When Karen Davis attended a presentation at a dental conference in 2013, she unexpectedly discovered a service that could help her daughter, Madeline: storing stem cells derived from her teeth that potentially could be used in the future to treat her Crohn's disease.
"Even though this isn't a viable option today, I know how rapidly things can change."
Throughout high school, Madeline suffered from the painful autoimmune disorder, which wreaks havoc on the gastrointestinal system and can lead to life-threatening complications.
"I leave no stone unturned when it comes to medical care and this resonated with me," says Davis, a Dallas-based dental hygienist who was encouraged by advances in stem cell research. Later that year, when Madeline got her wisdom teeth extracted, Davis shipped them off to the Store-A-Tooth company in Massachusetts, where they will be kept frozen until needed. "Even though this isn't a viable option today, I know how rapidly things can change," says Davis. "To me, this was a worthwhile investment—I didn't want to miss out on an opportunity that would provide a pathway to a cure."
Karen Davis pictured with her daughter Madeline.
(Courtesy of Karen Davis)
The process itself was straightforward. Madeline's newly extracted wisdom teeth--baby teeth can be saved, too—were bathed in a special solution, loaded into a Styrofoam container lined with cold packs and sent to the stem cell company. There, a team harvested the dental stem cells from the pulp, then grew them in culture and cryogenically preserved them. Store-A-Tooth charges $1500-1749 for tooth collection and $120 per year for storage, while other dental pulp stem cell tissue banks cost $500-$600 upfront and in the $120 range annually for storage.
The rationale here is that if you missed out on banking your baby's umbilical cord blood, this gives you another chance to harvest their stem cells. "If their child later develops an illness that could be managed or even cured with stem cell therapy, this is an insurance policy," says Amr Moursi, DDS, PhD, chair of the department of pediatric dentistry at New York University College of Dentistry.
But is there a genuine potential here for some effective treatments in the relatively near future—or is this just another trendy fad? Scientific opinion is decidedly mixed. Stem cells have been heralded as the next frontier in medicine because of their versatility: with a little chemical coaxing, they can be transformed into different cell types, such as heart, blood or brain cells, to create tissue that can mend damaged body parts. Because they're taken from your own body, there's little chance of rejection, which means patients don't have to take strong antirejection drugs that can have all sorts of unpleasant side effects for the rest of their lives.
However, while stem cells are immature cells found in different tissues, ranging from abdominal fat to bone marrow, there is a vast difference between the stem cells found in cord blood and in teeth. Cord blood, which is culled from the umbilical cord when a baby is born, contains what are called hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), which can mature into other blood cells. These type of stem cells have already been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat patients—especially children--with blood cancers, such as leukemias and lymphomas, and certain blood disorders like sickle cell anemia.
In contrast, stem cells in teeth are called mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), which are found in dental pulp, the tissue in the center of the tooth that's filled with nerves and blood vessels. MSCs are adult stem cells normally found in the bone marrow that can transform into bone, fat, and cartilage cells, and also aid in the formation of blood stem cells.
"Right now we just don't have rigorous evidence that they can be used in that fashion and have real benefit."
Small studies on lab animals suggest that MSCs secrete growth factors—hormonal steroids or proteins—that can nurture ailing cells, act as powerful anti-inflammatory agents that could tame autoimmune disorders like the one that plagues Karen Davis's daughter, and may even generate new nerve and muscle tissue. Preliminary research suggests they potentially could treat medical conditions as varied as heart disease, spinal cord injury and type 1 diabetes by generating new cells, which can replace damaged or dead cells.
But this is all very early research and there's a vast difference between how cells behave in the tightly controlled environment of a lab versus the real world in a diverse population of human patients. "Right now we just don't have rigorous evidence that they can be used in that fashion and have real benefit," says Pamela G. Robey, PhD, chief of the skeletal biology section at the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research at the National Institutes of Health.
Robey should know—she headed the research team that discovered stem cells in human baby teeth and in wisdom teeth more than fifteen years ago. She believes prospects are better using these stem cells for tooth repair: research suggests they may be able to fix cracked teeth, repair bone defects caused by gum disease, or in root canal therapy, where they can be used to replace infected tissue with regenerated healthy pulp.
In the meantime, though, there are no clinical applications for MSCs. "These tooth banking companies aren't doing their own research," says Leigh Turner, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota who monitors stem cell clinics. "They cobble together reports of early research in humans or from animal studies in an effort to provide a narrative to make it seem like it is evidence based."
Still, in all fairness, tooth banking companies aren't making the kind of extravagant claims made by stem cell clinics, which operate in a gray area of the law and purport to treat everything from chronic lung disease to Alzheimer's. "We don't know when therapies will be available using these cells because the pace of research is hard to predict," says Peter Verlander, PhD, a molecular geneticist and chief scientific officer of Provia Laboratories, the parent company of Store-A-Tooth. "But for parents who regretted not banking their child's cord blood, especially if they later develop a disease like diabetes, this is another opportunity."
