<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_31_1630200</id>
	<title>Scientists Can Grow Stem Cells In a Petri Dish</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1243788000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:nick.steinwachs@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">rift321</a> writes <i>"Scientists safely created induced pluripotent stem cells from human stem cells, and <a href="http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090528/tsc-stem-cell-breakthrough-gets-closer-t-c2ff8aa.html">grew them in a petri dish</a>.  The previous methods for creating iPSC's involved the use of retroviruses, which rendered the stem cells unacceptable for human implantation due to an increased risk of cancer and mutations.  The researchers used a safer, albeit slower process to modify the skin cells, using a cell-penetrating peptide to <a href="http://download.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/pdf/PIIS1934590909002148.pdf?intermediate=true">deliver the needed genes into the cell</a> (PDF). I'd like to hear if anyone has some insight into exactly how close that brings us to everyday-use of stem cells for regenerative therapy, and exactly what obstacles remain before such therapies can be put to use."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>rift321 writes " Scientists safely created induced pluripotent stem cells from human stem cells , and grew them in a petri dish .
The previous methods for creating iPSC 's involved the use of retroviruses , which rendered the stem cells unacceptable for human implantation due to an increased risk of cancer and mutations .
The researchers used a safer , albeit slower process to modify the skin cells , using a cell-penetrating peptide to deliver the needed genes into the cell ( PDF ) .
I 'd like to hear if anyone has some insight into exactly how close that brings us to everyday-use of stem cells for regenerative therapy , and exactly what obstacles remain before such therapies can be put to use .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rift321 writes "Scientists safely created induced pluripotent stem cells from human stem cells, and grew them in a petri dish.
The previous methods for creating iPSC's involved the use of retroviruses, which rendered the stem cells unacceptable for human implantation due to an increased risk of cancer and mutations.
The researchers used a safer, albeit slower process to modify the skin cells, using a cell-penetrating peptide to deliver the needed genes into the cell (PDF).
I'd like to hear if anyone has some insight into exactly how close that brings us to everyday-use of stem cells for regenerative therapy, and exactly what obstacles remain before such therapies can be put to use.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159335</id>
	<title>Scientists growing scientists in petri dishes ...</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1243794120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . now *that* will be cool!
</p><p> . . . or, maybe not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
now * that * will be cool !
. .
. or , maybe not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
now *that* will be cool!
. .
. or, maybe not?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159861</id>
	<title>Clever idea</title>
	<author>pesho</author>
	<datestamp>1243797840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea is very clever. The technique itself has been around for quite some time, but nobody has tried to use it to reprogram cells into iPSC. The main advantage is that you eliminate introduction of viral DNA/RNA into the cells, which has been causing problems. The disadvantage is that it is significantly less efficient when compared to viral vectors. I don't think this is a problem.There is a lot of room for optimization. <p> There is more to this than it is published in the paper. You can use the same trick to push your newly obtained iPSC to differentiate into the cell type you need. For example introduction of MyoD can turn them into muscle cells for treatment of muscular dystrophy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea is very clever .
The technique itself has been around for quite some time , but nobody has tried to use it to reprogram cells into iPSC .
The main advantage is that you eliminate introduction of viral DNA/RNA into the cells , which has been causing problems .
The disadvantage is that it is significantly less efficient when compared to viral vectors .
I do n't think this is a problem.There is a lot of room for optimization .
There is more to this than it is published in the paper .
You can use the same trick to push your newly obtained iPSC to differentiate into the cell type you need .
For example introduction of MyoD can turn them into muscle cells for treatment of muscular dystrophy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea is very clever.
The technique itself has been around for quite some time, but nobody has tried to use it to reprogram cells into iPSC.
The main advantage is that you eliminate introduction of viral DNA/RNA into the cells, which has been causing problems.
The disadvantage is that it is significantly less efficient when compared to viral vectors.
I don't think this is a problem.There is a lot of room for optimization.
There is more to this than it is published in the paper.
You can use the same trick to push your newly obtained iPSC to differentiate into the cell type you need.
For example introduction of MyoD can turn them into muscle cells for treatment of muscular dystrophy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159261</id>
	<title>Re:Obstacles?? OBSTACLES???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243793520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>only one real obstacle</i>
<br> <br>
With W gone, I don't see any.</htmltext>
<tokenext>only one real obstacle With W gone , I do n't see any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only one real obstacle
 
With W gone, I don't see any.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159859</id>
	<title>Re:Adult stem cells is the answer.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243797780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The only way to overcome this rejection is to grow the organs from the adult stem cells taken from the recipient herself.</i> </p><p>

Unless we clone the patient and get embryonic stem cells from the clone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way to overcome this rejection is to grow the organs from the adult stem cells taken from the recipient herself .
Unless we clone the patient and get embryonic stem cells from the clone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The only way to overcome this rejection is to grow the organs from the adult stem cells taken from the recipient herself.
Unless we clone the patient and get embryonic stem cells from the clone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28160485</id>
	<title>Re:That's gonna make a lot of people happy</title>
	<author>Insanity Defense</author>
	<datestamp>1243802460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
What is wrong with using a miscarried fetus for the cells?  How is that any different than havesting organs from a miscarried baby for transplants?  Should that fetus/baby die in vain when it could save lives?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is wrong with using a miscarried fetus for the cells ?
How is that any different than havesting organs from a miscarried baby for transplants ?
Should that fetus/baby die in vain when it could save lives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What is wrong with using a miscarried fetus for the cells?
How is that any different than havesting organs from a miscarried baby for transplants?
Should that fetus/baby die in vain when it could save lives?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28177491</id>
	<title>Or to modify the histamine complex on chromosome 6</title>
	<author>tlambert</author>
	<datestamp>1243874940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The only way to overcome this rejection is to grow the organs from the adult stem cells taken from the recipient herself."</p><p>Or to modify the histamine complex on chromosome 6.</p><p>-- Terry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The only way to overcome this rejection is to grow the organs from the adult stem cells taken from the recipient herself .
