CELL BIOLOGY:
A
Versatile Cell Line Raises Scientific Hopes, Legal
Questions
Eliot Marshall
Imagine being able to reach into the freezer, take out a cell
culture, treat it with growth factors, and produce almost any tissue
in the human body. Sounds like science fiction? Today, it is. But
the raw material for such human tissue engineering--in the form of a
type of universal cell called a "stem" cell--is now growing in the
laboratory. In a long-awaited announcement, biologist James Thomson
and his team at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, report in this
issue of Science that they have isolated stem cells from
human embryos and coaxed them to grow in five "immortal" cell lines.
Other biologists are hailing the work, reported on page 1145,
as an important advance that will provide a powerful tool for
biological research. In a matter of years, some researchers say, it
may even be possible to use such cells to repair blood, bone, and
other tissues. But the achievement has also created a dilemma, which
will only intensify as other groups who are close behind Thomson's
report similar feats: Many researchers who would ordinarily jump at
a chance to use and develop these cells may not be able to do so,
because they may be blocked by a U.S. law that forbids the use of
public funds for research on tissues derived from human embryos. As
Science went to press, the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) was reviewing whether these cell lines come under the law. The
law may apply in this case because the cells used to create
Thomson's cell lines came from embryos donated to research by
couples at in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics in Wisconsin and
Israel.
Thomson had to carefully wall off his own research from any
public funding, by setting up a separate lab in a building "across
campus" from where he does NIHfunded research. All the equipment and
personnel in the duplicate lab are funded privately, mostly by the
Geron Corp. of Menlo Park, California, plus a grant from the
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, the university's patent agent.
In return, Geron expects to get an exclusive license for commercial
uses of Thomson's technology.
 1014_files/1014-1-thumb.gif)
Labor-intensive. James Thomson's
technique requires a deft touch for cells to grow without
differentiating.
The challenge Thomson faced was to create an environment that was
neither too harsh, which would prevent the cells from thriving, nor
too cozy, which would allow them to differentiate into specialized
forms. Thomson, who began working with embryos from rhesus monkeys 5
years ago, stimulated cells from days-old human embryos, called
blastocysts, to grow on a layer of mouse "feeder" cells in a lab
dish. Other researchers had gone this far, but Thomson took the next
step: He coaxed the balky cells to continue growing without
differentiating--making an irrevocable commitment to grow into a
particular type of tissue. Thomson nudged the cells gently into this
new state through very "labor-intensive" tending, he says, and their
chromosomes survived intact. (Tumor cells are immortal, too, but
their DNA is usually deranged.) And judging by the presence of a
critical enzyme called telomerase, which repairs frayed chromosome
ends, Thomson concludes that the cells are capable of reproducing
indefinitely. Yet tests showed that the cells retain the potential
to develop into all the basic tissue types.
Only a few of Thomson's peers had learned of his accomplishment
last week, but those who knew of it said they were impressed. Austin
Smith, a stem cell researcher at the University of Edinburgh in
Scotland, called it an "extremely important" milestone. Molecular
biologist Brigid Hogan of Vanderbilt University in Nashville,
Tennessee, a pioneer of mouse stem cell technology, calls the
development "very encouraging." John Gearhart, a developmental
geneticist at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who is
using a different method to establish a culture of human embryonic
cells, describes Thomson's research in a commentary on page 1061
of this issue as "a major technical achievement with great
importance for human biology."
Gearhart was in a close race with Thomson to publish first but
wasn't able to move his project along quite as rapidly. In a paper
coming out in the 10 November Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, Gearhart will announce that he, too, has
established a line of embryonic stem cells. His are derived from
primordial germ cells, precursors of sperm and oocytes, isolated
from medically aborted fetuses. Gearhart and his team have sustained
some of these cells in culture for as long as 9 months, but he
concedes that "Jamie [Thomson] has done a lot more" to characterize
his stem cells and deserved to be first. Like Thomson and Roger
Pedersen, another stem cell researcher at the University of
California, San Francisco, Gearhart turned to Geron for support
because it was unclear whether he could do the work with public
funds. And, like the other two U.S. groups, his team plans to
license patents to Geron.
