Researchers Grow Functional Rat Kidneys in Lab

Researchers Grow Functional Rat Kidneys in Lab

image

The kidneys successfully make urine both in the lab and when transplanted into a rat.

Functional rat kidneys have been made in lab by researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital, leading to hopes that bioengineered replacement organs for humans are closer than most think. The kidneys produced urine both in the lab and after being transplanted into rats. They were grown on a natural scaffold of collagen called the extracellular matrix, which helps the grown kidneys to hold the shape and internal architecture of the natural kidney. Holding the shape of the natural kidney is an advantage over an artificial organ replacement because it's immediately implantable and won't interfere with nearby organs. The extracellular matrix's blood vessels were injected with human kidney cells, and then newborn rat kidney cells were used to fill out the other parts, resulting in tissue regeneration. After incubating for five days to allow growth, the kidneys were fully functional.

Currently, the extracellular matrix used is made by stripping a living organ of its cells, and a sustainable solution would require a lab-grown matrix as well. The researchers did note that the urine produced by the kidneys was lower quality than from natural organs, but that may be due to the immaturity of the kidneys. While some artificially decellularized tissues have had problems with blood clotting, the researchers saw no signs of bleeding or clotting during the experiment duration. The kidneys functioned for the whole experiment term, though the experiments were short.

Thousands of people die each year for a lack of transplantable organs, or while awaiting organ donors, and bioengineered organs could ease or eliminate such shortages. Dr. Harald C. Ott, a senior author of the paper, said that when a patient needed a kidney "You'd take a kidney matrix off the shelf, then, in an ideal world, you'd take cells from that patient and create a kidney on demand."

Source: New York Times
Image: Nature Medicine

Like our science news? Check out our weekly science show, Geekend Update, for more.

Permalink

Nice. Still, looking at some comparison data I can't imagine that rat could have survived long-term on the new kidney already. I wonder if there's some kind of rat dialysis machine...

You can do dialysis on a lab rat, if you feel so inclined.

--

This technology is truly revolutionary. Its been coming for a while, but even though the products have looked like their parent organs and if produced from a patient's stem cells do not look to cause any rejection issues, but have had a decided lack of functionality in organs.

To actually be able to produce urine,
thats a huge step forward.

But its an old idea, so nature subjournal rather than nature.

Now they finally be able to pass the drug test!

I hate to be a downer here, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere else that the rat died just hours later.

That is probably important to mention.

Excellent. I did my Biology coursework on Xenotransplantation. Tangentially related, but still.

Sounds like the Deus Ex future just got a bit squishier.

Science, it fucking works!

This is both good and bad news. You see it's great for all the possible kidney patients in the future. It is bad news for anyone who can't afford them.

1337mokro:
This is both good and bad news. You see it's great for all the possible kidney patients in the future. It is bad news for anyone who can't afford them.

Good and bad?

Its good. Eventually it will be good for all as the price of such treatment will go down, but in time, not immediately.

Its bad in a really really superficial sense as some initially will have a cure in sight that is out of their grasp, but it is better to have a cure than no cure at all...

I have a friend who reall would need a form of this treatment but with another part of the body. I see it as progress.

So.... How long until I can enjoy the taste of endangered animals without the illegality of it all?

Comando96:

1337mokro:
This is both good and bad news. You see it's great for all the possible kidney patients in the future. It is bad news for anyone who can't afford them.

Good and bad?

Its good. Eventually it will be good for all as the price of such treatment will go down, but in time, not immediately.

Its bad in a really really superficial sense as some initially will have a cure in sight that is out of their grasp, but it is better to have a cure than no cure at all...

I have a friend who reall would need a form of this treatment but with another part of the body. I see it as progress.

Oh of course it's progress, but progress is not inherently good. See child labour through industrialization :)

It's both good and bad. One it allows the rich a basically limitless supply of organs. Drank one liver to death? Take one out of the fridge and SLAP it on.

Simultaneously people in third world countries will still be stuck on dialysis machines.

Universally good news would have been "Researchers invent way to grow kidneys for less than 5 pence per kidney".

All I can think about is REPO MAN!

1337mokro:
Oh of course it's progress, but progress is not inherently good. See child labour through industrialization :)

That would be applicable if we were testing this treatment at the expense of scooping up random africans to test this on. We're not :)

1337mokro:
It's both good and bad. One it allows the rich a basically limitless supply of organs. Drank one liver to death? Take one out of the fridge and SLAP it on.

Simultaneously people in third world countries will still be stuck on dialysis machines.

