HARUKO OBOKATANo surprise here: after five months of controversy surrounding the stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) studies, Nature this week (July 2) issued retractions of both papers, as well as a News and Views article published alongside them in January. In an editorial, the journal said that its editors and reviews could not have detected the issues that ultimately led to the studies’ demise. Nature said it was misled by the authors and is taking steps to ensure there won’t be another STAP saga.
OHSU In a comparative analysis led by investigators who last year introduced the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technique to dedifferentiate somatic cells, SCNT-derived cells showed more likeness to human embryonic stem cells than did induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) derived from the same source. The team’s work was published in Nature this week (July 2).
“This is an extremely important study showing that differences exist between stem cells made by nuclear transfer compared to reprogramming by transcription factors [to create iPSCs],” George Daley, a stem cell biologist at Children’s Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School who was not involved in the work, told The Scientist in an e-mail. “It suggests that reprogramming by nuclear transfer may be slightly more effective than reprogramming by transcription factors.”
WIKIMEDIA, GOLDMUND100A growing number of institutions are banking on stem cells-as-a-service, with iPSCs a primary focus. The Scientist this week (June 30) examines the rise of iPSC banks and charted the challenges these repositories are facing.
“The return for it potentially, ...