" Or to modify the histamine complex on chromosome 6.-- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The only way to overcome this rejection is to grow the organs from the adult stem cells taken from the recipient herself.
"Or to modify the histamine complex on chromosome 6.-- Terry</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28161485</id>
	<title>Subject</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243767180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"what obstacles remain before such therapies can be put to use."</p><p>The whining Christian pussies in control of the government will have something to complain about, I'm sure. They always do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" what obstacles remain before such therapies can be put to use .
" The whining Christian pussies in control of the government will have something to complain about , I 'm sure .
They always do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"what obstacles remain before such therapies can be put to use.
"The whining Christian pussies in control of the government will have something to complain about, I'm sure.
They always do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28164151</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243790400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; (it was never banned, despite the rhetoric of the Left)</p><p>Too young to remember back that far? It was "not a ban" in the same kind of way that Microsoft is "not a monopoly". It effectively immediately killed research, because a company doing work on embryonic stem cells (except a few lines that turned out to be completely useless due to contamination) couldn't receive any federal funding for anything else at all. This covered every organization at the time that was willing and able to do that research. It was pretty much the science equivalent of forcing highway speed limits by holding highway funding hostage.</p><p>A few companies had the resources to spin off fully independent labs with no shared facilities/funding/personnel, much in the same way that Microsoft technically was never the only for-profit desktop computer OS maker because Apple always had a few percent of the market. But it still raised the bar so high as to make the research almost impossible, and the intent was very clearly to try to make it completely impossible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ( it was never banned , despite the rhetoric of the Left ) Too young to remember back that far ?
It was " not a ban " in the same kind of way that Microsoft is " not a monopoly " .
It effectively immediately killed research , because a company doing work on embryonic stem cells ( except a few lines that turned out to be completely useless due to contamination ) could n't receive any federal funding for anything else at all .
This covered every organization at the time that was willing and able to do that research .
It was pretty much the science equivalent of forcing highway speed limits by holding highway funding hostage.A few companies had the resources to spin off fully independent labs with no shared facilities/funding/personnel , much in the same way that Microsoft technically was never the only for-profit desktop computer OS maker because Apple always had a few percent of the market .
But it still raised the bar so high as to make the research almost impossible , and the intent was very clearly to try to make it completely impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; (it was never banned, despite the rhetoric of the Left)Too young to remember back that far?
It was "not a ban" in the same kind of way that Microsoft is "not a monopoly".
It effectively immediately killed research, because a company doing work on embryonic stem cells (except a few lines that turned out to be completely useless due to contamination) couldn't receive any federal funding for anything else at all.
This covered every organization at the time that was willing and able to do that research.
It was pretty much the science equivalent of forcing highway speed limits by holding highway funding hostage.A few companies had the resources to spin off fully independent labs with no shared facilities/funding/personnel, much in the same way that Microsoft technically was never the only for-profit desktop computer OS maker because Apple always had a few percent of the market.
But it still raised the bar so high as to make the research almost impossible, and the intent was very clearly to try to make it completely impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28162051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28161189</id>
	<title>Obstacles</title>
	<author>dimethylxanthine</author>
	<datestamp>1243764540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only real obstacle I guess the technology getting past the Politburo in the the "public domain". <br> <br>
No but seriously, much like there are too many variables already that need to be accounted for when altering a genome for therapeutic purposes, there are just as many outcomes for technologies like this once developed. <br> <br>
And I keep stressing - let's get sustainable agriculture sorted out first... <br> <br>

---<br>
If you you don't like what I just said, then move on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only real obstacle I guess the technology getting past the Politburo in the the " public domain " .
No but seriously , much like there are too many variables already that need to be accounted for when altering a genome for therapeutic purposes , there are just as many outcomes for technologies like this once developed .
And I keep stressing - let 's get sustainable agriculture sorted out first.. . --- If you you do n't like what I just said , then move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only real obstacle I guess the technology getting past the Politburo in the the "public domain".
No but seriously, much like there are too many variables already that need to be accounted for when altering a genome for therapeutic purposes, there are just as many outcomes for technologies like this once developed.
And I keep stressing - let's get sustainable agriculture sorted out first...  

---
If you you don't like what I just said, then move on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159111</id>
	<title>Obstacles?? OBSTACLES???</title>
	<author>gringofrijolero</author>
	<datestamp>1243792320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's only one real obstacle. Make it affordable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's only one real obstacle .
Make it affordable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's only one real obstacle.
Make it affordable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28183435</id>
	<title>maybe not so fast</title>
	<author>angry\_joker</author>
	<datestamp>1243961580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Actually<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ readers don't know each other so nobody gives a shit about other user's personal feelings unless they're expressed in an amusing way</p></div><p>Yes, maybe that's right. But based on some comments I almost sure about some level of capabilities of some writers.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>  The idea is old and everybody who read paper cited in the story knows that, but here reprogramming is epigenetically-triggered, i.e., there's transduction of proteins, not genetic material by viral vectors.</p>  </div><p>You have not understood me. I ment that the idea of reprogramming  is quite old. If you prefer (please read slowly! ) generall idea (making iPSCs by virial vectors) is : VERY OLD in scientific scale of time. If readers of this paper look deeply into references of this, they will see that's true.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>  We are commenting on brief review because of it's briefness. Remember that you have only ~20 minutes for writing significant contribution, after then your post will be placed in the tail of the discussion, chances for never being moderated. Thus, comprehensive posts can be written if someone's already expert in the field, no time for quick literature search.</p>  </div><p>So why are you comment story? If you  are not experts<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,please read more papers, then become an experts and then - write. If You are the experts, it's  great ! You are the best person to make comments. Remember that read can anyone who read<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. ! You don't need to bring them infos which can recive themself for free !