"Oh those dialysis machines, all those rich people will be able to afford one, after they have ruined their health, while the poor people will just die in the gutter of the street", they said once upon a time.

1337mokro:
Universally good news would have been "Researchers invent way to grow kidneys for less than 5 pence per kidney".

Changes happens over time.
This is the reality of our world at this time.
Within the knowlage of the above fact, which itself is not good... This is good news, not bad.

Comando96:

1337mokro:
Oh of course it's progress, but progress is not inherently good. See child labour through industrialization :)

That would be applicable if we were testing this treatment at the expense of scooping up random africans to test this on. We're not :)

1337mokro:
It's both good and bad. One it allows the rich a basically limitless supply of organs. Drank one liver to death? Take one out of the fridge and SLAP it on.

Simultaneously people in third world countries will still be stuck on dialysis machines.

"Oh those dialysis machines, all those rich people will be able to afford one, after they have ruined their health, while the poor people will just die in the gutter of the street", they said once upon a time.

1337mokro:
Universally good news would have been "Researchers invent way to grow kidneys for less than 5 pence per kidney".

Changes happens over time.
This is the reality of our world at this time.
Within the knowlage of the above fact, which itself is not good... This is good news, not bad.

Oh of course not. We are going to test it on working class slubs whose only change at life is a new kidney!

Eh actually they do. Sheikhs in Saudi Arabia have their own personal medical wards. They literally own medical equipment for their own personal use. Now I don't know of an example in America because there it basically involves walking into a private clinic and paying the bill so why even bother buying the machine?

Knowlage :D

Uhum... Sure it's good news... for the people that will be able to afford the treatment.

Does that bag look like a water balloon to anyone else?

Canadish:
I hate to be a downer here, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere else that the rat died just hours later.

That is probably important to mention.

Could you link your sources? Someone could have lied to that website you were on.

Will this eventually extend to other organs?

1337mokro:

Comando96:

1337mokro:
Oh of course it's progress, but progress is not inherently good. See child labour through industrialization :)

That would be applicable if we were testing this treatment at the expense of scooping up random africans to test this on. We're not :)

1337mokro:
It's both good and bad. One it allows the rich a basically limitless supply of organs. Drank one liver to death? Take one out of the fridge and SLAP it on.

Simultaneously people in third world countries will still be stuck on dialysis machines.

"Oh those dialysis machines, all those rich people will be able to afford one, after they have ruined their health, while the poor people will just die in the gutter of the street", they said once upon a time.

1337mokro:
Universally good news would have been "Researchers invent way to grow kidneys for less than 5 pence per kidney".

Changes happens over time.
This is the reality of our world at this time.
Within the knowlage of the above fact, which itself is not good... This is good news, not bad.

Oh of course not. We are going to test it on working class slubs whose only change at life is a new kidney!

Eh actually they do. Sheikhs in Saudi Arabia have their own personal medical wards. They literally own medical equipment for their own personal use. Now I don't know of an example in America because there it basically involves walking into a private clinic and paying the bill so why even bother buying the machine?

Knowlage :D

Uhum... Sure it's good news... for the people that will be able to afford the treatment.

As time progresses we will learn more and get a better grasp on the procedures the cost will go down. Ya know, like pretty much all other forms of human technology through history?
We invent something and it is rudimentary and only available to the rich and powerful. Time passes, we perfect it/get better at making it and price decreases as our methods become more efficient and economical.

And even if this were to only be available to the rich for a long while then think of it like this.
The more rich people that use these kidneys = the more normal kidneys available for non-rich people.

So even if this is only available to the rich more people would still be saved and get kidneys than now.

So no matter how you look at this it is an example of good progress.
:D

1337mokro:
Eh actually they do. Sheikhs in Saudi Arabia have their own personal medical wards. They literally own medical equipment for their own personal use. Now I don't know of an example in America because there it basically involves walking into a private clinic and paying the bill so why even bother buying the machine?

The use of sarcasm seems to have flown over your head...

You're coming at this from a very Marxist point of view and that's fine, however much the ruling class are better off than the rest, things get better and while the rich get better off first, this later ends up being given down to the working class, or for no other reason to give concessions to the people so that delays a revolution...

Still a good thing... not just for those who can afford the treatment at the time, as it will get cheaper for those in the future.

Beffudled Sheep:
As time progresses we will learn more and get a better grasp on the procedures the cost will go down. Ya know, like pretty much all other forms of human technology through history?
We invent something and it is rudimentary and only available to the rich and powerful. Time passes, we perfect it/get better at making it and price decreases as our methods become more efficient and economical.

And even if this were to only be available to the rich for a long while then think of it like this.
The more rich people that use these kidneys = the more normal kidneys available for non-rich people.

