Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 16 January 2008 | Nature 451, 229 (2008) | doi:10.1038/451229a
News
Stem cells: a national project
Japan rushes to capitalize on 'reprogrammed' adult cells.
Japan is scrambling to harness the promise of Shinya Yamanaka's pioneering work that reprogrammed adult human cells into an embryo-like state. With unprecedented speed, the government is pouring money into developing this home-grown field, some of which will go towards funding a new Yamanaka-headed research centre at Kyoto University.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
This comment has been removed by the moderator
I think that this is a great notice. It could be a new revolution in biomedical sciences. We should wait for the next results about this research. Greetings from Mexico P.S. I like Japan.
This comment has been removed by the moderator
Open Invitation for wide-scope pre-publication peer review on my new criticism on a new iPS cell publication in Nature ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear iPS cell researchers and all people interested in learning iPS cells: --------------------------------- I have written a criticisms entitled "Are iPS cells really induced from differentiated cells?" to further challenge the induction claim for the iPS cells as made in a recent Nature publication (451: 141-146, 2008). My criticism was just sent to Dr. George Q. Daley, the corresponding author of that paper for a formal response. [[[Dr. Daley has responded me.]]] However, in order to collect MORE OPINIONS about my criticism, I am repeating this public announcement again to invite other iPS cell researchers and all people interested in learning iPS cells to review my manuscript. I wish all reviewers will give their permission to publish their comments, ideally with a real name but anonymous reviews will also be welcomed and respected. My intention is to submit my criticism to Nature 10 days later from today (That is on Jan. 31, 2008). So I urge all interested people to contact me as soon as possible to request my criticism and then submit a solid review on it (solid review can be totally negative but should contain some reasons). Sincerely yours, Shi V. Liu MD PhD ------------------------ SVL@logibio.com
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: ----------------- Two of my previous comments on this News and one of another comment on another News were removed by the Moderator for the reasons that I will not disclose here. I will not re-post any different versions of those comments. However, I do wish to ask the opinion from the public: should a scientist be allowed to ignore PUBLISHED criticisms (http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm) and advance his research without performing the necessary CONTROLS that he agreed as IMPORTANT? ------------------- Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com)
This comment has been removed by the moderator
Can someone tell me which is true for iPS cells? ------------------------------------------------------------- (This is a re-posting of the message that was hidden by the Moderator because quotation of Yamanaka’s reply to me is not allowed here. So I quote the PUBLISHED statement from Yamanaka’s first iPS cell paper in Cell.) /////Conflicting point 1: ‘Takahashi and Yamanaka have successfully reprogrammed terminally differentiated cells to a pluripotent state.’ (Rodolfa and Eggan, Cell 126: 652, 2006) ‘The low frequency suggests that rare tissue stem/progenitor cells that coexisted in the fibroblast cultures might have given rise to the iPS cells and the four factors transform tissue stem cells.’ (Takahashi and Yamanaka, Cell 126: 663, 2006) /////Conflicting point 2: ‘IPS cells were not identical to ES cells, as shown by the global gene-expression patterns and DNA methylation status’. (Cell 126: 663, 2006) IPS cells are ‘indistinguishable’ from embryonic stem (ES) cells. (Nature 448: 318, 2007) /////Conflicting point 3: Induction of iPS cells from somatic cells requires transformation by the two tumor-associated gene products, c-Myc and Klf4 and the presence of Oct3/4 and Sox2 directs the cell fate toward ES-like cells rather than tumor cells. (Cell Stem Cell 1: 39, 2007) ‘The balance between c-Myc and KLF4 might be a critical for transformation in iPS cells’ (Cell Proliferation 41: 51, 2007) IPS cells have been generated without using Myc and/or KLF4. (Science 318: 1917, 2007 and Nature Biotechnol. 26: 59, 2008) /////Conflicting point 4: ‘Mice derived from Myc- iPS cells did not develop tumors during the study period’ (Abstract of Nature Biotechnol. 26: 59, 2008) ‘Mice derived from iPS cells that had not been transduced with the Myc retrovirus showed a significantly reduced incidence of tumorigenicity’. (Text of Nature Biotechnol. 26: 59, 2008) ------------------------------------ I appreciate any education on these points that I need experts’ opinion. Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com)