If you want high score, please answer youself - do you want to have big score or right ?? If you want to have right, and  you are not the expert - just read more about subject, and then write !! In other case you will be "The King of rats". The Q is : do you want to tell obvious things and get high score, or you want to have give wise observations? Your choice.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>  As is stated in one of the publications you gave link to, the set of four proteins is sufficient and in sense of search procedure involved, minimal. Moreover, if you consider the mechanism of fibroblast-&gt;hPS transformation by use of the four delivered proteins, you've probably got bijection between biological function (transcription factor, histone acetylation/methylation pattern modification) and proteins delivered.</p>  </div><p>Are you trying to explain me what I was claiming in my comment??
Yes. You got, that job done in paper I linked was good, and the autors found the bijection. But I'm not sure that you got why bijection is so important in analisis of this kind of problems . Of course the reason is not simplicity of mixture. The reason is because , if you get iPSCs what you will do with it?? You must to force then  to specify. Where is the way, that you can find the simplest solution - how to force them?? Could you point of this Q ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually ./ readers do n't know each other so nobody gives a shit about other user 's personal feelings unless they 're expressed in an amusing wayYes , maybe that 's right .
But based on some comments I almost sure about some level of capabilities of some writers .
The idea is old and everybody who read paper cited in the story knows that , but here reprogramming is epigenetically-triggered , i.e. , there 's transduction of proteins , not genetic material by viral vectors .
You have not understood me .
I ment that the idea of reprogramming is quite old .
If you prefer ( please read slowly !
) generall idea ( making iPSCs by virial vectors ) is : VERY OLD in scientific scale of time .
If readers of this paper look deeply into references of this , they will see that 's true .
We are commenting on brief review because of it 's briefness .
Remember that you have only ~ 20 minutes for writing significant contribution , after then your post will be placed in the tail of the discussion , chances for never being moderated .
Thus , comprehensive posts can be written if someone 's already expert in the field , no time for quick literature search .
So why are you comment story ?
If you are not experts ,please read more papers , then become an experts and then - write .
If You are the experts , it 's great !
You are the best person to make comments .
Remember that read can anyone who read / .
! You do n't need to bring them infos which can recive themself for free !
If you want high score , please answer youself - do you want to have big score or right ? ?
If you want to have right , and you are not the expert - just read more about subject , and then write ! !
In other case you will be " The King of rats " .
The Q is : do you want to tell obvious things and get high score , or you want to have give wise observations ?
Your choice .
As is stated in one of the publications you gave link to , the set of four proteins is sufficient and in sense of search procedure involved , minimal .
Moreover , if you consider the mechanism of fibroblast- &gt; hPS transformation by use of the four delivered proteins , you 've probably got bijection between biological function ( transcription factor , histone acetylation/methylation pattern modification ) and proteins delivered .
Are you trying to explain me what I was claiming in my comment ? ?
Yes. You got , that job done in paper I linked was good , and the autors found the bijection .
But I 'm not sure that you got why bijection is so important in analisis of this kind of problems .
Of course the reason is not simplicity of mixture .
The reason is because , if you get iPSCs what you will do with it ? ?
You must to force then to specify .
Where is the way , that you can find the simplest solution - how to force them ? ?
Could you point of this Q ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Actually ./ readers don't know each other so nobody gives a shit about other user's personal feelings unless they're expressed in an amusing wayYes, maybe that's right.
But based on some comments I almost sure about some level of capabilities of some writers.
The idea is old and everybody who read paper cited in the story knows that, but here reprogramming is epigenetically-triggered, i.e., there's transduction of proteins, not genetic material by viral vectors.
You have not understood me.
I ment that the idea of reprogramming  is quite old.
If you prefer (please read slowly!
) generall idea (making iPSCs by virial vectors) is : VERY OLD in scientific scale of time.
If readers of this paper look deeply into references of this, they will see that's true.
We are commenting on brief review because of it's briefness.
Remember that you have only ~20 minutes for writing significant contribution, after then your post will be placed in the tail of the discussion, chances for never being moderated.
Thus, comprehensive posts can be written if someone's already expert in the field, no time for quick literature search.
So why are you comment story?
If you  are not experts ,please read more papers, then become an experts and then - write.
If You are the experts, it's  great !
You are the best person to make comments.
Remember that read can anyone who read /.
! You don't need to bring them infos which can recive themself for free !
If you want high score, please answer youself - do you want to have big score or right ??
If you want to have right, and  you are not the expert - just read more about subject, and then write !!
In other case you will be "The King of rats".
The Q is : do you want to tell obvious things and get high score, or you want to have give wise observations?
Your choice.
As is stated in one of the publications you gave link to, the set of four proteins is sufficient and in sense of search procedure involved, minimal.
Moreover, if you consider the mechanism of fibroblast-&gt;hPS transformation by use of the four delivered proteins, you've probably got bijection between biological function (transcription factor, histone acetylation/methylation pattern modification) and proteins delivered.
Are you trying to explain me what I was claiming in my comment??
Yes. You got, that job done in paper I linked was good, and the autors found the bijection.
But I'm not sure that you got why bijection is so important in analisis of this kind of problems .
Of course the reason is not simplicity of mixture.
The reason is because , if you get iPSCs what you will do with it??
You must to force then  to specify.
Where is the way, that you can find the simplest solution - how to force them??
