Why Can’t We Regrow Organs Yet?

The first lab-grown organ was transplanted into a patient in 1999 — but they still aren’t commonly available.

National Journal
Brian Resnick
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Brian Resnick
Nov. 13, 2013, midnight

Play­ing God can take dec­ades.

In 2006, Dr. An­thony Atala of the Wake Forest School of Medi­cine pub­lished a break­through study. In the sev­en years be­fore, he had suc­cess­fully grown and re­placed dis­eased blad­ders in sev­en chil­dren. Grew them, as in he took por­tions of the pa­tients’ ori­gin­al blad­ders, coaxed the cells in­to a re­gen­er­at­ive state, and then mol­ded them on a bio­de­grad­able scaf­fold in­to the shape of a blad­der. The blad­ders were then trans­planted in­to the chil­dren, and after years of ob­ser­va­tions, he called the en­tire op­er­a­tion a suc­cess.

So are lab-grown blad­ders now a com­mon treat­ment for end-stage blad­der dis­ease?

No. That 2006 re­port was just the end of phase one of the four-phase clin­ic­al tri­al pro­cess. Each phase of clin­ic­al tri­als in­creases the size of the sub­ject pools, test­ing safety and long-term out­comes. For phar­ma­ceut­ic­als, the pro­cess can take 15 years. For something more in­vas­ive such as a trans­plant pro­ced­ure, it’s bound to take longer, dec­ades even.

“We didn’t got to phase two un­til sev­er­al years after that,” Atala says of the ini­tial pub­lic­a­tion. “And many people have asked us, ‘Well, why did you wait so long?’ ” Doc­tors had nev­er im­planted a lab-grown blad­der in­to a hu­man pa­tient be­fore. “We really did not know what to ex­pect long term.”

Today, the blad­ders have not moved bey­ond phase two clin­ic­al tri­als, 14 years after they were first im­planted in pa­tients.

Trail­blaz­ing — for all its con­not­at­ive speed — needs to be done slowly.

Ex­plos­ive Growth Meets Slow Mov­ing Reg­u­la­tions

The prom­ise of lab-grown or­gans is enorm­ous. Just in the Unites States, more than 120,000 people are cur­rently on or­gan-trans­plant wait­ing lists, and only 19,000 trans­plants took place in the first eight months of 2013. Since the 1990s, the gulf between the num­ber of trans­plant pa­tients and the num­ber of or­gans has only grown wider.

After a pa­tient is ap­proved for a trans­plant, there are still dangers. Fif­teen to 20 per­cent of kid­ney re­cip­i­ents will face or­gan re­jec­tion with­in five years of im­ple­ment­a­tion. Twenty-five per­cent of heart trans­plant re­cip­i­ents ex­per­i­ence some re­jec­tion in the first year after sur­gery.

Re­gen­er­at­ive medi­cine can help solve these two prob­lems: Grow or­gans on de­mand to in­crease sup­ply, but also grow them from the host’s cells, to mit­ig­ate com­plic­a­tions.

Luck­ily, in­nov­a­tion is ex­plod­ing.

Stem cells are a re­l­at­ively re­cent in­ven­tion, first cul­tiv­ated out­side the body in the 1990s. Since then, the field has grown by leaps and bounds. Now, we can coax an adult cell in­to an em­bryon­ic-like state, or what’s known as a pluri­po­tent state, which means it can trans­form in­to many dif­fer­ent types of cells.

That work won a No­bel Prize in 2012. “Clearly, that’s had a huge im­pact on the field,” says Wil­li­am Wag­n­er, dir­ect­or of re­gen­er­at­ive medi­cine at the Uni­versity of Pitt­s­burgh. “A lot of people are look­ing to those cells as a po­ten­tial source,” as the de­bate around em­bryon­ic stem cells has be­come clin­ic­ally ir­rel­ev­ant. With such tech­no­lo­gies, labs have grown mildly func­tion­ing kid­neys and beat­ing hearts for rats. For hu­mans, lab-grown skin and car­til­age are com­ing in­to main­stream use. We can grow noses on fore­heads.

More than the cells them­selves, the struc­tur­al en­gin­eer­ing sci­ence is also boun­cing ahead. Three-di­men­sion­al print­ers can build bio­lo­gic­al struc­tures one cell at a time, craft­ing the del­ic­ate or­gan struc­tures of the body. One of the more ex­cit­ing de­vel­op­ments is the abil­ity to wash an an­im­al or hu­man or­gan of all its cells to re­veal the un­der­ly­ing struc­ture. Then, re­search­ers re­an­im­ate the or­gan with com­pletely new cells, spe­cif­ic to the host — bring­ing dead tis­sues back to life.

But here’s the key dis­claim­er: “If it can be done in a mouse or a rat, ex­tra­pol­at­ing that to a hu­man, the num­ber of pit­falls, and the num­ber of as­sump­tions that hap­pen in that, par­tic­u­larly in the mouse mod­el, are huge,” Wag­n­er ex­plains. In 2006, Atala’s blad­ders were, in terms of the clin­ic­al-ap­prov­al timeline, worlds bey­ond, let’s say, a lab-grown pan­creas de­rived from testicle cells that could pos­sibly cure dia­betes. Any proof of concept in an an­im­al is dec­ades away from wide­spread use, and that’s as­sum­ing it will be vi­able for hu­mans at all.

Maybe We Can’t Grow a Heart, But Can We Heal One?

