We Can Now Successfully Transplant Lab-Grown Lungs in Pigs

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
13,500
University of Texas Medical Branch researchers have successfully transplanted lab-grown lungs into pigs. They created lung scaffolds of pig lungs by removed all the cells and blood from pig lungs and then placed them in a vat of nutrients. The lungs started growing when they added cells from the recipient pigs' lungs and then they transplanted them after 30 days of growth. The transplants were successful and none of the pigs involved rejected the transplants. This is a huge step forward for this technology and could one day lead to the elimination of transplant lists. Imagine hospitals growing replacement organs for humans in the future. As far as I'm concerned this can't come soon enough. Read the paper here.

If all goes as hoped with the pig experiments, the researchers believe they could be just five to 10 years away from being able to create lab-grown lungs to transplant into people in compassionate use circumstances (people with life-threatening conditions and essentially no other treatment options).
 
The problem is the insurance companies will not pay for this treatment for decades, so even if it's viable in 5-10 years, unless the hospital is willing to do it for free or the patient is extremely wealthy we won't be seeing much of these for 30 years
 
unless the hospital is willing to do it for free or the patient is extremely wealthy we won't be seeing much of these for 30 years

Now George Orwell can be right in the biological sense too

pigs.png


equalpigs.jpg


:pompous:
 
The problem is the insurance companies will not pay for this treatment for decades, so even if it's viable in 5-10 years, unless the hospital is willing to do it for free or the patient is extremely wealthy we won't be seeing much of these for 30 years
That depends. But we shouldn't be thinking timelines just yet. Pigs anatomically and genetically are close to humans, so success in pigs means it is viable technology to investigate for humans, but does not necessarily mean it will work for humans. There will need to be many more successful experiments with pigs before starting trials with humans. Since failure in humans for a lung transplant almost certainly means death, there will be very few viable, let alone willing candidates for human trials. It will take several successful human trails before it would ever come to "normal" practice. How long will this process take? Some new medical procedures become normalized in just a few years, some take decades. When Insurance comes into play depends on this, though once it is established as "safe," I can imagine it to be a much cheaper option than current transplant procedures, especially if it means not needing a life time of anti-rejection drugs. Insurance companies would jump on that.
 
The problem is the insurance companies will not pay for this treatment for decades, so even if it's viable in 5-10 years, unless the hospital is willing to do it for free or the patient is extremely wealthy we won't be seeing much of these for 30 years

depends on your insurance and what it covers.. the bigger insurance companies will cover it if it's life threatening and not considered an experimental procedure. either way with how the FDA works it'll take 30 years before this shit ever gets tested in humans anyways.

That depends. But we shouldn't be thinking timelines just yet. Pigs anatomically and genetically are close to humans, so success in pigs means it is viable technology to investigate for humans, but does not necessarily mean it will work for humans. There will need to be many more successful experiments with pigs before starting trials with humans. Since failure in humans for a lung transplant almost certainly means death, there will be very few viable, let alone willing candidates for human trials. It will take several successful human trails before it would ever come to "normal" practice. How long will this process take? Some new medical procedures become normalized in just a few years, some take decades. When Insurance comes into play depends on this, though once it is established as "safe," I can imagine it to be a much cheaper option than current transplant procedures, especially if it means not needing a life time of anti-rejection drugs. Insurance companies would jump on that.

you only need one lung to survive i'll sign up for the trials, lol.
 
I saw this about other animals a couple of years ago, glad the science is making its way up the hierarchy.

I wonder if someone will order up a set of cloned pig's nuts at some point, just to show off..
 
Recently, I've been watching The 6th Day (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and can't recall seeing anything in the news about cloning since molly the sheep so I guess that means no one is working on cloning anymore :cautious:
 
They created lung scaffolds of pig lungs by removed all the cells and blood from pig lungs and then placed them in a vat of nutrients. The lungs started growing when they added cells from the recipient pigs' lungs and then they transplanted them after 30 days of growth


I read the article, and the abstract of the paper.. but they both seem to gloss over one very important detail. As you can see from my highlighting in red above.. to get the "scaffold" they had to have EXISTING pigs lungs, that they removed all the existing cells and blood from. So, for each "transplant" another pig had to give up its lungs.

