Personalized Stem Cells? Not This Time
Posted by Jesse Reynolds June 9, 2007
Biopolitical Times
Time magazine's website this week zealously reported a new service in which prospective parents undergoing IVF can bank their own "personalized" stem cell lines for potential future therapies. But as with much stem cell reporting, effort is needed to separate any true potential from speculation and hype.
Numbers are the first consideration. The company offering this service, StemLifeLine, requires prospective parents to provide at least ten embryos. Yet a typical IVF cycle produces, on average, just around this number. Some, or even most, of these are needed for reproduction. Furthermore, several others typically aren't viable enough to reach the blastocyst stage, and a portion of the embryos shipped to StemLifeLine would be damaged in the freezing and thawing process. One publicized, although a bit dated, study estimated that the conversion rate of frozen embryos to stem cell lines is about 2.5%, implying that most prospective parents will not get a cell line, even if they can provide the required ten embryos.
The second issue is the science. There are currently no therapies from embryonic stem cells, and assuming there will be, it remains unclear how important the genetic match between the cell line and patient would be. While banking as an "insurance policy" may seem wise, the cost - which is likely to be tens of thousands of dollars - must also be considered. As with umbilical cord blood banking, the current state of research doesn't seem to justify the expense. Dr. Renee Reijo Pera, director of Stanford University's Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Center, said of the StemLifeLine service, "Given the current status of the research and the many innovations that are likely down the road, the value of this service is minimal, especially in light of the difficulties with cryopreservation."
Finally, one should bear in mind the company behind the service. StemLifeLine was founded only two years ago, and has no track record of successfully offering any other services.
Pretty much every start-up company tries to drum up early support for its services. But the story's author (who, coincidentally, heads Time's science department) should be able to better separate the wheat from the chaff.
Numbers are the first consideration. The company offering this service, StemLifeLine, requires prospective parents to provide at least ten embryos. Yet a typical IVF cycle produces, on average, just around this number. Some, or even most, of these are needed for reproduction. Furthermore, several others typically aren't viable enough to reach the blastocyst stage, and a portion of the embryos shipped to StemLifeLine would be damaged in the freezing and thawing process. One publicized, although a bit dated, study estimated that the conversion rate of frozen embryos to stem cell lines is about 2.5%, implying that most prospective parents will not get a cell line, even if they can provide the required ten embryos.
The second issue is the science. There are currently no therapies from embryonic stem cells, and assuming there will be, it remains unclear how important the genetic match between the cell line and patient would be. While banking as an "insurance policy" may seem wise, the cost - which is likely to be tens of thousands of dollars - must also be considered. As with umbilical cord blood banking, the current state of research doesn't seem to justify the expense. Dr. Renee Reijo Pera, director of Stanford University's Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Center, said of the StemLifeLine service, "Given the current status of the research and the many innovations that are likely down the road, the value of this service is minimal, especially in light of the difficulties with cryopreservation."
Finally, one should bear in mind the company behind the service. StemLifeLine was founded only two years ago, and has no track record of successfully offering any other services.
Pretty much every start-up company tries to drum up early support for its services. But the story's author (who, coincidentally, heads Time's science department) should be able to better separate the wheat from the chaff.