In the near fu­ture, we’ll be more likely to see stem-cell-based ther­apies rather than out­right or­gan re­place­ment.

“We’re shoot­ing at the moon in try­ing to make a heart or make a liv­er, and you dis­cov­er so many things along the way that some­times you don’t want to go to the moon after all,” Wag­n­er says.

For in­stance, in­stead of whole­sale or­gan re­place­ment, doc­tors are find­ing that simply in­ject­ing an or­gan with cer­tain stem cells can pro­duce a heal­ing ef­fect. A large num­ber of on­go­ing in­vest­ig­a­tions ex­pect cell ther­apy to even­tu­ally change the treat­ment of any giv­en chron­ic con­di­tion, Wag­n­er says. Maybe in a dec­ade, he says, they will yield ther­apies for con­di­tions such as as heart dis­ease and stroke. And per­haps, later on, for Alzheimer’s and Par­kin­son’s. In 2013, a pub­lished clin­ic­al tri­al that in­volved in­ject­ing cells in­to dis­eased heart tis­sue showed that “every pa­tient in the stem-cell-treat­ment group im­proved.”

“Are they go­ing to be cures? Prob­ably not in a 10-year time frame,” Wag­n­er says. “But they are go­ing to show enough be­ne­fit that they would be ad­op­ted, op­posed to what’s cur­rently done clin­ic­ally.”

And then there are prac­tic­al con­cerns to grow­ing en­tire or­gans. It may not prove to be a vi­able busi­ness mod­el to tail­or-make or­gans for in­di­vidu­al pa­tients. “Private in­dustry is go­ing to have to raise mil­lions and mil­lions of dol­lars not around the sci­ence, but around the prac­tic­al­ity,” Wag­n­er says. “Spe­cific­ally, what pa­tients are you go­ing to treat, how many per year, what’s your re­im­burse­ment rate go­ing to be, how long it’s go­ing to take to get through the FDA. All these prac­tic­al reg­u­lat­ory busi­ness con­cerns — and of­ten that’s what is put­ting a bar­ri­er between an in­ter­est­ing re­port that you read about a study in ro­dents or even in pigs and if it ever gets trans­lated to hu­mans.”

But the Baby Steps Still Mat­ter

If, today, we built a hu­man body us­ing only lab-grown parts, the ana­tomy would be sparse. The body would have a blad­der, a trachea, some blood ves­sels, some muscle fiber, skin, tear ducts, and a ur­ethra — maybe a sphinc­ter.

These are the sim­pler or­gans of the body. There are four levels of or­gan com­plex­ity, the first be­ing flat sur­faces like skin, the second hol­low tubes like trachea, the third hol­low struc­tures, like the blad­der and stom­ach, and the fourth sol­id struc­tures, such as the liv­er and lungs. “Up to this point, we’ve been able to im­plant the first three types in pa­tients,” Atala says, “but we have not yet im­planted sol­id struc­tures in pa­tients. That’s still years away.”

One of the bar­ri­ers to that next step is feed­ing those or­gans. A kid­ney re­quires a lot of ves­sels to keep func­tion­ing. And not just big ar­ter­ies, but tiny ca­pil­lar­ies to feed all the cells. Over the sum­mer, Johns Hop­kins re­search­ers found a way to grow net­works of tiny hu­man blood ves­sels in mice, the type that could someday feed a lab-grown kid­ney or oth­er com­plic­ated or­gan, or to simply re­pair ca­pil­lar­ies dam­aged by dia­betes. “This is why we are very ex­cited about it — be­cause the vas­cu­lature is rel­ev­ant for al­most any tis­sue type,” Shar­on Gerecht, a re­search­ers on the study, says. Still, the field re­mains in in­fancy.

“You have to re­mem­ber, the field star­ted with mouse cells in 2006, so it is pretty young,” she says. “We still don’t know ex­actly how pluri­po­tent they are. Do they re­mem­ber that they were dis­eased and old be­fore? We still don’t know this, and it will take time for re­search to find out.”

What We're Following See More »
Bill Murray Crashes White House Briefing Room
3 hours ago

In town to receive the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor at the Kennedy Center, Bill Murray casually strolled into the White House Briefing Room this afternoon. A spokesman said he was at the executive mansion for a chat with President Obama, his fellow Chicagoan.

CFPB Decision May Reverberate to Other Agencies
6 hours ago

"A federal appeals court's decision that declared the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau an arm of the White House relies on a novel interpretation of the constitution's separation of powers clause that could have broader effects on how other regulators" like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Morning Consult Poll: Clinton Decisively Won Debate
6 hours ago

"According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, the first national post-debate survey, 43 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate won, compared with 26 percent who opted for the Republican Party’s standard bearer. Her 6-point lead over Trump among likely voters is unchanged from our previous survey: Clinton still leads Trump 42 percent to 36 percent in the race for the White House, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson taking 9 percent of the vote."

Twitter Bots Dominated First Debate
7 hours ago

Twitter bots, "automated social media accounts that interact with other users," accounted for a large part of the online discussion during the first presidential debate. Bots made up 22 percent of conversation about Hillary Clinton on the social media platform, and a whopping one third of Twitter conversation about Donald Trump.

Center for Public Integrity to Spin Off Journalism Arm
7 hours ago

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the nonprofit that published the Panama Papers earlier this year, is being spun off from its parent organization, the Center for Public Integrity. According to a statement, "CPI’s Board of Directors has decided that enabling the ICIJ to chart its own course will help both journalistic teams build on the massive impact they have had as one organization."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.