Scientists Build A Beating Heart

Researchers Say Beating Rat Heart Created From Scratch Could Aid In Preventing Organ Rejection

(AP)  Researchers seeking new treatments for heart disease managed to grow a rat heart in the lab and start it beating.

"While it still sounds like science fiction, we've hopefully opened a new door in the notion that we can build these tissues and one day provide options for patients with end-stage disease," said Dr. Doris Taylor, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Repair at the University of Minnesota. "We're not there yet, but at least now we have another tool in our tool belt."

Taylor led the team whose research appeared in Sunday's online edition of the journal Nature Medicine.

Scientists have worked for years for ways to grow body parts. Many efforts have focused on heart valves as an alternative to the plastic or animal valves that wear out after being implanted in humans.

An estimated 5 million people live with heart failure and about 550,000 new cases are diagnosed each year in the United States. Approximately 50,000 die annually waiting for a heart donor.

Taylor said in a telephone interview that her team began by trying to determine if it were possible to transplant rat heart cells. They took the hearts from eight newborn rats and removed all the cells. Left behind was a gelatin-like matrix shaped like a heart and containing conduits where the blood vessels had been. Scientists then injected cells back into this scaffold - muscle cells and endothelial cells, which line blood vessels.

The muscle cells covered the matrix walls and lined up together, while the endothelial cells found their way inside to coat the blood vessels, she said. Then the hearts were stimulated electrically.

"By two days we saw tiny, microscopic contractions, and by seven to eight days there were contractions large enough to see with the naked eye," she said. The tiny hearts could pump liquid at about one-fourth the rate of a normal fetal rat's heart.

"Obviously we have a long way to go," Taylor said. But the long-term hope, she said, is that a similar process could work with either human hearts from cadavers or pig hearts, with their cells stripped off and replaced by cells from the person needing a heart transplant to avoid rejection.

The next step is to take a pig heart, strip away the cells and repopulate it with cells from a pig to see if it will work in the larger heart.

Dr. John Mayer Jr., a heart specialist and researcher at Children's Hospital in Boston, said the report was an "important paper that advances the ball down the road." But, he added, "It's pretty long road."

Mayer, who was not part of Taylor's research team, noted that this was done in a small animal and it remains to be seen whether the same can be done in larger ones. He also wondered whether blood would flow freely, without clotting, through the reconstructed blood vessels.

"I think this is an important contribution, with more work to be done," Mayer said in a telephone interview.

In her research paper, Taylor also reports that the researchers are working on reseeding cells into other organs, including lungs, liver and kidneys.

The research was funded by the University of Minnesota and the Medtronic Foundation, the charitable arm of a medical company that makes heart devices such as stents and defibrillators.

[jimfinster]

ToolMangler:

Ya, likewise. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably :)

[toolmangler-2009]

I had forgotten that someone else on this planet ''thinks'' havent seen it in a while (grin)

[jimfinster]

Why? If I accept something on faith, that is up to me. I have not taken anything from you, have I? If you wish to accept on Faith, that is up to you. I can do nothing for you but tell ''''MY'''' truth.
Posted by ToolMangler

I am fine with that. But be careful not to confuse faith with fact. They might or might not be the same. That is the only point I was trying to make...

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- Thomas Jefferson

[toolmangler-2009]

You can''''t claim definitive knowledge without definitive proof.
Posted by jimfinster at 06:41 PM : Jan 14, 2008


Why? If I accept something on faith, that is up to me. I have not taken anything from you, have I? If you wish to accept on Faith, that is up to you. I can do nothing for you but tell ''MY'' truth.

[toolmangler-2009]

Posted by jimfinster at 06:43 PM : Jan 14, 2008


Here is the difference, The point I make is "I believe what I say" for me that is sufficient. If you wish you may accept that or search it out in your own way. If you say the the " Flying Spaghetti Monster" Is your GOD, I as a thinking person must now decide if your words have credence. That puts the pressure on me. The only thing that now affects you is "did you lie or not" (you can see where this will go, so I won''t belabor it.)

[jimfinster]

For example, I can claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster controls the universe. I am free to make that claim. But clearly no one should believe me if I can''t support the claim with verifiable facts.

Not an attack on you by any means.

[jimfinster]

t requires no proof from me at all, I do not claim ownership or control of GOD, Were I selling (whatever)then I could be required to furnish some proof. The only thing I have done in my words is to show ''''my belief'''' through the conveyance of my words. You are entirely welcome to demand proof, but not from me. I do not ''''own'''' GOD, I belong to him. All I can tell you is ''''my'''' experience with GOD, nothing else.
Posted by ToolMangler

If you claim it, you must proof it. You can''t claim definitive knowledge without definitive proof.

[toolmangler-2009]

Descartes said "I think therfore ''I'' am!" This for him is a correct statement. All I can say is thats good for you, but what about ''me''. does your state of being define me, or merely suggest me? Each one of us (humans) must come to some agreement within himself that he exists, (because of a preponderance of evidence) or fail to accept it and curl into a ''fetal'' ball and die. By the same token, our perception of GOD is an inward thing that must be searched out and agreed on or rejected whereupon we die ''inwardly at first then outwardly'' near the end.

[toolmangler-2009]

Saying there is a God is extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Posted by jimfinster at 06:14 PM : Jan 14, 2008



It requires no proof from me at all, I do not claim ownership or control of GOD, Were I selling (whatever)then I could be required to furnish some proof. The only thing I have done in my words is to show ''my belief'' through the conveyance of my words. You are entirely welcome to demand proof, but not from me. I do not ''own'' GOD, I belong to him. All I can tell you is ''my'' experience with GOD, nothing else.

