Right now, the jury is still out on STAP cells. It is not known for sure if STAP (stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency) is a genuine phenomenon. Top laboratories around the world, in Japan, the United States and elsewhere, are working to try to replicate the findings of Obokata et al. (Nature 505:641-647; Nature 505:676-680). As they do this, I sincerely hope they take the sage advice of Hans Scholer, who suggested that RIKEN (the main team who is attempting to replicate the work) involve Obokata in each and every step of the procedure (see Nature 508:299). Obokata insists that STAP is real. This may be the case, and it may be that the procedure is very tricky; she might have succeeded where others have failed because she has apparently spent every waking moment for years working out the details. This is our (the scientific community's) chance to really get to the bottom of this issue. If we blow this opportunity, we may never know the answer to this important question. If we're not careful, this moment could pass us by.
The reason why it is so important to know if STAP is real is because, if it is, then this will be a paradigm-shifting discovery. In the 1990s (and even earlier, through the work of Sir John Gurdon) we learned that the cytoplasm of an enucleated oocyte can reprogram a nucleus from a terminally-differentiated somatic cell that has been transferred into it (using somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT) to a plurpotent state. More recently, in 2006, we learned that a limited set of four factors, the so-called Yamanaka factors, can also reprogram somatic cells to pluripotency, producing iPS cells. These were astounding discoveries, ones that told us something remarkable about the nature of the cell: that it has the capacity to "reverse course" and become a pluropotent stem cell under certain conditions. If STAP is real, then this means that the conditions under which this sort of thing can occur are even broader than we ever could have imagined, to also include external triggers (low pH, mechanical stress). What would this tell us about nuclear-cytoplasmic interaction and the role of the whole cell in gene expression patterns? How would the human body (for instance) normally prevent this kind of reversion to pluripotency, which would potentially lead to cancer? These are exciting questions. Let's get this thing right; let's pursue all avenues to find out what the real answer is!
My two cents on this subject.
As someone with working experience in and admiration for both plant and animal (mammalian) cells I would like to put things into perspective here. The ability to reverse a 'differentiated' state to an 'embryonic' state was achieved in plant system by simple introduction of plant hormones (cytokinin and auxin) in their culture media. Many mammalian stem cell biologists, sadly, are not aware or do not appreciate this.
Yamanaka's discovery has undoubtedly been a game-changer for biology and medicine but my first reaction to his discovery was, 'its about time mammalian biology caught up to plants.' I felt that perhaps we could do even better.
I am tempted to ridicule the notion of pH induced stress as a method to reprogram but I have been often surprised in my life to know that there exists an inexplicable possibility for it to be real. I am sure everyone is keenly observing the controversy on STAP cells. It is certainly another revolutionary concept (if its real).
Dear Leonid
I agree with the 1st paragraph of your discussion (thanks), but with respect to the 2nd one, I disagree with your reasoning. What is the scientific evidence? Is it any observation that we have in our labs, or is it any thing acceptable by our thinking and logic? If you mean the former, how can you explain the dreams that all of us have over time? Don't they exist? If you mean the latter, God is reasonable and acceptable by my (and many others') logic.
The STAP cell controversy appears to have reached a fever pitch now, with the RIKEN investigative panel reinforcing its claim that Dr. Obokata engaged in scientific misconduct, and Obokata's side refusing to concede. As an outsider looking in, I have to admit that the case for misconduct--a spliced gel image and an image borrowed from an entirely different set of experiments--does appear strong. Moreover, Obokata allegedly was very poor at keeping a lab notebook, so much so that one cannot follow what she did by looking at her records. The salient point here is that, while these accusations do not address the core issue of whether STAP cells can really exist, they do serve to lessen Obokata's credibility. And this, in turn, lowers enthusiasm on the part of others to try to replicate the work. When the bearer of the message (of the reality of STAP) is so flawed, one tends to be less inclined to try to test it to see if it is true.
The stalemate between RIKEN and Obokata is frustrating because all people really want to know is whether STAP is genuine or an artifact. Critics in the Japanese media have begun to express frustration at the state of affairs, calling for a renewed focus on STAP itself, not the players involved. I agree, although I have to admit that these two things are inextricably linked.
Read this excellent article in the today's Mainichi Daily News (in English): http://mainichi.jp/english/english/perspectives/news/20140515p2a00m0na006000c.html
I am very skeptical about this STAP cells. Read this excellent article about the case. This is very informative: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/18/haruko-obokata-stap-cells-controversy-scientists-lie
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Statistical Techniques
- Meta-Analysis