform concept, of injecting two focal
injections in the brain, in the hippocampus of the brain. It's
important to note that I've sat on three (CIRM)peer reviews where the
scientists really affirmed this specific approach with extremely high
scores, three different views. All right.
“So it's very important to realize we have a standard deviation
here of 12 (on the review scores). These scientists were completely
split. With some recusals on that panel, if you have 12 or 13 that
can really vote, three or four very low scores can bring it out of
the funding category all the way down. It is in the region where
this board is looking where the other three peer reviews, right,
early translation, the one before that was the planning grant review,
that the hippocampus was a good platform.
“Then they said the key weakness was you can't show migration.
Dr. Laferla (a co-PI on the application) has told me that
today the Journal of Neuroscience accepted the publication of
the data demonstrating migration. It was stated previously in the
application, but it wasn't accepted for publication. It now is.
That is the fundamental weakness that they identified in this
approach.
“So we have a reaffirmed approach to the hippocampus by three
different peer review groups and a substantial portion of these
reviewers along with data dealing with the weak point. I'm sorry it
happened today. The data was out there, accepted for publication
today, means that it should definitely fall into this category. And,
of course, Dr. (Alan) Trounson (president of CIRM) wouldn't
have been able to review that in process because he was recused from
this grant by his own voluntary recusal. So the progress of this
data being accepted for publication is new information today.
“If I look at the entire history of CIRM, as Leeza (Gibbons,
a CIRM director) says, building up to this point, we have reaffirmed
this approach from the very beginning with Dr. Laferla, with multiple
scientific approvals, and board approval, and we have the best
company in North America with the greatest experience with these
neural stem cells, with the best researcher we have for the potential
to address this disease, and we have brand-new data that demonstrates
and totally contradicts the key weakness on which it was downgraded.”
Here is the text of Klein's remarks on
behalf of a second application, also rejected by CIRM reviewers.
behalf of a second application, also rejected by CIRM reviewers.
“This is the only other disease team grant I will address. Very
specifically, this was a disease team grant that I was on the peer
review in the planning grant stage. There are some fundamental
issues here. Is the international company on which the one antibody
that's not coming from Stanford, the two for sorting are
coming from Stanford, is the other antibody coming from this
international company a commitment that you can rely on?
“The reviewers said this was a showstopper. That's the word they
used. They made a decision this was a showstopper because they did
not believe the company because they thought that the documentation
was inadequate. You now have a letter that goes into great
proprietary depth about the depth of this company's commitments
written by the head of development and translation internationally
for the company.
“If we cannot depend on company commitments of this type, and
you will review the letter in executive session, if you have one, I
will not understand how we'll be able to collaborate with companies
with proprietary products and processes where they're making
commitments to academic institutions of the highest standard. I
believe this company is going to perform. I was on an hour call to
confirm with eight members of that company their level of commitment,
and I am completely convinced by that point.
“The review is completely factually wrong on this issue about
the other two antibodies for sorting this. Dr. (Irv) Weissman
has just said they have not only been developed, they have been used
in clinical trials. There's data on them. And they are, in fact,
being thawed under FDA direction to reuse in this trial.
“So I believe there's a major factual difference. Remember with
Karen Aboody there was a major factual error that was pivotal
in elevating that, and we found tremendous performance on that grant
by Karen Aboody of City of Hope.
“So you have a decision to make. As a risk issue, do we believe
this company? Finally, this is broader than SCID.
“Donald Kohn has written a letter that's in the public
domain that I suggest you read. It makes it very clear that opening
the niche for repopulating the immune system without chemotherapy and
radiation is a key contribution to every form of genetically modified
stem cells for an entire range of childhood diseases and other
genetic diseases in addition to therapies like sickle cell or aids.
“I suggest that that profound contribution that can be made to
the field is a risk that is worth taking early on because of his
contribution to so many other areas. You have 12 other letters from
North America's leading pediatric geneticists that fundamentally
provide extraordinary support for this position and this approach.”
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
Sleep improves memory in Parkinson's patients
Researchers have shown that people with Parkinson's disease performed markedly better on a test of working memory after a night's sleep, and sleep disorders can interfere with that benefit.
While the classic symptoms of Parkinson's disease include tremors and slow movements, Parkinson's can also affect someone's memory, including "working memory."
Working memory is defined as the ability to temporarily store and manipulate information, rather than simply repeat it. The use of working memory is important in planning, problem solving and independent living.
