Cord Blood Stem Cells Information

What are cord blood cells, and do they have the same potential medicinal benefits as embryonic stem cells?

Explain this statement: If more people would donate the cord blood then we wouldn't have to use the embryonic cells. What does this mean, and if it's true, why don't women do it? Is there any harm involved?

Public Comments

1. Umbilical cord blood is blood that remains in the placenta and in the attached umbilical cord after childbirth. Cord blood is obtained from the umbilical cord at the time of childbirth, after the cord has been detached from the newborn.[1] Cord blood is collected because it contains stem cells, including hematopoietic cells, which can be used to treat hematopoietic and genetic disorders.[2] Some placental blood may be returned to the neonatal circulation if the umbilical cord is not prematurely clamped.[3] In some obstetric and midwifery practices, physiological extended-delayed cord clamping protocol, as well as water birth, allows for the cord blood to pulse into the neonate for 2–20 minutes after delivery.[4] If the umbilical cord is not clamped, a physiological clamping occurs upon interaction with cold air, when the internal gelatinous substance, called Wharton's jelly, swells around the umbilical artery and veins.
2. Cord blood is the blood that's in the umbilical cord (and placenta) and contains stem cells (blood stem cells mostly, but it has other types as well). It's unclear if the stem cells in cord blood are as multipotent as embryonic stem cells (i.e. if cord blood stem cells can differentiate into as many distinct cell-types as ESCs), but the major advantage is that with cord-blood-derived stem cells, there's a possibility for autologous transplantation, which eliminates the possibility of transplant rejection and graft-vs-host disease. Another possible advantage is the moral/ethical one that a fertilized embryo isn't destroyed to get them. Another advantage for non-autologous transplantation is that, while blood stem cells are generally easy to collect, other types aren't so cord blood may be a way to increase the number of potential donors so there's a greater probability that a person who needs a stem cell transplant will be able to find an appropriately matched donor. There's little to no harm in banking cord blood (see the links below for information about how it's collected). The biggest reason, as far as I know, that it's not always banked is because of the cost involved (I remember reading somewhere that it cost about $8000 to $10000). There's more information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_blood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_blood_bank
3. As described by Eli, cord blood is blood from the umbilical cord, belonging to the new-born baby, and it contains some stem cells, especially hemopoietic stem cells. Hemopoietic means manufacturing blood cells - red and white cells and platelets. Some these stem cells can sometimes be used to treat blood cell disorders. But most stem cells for other organs are not in the blood, but are in the respective organs in the baby's (and the adult's) body. And these are of limited potential, anyway. Embryonic stem cells - meaning from an 8- or 10-celled zygote - have nearly unlimited potential. But they are not in the baby's blood - in fact, they no longer exist in the baby at all!! Suggesting that the stem cells in cord blood are equivalent to embryonic stem cells is double talk from the people that believe that once an egg is fertilized by a sperm it is instantly a human being - with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereto . . .
4. Well, they really dont know if cord blood can be multipotent like embryonic stem cells. BUT the cord blood DOES contain adult stem cells - the same type of stem cells as the bone marrow, and peripheral blood stem cells. All three sources can be used in a bone marrow transplant (the single treatment that accounts for about 60 of the 72+ diseases that can be treated with adult stem cells), and are being experimented with for other procedures. After a live and healthy birth, cord blood (the umbilical cord, the blood in it, and the placenta) can be collected. Instead of throwing it away, it can either be privately banked, or donated to a public donor bank. Many parents are starting to bank privately - but it is incredibly expensive and not covered by insurance. The private banks are for profit companies, and have made a lot of people think cord blood is far more versatile than it really is. The reasons most parents dont privately bank are... they cant afford it, or they know that there is little chance their own child would be able to actually use it - even if they did get sick. You can also donate the cord blood. With this, the cord blood goes into a private bank that doctors can search as a part of the marrow registry. In the US, the marrow registry runs the donor cord blood bank, and info can be found at http://www.marrow.org Many parents dont donate because they dont know about it. The private banks dont mention anything about donation in their information (or if they do, its in small print buried somewhere). To donate you have to meet the same requirements as the bone marrow registry, and you have to start the paper work to donate several weeks in advance. Beyond that, there are not a whole lot of hospitals yet who are set up to do the donation. Some religious hospitals have avoided cord blood to avoid any kind of confusion with embryonic stem cells. Some hospitals are just behind in times (last time I checked there is not a single hospital in the entire state of WV that can donate cord blood). There is no harm to the parent... this is stuff that MUST be removed because it will harm the parent if its not. There is a debate, however, between whether or not you should let the cord quit pulsing before removing it - at which point there is generally not enough cord blood left to do either the donation or private banking. And then, once you get into using cord blood instead of bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cells, it introduces several risks that arent there with the other two sources. I dont think I would say there would no longer be a need for embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells have come a long way, but after 100 years of research and treatment, 90% of adult stem cell success falls on one single treatment - a bone marrow transplant. A treatment that over 2/3 of the people who need it cant get it because they dont have a matching donor... A treatment that is so phenomonally expensive that many insurance companies (currently, anyways) wont cover it, leaving about 1/5-1/3 of the patients who need it unable to get it. A treatment that is so risky that 1/3-1/2 of the people who go through it die before they even know if it worked. A treatment that is so traumatic the patient is out of work for a min of a year. And while the stem cells themselves are stable and do not cause cancer, the high dose chemo and total body radiation dramatically raises the chances of the patient developing cancer (or a second type of cancer for those going through the transplant for leukemia and lymphoma). I owe my life to adult stem cells, but with its limitations, no matter how many people donate (and thats not just cord blood, but also the marrow registry), its limited success does not exclude the need for embryonic stem cell research... Research that is only possible because it uses the trash from a legal and socially acceptable procedure - IVF. For some people, IVF is even a fashion statement. But no one screams murder when embryos are killed through IVF procedures... only when scientific research could possibly make the lives of sooo many people healthier and more productive.