So even if this is only available to the rich more people would still be saved and get kidneys than now.

So no matter how you look at this it is an example of good progress.
:D

Define Good.

It's most certainly Progress for the replication of organs. But to claim it as a good progress is kind of letting me trololololololol you :)

Comando96:

1337mokro:
Eh actually they do. Sheikhs in Saudi Arabia have their own personal medical wards. They literally own medical equipment for their own personal use. Now I don't know of an example in America because there it basically involves walking into a private clinic and paying the bill so why even bother buying the machine?

The use of sarcasm seems to have flown over your head...

You're coming at this from a very Marxist point of view and that's fine, however much the ruling class are better off than the rest, things get better and while the rich get better off first, this later ends up being given down to the working class, or for no other reason to give concessions to the people so that delays a revolution...

Still a good thing... not just for those who can afford the treatment at the time, as it will get cheaper for those in the future.

It helps if you actually use sarcasm in the first place :)

It's also not much a of a Marxist view, whilst your optimistic view of the rich getting richer eventually trickling down to the poorer classes is absolute bullshit. We can see that right now failing harder in America than ever.

Rich get richer... poor stagnate. The middle class gets a percentage of a percentage of the wage increases the rich get. Whilst productivity and gross revenue go up and up and up. What you are saying is bullshit :)

1337mokro:

Beffudled Sheep:

1337mokro:

Oh of course not. We are going to test it on working class slubs whose only change at life is a new kidney!

Eh actually they do. Sheikhs in Saudi Arabia have their own personal medical wards. They literally own medical equipment for their own personal use. Now I don't know of an example in America because there it basically involves walking into a private clinic and paying the bill so why even bother buying the machine?

Knowlage :D

Uhum... Sure it's good news... for the people that will be able to afford the treatment.

As time progresses we will learn more and get a better grasp on the procedures the cost will go down. Ya know, like pretty much all other forms of human technology through history?
We invent something and it is rudimentary and only available to the rich and powerful. Time passes, we perfect it/get better at making it and price decreases as our methods become more efficient and economical.

And even if this were to only be available to the rich for a long while then think of it like this.
The more rich people that use these kidneys = the more normal kidneys available for non-rich people.

So even if this is only available to the rich more people would still be saved and get kidneys than now.

So no matter how you look at this it is an example of good progress.
:D

Define Good.

It's most certainly Progress for the replication of organs. But to claim it as a good progress is kind of letting me trololololololol you :)

Let me pull up a dictionary so I can dictionary nazi you :)
benefit or advantage to someone or something
From the Oxford English dictionary :D
:p

Beffudled Sheep:

1337mokro:

Beffudled Sheep:
As time progresses we will learn more and get a better grasp on the procedures the cost will go down. Ya know, like pretty much all other forms of human technology through history?
We invent something and it is rudimentary and only available to the rich and powerful. Time passes, we perfect it/get better at making it and price decreases as our methods become more efficient and economical.

And even if this were to only be available to the rich for a long while then think of it like this.
The more rich people that use these kidneys = the more normal kidneys available for non-rich people.

So even if this is only available to the rich more people would still be saved and get kidneys than now.

So no matter how you look at this it is an example of good progress.
:D

Define Good.

It's most certainly Progress for the replication of organs. But to claim it as a good progress is kind of letting me trololololololol you :)

Let me pull up a dictionary so I can dictionary nazi you :)
benefit or advantage to someone or something
From the Oxford English dictionary :D
:p

So you would define it as not bad?

Though how does it have No bad sides? Then it can be all good. But apparently we have to wait for that to happen so it DOES have bad sides :)

1337mokro:

Beffudled Sheep:

1337mokro:

Define Good.

It's most certainly Progress for the replication of organs. But to claim it as a good progress is kind of letting me trololololololol you :)

Let me pull up a dictionary so I can dictionary nazi you :)
benefit or advantage to someone or something
From the Oxford English dictionary :D
:p

So you would define it as not bad?

Though how does it have No bad sides? Then it can be all good. But apparently we have to wait for that to happen so it DOES have bad sides :)

Nah man no bad sides at all. I mean who wants their kidneys to function right and honestly who cares about poor people? They're so poor and smelly.
;)
I'm having fun :D

Beffudled Sheep:

1337mokro:

Beffudled Sheep:
Let me pull up a dictionary so I can dictionary nazi you :)
benefit or advantage to someone or something
From the Oxford English dictionary :D
:p

So you would define it as not bad?