The findings underline the importance of addressing sleep disorders in the care of patients with Parkinson's, and indicate that working memory capacity in patients with Parkinson's potentially can be improved with training. The results also have implications for the biology of sleep and memory.
"It was known already that sleep is beneficial for memory, but here, we've been able to analyze what aspects of sleep are required for the improvements in working memory performance," said postdoctoral fellow Michael Scullin, who is the first author of the paper.
The performance boost from sleep was linked with the amount of slow wave sleep, or the deepest stage of sleep. Several research groups have reported that slow wave sleep is important for synaptic plasticity, the ability of brain cells to reorganize and make new connections.
Sleep apnea, the disruption of sleep caused by obstruction of the airway, interfered with sleep's effects on memory. Study participants who showed signs of sleep apnea, if it was severe enough to lower their blood oxygen levels for more than five minutes, did not see a working memory test boost.
54 study participants had Parkinson's disease, and 10 had dementia with Lewy bodies: a more advanced condition, where patients may have hallucinations or fluctuating cognition as well as motor symptoms. Those who had dementia with Lewy bodies saw no working memory boost from the night's rest. As expected, their baseline level of performance was lower than the Parkinson's group.
Participants with Parkinson's who were taking dopamine-enhancing medications saw their performance on the digit span test jump up between the fourth and fifth test. On average, they could remember one more number backwards. The ability to repeat numbers backward improved, even though the ability to repeat numbers forward did not.
Patients needed to be taking dopamine-enhancing medications to see the most performance benefit from sleep. Patients not taking dopamine medications, even though they had generally had Parkinson's for less time, did not experience as much of a performance benefit. This may reflect a role for dopamine, an important neurotransmitter, in memory.
Sleep improves memory in Parkinson’s patients
Researchers have shown that people with Parkinson's disease performed markedly better on a test of working memory after a night's sleep, and sleep disorders can interfere with that benefit.
While the classic symptoms of Parkinson's disease include tremors and slow movements, Parkinson's can also affect someone's memory, including "working memory."
Working memory is defined as the ability to temporarily store and manipulate information, rather than simply repeat it. The use of working memory is important in planning, problem solving and independent living.
The findings underline the importance of addressing sleep disorders in the care of patients with Parkinson's, and indicate that working memory capacity in patients with Parkinson's potentially can be improved with training. The results also have implications for the biology of sleep and memory.
"It was known already that sleep is beneficial for memory, but here, we've been able to analyze what aspects of sleep are required for the improvements in working memory performance," said postdoctoral fellow Michael Scullin, who is the first author of the paper.
The performance boost from sleep was linked with the amount of slow wave sleep, or the deepest stage of sleep. Several research groups have reported that slow wave sleep is important for synaptic plasticity, the ability of brain cells to reorganize and make new connections.
Sleep apnea, the disruption of sleep caused by obstruction of the airway, interfered with sleep's effects on memory. Study participants who showed signs of sleep apnea, if it was severe enough to lower their blood oxygen levels for more than five minutes, did not see a working memory test boost.
54 study participants had Parkinson's disease, and 10 had dementia with Lewy bodies: a more advanced condition, where patients may have hallucinations or fluctuating cognition as well as motor symptoms. Those who had dementia with Lewy bodies saw no working memory boost from the night's rest. As expected, their baseline level of performance was lower than the Parkinson's group.
Participants with Parkinson's who were taking dopamine-enhancing medications saw their performance on the digit span test jump up between the fourth and fifth test. On average, they could remember one more number backwards. The ability to repeat numbers backward improved, even though the ability to repeat numbers forward did not.
Patients needed to be taking dopamine-enhancing medications to see the most performance benefit from sleep. Patients not taking dopamine medications, even though they had generally had Parkinson's for less time, did not experience as much of a performance benefit. This may reflect a role for dopamine, an important neurotransmitter, in memory.
Therapeutic avenues for Parkinson's investigated at UH
Public release date: 23-Aug-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Lisa Merkl lkmerkl@uh.edu 713-743-8192 University of Houston
HOUSTON, Aug. 23, 2012 Scientists at the University of Houston (UH) have discovered what may possibly be a key ingredient in the fight against Parkinson's disease.
Affecting more than 500,000 people in the U.S., Parkinson's disease is a degenerative disorder of the central nervous system marked by a loss of certain nerve cells in the brain, causing a lack of dopamine. These dopamine-producing neurons are in a section of the midbrain that regulates body control and movement. In a study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers from the UH Center for Nuclear Receptors and Cell Signaling (CNRCS) demonstrated that the nuclear receptor liver X receptor beta (LXRbeta) may play a role in the prevention and treatment of this progressive neurodegenerative disease.