Could you point of this Q ?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159223</id>
	<title>That's nothing!</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1243793220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should see the stuff that grows on MY dishes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should see the stuff that grows on MY dishes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should see the stuff that grows on MY dishes!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28162485</id>
	<title>Hints &amp; dDirections</title>
	<author>angry\_joker</author>
	<datestamp>1243775940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorrowful. Sorrowful because of earlier comments. Is it really big achievement to read short paper and then write review of "Brief Report"? Nevertheless slashPOTTERS! The idea is quite old. Thomson et.al. described this idea in this paper: <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5858/1917" title="sciencemag.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5858/1917</a> [sciencemag.org] . There are earlier, but this one is good one and representative too.</p><p>I suppose that questions about possible mechanism come from ignorance and laziness. Partially answer can be found  here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:http://images.cell.com/images/Edimages/Cell/IEPs/3661.pdf</p><p>Besides, I think that questions about capabilities of lay out the mixture of proteins  can be answer in following way. If we try to analyze how DNA vectors work into cells, we can conclude, that they impact on some part of biochemical pathways. They of course don't impact directly but through interactions with some  others molecules e.g: proteins. Because this relation is injection (in mathematical sense ) so we can conclude, that deep analysis of DNA role in generating iPSCs can deliver us hints which proteins should we use. The best mixture we get (if our criterion is simplicity of mixture), when we find proteins in bijection relation with DNA vectors. Of course it is not simple task, but without analysis of genetic process in generating iPSCs we will able only to shoot wild.</p><p>If someone is interested about this subject I recommend this papers:<br>+ <a href="http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/retrieve/pii/S1934590908005250" title="cell.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/retrieve/pii/S1934590908005250</a> [cell.com]<br>+ <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17554338" title="nih.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17554338</a> [nih.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorrowful .
Sorrowful because of earlier comments .
Is it really big achievement to read short paper and then write review of " Brief Report " ?
Nevertheless slashPOTTERS !
The idea is quite old .
Thomson et.al .
described this idea in this paper : http : //www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5858/1917 [ sciencemag.org ] .
There are earlier , but this one is good one and representative too.I suppose that questions about possible mechanism come from ignorance and laziness .
Partially answer can be found here : http : //images.cell.com/images/Edimages/Cell/IEPs/3661.pdfBesides , I think that questions about capabilities of lay out the mixture of proteins can be answer in following way .
If we try to analyze how DNA vectors work into cells , we can conclude , that they impact on some part of biochemical pathways .
They of course do n't impact directly but through interactions with some others molecules e.g : proteins .
Because this relation is injection ( in mathematical sense ) so we can conclude , that deep analysis of DNA role in generating iPSCs can deliver us hints which proteins should we use .
The best mixture we get ( if our criterion is simplicity of mixture ) , when we find proteins in bijection relation with DNA vectors .
Of course it is not simple task , but without analysis of genetic process in generating iPSCs we will able only to shoot wild.If someone is interested about this subject I recommend this papers : + http : //www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/retrieve/pii/S1934590908005250 [ cell.com ] + http : //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17554338 [ nih.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorrowful.
Sorrowful because of earlier comments.
Is it really big achievement to read short paper and then write review of "Brief Report"?
Nevertheless slashPOTTERS!
The idea is quite old.
Thomson et.al.
described this idea in this paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5858/1917 [sciencemag.org] .
There are earlier, but this one is good one and representative too.I suppose that questions about possible mechanism come from ignorance and laziness.
Partially answer can be found  here :http://images.cell.com/images/Edimages/Cell/IEPs/3661.pdfBesides, I think that questions about capabilities of lay out the mixture of proteins  can be answer in following way.
If we try to analyze how DNA vectors work into cells, we can conclude, that they impact on some part of biochemical pathways.
They of course don't impact directly but through interactions with some  others molecules e.g: proteins.
Because this relation is injection (in mathematical sense ) so we can conclude, that deep analysis of DNA role in generating iPSCs can deliver us hints which proteins should we use.
The best mixture we get (if our criterion is simplicity of mixture), when we find proteins in bijection relation with DNA vectors.
Of course it is not simple task, but without analysis of genetic process in generating iPSCs we will able only to shoot wild.If someone is interested about this subject I recommend this papers:+ http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/retrieve/pii/S1934590908005250 [cell.com]+ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17554338 [nih.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159857</id>
	<title>Re:Finally</title>
	<author>krakass</author>
	<datestamp>1243797780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may want to think twice about that. <a href="http://www.cracked.com/video\_17328\_why-having-wolverines-claws-would-suck.html" title="cracked.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cracked.com/video\_17328\_why-having-wolverines-claws-would-suck.html</a> [cracked.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may want to think twice about that .
http : //www.cracked.com/video \ _17328 \ _why-having-wolverines-claws-would-suck.html [ cracked.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may want to think twice about that.
http://www.cracked.com/video\_17328\_why-having-wolverines-claws-would-suck.html [cracked.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159701</id>
	<title>Breakthrough yet to be optimized</title>
	<author>modrzej</author>
	<datestamp>1243796460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole idea is pretty simple: just delivering four key reprogramming proteins using shuttle of cell-penetrating peptide. Basing on experience of everyday life we may suppose that a simple solution is free of interference from large number of unknown factors, thus efficient. But that's not the case, the protocol developed by the authors leads to transformation of mere 0.001\% of input cells, which is order of magnitude less than in protocols based on viral transfection, and perhaps orders of magnitude less than threshold for applications in medicine. Some improvement could be gained, however, if purified proteins were used. Moreover, this fibroblasts were used to some extent as "blackboxes" with transformation-inducing proteins provided and results checked out, but with no developed sense of what's going on inside, which constitute room another room for improvement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole idea is pretty simple : just delivering four key reprogramming proteins using shuttle of cell-penetrating peptide .
Basing on experience of everyday life we may suppose that a simple solution is free of interference from large number of unknown factors , thus efficient .
But that 's not the case , the protocol developed by the authors leads to transformation of mere 0.001 \ % of input cells , which is order of magnitude less than in protocols based on viral transfection , and perhaps orders of magnitude less than threshold for applications in medicine .
Some improvement could be gained , however , if purified proteins were used .
Moreover , this fibroblasts were used to some extent as " blackboxes " with transformation-inducing proteins provided and results checked out , but with no developed sense of what 's going on inside , which constitute room another room for improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole idea is pretty simple: just delivering four key reprogramming proteins using shuttle of cell-penetrating peptide.
