 |
|
Hematopoietic vs Embryonic Sources for Stem Cell Research—Reply
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 135 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In Reply: We agree with Dr Teitelbaum and colleagues that embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells have extraordinary promise. However, in the review we and our coauthors were trying to point out that at the present time hematopoietic stem cells can be tested and used clinically, whereas the clinical use of embryonic stem cells still poses some technical challenges. We did not assert or intimate that the available evidence obviates the need to explore all sources of stem cells such as embryonic stem cells, neural stem cells, skin stem cells, or others. The review should simply be read as it was intended—a comprehensive overview of the clinical use of hematopoietic stem cells—and not as a commentary about the relative long-term value or merit of different types of stem cells.
Financial Disclosures: None reported.
Richard Burt, MD
rburt@northwestern.edu
Division of Immunotherapy
John Kessler, MD
Department of Neurology
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
Chicago, Illinois
Yvonne Loh, MD
Department of Hematology
Singapore General Hospital
Singapore
Letters Section Editor: Robert M. Golub, MD, Senior Editor.
JAMA. 2008;299(23):2746-2747.
RELATED ARTICLE
Clinical Applications of Blood-Derived and Marrow-Derived Stem Cells for Nonmalignant Diseases
Richard K. Burt, Yvonne Loh, William Pearce, Nirat Beohar, Walter G. Barr, Robert Craig, Yanting Wen, Jonathan A. Rapp, and John Kessler
JAMA. 2008;299(8):925-936.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED LETTER
Hematopoietic vs Embryonic Sources for Stem Cell Research
Steven Teitelbaum, Shane Smith, and William Neaves
JAMA. 2008;299(23):2746.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
