UCR Profs Get Stem-Cell Funding
By Charlotte Hsu, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Calif.
Mar. 20–RIVERSIDE — Two UC Riverside researchers plan to embark next month on two-year research projects that could provide vital information about growing embryonic stem cells and manipulating them into different types of cells.
Michael Pirrung, a professor of chemistry, and Frank Sauer, an associate professor of biochemistry, each received grants of more than $500,000 last month from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine so they could proceed with their experiments.
Embryonic stem cells are cells that have not yet developed characteristics that would determine how they will be used by the body, such as for building muscles or nerves.
Because embryonic stem cells can give rise to various types of cells found in the human body, researchers have theorized they could be used to treat diseases such as Parkinson’s, in which the death or damage of nerve cells in the brain causes patients to lose full control of bodily movements.
But for problems to be treated, scientists first must find ways to grow stem cells and induce them to become a desired type of cell, which Pirrung and Sauer are trying to address.
Sauer said he hoped his and Pirrung’s research would help advance their university’s reputation in the field of regenerative medicine.
“It puts UCR on the map for stem-cell research and it shows that we’re engaged in … research that matches our ambitions to start a medical school here,” he said.
Pirrung and a group of four scientists will try to develop chemical compounds that mimic the characteristics of neurotrophin, a protein that helps stem cells multiply.
He said he became interested in the line of research after hearing from a UC Irvine professor who co-discovered that neurotrophin helps stem cells survive in the laboratory.
Pirrung had already worked with chemical compounds that behaved similarly to neurotrophin in experiments that did not involve stem cells, and he was eager to see if he could find similar success working with stem cells.
Because proteins such as neurotrophin are expensive to create, using a chemical compound that mimics neurotrophin would be a cheaper way to grow stem cells, Pirrung said.
He also expects to test whether certain compounds can direct an embryonic stem cell to become a neuron.
Sauer’s research deals with differentiation, or the process by which an embryonic stem cell becomes a specific type of cell.
He plans to test whether different strands of non-coding ribonucleic acid, molecules also known as non-coding RNA, can induce differentiation by acting as “molecular switches,” causing a stem cell to produce proteins that would then characterize it as muscle or other type of cell.
If Sauer’s experiments are successful, each strand of non-coding RNA would activate a protein-producing gene in a stem cell. The right combination of activated genes would cause the cell to become a desired cell type, Sauer said.
Pirrung and Sauer said they felt confident their research would yield useful results. But both also noted that though hopes for treatments are grand, many qualities of stem cells are still a mystery to scientists.
“If you look at it, you would be amazed about how little is known,” Pirrung said.
The institute that funded Pirrung’s and Sauer’s studies was created by state voters through their approval of Proposition 71, which also authorized $3billion in grants for research.
Although that money is not yet available, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has begun funding research through loans from the state and private sources, said spokesman Dale Carlson.
Pirrung believes the institute and voters’ largesse could help California become a mecca for research on stem cells derived from embryos, especially since federal funding can only be used for tests involving a small number of pre-approved stem-cell lines.
Carlson said Pirrung’s and Sauer’s awards were part of $45 million in grants targeted toward researchers who were new in the field.
“Because of the dearth of federal funding that’s been available for embryonic stem-cell research, we wanted to sort of kick-start stem-cell research in California,” Carlson said. “There was some concern that people might not be going into this field because they were concerned (that) for the long term, funding would not be available for the work they wanted to do. We wanted to send a very strong signal that we would be funding this research.”
He added that more than 30 scientists from around the world have relocated their laboratories to California so they could work with stem cells.
Pirrung said his research — whether it yields the right compounds or not — is important because young scientists working on the project will leave with more hands-on experience.
As a university professor, he said, part of his job is training a new generation of scientists who may one day take research posts in the pharmaceutical and other industries.
STEM-CELL FUNDING
The following are highlights of the progression of the national debate over stem-cell research, from August 2001:
2001
AUGUST: President Bush mandates that federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research will be restricted to experiments on stem-cell lines already in existence, thus preventing researchers from using federal money on stem-cell lines they would create from new embryos.
2004
NOVEMBER: California voters give the go-ahead to Proposition 71, which created a $3billion state program to fund stem-cell research.
2005
JANUARY: New Jersey’s governor announces the creation of a $150million, state-funded stem-cell research center.
FEBRUARY: Groups opposed to stem-cell research help file legal challenges asking that California be prohibited from disbursing the $3billion in research money.
MAY: Legislators in Connecticut earmark $100million for stem-cell research over 10 years.
JULY: Illinois’ governor issues an executive order dedicating $10million to stem-cell research. Then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., announces his support for loosening federal restrictions on stem-cell research.
2006
FEBRUARY: The court trial to determine whether Proposition 71 funding can be disbursed begins in California.
APRIL: A court upholds Proposition 71 funding. The decision is appealed by Proposition 71 opponents.
2007
FEBRUARY: Proposition 71 funding is upheld by a California appeals court. An appeal to the state Supreme Court is expected. A final decision is expected before the end of the year.
Sources: Nicholas C. Petris Center on Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare at UC Berkeley; Dale Carlson, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine spokesman.
—–
To see more of the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.dailybulletin.com
Copyright (c) 2007, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Calif.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News.
For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.