Basing on experience of everyday life we may suppose that a simple solution is free of interference from large number of unknown factors, thus efficient.
But that's not the case, the protocol developed by the authors leads to transformation of mere 0.001\% of input cells, which is order of magnitude less than in protocols based on viral transfection, and perhaps orders of magnitude less than threshold for applications in medicine.
Some improvement could be gained, however, if purified proteins were used.
Moreover, this fibroblasts were used to some extent as "blackboxes" with transformation-inducing proteins provided and results checked out, but with no developed sense of what's going on inside, which constitute room another room for improvement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159133</id>
	<title>That's gonna make a lot of people happy</title>
	<author>Christmas</author>
	<datestamp>1243792440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YAY! Now they don't have to get stem cells from fetuses. That was so wrong!! and against the Catholic Church<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YAY !
Now they do n't have to get stem cells from fetuses .
That was so wrong ! !
and against the Catholic Church : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YAY!
Now they don't have to get stem cells from fetuses.
That was so wrong!!
and against the Catholic Church :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28162813</id>
	<title>Can a foetus be injected into an egg yolk?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243779240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always wanted to ejaculate on a woman's period in a petri dish, wait 3 days, then install the fertilized egg into a chicken egg to keep it under a lamp for 4 months.  Will it grow?  Inquiring minds would like to know.  Also of note, when I get realy randy I would dig a hole in the ground out beyond a line of trees and drop a couple cumwads and burry it: anyone ever see any of those walking tree men, or dendrites as they call them?  I can almost swear that these new saplings have ears, maybe from me, and they can't be trusted to keep secrets (as I swore I wouldn't write any of this on slashdot, yet I did!)!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always wanted to ejaculate on a woman 's period in a petri dish , wait 3 days , then install the fertilized egg into a chicken egg to keep it under a lamp for 4 months .
Will it grow ?
Inquiring minds would like to know .
Also of note , when I get realy randy I would dig a hole in the ground out beyond a line of trees and drop a couple cumwads and burry it : anyone ever see any of those walking tree men , or dendrites as they call them ?
I can almost swear that these new saplings have ears , maybe from me , and they ca n't be trusted to keep secrets ( as I swore I would n't write any of this on slashdot , yet I did !
) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always wanted to ejaculate on a woman's period in a petri dish, wait 3 days, then install the fertilized egg into a chicken egg to keep it under a lamp for 4 months.
Will it grow?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Also of note, when I get realy randy I would dig a hole in the ground out beyond a line of trees and drop a couple cumwads and burry it: anyone ever see any of those walking tree men, or dendrites as they call them?
I can almost swear that these new saplings have ears, maybe from me, and they can't be trusted to keep secrets (as I swore I wouldn't write any of this on slashdot, yet I did!
)!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28161089</id>
	<title>Re:Adult stem cells is the answer, Well maybe not.</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1243763520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The technical term is somatic cell nuclear transfer. (Don't worry, it has nothing to do with plutonium.)

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCNT" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCNT</a> [wikipedia.org]

The idea is that you'd make a new embryo but use the DNA from whomever the patient was. (Assuming their genetics were ok to do this.) You'd hopefully get embryonic stem cells that wouldn't get rejected. Unfortuantely one down side is that talking point about "We're just using embryos we'd throw away." would basically be a whole lot of nonsense. (Since you'd actually have to create new embryos to do it.) Of course the pro people would have to come up with a new talking point they could use endlessly while the anti-abortion people would flip out over murdering babies. (Of course I'm too old so I think both sides are full of excrement.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The technical term is somatic cell nuclear transfer .
( Do n't worry , it has nothing to do with plutonium .
) http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCNT [ wikipedia.org ] The idea is that you 'd make a new embryo but use the DNA from whomever the patient was .
( Assuming their genetics were ok to do this .
) You 'd hopefully get embryonic stem cells that would n't get rejected .
Unfortuantely one down side is that talking point about " We 're just using embryos we 'd throw away .
" would basically be a whole lot of nonsense .
( Since you 'd actually have to create new embryos to do it .
) Of course the pro people would have to come up with a new talking point they could use endlessly while the anti-abortion people would flip out over murdering babies .
( Of course I 'm too old so I think both sides are full of excrement .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The technical term is somatic cell nuclear transfer.
(Don't worry, it has nothing to do with plutonium.
)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCNT [wikipedia.org]

The idea is that you'd make a new embryo but use the DNA from whomever the patient was.
(Assuming their genetics were ok to do this.
) You'd hopefully get embryonic stem cells that wouldn't get rejected.
Unfortuantely one down side is that talking point about "We're just using embryos we'd throw away.
" would basically be a whole lot of nonsense.
(Since you'd actually have to create new embryos to do it.
) Of course the pro people would have to come up with a new talking point they could use endlessly while the anti-abortion people would flip out over murdering babies.
(Of course I'm too old so I think both sides are full of excrement.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28164327</id>
	<title>Re:Adult stem cells is the answer, Well maybe not.</title>
	<author>yndrd1984</author>
	<datestamp>1243791960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The idea is that you'd make a new embryo but use the DNA from whomever the patient was.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... You'd hopefully get embryonic stem cells that wouldn't get rejected.</i> </p><p>

Isn't that pretty much what I said?</p><p>

<i>Of course the pro people would have to come up with a new talking point they could use endlessly while the anti-abortion people would flip out over murdering babies.</i> </p><p>

An actual treatment based on embryonic stem cells would certainly change the terms of the debate, but isn't that irrelevant as to whether or not adults stem cells are the only way to do certain things?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea is that you 'd make a new embryo but use the DNA from whomever the patient was .
... You 'd hopefully get embryonic stem cells that would n't get rejected .
