Conference notes from Genostem International Symposium on Mesenchymal Stem Cells

Genostem is a consortium of 160 European scientists from 11 EC member countries comprising 11 academic institutions and 5 private enterprises. The project, founded in 2004, is focused on developing and applying advances in cell based therapies for the regeneration of connective tissue. However, judging from the research reported in the recent meeting, they remain competitive.

We had some interesting discussion within our group, so I thought I would share some brief thoughts.

Is stemness an artifact of tissue culture?

The first speaker was was Laure Coulombel from INSERM France. Her introductory talk was titled: “Stem cells: a single word for multiple entities”. The hypothesis presented here was that potency, as the term is usually used in the context of stem cells, is a fluid state. It’s a little like a ball on a hill, being pushed in many downhill directions at once. It only stays perched on top of the hill if the vector sum of all the forces cancel out. Apoptosis, bone differentiation, and fat differentiation all represent possible lower potential energy states but are mutually exclusive. Later on in the talk, Rocky Tuan from the NIH presented some data that seems to support this. Tuan’s experiments went like this: They transduced MSCs with the osteocalcin promoter fused to GFP. This would cause the cells to produce GFP under conditions where the OC promoter is active, which is in the late stage of osteoblast differentiation. Then they cultured cells under conditions where the cells undergo osteogenesis in vitro and the GFP increased orders of magnitude. Next, they sorted out the green cells cells by FACS, cultured them under non-inducing conditions, then switched them to fat-inducing conditions. GFP levels dropped near zero and the cells differentiated into adipocytes. After doing this, they repeated the whole thing backwards, using a PPARγ-GFP construct and going from fat to bone.

Kinda puts Yamanaka and Thomson’s work in a new light, doesn’t it?

Other items of note:

  • Pierre Charbord, the Director of Genostem, presented some information about CD200, an immunoregulatory protein which is only found on the surface of undifferentiated MSCs.
  • Rocky Tuan also presented his tissue engineering work on chondrocyte constructs. poly-ε-caprolactone is electrospun into a scaffold with fibers about half a cell width wide. MSCs are seeded on these scaffolds and cultured in a rotating wall culture vessel, where they grow into chondrocyte constructs the size of a tomato(~5 cm). They’re still using 8 mm punch biopsies in their cartilage repair model, however, so it could be that a significant portion of the construct is inert or merely structural; However, he did say that the scaffolding material is absorbed and replaced with proteoglycan as the construct develops.
  • Katerina LeBlanc presented her work on MSCs immunomodulation in graft vs. host disease. She cautions that in some cases MSCs express MHC Class I and II and therefore can act as antigen-presenting cells in some cases, depending on the amount of IFNγ present. She also reports that MSCs produce a humoral response when cultured in medium containing FBS, but is able to reduce this by short-term culture of the cells in medium where the FBS is replaced with a small amount of the patient’s serum using a protocol our lab developed1, 2.
    Apparently they have also found (and don’t ask me how, I don’t think I want to know) that MSCs are killed by HIV infection, but are resistant to EBV.

I’m pleased to see such active and interesting work being done by the new organization. One thing that is particularly striking about Genostem is the collaborative nature of the member labs. All 30 labs share the €18 million in research funding, so instead of competing with one another, they’ve joined forces and seem to be making particularly good use of what would be considered a paltry sum for an American consortium of that size.

Is it open science?

There’s no blog, and I can’t find anything on a Connotea, but Mayetic Village, a Parisian “collaborative workspace” company lists them among its customers. Unfortunately, it’s closed to nonmembers.

I’d be happy to add anyone to the MSC Biology group on Connotea, I made, but there doesn’t appear to be a way to add anyone to it once it’s been created.

2collab: A review, kinda.