Definition of Research Misconduct ------------------------ Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. (a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. (b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. (c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. -------------- From website of Office of Research Integrity (http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/definition_misconduct.shtml)
An open invitation for post-publication peer review and public comment on debate over the induction claim for iPS cells ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear iPS cell researchers and all people interested in learning iPS cells: Nature has rejected to publish my Communications Arising ‘Are iPS cells really induced from differentiated cells?’ which challenges the induction claim for the iPS cells as made in a recent Nature publication (451: 141-146, 2008). Now this paper has been published in Logical Biology (8: 1, 7, 2008) and is free in full-length to every one at:. http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N1A1_iPS4.htm Or http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N1A1_iPS4.pdf I welcome anyone to submit a review or comment on this publication. Negative review/comment will also be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, Shi V. Liu MD PhD ------------------------ SVL@logibio.com
The other side of iPS cells ------------------------------------- A paper entitled <Can Yamanaka explain his contradictory statements?> was rejected by Nature due to space limitation. It is now published in Logical Biology. It can be found free in two formats: //PDF (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N1A3_Yamanaka.pdf) //HTM (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N1A3_Yamanaka.htm) // In addition, more articles on iPS cells and cloning can be found at http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm ---------------- Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com)
This comment has been removed by the moderator
A simple experiment to verify the ‘direct reprogramming’ claim on iPS cell ‘induction’---------------- I wish to publically outline a simple experiment for directly and definitely testing the ‘direct reprogramming’-based ‘induction’ of iPS (induced pluripotent stem) cell. First, obtain some truly differentiated cells. Then incubate them singularly under a non-proliferating condition and allow them to be transfected with the genes encoding the preferred transcription factors. Finally, test the pluripotency of each cell. The experiment should be conducted with a non-transfection control group. Alternatively, each cell’s before and after transfection comparison can also serve as a kind of control. If the transfection treatment fails to directly reprogram any differentiated cell back a more pluripotent cell then it is clear that transcription-level reprogramming alone does not directly ‘induce’ pluripotency. If the non-transfection control group even yields pluripotent cells, then this would suggest that there is no specific induction from the ‘inducing’ transcription factors. -------------------------- This simple experiment was suggested to Yamanaka in July 2007 when I criticized his ‘induction’ claim. At that time he stated that ‘the experiments [I] proposed are important’. However, so far there is no sign as to him performing this simple but important experiment. -------------------------- For more detailed arguments on the importance of this experiment, please read the entire article at: http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N1A6_SimpleTest.htm or http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N1A6_SimpleTest.pdf ------------------------------ Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) /// Contact at SVL@logibio.com
If this invistigation is true, this will resolve all scientific problems that we face recent days, since we can easly inject these stem cells into any patian “what even his case could be†and this will leads to full and fast recuperation. since, these undifferentiated stem cells have the abilty to diffrntaite in to any kind of cells, which in turn leads to repaire imparied cells. But I kindly would to ask, which magic techniques that could use to make any differentiated cells a source for iPS cells. A, B Science for any young scientist it is impossible “but absolutely impossible†to operate such transformation. The only case in which the differentiated cells could return again to their first origin “undifferentiated one†is in the cancer case, which mean, it will be undifferentiated cancer cell not to undifferentiated stem cell.