"LXRbeta performs an important function in the development of the central nervous system, and our work indicates that the presence of LXRbeta promotes the survival of dopaminergic neurons, which are the main source of dopamine in the central nervous system," said CNRCS director and professor Jan-ke Gustafsson, whose lab discovered LXRbeta in 1995. "The receptor continues to show promise as a potential therapeutic target for this disease, as well as other neurological disorders."
To better understand the relationship between LXRbeta and Parkinson's disease, the team worked with a potent neurotoxin, called MPTP, a contaminant found in street drugs that caused Parkinson's in people who consumed these drugs. In lab settings, MPTP is used in murine models to simulate the disease and to study its pathology and possible treatments.
The researchers found that the absence of LXRbeta increased the harmful effects of MPTP on dopamine-producing neurons. Additionally, they found that using a drug that activates LXRbeta receptors prevented the destructive effects of MPTP and, therefore, may offer protection against the neurodegeneration of the midbrain.
"LXRbeta is not expressed in the dopamine-producing neurons, but instead in the microglia surrounding the neurons," Gustafsson said. "Microglia are the police of the brain, keeping things in order. In Parkinson's disease the microglia are overactive and begin to destroy the healthy neurons in the neighborhood of those neurons damaged by MPTP. LXRbeta calms down the microglia and prevents collateral damage. Thus, we have discovered a novel therapeutic target for treatment of Parkinson's disease."
###
Gustafsson, professor Margaret Warner, research assistant professor Xin-Jie Tan, and postdoctoral fellows Wanfu Wu and Yubing Dai authored the PNAS study, which is available at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/18/1210833109.abstract.
Here is the original post:
Therapeutic avenues for Parkinson's investigated at UH
Therapeutic avenues for Parkinson’s investigated at UH
Public release date: 23-Aug-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Lisa Merkl lkmerkl@uh.edu 713-743-8192 University of Houston
HOUSTON, Aug. 23, 2012 Scientists at the University of Houston (UH) have discovered what may possibly be a key ingredient in the fight against Parkinson's disease.
Affecting more than 500,000 people in the U.S., Parkinson's disease is a degenerative disorder of the central nervous system marked by a loss of certain nerve cells in the brain, causing a lack of dopamine. These dopamine-producing neurons are in a section of the midbrain that regulates body control and movement. In a study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers from the UH Center for Nuclear Receptors and Cell Signaling (CNRCS) demonstrated that the nuclear receptor liver X receptor beta (LXRbeta) may play a role in the prevention and treatment of this progressive neurodegenerative disease.
"LXRbeta performs an important function in the development of the central nervous system, and our work indicates that the presence of LXRbeta promotes the survival of dopaminergic neurons, which are the main source of dopamine in the central nervous system," said CNRCS director and professor Jan-ke Gustafsson, whose lab discovered LXRbeta in 1995. "The receptor continues to show promise as a potential therapeutic target for this disease, as well as other neurological disorders."
To better understand the relationship between LXRbeta and Parkinson's disease, the team worked with a potent neurotoxin, called MPTP, a contaminant found in street drugs that caused Parkinson's in people who consumed these drugs. In lab settings, MPTP is used in murine models to simulate the disease and to study its pathology and possible treatments.
The researchers found that the absence of LXRbeta increased the harmful effects of MPTP on dopamine-producing neurons. Additionally, they found that using a drug that activates LXRbeta receptors prevented the destructive effects of MPTP and, therefore, may offer protection against the neurodegeneration of the midbrain.
"LXRbeta is not expressed in the dopamine-producing neurons, but instead in the microglia surrounding the neurons," Gustafsson said. "Microglia are the police of the brain, keeping things in order. In Parkinson's disease the microglia are overactive and begin to destroy the healthy neurons in the neighborhood of those neurons damaged by MPTP. LXRbeta calms down the microglia and prevents collateral damage. Thus, we have discovered a novel therapeutic target for treatment of Parkinson's disease."
###
Gustafsson, professor Margaret Warner, research assistant professor Xin-Jie Tan, and postdoctoral fellows Wanfu Wu and Yubing Dai authored the PNAS study, which is available at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/18/1210833109.abstract.