Via Deepak, I hear of Elsevier’s new social bookmarking effort. Bookmarking services are great because they remove the drudgery out of maintaining a list of references or doing a literature review when writing a paper or proposal. 2collab is particularly nice because not only does it show you the references cited by the bookmarked paper, but it shows you papers citing the bookmarked article as well, making it as easy to go forwards as backwards in your literature review. It also shows you else is bookmarking your papers and commenting upon them, which given a large enough user base, can serve as an indicator of popularity/impact of a paper. Surprisingly(for a product from Elsevier), it’s open, free, supports import and export, and there’s going to be a public API.
Continue reading

There are some problems more important than the moral status of a stem cell.

Stayin’ Alive, a consistently entertaining and thought-provoking blog, has the perfect antidote to an overdose on pluripotent stem cell reporting.

We’re obsessed with a non-existent threat of the Islamofascist movement taking over the world, the moral status of zygotes, the invading brown Mexican hordes who are going to make us all eat tortillas and play giant guitars or something — in the worst case scenario, they might even get driver’s licenses — and how we can cut taxes on investment income.

I’m sticky!

I was going through my logs banning spammers (using the Antileech plug-in, so let me know if you see feed weirdness) and I was pleased to find that according to cureparalysisnow.org, I’m an excellent resource.

I don’t know much about this organization, but a cursory Google search turns up mostly other spinal cord injury and paralysis advocacy groups, so it doesn’t seem like a bad group to be associated with. Please do let me know in the comments if you have any news regarding them.

Citing journal articles in blog posts and blog posts in journal articles

Wheel I’ve written before about what seems to be the most persistent and error-proof way to handle citing journal articles in blog posts and blog posts in journal articles (1,2), because it seems like some people have gone to quite extensive efforts to address this problem, apparently without looking to see if someone else has already gotten started on a solution. I’m glad to see that people are starting to talk to one another about how to handle things, as opposed to creating their own version of the wheel.

Recent developments:

  • The people at WebCite are talking to CrossRef:
  • But what if we provided a different service for more informal content? Recently we have been in talking with Gunther Eysenbach, the creator of the very cool WebCite service about whether CrossRef could/should operate a citation caching service for ephemera.

    As I said, I think WebCite is wonderful, but I do see a few problems with it in its current incarnation.

    The first is that, the way it works now, it seems to effectively leech usage statistics away from the source of the content. If I have a blog entry that gets cited frequently, I certainly don’t want all the links (and their associated Google-juice) redirected away from my blog. As long as my blog is working, I want traffic coming to my copy of the content, not some cached copy of the content (gee- the same problem publishers face, no?). I would also, ideally, like that traffic to continue to come to to my blog if I move hosting providers, platforms (WordPress, Moveable Type) , blog conglomerates (Gawker, Weblogs, Inc.), etc.

    The second issue I have with WebCite is simpler. I don’t really fancy having to actually recreate and run a web-caching infrastructure when there is already a formidable one in existence.

    The people at Crossref know about Purl.org, Archive.org, and they share my rather dim opinion of the NLM’s recommendation’s for citing websites. However, the people at WebCite.org apparently didn’t know that you can deposit things upon request into Archive.org. If CrossRef goes forward with their idea, perhaps working with Purl.org like they did with DOI, it would pretty much make WebCite irrelevant, and I wouldn’t have to be frustrated by seeing http://webcitation.org/f973p4y in a paper and never knowing if it’s worth following the link or not(at least there’s a greasemonkey fix for YouTube Links).

  • The bpr3.org people are talking to the people at Postgenomic:
  • “Bloggers for Peer-Reviewed Research Reporting strives to identify serious academic blog posts about peer-reviewed research by offering an icon and an aggregation site where others can look to find the best academic blogging on the Net.”

    It is all great except that it already exists and for a long time before BPR3. You can go to the papers section in Postgenomic and select papers by the date they were published, were blogged about, how many bloggers mentioned the paper or limit this search to a particular journal. I have even used this early this year to suggest that the number of citations increases with the number of blog posts mentioning the paper.

    See comments hereand at Hublog.