Sciclips's Blog

Archive for October 2009

The existence of cancer stem cells have started as a hypothesis and followed by enormous number of experimental evidences. Still, a large number of scientists in stem cell areas and other research areas are very skeptical about the existence of cancer stem cells.  We can believe the existence of cancer stem cells and its role in cancer from all the reported studies on the isolation/characterization of cancer stem cells in various cancers such as leukemia, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, lung cancer, liver cancer, colon cancer etc from past and ongoing research on cancer stem cell.  The PubMed searches on cancer stem cells showed more than 5000 articles as of October 2009 and this data indicates that the first research article on cancer stem was published on 1976 (see the box to see all the PubMEd search results). It is evident that the concept of cancer stem is known to us for more than 23 years.  If the scientist would have accepted the existence of cancer stem cells a decade ago, possibly we would have been in a better position in finding a cure for cancer or may be closer to achieve this goal? May be the concept of stem cells were not established at that time?

We speculate that the real benefit of stem cells will not come from in vitro differentiation of embryonic (hES) or induced pluripotent (iPS) stem cell into tissues or organs or the injection of stem cells. Better not to be, because these stem cells may be similar to cancer cells (1) and may carry several genetic mutations (2).  We do not know the genetic safety of current in vitro grown cells in stem cell therapy.  Read more: http://www.sciclips.com/sciclips/blogMain.do

Advertisements

Considerable efforts have been made to develop tools for the absolute quantitation of peptide/protein using mass spectrometry (MS). Proteomics researchers are so fascinated with the concept of absolute quantiatation and they are spending enormous amount of time for developing tools or optimizing methods for the absolute quantitation of proteins in a cell or tissue or organ.  These experiments and technology development efforts not only take lot of time but also involve huge capital investment.  The question is, whether it is worth spending so much money in these efforts? The arguments for justifying such studies are that it is necessary to understand the absolute quantity of a protein for quantitative proteomics.  This will enable us to quantitate exact amount of toxins in food/environment, biomarker proteins and drug target proteins and so on. It looks very reasonable to measure the exact quantity of a disease biomarker or Staphylococcal enterotoxins in various foods.

Let us take an example of measuring Staphylococcal toxins in a meat sample. By using expensive isotopically labeled peptides or complex in vivo/in vitro expression system derived proteins/peptides or various software intense label-free methods, we can measure the exact amount of toxins present in the meat sample. Now, we need to see, is there any real practical applications of this information? Do we really need to know the exact concentration of toxins? What are the advantages of this method over antibody based ELISA approaches, which are more frequently used; less expensive and more robust?  Read more: http://www.sciclips.com/sciclips/blogMain.do

The p53 is a tumor suppressing proteins that activates DNA repair proteins and apoptosis pathways in response to DNA damages that are not irreparable.  Mutations in p53, which affects its activity, are responsible for developing various cancers; 83% of tumors have alterations or defect in p53 (1). The p53 plays crucial role in embryonic stem (ES) cells. p53 represses the expression of Nanog, a transcription that is critical for the self-renewal of ES cells (2).  Loss of p53 reduces spontaneous differentiation and apoptosis in human embryonic stem cells (3).  It has been proposed that breast cancer tumors can originate from cancer stem cells or cancer cells become stem cells due to p53 deficiency, which favors the expansion of cancer stem cells (4).  Recent reports (shown below in boxes) have shown the importance of p53 in various stem cell states.  Independent studies from five laboratories have shown that loss ofp53 is needed for the induction of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) from adult cells (see thumbnails).  The role of p53 in cancer stem cells has been shown by a recent study . This study has shown that loss of p53 induces symmetric cell division in breast cancer stem cells and this favors breast cancer tumor growth. Read more: http://www.sciclips.com/sciclips/blogMain.do

InnovationIn recent years open innovation has become a buzz word for big and small business enterprises, and in course of time several open innovation service companies have evolved to help with open innovation for big companies.  The term “open innovation” is coined by Henry Chebrough1 and he defined it as “open innovation is a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology”. The idea behind this concept is to utilize the innovative minds of company in addition to the company owned R&D to generate ideas. In a glimpse of excitement, this concept looks excellent and seems to be helpful for generating great customer valued products.  If you dissect this concept much critically and thoroughly, you will find that current concept of open innovation practiced by various companies are flawed and are filled with selfish motivations at the cost of others’ innovations.