So, what they have actually done is.. remove a set of lungs from an animal. Strip it back down to basics. Use cells from the transplant animals to then grow new tissue onto the striped and bare "scaffold".

so while this is AWESOME work for helping to reduce organ rejection with transplants, which is a very real issue, it does not eliminate the need for initial donor organs. which makes me wonder why they are then talking about eliminating donors lists.
 
I read the article, and the abstract of the paper.. but they both seem to gloss over one very important detail. As you can see from my highlighting in red above.. to get the "scaffold" they had to have EXISTING pigs lungs, that they removed all the existing cells and blood from. So, for each "transplant" another pig had to give up its lungs.

So, what they have actually done is.. remove a set of lungs from an animal. Strip it back down to basics. Use cells from the transplant animals to then grow new tissue onto the striped and bare "scaffold".

so while this is AWESOME work for helping to reduce organ rejection with transplants, which is a very real issue, it does not eliminate the need for initial donor organs. which makes me wonder why they are then talking about eliminating donors lists.

I've read other articles about using 3d printed organic material to create the scaffolding. It doesn't have to be from another animal.

Organs like the pancreas, which is a big deal to anyone with diabetes, along with other bits and pieces including foreskin for those who would rather not have been snipped.
 
I've read other articles about using 3d printed organic material to create the scaffolding. It doesn't have to be from another animal.


aye, i have read about those too, but thats not whats happening here.

now, when these 2 techs combine.. then we can talk about getting rid of donors lists, which will hopefully happen within 20 years. Would be a great step forward.
 
Excellent news, too bad we're needlessly a decade behind on stem cell research due to a certain president...
 
This tech is great and all, but...

How much is ext3ending your life worth to you? How many tens of millions of $$$ will it cost to grow a failing organ and transplant it. Only the über rich will ever be able to afford it. 100% of the people that come to this site could never afford it and will die.
 
I read the article, and the abstract of the paper.. but they both seem to gloss over one very important detail. As you can see from my highlighting in red above.. to get the "scaffold" they had to have EXISTING pigs lungs, that they removed all the existing cells and blood from. So, for each "transplant" another pig had to give up its lungs.

So, what they have actually done is.. remove a set of lungs from an animal. Strip it back down to basics. Use cells from the transplant animals to then grow new tissue onto the striped and bare "scaffold".

so while this is AWESOME work for helping to reduce organ rejection with transplants, which is a very real issue, it does not eliminate the need for initial donor organs. which makes me wonder why they are then talking about eliminating donors lists.
You can 3d print the collagen scaffold.
 
This tech is great and all, but...

How much is ext3ending your life worth to you? How many tens of millions of $$$ will it cost to grow a failing organ and transplant it. Only the über rich will ever be able to afford it. 100% of the people that come to this site could never afford it and will die.
*rollseyes*
 
You're all wrong. Since I'm going to live to be 130, this will happen right when I get lung cancer in about 10 years.
 
They just keep sticking new lungs on people!
 
What about people who are tired of their elephant willy's and want one from a whale? Asking for a friend.
 
I think this is an amazing step and I will remain optimistically hopeful.....but in the meantime maybe we should get people to sign their damn organ donor cards???

Or better yet do what Australia does: you're an organ donor unless you make the effort to opt out.

Unless you're deeply religious, your body is a meaningless shell once you die guys...

Sorry if I seem aggressive about this issue. I am. My mom is slowly dying of kidney failure. Yes its a very personal issue.
 
aye, i have read about those too, but thats not whats happening here.

now, when these 2 techs combine.. then we can talk about getting rid of donors lists, which will hopefully happen within 20 years. Would be a great step forward.
If you could 3D print a viable scaffold of the lung's internal structure, wouldn't grafting cells onto it be comparatively easy? I mean they've been growing ears on the backs of mice for years.

LIke you said, this is impressive, but we're not there quite yet.
 
I saw this about other animals a couple of years ago, glad the science is making its way up the hierarchy.

I wonder if someone will order up a set of cloned pig's nuts at some point, just to show off..

Or some bacon flavored rocky mountain oysters ;)

Recently, I've been watching The 6th Day (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and can't recall seeing anything in the news about cloning since molly the sheep so I guess that means no one is working on cloning anymore :cautious:

No they are. They are just keeping a low profile because of the bad rap cloning has gotten along with gene manipulation and a host of other techs that will be critical to life extension.
 
Back
Top