But the jury is still out if this is truly a good investment. Moursi, a national spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry who fields queries about this practice from a dozen or so families a year, concludes: "If you could afford it, and know the risks, benefits and current limitations, then it is something to consider."
Many women want non-hormonal birth control. A 22-year-old's findings were used to launch a company that could, within the decade, bring a new kind of contraceptive to the marketplace.
Now a scientist with NextVivo, Shrestha is not directly involved in the development of the contraceptive that is based on her research. But, back in 2016 when she was going through her own problems with hormonal contraceptives, she “was very personally invested” in her research project, Shrestha says. She was coping with a long list of negative effects from an implanted hormonal IUD. According to the Mayo Clinic, those can include severe pelvic pain, headaches, acute acne, breast tenderness, irregular bleeding and mood swings. After a year, she had the IUD removed, but it took another full year before all the side effects finally subsided; she also watched her sister suffer the “same tribulations” after trying a hormonal IUD, she says.
For contraceptive use either daily or monthly, Shrestha says, “You want the antibody to be very potent and also cheap.” That was her goal when she launched her study.
Shrestha unshelved antibody research that had been sitting idle for decades. It was in the late 80s that scientists in Japan first tried to develop anti-sperm antibodies for contraceptive use. But, 35 years ago, “Antibody production had not been streamlined as it is now, so antibodies were very expensive,” Shrestha explains. So, they shifted away from birth control, opting to focus on developing antibodies for vaccines.
Over the course of the last three decades, different teams of researchers have been working to make the antibody more effective, bringing the cost down, though it’s still expensive, according to Shrestha. For contraceptive use either daily or monthly, she says, “You want the antibody to be very potent and also cheap.” That was her goal when she launched her study.
The problem
The problem with contraceptives for women, Shrestha says, is that all but a few of them are hormone-based or have other negative side effects. In fact, some studies and reports show that millions of women risk unintended pregnancy because of medical contraindications with hormone-based contraceptives or to avoid the risks and side effects. While there are about a dozen contraceptive choices for women, there are two for men: the condom, considered 98% effective if used correctly, and vasectomy, 99% effective. Neither of these choices are hormone-based.
On the non-hormonal side for women, there is the diaphragm which is considered only 87 percent effective. It works better with the addition of spermicides — Nonoxynol-9, or N-9 — however, they are detergents; they not only kill the sperm, they also erode the vaginal epithelium. And, there’s the non-hormonal IUD which is 99% effective. However, the IUD needs to be inserted by a medical professional, and it has a number of negative side effects, including painful cramping at a higher frequency and extremely heavy or “abnormal” and unpredictable menstrual flows.
The hormonal version of the IUD, also considered 99% effective, is the one Shrestha used which caused her two years of pain. Of course, there’s the pill, which needs to be taken daily, and the birth control ring which is worn 24/7. Both cause side effects similar to the other hormonal contraceptives on the market. The ring is considered 93% effective mostly because of user error; the pill is considered 99% effective if taken correctly.
“That’s where we saw this opening or gap for women. We want a safe, non-hormonal contraceptive,” Shrestha says. Compounding the lack of good choices, is poor access to quality sex education and family planning information, according to the non-profit Urban Institute. A focus group survey suggested that the sex education women received “often lacked substance, leaving them feeling unprepared to make smart decisions about their sexual health and safety,” wrote the authors of the Urban Institute report. In fact, nearly half (45%, or 2.8 million) of the pregnancies that occur each year in the US are unintended, reports the Guttmacher Institute. Globally the numbers are similar. According to a new report by the United Nations, each year there are 121 million unintended pregnancies, worldwide.
The science
The early work on antibodies as a contraceptive had been inspired by women with infertility. It turns out that 9 to 12 percent of women who are treated for infertility have antibodies that develop naturally and work against sperm. Shrestha was encouraged that the antibodies were specific to the target — sperm — and therefore “very safe to use in women.” She aimed to make the antibodies more stable, more effective and less expensive so they could be more easily manufactured.
Since antibodies tend to stick to things that you tell them to stick to, the idea was, basically, to engineer antibodies to stick to sperm so they would stop swimming. Shrestha and her colleagues took the binding arm of an antibody that they’d isolated from an infertile woman. Then, targeting a unique surface antigen present on human sperm, they engineered a panel of antibodies with as many as six to 10 binding arms — “almost like tongs with prongs on the tongs, that bind the sperm,” explains Shrestha. “We decided to add those grabbers on top of it, behind it. So it went from having two prongs to almost 10. And the whole goal was to have so many arms binding the sperm that it clumps it” into a “dollop,” explains Shrestha, who earned a patent on her research.
Suruchi Shrestha works in the lab with a colleague. In 2016, her research on antibodies for birth control was inspired by her own experience with side effects from an implanted hormonal IUD.
UNC - Chapel Hill
The sperm stays right where it met the antibody, never reaching the egg for fertilization. Eventually, and naturally, “Our vaginal system will just flush it out,” Shrestha explains.