Challenges and dangers behind the current “open innovation” approach:

At present, there are several companies in the market who claim to support “open innovation” in scientific field. The current idea of open innovation is something like this:  an open innovation company post a challenge for an idea for a particular solution with/without an incentive on their website. Usually, thousands of people participate in these contests and hundreds or thousands of ideas were then generated and sent against this challenge to the website.  In best-case scenario, the seeker (for example, a big pharmaceutical or Biotechnology company) will select a winner and the money goes to the person with the best solution while the rest of the solvers get nothing. Moreover the solver has to give away all the rights to an anonymous company, as the solver will not have any idea about the sponsor of this challenge. The whole process is kind of “close” since there are no talks or open discussions about the winning idea or the ideas that did not succeed in the challenge. In the worst case scenario, after reviewing thousands of ideas, many a time, the seeker company can withdraw their challenge.

As we can see, out of thousands of entries one or two proposals may be awarded . Now the question is, what happens to the rest of the ideas that were submitted to the solution seeker. The problem solver will not have any information on whether the seeker will use the solvers’ ideas  for current or  future applications (modified or unmodified). Even though, the sponsoring company will give all the rights to patent and so forth. As we all know, even with proper documents there are misuse of good ideas especially when it comes to protection of intellectual property issues. Now, most of the time, the problem solver may not have the financial capability to apply for patents to protect his/ her ideas. In this present “open Innovation” model there is no way for the solvers to find out whether their ideas were used for filing future patents by the problem seeker.  In summary, the problem seekers or companies are getting thousands of ideas at free of cost (the award money is nothing by considering the career potential for individual seeker or the commercial success for the seeking company). 

Thus, the term for  current  “Open innovation” is very misleading. In fact, the approaches practiced  by most of the companies are not “real open innovation”, rather this approach uses others’ innovative minds for the benefit of a single person or an organization.

If we look at some of the companies like “Google”,  “Facebook”, “Youtube” or “Twitter” (to name a few), these companies do not protect their technologies with patents but the ideas or the technologies are open to all. There are many contemporary companies with similar models of “Youtube” or “Facebook”, which arose either earlier or later than these companies but due to competition could not stand out in the market.  At the same time, it is very hard to name a single big Biotechnology or a pharmaceutical company which are really open about its ideas or technologies. Using real “open innovation” where the ideas will come from all sectors: consumers, researchers, scientists and making these ideas/technologies public will not only generate more competition but also speed up the pace of generating breakthrough ideas. Instead of protecting the new discoveries with billions of dollars the competition from open innovation concept will bring down the cost of the product and raise the quality of the product. 

1Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology.  Boston: Harvard Business School Press, p. xxiv

Open Innovation @ Sciclips

At Sciclips open innovation platform (www.sciclips.com), the scientists, researchers all over the world irrespective of their field of research can post ideas in this platform. The main function for this open platform is to generate ideas that can be used for developing new tools and applications for various research areas like stem cell, drug discovery, proteomics, biofuel etc.  The ideas posted will be open to everybody for discussion, suggestions and modifications. Sciclips also has platform for posting ideas for some of the neglected diseases such as mosquito borne diseases like, malaria, dengue, and Tuberculosis.  Success of our open innovation platform may help in accelerating development of drugs for neglected diseases (which claims thousands of lives globally every year) by sharing ideas on stem cell or proteomics based therapeutic methods.


Comprehensive Cancer Bomarker Database

Sciclips consultancy

Diagnostic & Prognostic Biomarker Database

Bioprotocol database (open access)

Combination therapy database (open access)

Therapeutic drug target database (open access)

Bioinformatics databases (open access)

Stem cell researchers database

A comprehensive database for stem cell researchers, Stem cell research reagents, Stem cell patents, Stem cell grants, Stem cell clinical trials, Stem cell statistics, Stem cell news and Stem cell open innovation ideas. Please visit http://www.sciclips.com/

Sciclips consultancy

Proteomics researchers database

A comprehensive database for proteomics researchers, Proteomics research reagents, Proteomics patents, Proteomics grants, Proteomics clinical trials, Proteomics statistics, Proteomics news and Proteomics open innovation ideas. Please visit http://www.sciclips.com/

Share or sell research reagents prepared in your laboratory

Drug target database (open access)

Pharmacogenomics protocols online

Proteomics and Mass spectrometry (MS) protocols online

Therapeutic drug targets database (open access)

Drug discovery, Biopharmaceuticals, HTS assays protocols online

Protein display/Protein engineering/Directed evolution protocols online

Molecular biology and Cell biology protocols online

siRNA protocols miRNA protocols online

Video protocols

Cell culture video protocols, Cytotoxicity assay video protocols, Stem cell video protocols, Molecular biology video protocols http://www.sciclips.com/sciclips/video-protocols.do

Sciclips consultancy

Sciclips

Bioprotocols online (open access)

Combination therapy database (open access)

Therapeutic drug targets database (open access)

Bioinformatics databases (open access)

HTS assay protocols online (open access)