Is n't that pretty much what I said ?
Of course the pro people would have to come up with a new talking point they could use endlessly while the anti-abortion people would flip out over murdering babies .
An actual treatment based on embryonic stem cells would certainly change the terms of the debate , but is n't that irrelevant as to whether or not adults stem cells are the only way to do certain things ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The idea is that you'd make a new embryo but use the DNA from whomever the patient was.
... You'd hopefully get embryonic stem cells that wouldn't get rejected.
Isn't that pretty much what I said?
Of course the pro people would have to come up with a new talking point they could use endlessly while the anti-abortion people would flip out over murdering babies.
An actual treatment based on embryonic stem cells would certainly change the terms of the debate, but isn't that irrelevant as to whether or not adults stem cells are the only way to do certain things?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28161089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28170593</id>
	<title>answer to the summary's question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243882500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>exactly what obstacles remain before such therapies can be put to use</p></div><p>
Religious morons who are completely ignorant about everything involving science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>exactly what obstacles remain before such therapies can be put to use Religious morons who are completely ignorant about everything involving science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exactly what obstacles remain before such therapies can be put to use
Religious morons who are completely ignorant about everything involving science.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28160413</id>
	<title>Everything Gives You Cancer</title>
	<author>Yergle143</author>
	<datestamp>1243802040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Based on the words of my stem cell buddies, making stem cells
is relatively easy. The hard part is differentiating them into the
tissue that you want -- safely. See if you inject stem cells into
an animal (or a person <a href="http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55430/" title="the-scientist.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55430/</a> [the-scientist.com])
you generally get a tumor.

This creates a new paradigm of medicine. To get approved
a normal drug goes through three phases of evaluation where
phase I is "safety". With Stem cell treatment, Phase I is a
very big deal.

537</htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on the words of my stem cell buddies , making stem cells is relatively easy .
The hard part is differentiating them into the tissue that you want -- safely .
See if you inject stem cells into an animal ( or a person http : //www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55430/ [ the-scientist.com ] ) you generally get a tumor .
This creates a new paradigm of medicine .
To get approved a normal drug goes through three phases of evaluation where phase I is " safety " .
With Stem cell treatment , Phase I is a very big deal .
537</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on the words of my stem cell buddies, making stem cells
is relatively easy.
The hard part is differentiating them into the
tissue that you want -- safely.
See if you inject stem cells into
an animal (or a person http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55430/ [the-scientist.com])
you generally get a tumor.
This creates a new paradigm of medicine.
To get approved
a normal drug goes through three phases of evaluation where
phase I is "safety".
With Stem cell treatment, Phase I is a
very big deal.
537</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28160049</id>
	<title>Re:Finally</title>
	<author>Mordok-DestroyerOfWo</author>
	<datestamp>1243799040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To hell with your powers!  I can finally have my own Shakey's Pizza!</htmltext>
<tokenext>To hell with your powers !
I can finally have my own Shakey 's Pizza !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To hell with your powers!
I can finally have my own Shakey's Pizza!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159197</id>
	<title>Adult stem cells is the answer.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243792980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This breakthrough is important because ultimately adult stem cells is the answer.
<p>
Though fetal stem cells (taken from aborted fetuses) may be useful for research, organs grown from them cause severe rejection in the recipient of the transplant.
</p><p>
The only way to overcome this rejection is to grow the organs from the adult stem cells taken from the recipient herself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This breakthrough is important because ultimately adult stem cells is the answer .
Though fetal stem cells ( taken from aborted fetuses ) may be useful for research , organs grown from them cause severe rejection in the recipient of the transplant .
The only way to overcome this rejection is to grow the organs from the adult stem cells taken from the recipient herself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This breakthrough is important because ultimately adult stem cells is the answer.
Though fetal stem cells (taken from aborted fetuses) may be useful for research, organs grown from them cause severe rejection in the recipient of the transplant.
The only way to overcome this rejection is to grow the organs from the adult stem cells taken from the recipient herself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28164753</id>
	<title>ReCell</title>
	<author>POds</author>
	<datestamp>1243796700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may be interested in this:<br>http://www.avitamedical.com/?id=5&amp;ob=1</p><p>It is a leading product in regenerative therapy and was used on the victims of the Bali Bombings way back when.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may be interested in this : http : //www.avitamedical.com/ ? id = 5&amp;ob = 1It is a leading product in regenerative therapy and was used on the victims of the Bali Bombings way back when .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may be interested in this:http://www.avitamedical.com/?id=5&amp;ob=1It is a leading product in regenerative therapy and was used on the victims of the Bali Bombings way back when.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159295</id>
	<title>Of course stem cells can be grown in a petri dish!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243793700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The innovation here is that they have a new approach to transform the cells into stem cells that may be safer than previous alternatives. For example, gene therapy commonly relies on viral vectors to insert genes to produce the proteins into the genome. However, because these insert randomly, they can inactivate genes involved in cell proliferation regulation etc. resulting in cancer. There are other approaches such as naked DNA transformation, but then the genes producing the proteins are generally not replicated or segregated evenly when the cell divides and are thus lost over successive divisions.</p><p>What these people have done, is to avoid all the usual problems by making the required proteins (already well known) for cell transformation in a bacterial system and adding a seqeuence to them that produces a cell penetrating end - similiar to that found in some viral proteins. This allows their proteins to penetrate the cells and activate pathways that inactivate/activate certain genes sets to make the cells pluripotent. These changes appear to be permanent and hold for over 35 passages.</p><p>As a side note, this is a burgeoning field of research. The efficiency and efficacy of certain protein products as above, and even genetic material, can be greatly enhanced by the addition of nuclear localisation sequences, certain histones and so on, without nasty side effects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The innovation here is that they have a new approach to transform the cells into stem cells that may be safer than previous alternatives .
For example , gene therapy commonly relies on viral vectors to insert genes to produce the proteins into the genome .