What is the current status of iPS cells?------ Since iPS cell research became a national project in Japan there is not a single new study coming out of that big project. Has Yamanaka done the key experiments proposed by Shi Liu? What are the results of those experiments? What do those "top" journals need that long time to "consider" Shi Liu's criticisms on the published iPS studies? How long should the public be put on "hold" for a final stage of opening the "magic box" of iPS cells for a transparent and thorough view?------- A quick summary of questions and concerns from the readers of the following publications: http://im1.biz and http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1) ---- Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com)
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS IS TRUE?------------ 1. "Disclosed is a means for inducing the reprogramming of a differentiated cell without using any embryo or ES cell and establish an inducible pluripotent stem cell having similar pluripotency and growing ability to those of an ES cell in a simple manner and with good reproductivity." (Shinya Yamanaka, Patent application filed on December 6, 2006, WO 2007/069666 A1) ------ 2. "Takahashi and Yamanaka have successfully reprogrammed terminally differentiated cells to a pluripotent state." (Rodolfa and Eggan, Cell 126: 652, 2006) ------ 3. "We have never claimed that we generated iPS cells from terminally differentiated cells. We agree that the origin of iPS cells may be tissue stem or progenitor cells co-existing in fibroblast cultures." (Shinya Yamanaka, formal response on July 20, 2007 to my Communications Arising submitted to Nature which was eventually rejected by Nature after a lengthy peer review). ------ Could any iPS cell researcher and stem cell expert tell me NOW which of the above statements is true? Many Many Thanks! ----- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1) SVL@logibio.com
iPS Cells: a More Critical Review---------- Over the past 20 months, reports claiming the generation of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells with characteristics identical to those of embryonic stem (ES) cells from non-embryonic tissue have captured great attention of scientific community and general public. In the light of the continuing controversy over the use of ES cells, these reports have profound ramifications. This review calls into question the validity of many claims made in these reports, claims which have led to the rapid and premature acceptance of using iPS cells as a viable alternative to using normal stem cells for regenerative therapy. How convincing are the evidences supporting the various claims made for the iPS cells? Are there other more plausible explanations for the same observations? What are these iPS cells? Are they really safe for therapeutic use? Should the iPS technique be considered, in the absence of any direct evidence for induction and reprogramming, as a realistic alternative for somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to generating ES-like cells? This review attempts to trig some reflections on and offer alternative views for some key aspects of iPS cells and studies. ----------- Abstract from Stem Cells ans Development doi:10.1089/scd.2008.0062 ----------- Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com)
Which is true or right?------------- Yamanaka et al. stated that "the four transcription factors successfully reprogrammed somatic cells that had differentiated into a stage in which the albumin promoter is turned on." (Science 2008-02-14).----- Jaenisch at al. stated that "We failed to generate any reprogrammed AP+ colonies from mature spleen B cells or bone marrow derived lgk+ cells in 3 independent experiments [with the original four transcription factors]." (Cell 2008-04-18)----- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
Which statement should we believe? ------------- Yamanaka et al. stated that "iPS-Hep cells were derived from hepatocytes or other albumin-expressing cells, nut not from undifferentiated cells that do not express albumin. " (Science 2008-02-14). ----- Jaenisch at al. stated that "as albumin gene expression marks heterogeneous cells populations in the liver in addition to hepatocytes, including oval cells that play an important role in liver regeneration and might serve as adult liver stem cells, the question of reprogramming terminally differentiated cells remains unresolved." (Cell 2008-04-18)----- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