Here is the original post:
Therapeutic avenues for Parkinson's investigated at UH
Therapeutic avenues for Parkinson's investigated
ScienceDaily (Aug. 23, 2012) Scientists at the University of Houston (UH) have discovered what may possibly be a key ingredient in the fight against Parkinson's disease.
Affecting more than 500,000 people in the U.S., Parkinson's disease is a degenerative disorder of the central nervous system marked by a loss of certain nerve cells in the brain, causing a lack of dopamine. These dopamine-producing neurons are in a section of the midbrain that regulates body control and movement. In a study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers from the UH Center for Nuclear Receptors and Cell Signaling (CNRCS) demonstrated that the nuclear receptor liver X receptor beta (LXRbeta) may play a role in the prevention and treatment of this progressive neurodegenerative disease.
"LXRbeta performs an important function in the development of the central nervous system, and our work indicates that the presence of LXRbeta promotes the survival of dopaminergic neurons, which are the main source of dopamine in the central nervous system," said CNRCS director and professor Jan-ke Gustafsson, whose lab discovered LXRbeta in 1995. "The receptor continues to show promise as a potential therapeutic target for this disease, as well as other neurological disorders."
To better understand the relationship between LXRbeta and Parkinson's disease, the team worked with a potent neurotoxin, called MPTP, a contaminant found in street drugs that caused Parkinson's in people who consumed these drugs. In lab settings, MPTP is used in murine models to simulate the disease and to study its pathology and possible treatments.
The researchers found that the absence of LXRbeta increased the harmful effects of MPTP on dopamine-producing neurons. Additionally, they found that using a drug that activates LXRbeta receptors prevented the destructive effects of MPTP and, therefore, may offer protection against the neurodegeneration of the midbrain.
"LXRbeta is not expressed in the dopamine-producing neurons, but instead in the microglia surrounding the neurons," Gustafsson said. "Microglia are the police of the brain, keeping things in order. In Parkinson's disease the microglia are overactive and begin to destroy the healthy neurons in the neighborhood of those neurons damaged by MPTP. LXRbeta calms down the microglia and prevents collateral damage. Thus, we have discovered a novel therapeutic target for treatment of Parkinson's disease."
Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:
Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of Houston.
Therapeutic avenues for Parkinson’s investigated
ScienceDaily (Aug. 23, 2012) Scientists at the University of Houston (UH) have discovered what may possibly be a key ingredient in the fight against Parkinson's disease.
Affecting more than 500,000 people in the U.S., Parkinson's disease is a degenerative disorder of the central nervous system marked by a loss of certain nerve cells in the brain, causing a lack of dopamine. These dopamine-producing neurons are in a section of the midbrain that regulates body control and movement. In a study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers from the UH Center for Nuclear Receptors and Cell Signaling (CNRCS) demonstrated that the nuclear receptor liver X receptor beta (LXRbeta) may play a role in the prevention and treatment of this progressive neurodegenerative disease.
"LXRbeta performs an important function in the development of the central nervous system, and our work indicates that the presence of LXRbeta promotes the survival of dopaminergic neurons, which are the main source of dopamine in the central nervous system," said CNRCS director and professor Jan-ke Gustafsson, whose lab discovered LXRbeta in 1995. "The receptor continues to show promise as a potential therapeutic target for this disease, as well as other neurological disorders."
To better understand the relationship between LXRbeta and Parkinson's disease, the team worked with a potent neurotoxin, called MPTP, a contaminant found in street drugs that caused Parkinson's in people who consumed these drugs. In lab settings, MPTP is used in murine models to simulate the disease and to study its pathology and possible treatments.
The researchers found that the absence of LXRbeta increased the harmful effects of MPTP on dopamine-producing neurons. Additionally, they found that using a drug that activates LXRbeta receptors prevented the destructive effects of MPTP and, therefore, may offer protection against the neurodegeneration of the midbrain.
"LXRbeta is not expressed in the dopamine-producing neurons, but instead in the microglia surrounding the neurons," Gustafsson said. "Microglia are the police of the brain, keeping things in order. In Parkinson's disease the microglia are overactive and begin to destroy the healthy neurons in the neighborhood of those neurons damaged by MPTP. LXRbeta calms down the microglia and prevents collateral damage. Thus, we have discovered a novel therapeutic target for treatment of Parkinson's disease."
Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:
Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of Houston.
Pedaling for Parkinson's: A workout that can help reduce shaking, tremors
Ed McCaskey has lived with Parkinsons disease for six years, and now hes trying to help others like him mitigate some of their symptoms through exercise.
