ShareThis Page

Pitt scientist to seek replacement human parts with lymph nodes

| Thursday, Sept. 24, 2009

Need a new liver• Perhaps a better-functioning pancreas• Or maybe several hundred extra T-cells to fight infections?

Eric Lagasse thinks he's found a way to get the body to grow replacement tissue for failing organs, and the National Institutes of Health today plans to give the regenerative medicine scientist at University of Pittsburgh $3 million to give it his best shot.

"There are patients out there dying because there is no solution to their problem," said Lagasse, an associate professor in the department of pathology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

"I'm really pushing toward eventually doing this in a patient, and I'm going to try to get there in five years," said Lagasse, also a researcher at the McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, a joint venture of Pitt and UPMC. "Every time I talk to a surgeon about this, they get very excited."

The NIH grant is part of a new federal program to pay for risky research that, if successful, could pay off in a big way.

In addition, University of Pittsburgh engineer Ipsita Banerjee will receive $1.5 million to not only turn government-approved embryonic stem cells into insulin-producing cells for diabetics, but figure out how that process works.

By applying math and engineering principles, Banerjee plans to dissect the process and find areas that could be improved so that the stem cells are turned into as many high-quality insulin-producing cells as possible.

With his grant, Lagasee plans to use lymph nodes, part of the immune system, to grow new tissue. There are 500 lymph nodes throughout the body.

For example, if a patient needs a new kidney, Lagasse would find a nearby lymph node and introduce kidney cells that would turn into a new kidney. Because the lymph node has a good blood supply, it is an ideal site to grow tissues. Cancer has long known this, often hijacking lymph nodes to make cancer cells.

Normally, without many more years of research and several smaller grants, Lagasse and Banerjee said, their research wouldn't have had a chance of receiving such large government grants.

But the NIH pulled together scientists with a reputation for being able to think broadly about science, leaving behind their preconceived notions of what research is worthwhile, and asked them to select the best of hundreds of nontraditional proposals, said Keith Yamamoto, co-chairman of the NIH grant program's scientific review panel.

"We wanted to see if we could reach further and look for ... the kind of work that, instead of extending the current paradigm is disruptive of the traditional way of thinking," said Yamamoto, professor of cellular and molecular pharmacology at the University of California, San Francisco.

"So yes, it's risky, but we're really looking at these distinctive, bold ideas ... that, if correct, would have a huge impact."

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.