Though how does it have No bad sides? Then it can be all good. But apparently we have to wait for that to happen so it DOES have bad sides :)

Nah man no bad sides at all. I mean who wants their kidneys to function right and honestly who cares about poor people? They're so poor and smelly.
;)
I'm having fun :D

Well for one people who want to end it all. What if their family forces them to get surgery and get new kidneys for 10 more years of agony (average life span of donor kidneys = 10 years).

Also like I said with that definition child labour is good to! It reduced expenses, you can have a work force with tiny hands to reach the small parts in machines AND kids are staying off the street away from crime. Child labour is so GOOD. It basically drove the entire industrial revolution and look where it got us now? No bad sides at all!

1337mokro:

Beffudled Sheep:

1337mokro:

So you would define it as not bad?

Though how does it have No bad sides? Then it can be all good. But apparently we have to wait for that to happen so it DOES have bad sides :)

Nah man no bad sides at all. I mean who wants their kidneys to function right and honestly who cares about poor people? They're so poor and smelly.
;)
I'm having fun :D

Well for one people who want to end it all. What if their family forces them to get surgery and get new kidneys for 10 more years of agony (average life span of donor kidneys = 10 years).

Also like I said with that definition child labour is good to! It reduced expenses, you can have a work force with tiny hands to reach the small parts in machines AND kids are staying off the street away from crime. Child labour is so GOOD. It basically drove the entire industrial revolution and look where it got us now? No bad sides at all!

Indeed! In fact I say we should go back to child labor! Gives em something to do and if any accidents happen we save money on replacements!
And while that new life might be "bad" for the suicidal it is obviously "good" for their family and friends. And said person would have more family and friends being positively affected than the one individual being negatively affected.

So we have a net gain of good!

Beffudled Sheep:

1337mokro:

Beffudled Sheep:
Nah man no bad sides at all. I mean who wants their kidneys to function right and honestly who cares about poor people? They're so poor and smelly.
;)
I'm having fun :D

Well for one people who want to end it all. What if their family forces them to get surgery and get new kidneys for 10 more years of agony (average life span of donor kidneys = 10 years).

Also like I said with that definition child labour is good to! It reduced expenses, you can have a work force with tiny hands to reach the small parts in machines AND kids are staying off the street away from crime. Child labour is so GOOD. It basically drove the entire industrial revolution and look where it got us now? No bad sides at all!

Indeed! In fact I say we should go back to child labor! Gives em something to do and if any accidents happen we save money on replacements!
And while that new life might be "bad" for the suicidal it is obviously "good" for their family and friends. And said person would have more family and friends being positively affected than the one individual being negatively affected.

So we have a net gain of good!

Learning to let go is a good thing. That's why we need to bring back the child labour. The random chance of getting sucked into one of the machines will teach people how to deal with sudden losses.

That would solve my previous complaint though so we better not. I'd rather be right :D

1337mokro:

Beffudled Sheep:

1337mokro:

Well for one people who want to end it all. What if their family forces them to get surgery and get new kidneys for 10 more years of agony (average life span of donor kidneys = 10 years).

Also like I said with that definition child labour is good to! It reduced expenses, you can have a work force with tiny hands to reach the small parts in machines AND kids are staying off the street away from crime. Child labour is so GOOD. It basically drove the entire industrial revolution and look where it got us now? No bad sides at all!

Indeed! In fact I say we should go back to child labor! Gives em something to do and if any accidents happen we save money on replacements!
And while that new life might be "bad" for the suicidal it is obviously "good" for their family and friends. And said person would have more family and friends being positively affected than the one individual being negatively affected.

So we have a net gain of good!

Learning to let go is a good thing. That's why we need to bring back the child labour. The random chance of getting sucked into one of the machines will teach people how to deal with sudden losses.

That would solve my previous complaint though so we better not. I'd rather be right :D

Being right is painfully overrated, being left is all the rage in Death Valley I hear.

This technology would be so much better if we used it for testicles instead. We could cure the genophage with them.

Still not sure I understand why you think this isn't good though (fer srs) or if you were serious.

Beffudled Sheep:

1337mokro:

Beffudled Sheep:
Indeed! In fact I say we should go back to child labor! Gives em something to do and if any accidents happen we save money on replacements!
And while that new life might be "bad" for the suicidal it is obviously "good" for their family and friends. And said person would have more family and friends being positively affected than the one individual being negatively affected.

So we have a net gain of good!

Learning to let go is a good thing. That's why we need to bring back the child labour. The random chance of getting sucked into one of the machines will teach people how to deal with sudden losses.

That would solve my previous complaint though so we better not. I'd rather be right :D

Being right is painfully overrated, being left is all the rage in Death Valley I hear.