[[[This is a revised version of a Comment posted on Feb 26, 2008 which was hidden on April 22, 2008]]]-------------------- In a recent report, Yamanaka et al. stated that their genetic tracing studies prove that induced pluripotential stem cells (iPS cells) are induced from differentiated cells. However, I question their interpretation of the tracing studies and hence the conclusion reached. In the report, the authors' description of the methodology used to generate triple transgenic mice differs from that in the supplemental information. Thus, in the published text, the authors stated "the Nanog-reporter mice, in which GFP and the puromycin resistance gene was [sic] knocked into Nanog for selection of iPS cells, were first crossed with mice expressing the [sic] Cre recombinase ((word missing here???)) driven by the albumin promoter, and then crossed with mice expressing a loxP-CAT-loxP-b-gal cassette from constitutively active promoter." In the supplementary data, however, the authors state that "we first crossed homozygous Nanog-reporter mice with homozygous CAG-CAT-Z mice (S5). We then crossed the F1 mice with homozygous Alb-Cre mice (S6)." I am not sure whether these distinguishable crossing methods will generate the exactly same genotypes. But for the accuracy of a scientific record, this obvious discrepancy in describing a critical method should be resolved (in fact, this obvious discrepancy should even not occur in any high-quality journal). ------- In addition to the uncertainties of the genotypes used, I am also curious about the generation or the missing of some data in this report. For example, in Table S2, which shows the result of chimeras formed by injection of iPS cells, the number of chimeras assigned to an experiment on cell line iPS-Hep 92A is 3. However, there was no number recorded in the columns showing the degree of chimerism for this iPS cell line. How could the authors conclude on the number of chimera without even knowing the degree of chimerism in each chimera? What were the degrees of the chimerism of these 3 chimeras? In Table S1 showing teratoma formation from various iPS cell lines, the results of over two thirds of the experiments were recorded as ND (not done). How could such high level of missing data be acceptable for such critical experiments? These data are very important for a convincing conclusion on the tumorigenicity of iPS cells. Thus, the authors should make to get the outcomes of these experiments DETERMINED, instead of leaving them NOT DETERMINED. ------- It is ironical that, while my repeated challenges on the "induction" claim were consistently rejected for publication in top journals (http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm), a statement from Yamanaka that "the cell origins and molecular mechanisms of iPS cell induction remain elusive" does appear in Science. Is this a progress or a regress in iPS research? ----------------------------- Shi V. Liu SVL@logibio.com
When will top journal publish some corrections or even retractions on the mistakes and misrepresentations in some iPS publications?------------- Looking back the comments that I have posted here it is clear that more and more evidence supports the suspicions that some of the widely disseminated claims contained in some very high-profile publications in top journals on iPS cell and technique are not true or at least unsubstantiated. So for the accuracy of scientific information and integrity of scientific research, it is essential now for the top journals to issue some corrections o even retractions on those unproven claims. It is also essential for those journals to press the corresponding authors to PUBLICLY address the questions that have been waiting for their answers for months.----- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
An April fool's spinning on iPS cells------------- Sir, I am very amazed that you would go to such an extreme of using an April foul's hoax (http://paper.sznews.com/szdaily/20080402/ca2895896.htm) of "pregnant man" (http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid52947.asp) to further spin on the much hyped claims for iPS cells (1). The origins of iPS cells are still elusive and the basic claim of inducing iPS cells from terminally differentiated skin cells is unproven so far (2, 3) (http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm). Thus, there is no scientific basis to anticipate that totipotent germ cells can be derived from pluripotent stem cells such as the iPS cells within the next 5 to 15 years (http://im1.biz/StemCell.htm)./////////// The "man" in pregnancy is really a women undergone just partial transgender surgery that removed only her breast glands but still left her reproductive organ intact. If you will call this biological woman a "man", then I will trust you have no biological knowledge and scientific sense.///////////// I demand you to publish an Editorial to correct your gender-identification mistake and to put the hope or hype for unconventional reproduction of human being into a reasonable perspective./////// Shi V. Liu Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine Apex, NC 27502 SVL@logibio.com ///// References 1. Anonymous. New sources of sex cells. Nature 452, 913 (2008). 2. Liu, S. V. Towards a balanced view on iPS Cells. Logical Biology 8, 32-38 (2008). 3. Liu, S. V. iPS cells: a more critical review. Stem Cells Dev. Published advanced online doi: 10.1089/scd.2008.0062 (2008). /////// This is a Correspondence submitted to Nature but rejected by Nature due to "space limitation".