[jimfinster]

ToolMangler:

As Michael Shermer might say, I am a militant agnostic :)

That means "I don''t know and you don''t either!" If someone claims to know, my response is "prove it". Saying there is a God is extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[toolmangler-2009]

jimfinster, I mean no disrespect by my journalistic brevity, I have always seen the universe as a giant question mark and I am sure of my concept (as far as I know) (catch 22, there) of the universe as being valid in my eyes. Feel free to ask any question any time and I hope GOD answers you in the same way he does me.

[toolmangler-2009]

By your definition, God is supernatural (ie above or apart from natural explanation). Do you believe in other supernatural things as well?
Posted by jimfinster at 05:15 PM : Jan 14, 2008



I have found no evidence to rule them in or out, as I said in all honesty, "That is none of ''my'' business, I cannot alter one whit of anything on GODs ''Plane of existance'' If I cannot do anything about it it belongs to him, not me.

[jimfinster]

ToolMangler:

By your definition, God is supernatural (ie above or apart from natural explanation). Do you believe in other supernatural things as well?

[toolmangler-2009]

Ah, the old "intelligent design" theory. Riddle: who designed the Designer? And who designed the Designer''''s Designer?
Posted by jimfinster at 01:20 PM : Jan 14, 2008



AH!! The old "which came first, the chicken or the egg"?
That is a valid question where all things are ''physical''. The Universe we live in is physical. The ''creator'' of this universe is not. If GOD needed to be created in the place he lives, thats his business, all I need to ''know'' is that he created us, thats my business. creation proves evolution to me and evolution proves creation. If people cannot see that, I am sorry for them. They have the same information I do and can come to the same realization I did if they only look in the right place, (their hearts during prayer) BTW, People don''t know how to pray. They keep making plea''s to GOD without doing what he asked first. A true prayer is a talk with GOD in your heart to try and understand his word better. You don''t have one thing that GOD needs but your love, He made all of this so he owns it already, You can share it to the max under the right conditions, but they all depend on your feelings and actions toward GOD and your fellow man.

[rf35]

Somehow, somewhere, someone "accidentally" got him/her/itself created. Are we just one part of a long chain of creator/created beings or are we the first? Will we create a life-form that will one day worship us as gods? Have we already started down this path? Will an artificial intelligence entity we create come to see us as the Lords of All in some future time? Or will it pick a particular human as the "One True God?" Assuming a creator, how long, in his/her/its reference frame, did it take to get to humans? Will our creations ever kill each other in our name and will we judge them good in doing so?

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature...It is the opium of the people."

[jimfinster]

Our experience suggests that as things progress there is a degradation (copies of copies degrade right !)only in "evolution" do complexity and perfection increase . Strange isn''''t it.
As a scientist myself, I am always testing new ideas, and not in lock step with what I have been "taught" to believe. Name calling is a sign of deperation.
Use your mind .
Posted by colonieNY

Ah, the old "intelligent design" theory. Riddle: who designed the Designer? And who designed the Designer''s Designer?

[rf35]

This technology is too young to be useful at this moment and because the Powers That Be have now been warned, it will never be allowed to develop and reach its full potential. Someone will kill this research for monitary, political, and/or religious reasons and we will not hear much more about it.

On a lighter note, I''d like to lock colonieNY and singinrick together in a room and see whose version of faith comes out alive!

[erichsh]

The moonbats can''t leave Bush/Cheney out of this, can they? Who are you going to gripe about once they leave office? Or will all the world''s problems magically disappear that day?

[searingtruth]

A Grand Challenge (Part 1 of 3)

My friends, the simple truth is that we are wasting our precious time, resources, intellect, and passion. As a species we are just as aimless today as when our primitive ancestors first ventured out upon this earth.

Today I am proposing that for the first time in human history, we change that.

Radically.

More than any time in history, humanity needs a grand challenge. Not only to avert its extinction, but also to indelibly etch the common bond of mutual reliance and cooperation on current and future generations.

Fortunately, all of the forces that now seem to conspire against us can quickly be turned to our advantage.

For the first time in human history we actually possess technologies so advanced that any physical problem can potentially be solved.

And yet, I wonder, do we possess the will and wisdom to utilize them for our salvation instead of our destruction?

I propose that we find out.

So today I offer you a radical and stark choice between two future realities.


Excerpt from A Future of the Brave %u2013 www.searingtruth.com

[searingtruth]

A Grand Challenge (Part 2 of 3)

An aimless future of continued war and conflict, with all its accompanying suffering and death; or a limitless future dedicated to defeating suffering and death itself, with all its accompanying technological advancement and social evolution.

Yes indeed, I have a new plan, for all of you. A plan of hope. A plan of adventure. A plan of such extraordinary magnitude as to take the breath, and challenge the senses, of all who would consider it. A plan to bind our common people in hope, and finally free our conscience for noble purpose.

I propose that in the next three decades we at last end the scourge of human disease upon this earth, and begin the inevitable adventure of humanity%u2019s migration beyond it.

We shall at last unlock the fundamental secrets of our biology so we may conquer any illness or defect at will, and we shall free ourselves from the bonds of our native home so we may evade global calamities, and begin the expansion of our species beyond this world.

No longer shall our survival be dependent upon the random and dispassionate forces of nature. No longer shall we quiver in anguish as we helplessly watch those we love suffer and die in agony from an endless list of human disease and dysfunction. No longer shall our globe be divided in constant turmoil and conflict while the hammer of fate hangs precariously balanced over all we know and love.

Excerpt from A Future of the Brave %u2013 www.searingtruth.com