However , because these insert randomly , they can inactivate genes involved in cell proliferation regulation etc .
resulting in cancer .
There are other approaches such as naked DNA transformation , but then the genes producing the proteins are generally not replicated or segregated evenly when the cell divides and are thus lost over successive divisions.What these people have done , is to avoid all the usual problems by making the required proteins ( already well known ) for cell transformation in a bacterial system and adding a seqeuence to them that produces a cell penetrating end - similiar to that found in some viral proteins .
This allows their proteins to penetrate the cells and activate pathways that inactivate/activate certain genes sets to make the cells pluripotent .
These changes appear to be permanent and hold for over 35 passages.As a side note , this is a burgeoning field of research .
The efficiency and efficacy of certain protein products as above , and even genetic material , can be greatly enhanced by the addition of nuclear localisation sequences , certain histones and so on , without nasty side effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The innovation here is that they have a new approach to transform the cells into stem cells that may be safer than previous alternatives.
For example, gene therapy commonly relies on viral vectors to insert genes to produce the proteins into the genome.
However, because these insert randomly, they can inactivate genes involved in cell proliferation regulation etc.
resulting in cancer.
There are other approaches such as naked DNA transformation, but then the genes producing the proteins are generally not replicated or segregated evenly when the cell divides and are thus lost over successive divisions.What these people have done, is to avoid all the usual problems by making the required proteins (already well known) for cell transformation in a bacterial system and adding a seqeuence to them that produces a cell penetrating end - similiar to that found in some viral proteins.
This allows their proteins to penetrate the cells and activate pathways that inactivate/activate certain genes sets to make the cells pluripotent.
These changes appear to be permanent and hold for over 35 passages.As a side note, this is a burgeoning field of research.
The efficiency and efficacy of certain protein products as above, and even genetic material, can be greatly enhanced by the addition of nuclear localisation sequences, certain histones and so on, without nasty side effects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159173</id>
	<title>This won't stop enbryonic research</title>
	<author>proclivity76</author>
	<datestamp>1243792740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any heretic speech against the killing of embryos will not be tolerated and the heretics will pay dearly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any heretic speech against the killing of embryos will not be tolerated and the heretics will pay dearly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any heretic speech against the killing of embryos will not be tolerated and the heretics will pay dearly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159307</id>
	<title>Stem cells are not a cure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243793760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stem cells are a treatment technology, or may lead to one. One of the likely targets for therapy is to replace lost cells in the substancia negra in the brain that occurs in Parkinson's disease. Having the stem cells means you have to induce them to develop into s-n types cells, find a way to put them into the center of the brain, avoid immune responses if any and infection from the operation. It would also be nice to see the new cells did not become malignant or die quickly due to the same things that caused the s-n cells to die in the first place. A researcher on a panel discussion part of the NYC PD Unity Day events guessed less than 10 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stem cells are a treatment technology , or may lead to one .
One of the likely targets for therapy is to replace lost cells in the substancia negra in the brain that occurs in Parkinson 's disease .
Having the stem cells means you have to induce them to develop into s-n types cells , find a way to put them into the center of the brain , avoid immune responses if any and infection from the operation .
It would also be nice to see the new cells did not become malignant or die quickly due to the same things that caused the s-n cells to die in the first place .
A researcher on a panel discussion part of the NYC PD Unity Day events guessed less than 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stem cells are a treatment technology, or may lead to one.
One of the likely targets for therapy is to replace lost cells in the substancia negra in the brain that occurs in Parkinson's disease.
Having the stem cells means you have to induce them to develop into s-n types cells, find a way to put them into the center of the brain, avoid immune responses if any and infection from the operation.
It would also be nice to see the new cells did not become malignant or die quickly due to the same things that caused the s-n cells to die in the first place.
A researcher on a panel discussion part of the NYC PD Unity Day events guessed less than 10 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159721</id>
	<title>Oblig</title>
	<author>Tinctorius</author>
	<datestamp>1243796640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yo dawg, I heard you like science, so we let a scientist grow a scientist, so they can research while they research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yo dawg , I heard you like science , so we let a scientist grow a scientist , so they can research while they research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yo dawg, I heard you like science, so we let a scientist grow a scientist, so they can research while they research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28160257</id>
	<title>FDA Hurdles</title>
	<author>fenpark15</author>
	<datestamp>1243800900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You might recall the article about a woman who received a trachea transplant that was created from her own stem cells in Fall '08.  That took place in Europe.  The process for FDA clearance in the US is exceedingly cumbersome and conservative (I'm a biomedical engineer and this is a huge pain).  It is a major milestone to be able to culture these cells, but this is still in the realm of science, not medicine.  It may be decades before such technologies are commonly applied for medical treatments and, undoubtedly, the US will be last in line behind the other 1st world countries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You might recall the article about a woman who received a trachea transplant that was created from her own stem cells in Fall '08 .
That took place in Europe .
The process for FDA clearance in the US is exceedingly cumbersome and conservative ( I 'm a biomedical engineer and this is a huge pain ) .
It is a major milestone to be able to culture these cells , but this is still in the realm of science , not medicine .
It may be decades before such technologies are commonly applied for medical treatments and , undoubtedly , the US will be last in line behind the other 1st world countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might recall the article about a woman who received a trachea transplant that was created from her own stem cells in Fall '08.
That took place in Europe.
The process for FDA clearance in the US is exceedingly cumbersome and conservative (I'm a biomedical engineer and this is a huge pain).
It is a major milestone to be able to culture these cells, but this is still in the realm of science, not medicine.