This technology would be so much better if we used it for testicles instead. We could cure the genophage with them.

Still not sure I understand why you think this isn't good though (fer srs) or if you were serious.

I thought we pured all the left handed ones in the great purge.

The answer is probably and because of reasons.

1337mokro:

Beffudled Sheep:

1337mokro:

Learning to let go is a good thing. That's why we need to bring back the child labour. The random chance of getting sucked into one of the machines will teach people how to deal with sudden losses.

That would solve my previous complaint though so we better not. I'd rather be right :D

Being right is painfully overrated, being left is all the rage in Death Valley I hear.

This technology would be so much better if we used it for testicles instead. We could cure the genophage with them.

Still not sure I understand why you think this isn't good though (fer srs) or if you were serious.

I thought we pured all the left handed ones in the great purge.

The answer is probably and because of reasons.

We missed one somewhere and before we knew it that left handed bugger started to capture us noble right handers and forcefully convert us. They're like zombies I say.

Beffudled Sheep:

1337mokro:

Beffudled Sheep:
Being right is painfully overrated, being left is all the rage in Death Valley I hear.

This technology would be so much better if we used it for testicles instead. We could cure the genophage with them.

Still not sure I understand why you think this isn't good though (fer srs) or if you were serious.

I thought we pured all the left handed ones in the great purge.

The answer is probably and because of reasons.

We missed one somewhere and before we knew it that left handed bugger started to capture us noble right handers and forcefully convert us. They're like zombies I say.

Your mouse hand was simply to weak, that is how they turned you. You started playing console games didn't you?! You disgrace the name of the PC gaming master race.

We should also stop because we're basically spamming the chat. :D

The last joke is yours if you want it.

1337mokro:

Beffudled Sheep:

1337mokro:

I thought we pured all the left handed ones in the great purge.

The answer is probably and because of reasons.

We missed one somewhere and before we knew it that left handed bugger started to capture us noble right handers and forcefully convert us. They're like zombies I say.

Your mouse hand was simply to weak, that is how they turned you. You started playing console games didn't you?! You disgrace the name of the PC gaming master race.

We should also stop because we're basically spamming the chat. :D

The last joke is yours if you want it.

I'm sorry but the Halo pc port was just so bad it almost forced me to go console!!!!!!!1!

Last joke? Uhm, oom, aaahhh, I don't perform well under pressure Dx
My humor center has gone flacid...

Wait! I think I got it!

Comedic genius I know.

1337mokro:
But to claim it as a good progress is kind of letting me trololololololol you :)

Well... thanks for admitting that.

I can stop wasting my time feeding the troll.

Keep it classy. But keep it to 4Chan please.

But in response to what you said, trickle down theory is a theory that gained in the 1970's and put into practice in the 1980's. By and large it is bullshit as to the nature of what the trickle is... however the basic idea that wealth passes down from the top of society to the bottom of society is one that has continued so that even if the percentage of wealth of wealth decreases, the real wealth of the induvidual increases over time.
The main deceit of trickle down theory is the suggestion that it is constant... which is isn't by any means. Wealth tends to be created in large quantities and then passed down in large chunks to the wider population in different stages, as opposed to constant trickles over time.

Comando96:

1337mokro:
But to claim it as a good progress is kind of letting me trololololololol you :)

Well... thanks for admitting that.

I can stop wasting my time feeding the troll.

Keep it classy. But keep it to 4Chan please.

But in response to what you said, trickle down theory is a theory that gained in the 1970's and put into practice in the 1980's. By and large it is bullshit as to the nature of what the trickle is... however the basic idea that wealth passes down from the top of society to the bottom of society is one that has continued so that even if the percentage of wealth of wealth decreases, the real wealth of the induvidual increases over time.
The main deceit of trickle down theory is the suggestion that it is constant... which is isn't by any means. Wealth tends to be created in large quantities and then passed down in large chunks to the wider population in different stages, as opposed to constant trickles over time.

Why should I when the escapist could use the pratice?

Also you do understand that that is complete bullshit right? Passed down in large chunks through the population? BULLSHIT of the highest degree. If it was a diamond it would be flawless, sadly it's just crap. We have designed a consumer economy and then set up laws where the consumer does not profit from the increase in wealth.

It is absolute bullshit whenever wealth is consolidated it NEVER leaves that place. It is hoarded and stuffed in more money making schemes. Only when that money has to be hidden in corporate investments and other methods to reduce taxation will the trickle actually start. Long as no one is forced to spend the money or lose it through taxation it will just be sloshed off to the Kayman Isles or Switzerland or whatever.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here