Clear answers for the elusive iPS and stem cells questions----------- "What is a stem cell?" "Are stem cells immortal?" "Are iPS cells induced/generated new stem cells or isolated/selected pre-existing cells?" "Are iPS cells really indistinguishable from ES cells? "Can iPS cells really replace ES cell for ethical cloning and safe regenerative medicine?" //// All of these questions have been answered and these answers can be obtained essentially free of charge. Just click http://im1.biz and then you can find these and many other solid scientific discoveries that have been first ignored by the mainstream and then re-discovered by researches reported in the "top" journals///// By the way, a very new scientific criticism on the most recent iPS publication in Cell has been published in Logical Biology and can be read in full-length free. HTM (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N2A3_NewProof4iPS.htm) PDF (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N2A3_NewProof4iPS.pdf ) ////// Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com; http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1 )
An Open Invitation to Publicly Debate the iPS Controversy Created by Cell---- ----- Recently I submitted my last Correspondence to Cell analyzing the mistakes contained in its most recent publication on iPS cells. Before the submission, the manuscript was peer-reviewed by several well-qualified scientists including some stem cell experts. It was also evaluated as very appropriate by some editors of the mainstream journals. However, even this scientifically sound and politically correct Correspondence is still be TOTALLY ignored by Cell.//// Considering the unlikelihood of Cell to accept this submission, the Correspondence was PUBLISHED in Logical Biology – the first open access and open review scientific journal in the world. A copy of this publication was sent to Cell, to Dr. Jaenisch, and to Science (which is in the process of asking Yamanaka to publicly acknowledge me for pointing out the mistakes made by Yamanaka). I invited Cell and Dr. Jaenisch to offer their responses but so far I have not received any./// So now I invite all iPS researchers, all stem cell researchers, all cell biologists, all biologists, all scientists, and even all the public to read this OPEN-ACCESS and OPEN REVIEW publication (HTM at http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N2A3_NewProof4iPS.htm ; PDF at http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N2A3_NewProof4iPS.pdf ). I welcome any criticism and counter-argument and will pose no censorship to any criticism and different opinion. ///// Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com; http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1)
An Open Condemnation against Cell’s Consistent Suppression of Alternative views on Cell Life-- ----- Over the past years I have submitted many Correspondences to Cell addressing some mistakes contained in its publications. However, none of them was accepted for publication. Cell even formed a "rule" that it will not give me any response to any of my submission.//// Realizing the existence of this stone-wall against me I still submit my criticisms on its recent iPS publications. However, Cell truly followed with its rule and thus never sent me any response even after my strongest protests.//// Now I wish to let the public know what Correspondences that I have sent to Cell and being rejected by Cell. Please click the links here for a list in HTM (http://im1.biz/CellRejection.htm) and PDF (http://im1.biz/CellRejection.pdf). //// Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com; http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1)
Cell should retract invalid claims in its high-profile iPS publication!!! ----- In 2006 Cell published the first research report on iPS cells (Takahashi and Yamanaka, Cell 126: 663, 2006 ) with a Commentary (Rodolfa and Eggan, Cell 126: 652, 2006) clearly stated that "Takahashi and Yamanaka have successfully reprogrammed terminally differentiated cells to a pluripotent state." This claim not only led to a seismic shift in stem cell research but also led to the conceptual construction of the first biological airplane.//// However, did Yamanaka et al. really achieved the direct reprogramming of a terminally differentiated cells to a pluripotent state?///// No!!!!! In his formal response (on behalf of all the coauthors) to my scientific criticisms (http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm), Yamanaka stated that "We have never claimed that we generated iPS cells from terminally differentiated cells. We agree that the origin of iPS cells may be tissue stem or progenitor cells co-existing in fibroblast cultures."//// In his recent publication in Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1154884) , Yamanaka also admitted that "the cell origins and molecular mechanisms of iPS cell induction remain elusive". The new claim of proving induction of iPS cells from differentiated cells as reported in this recent Science paper was not only rejected by my analysis of the data (http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm) but also echoed by Jaenisch et al. in his very recent Cell paper (Cell 133:250-264, 2008)./// Jaenisch et al. stated: "as albumin gene expression marks heterogeneous cells populations in the liver in addition to hepatocytes, including oval cells that play an important role in liver regeneration and might serve as adult liver stem cells, the question of reprogramming terminally differentiated cells remains unresolved."///// Thus, it is very clear that Yamanaka et al. so far have not proven that they can induce pluripotent stem cells from truly differentiated cells. Then why didn’t Cell retract those high-profile iPS publications which have generated some very high but unrealistic hypes??? //// Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com; http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1)