McCaskey, 59, was diagnosed with Parkinsons in 2006. He lives in Roscoe, Ill., and he joined the Stateline Family YMCA Roscoe Branch the same year, and he typically works out five days a week.
Exercise has been found to help reduce some of the symptoms like shaking and tremors associated with Parkinsons. That is why the YMCA of Greater Cleveland in Ohio developed a program called Pedaling for Parkinsons with the help of Cleveland Clinic physician Dr. Jay L. Alberts, a staff member with the Biomedical Engineering Center for Neurological Restoration.
The program in which participants exercise on indoor spin/cycling bikes and tandem bikes launched earlier this year, and McCaskey read about it in a Parkinsons newsletter and pitched it to his local YMCA. Research by Cleveland Clinic showed a 35 percent reduction in symptoms with the act of pedaling a bicycle at a rapid pace optimally 80 to 90 revolutions per minute.
The YMCA staff in Roscoe, Ill., agreed, and the one-hour class will meet three days a week starting Sept. 24 through Nov. 16. Its free to YMCA members and nonmembers alike.
Some class participants may need a relative or friend to drive them to the class, and McCaskey said YMCA officials will let those people use the Y facilities free of charge while they wait during the class.
More than 1 million people nationally are living with Parkinsons disease, and nearly 60,000 new cases are diagnosed each year, according to the National Parkinson Foundation. Parkinsons is a chronic degenerative disease that occurs when nerve cells in parts of the brain stem die or degenerate.
McCaskey recently traveled to Washington state and tried the Pedaling for Parkinsons class there. It was pretty easy for the marathon runner and regular spin-class participant, but he said its a great opportunity for Parkinsons patients to get moving and realize the benefits of exercise.
Im still pretty lucky because my symptoms are minimal, McCaskey said. After a good workout, a lot of those symptoms dissipate for a good part of the day. The exercise recommendation came from my doctor, but following up on it really reinforces what he says. Im experiencing the positive benefits.
Melissa Westphal: 815-987-1341; at mwestpha@rrstar.com
Continue reading here:
Pedaling for Parkinson's: A workout that can help reduce shaking, tremors
Pedaling for Parkinson’s: A workout that can help reduce shaking, tremors
Ed McCaskey has lived with Parkinsons disease for six years, and now hes trying to help others like him mitigate some of their symptoms through exercise.
McCaskey, 59, was diagnosed with Parkinsons in 2006. He lives in Roscoe, Ill., and he joined the Stateline Family YMCA Roscoe Branch the same year, and he typically works out five days a week.
Exercise has been found to help reduce some of the symptoms like shaking and tremors associated with Parkinsons. That is why the YMCA of Greater Cleveland in Ohio developed a program called Pedaling for Parkinsons with the help of Cleveland Clinic physician Dr. Jay L. Alberts, a staff member with the Biomedical Engineering Center for Neurological Restoration.
The program in which participants exercise on indoor spin/cycling bikes and tandem bikes launched earlier this year, and McCaskey read about it in a Parkinsons newsletter and pitched it to his local YMCA. Research by Cleveland Clinic showed a 35 percent reduction in symptoms with the act of pedaling a bicycle at a rapid pace optimally 80 to 90 revolutions per minute.
The YMCA staff in Roscoe, Ill., agreed, and the one-hour class will meet three days a week starting Sept. 24 through Nov. 16. Its free to YMCA members and nonmembers alike.
Some class participants may need a relative or friend to drive them to the class, and McCaskey said YMCA officials will let those people use the Y facilities free of charge while they wait during the class.
More than 1 million people nationally are living with Parkinsons disease, and nearly 60,000 new cases are diagnosed each year, according to the National Parkinson Foundation. Parkinsons is a chronic degenerative disease that occurs when nerve cells in parts of the brain stem die or degenerate.
McCaskey recently traveled to Washington state and tried the Pedaling for Parkinsons class there. It was pretty easy for the marathon runner and regular spin-class participant, but he said its a great opportunity for Parkinsons patients to get moving and realize the benefits of exercise.
Im still pretty lucky because my symptoms are minimal, McCaskey said. After a good workout, a lot of those symptoms dissipate for a good part of the day. The exercise recommendation came from my doctor, but following up on it really reinforces what he says. Im experiencing the positive benefits.
Melissa Westphal: 815-987-1341; at mwestpha@rrstar.com
Continue reading here:
Pedaling for Parkinson's: A workout that can help reduce shaking, tremors