“She showed in her early studies that [she] definitely got the sperm immotile, so they didn't move. And that was a really promising start,” says Jasmine Edelstein, a scientist with an expertise in antibody engineering who was not involved in this research. Shrestha’s team at UNC reproduced the effect in the sheep, notes Edelstein, who works at the startup Be Biopharma. In fact, Shrestha’s anti-sperm antibodies that caused the sperm to agglutinate, or clump together, were 99.9% effective when delivered topically to the sheep’s reproductive tracts.
The future
Going forward, Shrestha thinks the ideal approach would be delivering the antibodies through a vaginal ring. “We want to use it at the source of the spark,” Shrestha says, as opposed to less direct methods, such as taking a pill. The ring would dissolve after one month, she explains, “and then you get another one.”
Engineered to have a long shelf life, the anti-sperm antibody ring could be purchased without a prescription, and women could insert it themselves, without a doctor. “That's our hope, so that it is accessible,” Shrestha says. “Anybody can just go and grab it and not worry about pregnancy or unintended pregnancy.”
Her patented research has been licensed by several biotech companies for clinical trials. A number of Shrestha’s co-authors, including her lab advisor, Sam Lai, have launched a company, Mucommune, to continue developing the contraceptives based on these antibodies.
And, results from a small clinical trial run by researchers at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine show that a dissolvable vaginal film with antibodies was safe when tested on healthy women of reproductive age. That same group of researchers last year received a $7.2 million grant from the National Institute of Health for further research on monoclonal antibody-based contraceptives, which have also been shown to block transmission of viruses, like HIV.
“As the costs come down, this becomes a more realistic option potentially for women,” says Edelstein. “The impact could be tremendous.”
This article was first published by Leaps.org in December, 2022. It has been lightly edited with updates for timeliness.
When all traditional therapeutic approaches fail for alcohol abuse disorder, a radical gene therapy might be something to try in the future.
In the U.S., more than 10 percent of people over the age of 12 are estimated to have AUD, and while medications, counseling, or sheer willpower can help some stop drinking, staying sober can be a huge struggle — an estimated 40-60 percent of people relapse at least once.
A team of U.S. researchers suspected that an in-development gene therapy for Parkinson’s disease might work as a dopamine-replenishing treatment for alcoholism, too.
According to the CDC, more than 140,000 Americans are dying each year from alcohol-related causes, and the rate of deaths has been rising for years, especially during the pandemic.
The idea: For occasional drinkers, alcohol causes the brain to release more dopamine, a chemical that makes you feel good. Chronic alcohol use, however, causes the brain to produce, and process, less dopamine, and this persistent dopamine deficit has been linked to alcohol relapse.
There is currently no way to reverse the changes in the brain brought about by AUD, but a team of U.S. researchers suspected that an in-development gene therapy for Parkinson’s disease might work as a dopamine-replenishing treatment for alcoholism, too.
To find out, they tested it in heavy-drinking monkeys — and the animals’ alcohol consumption dropped by 90% over the course of a year.
How it works: The treatment centers on the protein GDNF (“glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor”), which supports the survival of certain neurons, including ones linked to dopamine.
For the new study, a harmless virus was used to deliver the gene that codes for GDNF into the brains of four monkeys that, when they had the option, drank heavily — the amount of ethanol-infused water they consumed would be equivalent to a person having nine drinks per day.
“We targeted the cell bodies that produce dopamine with this gene to increase dopamine synthesis, thereby replenishing or restoring what chronic drinking has taken away,” said co-lead researcher Kathleen Grant.
To serve as controls, another four heavy-drinking monkeys underwent the same procedure, but with a saline solution delivered instead of the gene therapy.
The results: All of the monkeys had their access to alcohol removed for two months following the surgery. When it was then reintroduced for four weeks, the heavy drinkers consumed 50 percent less compared to the control group.
When the researchers examined the monkeys’ brains at the end of the study, they were able to confirm that dopamine levels had been replenished in the treated animals, but remained low in the controls.
The researchers then took the alcohol away for another four weeks, before giving it back for four. They repeated this cycle for a year, and by the end of it, the treated monkeys’ consumption had fallen by more than 90 percent compared to the controls.
“Drinking went down to almost zero,” said Grant. “For months on end, these animals would choose to drink water and just avoid drinking alcohol altogether. They decreased their drinking to the point that it was so low we didn’t record a blood-alcohol level.”
When the researchers examined the monkeys’ brains at the end of the study, they were able to confirm that dopamine levels had been replenished in the treated animals, but remained low in the controls.
Looking ahead: Dopamine is involved in a lot more than addiction, so more research is needed to not only see if the results translate to people but whether the gene therapy leads to any unwanted changes to mood or behavior.
Because the therapy requires invasive brain surgery and is likely irreversible, it’s unlikely to ever become a common treatment for alcoholism — but it could one day be the only thing standing between people with severe AUD and death.
“[The treatment] would be most appropriate for people who have already shown that all our normal therapeutic approaches do not work for them,” said Grant. “They are likely to create severe harm or kill themselves or others due to their drinking.”
This article originally appeared on Freethink, home of the brightest minds and biggest ideas of all time.