Other developers of human embryonic stem cell technology are
close behind. Martin Pera at Monash University in Clayton,
Australia, reports that his team--together with scientists at the
Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem and the National University of
Singapore--has "achieved extensive serial cultivation" of cells from
human blastocysts, which he expects will meet the criteria for human
embryonic stem cells. Smith says that his team at Edinburgh has been
trying to develop a human stem cell line, too, but doesn't yet have
anything to announce.
Thomson says the first big payoff will be to aid fundamental
research on human development. He points out that the details of
human embryo development after implantation are essentially
unstudied. Animal models haven't been useful, he says: "For example,
the placenta and all the extraembryonic membranes differ
fundamentally between humans and mice." Now, scientists may be able
to produce cells specific to stages of human development that have
been inaccessible to research. By manipulating gene expression in
these cells, they might be able to probe how development can go
wrong.
Another payoff, one that could be lucrative for Geron in the
not-too- distant future, according to Geron Vice President Thomas
Okarma, will be drug screening. Okarma says, "The potential to
supply unlimited quantities of normal human cells of virtually any
tissue type could have a major impact on pharmaceutical research and
development." Cell lines used for drug screening are currently
derived from animals or "abnormal" human tissue, such as tumor
cells.
The real "home run" of this technology, Okarma says, is the
"enormous" possibility that researchers might be able to tailor stem
cells genetically so that they would avoid attack by a patient's
immune system, then direct them to specialize into a particular kind
of tissue and transplant them into diseased organs. Geron suggests
it might be possible to repair damaged heart muscle by injecting new
cardiomyocytes, for example. Okarma points out that researchers have
already used mouse stem cells to produce cardiomyocytes that were
successfully transplanted into a mouse heart.
But that possibility also remains the most distant. "Right now,"
says Thomson, "we don't know how to direct [stem cells] to become
any specific cells." And developing cells that can be
immunologically suitable for transplantation will take even more
work. Still, Thomson says, "it's no longer in the realm of science
fiction; I really believe that within my lifetime I will see
diseases treated by these therapies."
For some researchers, however, the complicated legal issues
associated with the cell lines may prove discouraging. Federal law
governing this topic was updated most recently in the 4000-page
appropriation bill Congress passed on 20 October. It says U.S. funds
may not be used for "the creation of a human embryo" for research
purposes, or for "research in which a human embryo or embryos are
destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or
death. ..." The embryo is defined as any organism not protected as a
human subject under other laws (such as those applying to fetal
tissue) "that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning,
or any other means from one or more human gametes or diploid cells."
When NIH officials learned of Thomson's work, their initial
reaction was that federal funds could not be used for research using
his cell lines. But director Harold Varmus sought legal counsel, and
a top aide told Science that the cells may be exempt from
the law because they could not grow into embryos. NIH was scrambling
to come up with a final ruling by the time Thomson's paper was
published. The cell line Gearhart is developing may not have the
same legal complications because it was derived from fetal, not
embryonic, cells.
The law clearly prohibits the use of federal funds for the
initial development of an embryonic stem cell line, however. Okarma
says Geron carefully considered the ethical implications before
proceeding. "We recognize and affirm that there is moral authority
associated with this tissue," he says. Geron has established a panel
of ethical advisers, chaired by Karen Lebacqz of the Pacific School
of Religion in Berkeley, California, representing "five different
religious traditions," Okarma says. The panel approved the stem cell
project, he says, on the basis that Geron was making beneficial use
of fetal tissue and IVF embryos that would have been discarded or
frozen indefinitely.
Researchers are hoping that the legal uncertainties hanging over
Thomson's cell lines can be cleared up quickly. "People have been a
little scared off by the controversy" already, says Smith, and "it
would be a tragedy if [legal barriers] exclude the best people" from
the field.