This comment has been removed by the moderator
iPS cells: Why much fewer publications in a new era? ----- Within the past 2 years at least 20 research reports have been published on iPS cells (http://im1.biz/FastTrack.htm ). However, the speed of iPS research has been greatly slowed even when a new era was declared for iPS research and iPS research has been declared as a national project (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080116/full/451229a.html ).///// As a matter of factor, only 5 reports were published so far this year. When judged by the submission dates there was essentially no report accepted for publication after the publication of a warning by Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080326/full/452406a.html ) on jumping on the iPS bandwagon. A series criticisms have been published against the various unproven claims made in various iPS reports and the misrepresentations contained in some reports (http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm). These criticisms argues that the evidence shown so far support a view that a selection of (oncogenic) transformed pre-existing cells (containing genetically marked “stemness genesâ€) may be the underlying mechanisms for the generation of “iPS†cells. (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N2A3_NewProof4iPS.htm ,PDF http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N2A3_NewProof4iPS.pdf ). //// Since no research so far has proven the induction of iPS cells from truly differentiated cells, the conclusion that "Takahashi and Yamanaka have successfully reprogrammed terminally differentiated cells to a pluripotent state" is invalid. Thus, Cell should retract that claim contained in its first publication on iPS cells (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080116/full/451229a.html ; http://im1.biz/CellRejection.htm or http://im1.biz/CellRejection.pdf)//// //// Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com; http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1)
iPS cells: Why much fewer publications in a new era? ----- Within the past 2 years at least 20 research reports have been published on iPS cells (http://im1.biz/FastTrack.htm ). However, the speed of iPS research has been greatly slowed even when a new era was declared for iPS research and iPS research has been declared as a national project (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080116/full/451229a.html ).///// As a matter of factor, only 5 reports were published so far this year. When judged by the submission dates there was essentially no report accepted for publication after the publication of a warning by Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080326/full/452406a.html ) on jumping on the iPS bandwagon. A series criticisms have been published against the various unproven claims made in various iPS reports and the misrepresentations contained in some reports (http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm). These criticisms argues that the evidence shown so far support a view that a selection of (oncogenic) transformed pre-existing cells (containing genetically marked "stemness genes") may be the underlying mechanisms for the generation of "iPS" cells. (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N2A3_NewProof4iPS.htm ,PDF http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N2A3_NewProof4iPS.pdf ). //// Since no research so far has proven the induction of iPS cells from truly differentiated cells, the conclusion that "Takahashi and Yamanaka have successfully reprogrammed terminally differentiated cells to a pluripotent state" is invalid. Thus, Cell should retract that claim contained in its first publication on iPS cells (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080116/full/451229a.html ; http://im1.biz/CellRejection.htm or http://im1.biz/CellRejection.pdf)//// //// Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com; http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1)
Science published a piece of "Corrections and Clarifications" today (August 1, 2008; Vol. 321, page 641) which Yamanaka et al. publicly "Thank Dr. Shi V. Liu, Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine" for pointing some errors in their Science report appeared in ScienceExpress on Feb. 14, 2008 and now in print (Vol. 321, page 699-702)./// This "acknowledgment was an arrangement made by Science when it rejected my detailed Technical Comment right after the epub of the Yamanaka Science report. I agreed with being named in the acknowledgement but reserved my right to further comment once I read the "corrected" print version./// Now I have read the "corrected" version. I have to say that, based on the "corrections", erratum and Note added in proof, Science has made a great mistake in rejecting my Technical Comment because all those major criticisms objected by Science then are now confirmed./// Fortunately, there are other better scientific journals which publish objective assessment on major scientific "discoveries". My Technical Comment rejected by Science was published in May 30, 2008 by Logical Biology (8: 57-61, 2008). I wish everyone interested in understanding what iPS cells really are should read this publication, which is entitled "The final blow-up of the induction and reprogramming claim for iPS cells."/// Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com; http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1)
Has any real progress been made in this National Project? Hurry up otherwise even the "very useful" iPS cells will become obsolete. Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com; http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1)