It may be decades before such technologies are commonly applied for medical treatments and, undoubtedly, the US will be last in line behind the other 1st world countries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28162051</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1243772340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...this is GOOD news for everyone, right?</p><p>The people who demanded stem cells research be funded by the government (it was never banned, despite the rhetoric of the Left), now they will be able to gather as many stem cells as they want to follow any potential lead in terms of therapies.</p><p>The people who had moral qualms about the circumstances of gathering stem cells and the potential for abuse will be able to rest easy that there is NO moral context in the harvesting of petri-originated stem cells.</p><p>I know it's really, really hard not to fling poo at each other (if only from habit) but can we all agree this is a good thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...this is GOOD news for everyone , right ? The people who demanded stem cells research be funded by the government ( it was never banned , despite the rhetoric of the Left ) , now they will be able to gather as many stem cells as they want to follow any potential lead in terms of therapies.The people who had moral qualms about the circumstances of gathering stem cells and the potential for abuse will be able to rest easy that there is NO moral context in the harvesting of petri-originated stem cells.I know it 's really , really hard not to fling poo at each other ( if only from habit ) but can we all agree this is a good thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this is GOOD news for everyone, right?The people who demanded stem cells research be funded by the government (it was never banned, despite the rhetoric of the Left), now they will be able to gather as many stem cells as they want to follow any potential lead in terms of therapies.The people who had moral qualms about the circumstances of gathering stem cells and the potential for abuse will be able to rest easy that there is NO moral context in the harvesting of petri-originated stem cells.I know it's really, really hard not to fling poo at each other (if only from habit) but can we all agree this is a good thing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159105</id>
	<title>Mass production possible soon?</title>
	<author>assemblerex</author>
	<datestamp>1243792260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really hope it's that easy, I really do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really hope it 's that easy , I really do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really hope it's that easy, I really do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28161039</id>
	<title>Re:Adult stem cells is the answer.</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1243763040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Though fetal stem cells (taken from aborted fetuses)</p></div><p>Foul!  ESC aren't taken from aborted fetuses, they're taken from in vitro fertilization wasted embryos: embryos that were bound for the trash, not on their way to being born.  Abortions never were used for embryonic stem cells: those fetuses had already used up their pluripotent stem cells.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though fetal stem cells ( taken from aborted fetuses ) Foul !
ESC are n't taken from aborted fetuses , they 're taken from in vitro fertilization wasted embryos : embryos that were bound for the trash , not on their way to being born .
Abortions never were used for embryonic stem cells : those fetuses had already used up their pluripotent stem cells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though fetal stem cells (taken from aborted fetuses)Foul!
ESC aren't taken from aborted fetuses, they're taken from in vitro fertilization wasted embryos: embryos that were bound for the trash, not on their way to being born.
Abortions never were used for embryonic stem cells: those fetuses had already used up their pluripotent stem cells.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159049</id>
	<title>Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243791780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this looks pretty promising!</htmltext>
<tokenext>this looks pretty promising !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this looks pretty promising!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159249</id>
	<title>What a shame</title>
	<author>jav1231</author>
	<datestamp>1243793400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a shame that only stem cells from a fetus are actually good for anything. Otherwise this could be promising.<br> <br>Yes, folks, that's sarcasm that will undoubtedly be confused with flamebait.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a shame that only stem cells from a fetus are actually good for anything .
Otherwise this could be promising .
Yes , folks , that 's sarcasm that will undoubtedly be confused with flamebait .
: p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a shame that only stem cells from a fetus are actually good for anything.
Otherwise this could be promising.
Yes, folks, that's sarcasm that will undoubtedly be confused with flamebait.
:p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28169991</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243879560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...this is GOOD news for everyone, right?</p><p>The people who demanded stem cells research be funded by the government (it was never banned, despite the rhetoric of the Left)</p></div><p>
So, given the way that it was set up to ban any kind of cross-use of funding (including buying stuff that could potentially have been previously funded by the public) and blocking funding to different projects by the same companies, and given the large proportion of research funding in the US that is from the US government, let's agree that you'll use the term "effectively banned", to counter your bias against it being "banned", and I'll use the term "funding removed including funding of different projects by the same organization".  That way we both counter our biases...
</p><p>Eivind, who generally don't consider himself "on the left" but "on the side of reality", with others considering him all over the map.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...this is GOOD news for everyone , right ? The people who demanded stem cells research be funded by the government ( it was never banned , despite the rhetoric of the Left ) So , given the way that it was set up to ban any kind of cross-use of funding ( including buying stuff that could potentially have been previously funded by the public ) and blocking funding to different projects by the same companies , and given the large proportion of research funding in the US that is from the US government , let 's agree that you 'll use the term " effectively banned " , to counter your bias against it being " banned " , and I 'll use the term " funding removed including funding of different projects by the same organization " .
That way we both counter our biases.. . Eivind , who generally do n't consider himself " on the left " but " on the side of reality " , with others considering him all over the map .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this is GOOD news for everyone, right?The people who demanded stem cells research be funded by the government (it was never banned, despite the rhetoric of the Left)
So, given the way that it was set up to ban any kind of cross-use of funding (including buying stuff that could potentially have been previously funded by the public) and blocking funding to different projects by the same companies, and given the large proportion of research funding in the US that is from the US government, let's agree that you'll use the term "effectively banned", to counter your bias against it being "banned", and I'll use the term "funding removed including funding of different projects by the same organization".
That way we both counter our biases...
Eivind, who generally don't consider himself "on the left" but "on the side of reality", with others considering him all over the map.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28162051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159699</id>
	<title>Oblig. XKCD</title>
	<author>Weaselmancer</author>
	<datestamp>1243796460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://xkcd.com/568/" title="xkcd.com">Uncomfortable truths well, 2.</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uncomfortable truths well , 2 .
[ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uncomfortable truths well, 2.
[xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159347</id>
	<title>Human Lifespan?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243794180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we can easily swap decaying/dead organs for fresh ones, How long will the average human live? Today it's generally seen that you can easily live 100 years or more, but people with fresh new organs? What of the mind? I wonder where this will lead for future developments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we can easily swap decaying/dead organs for fresh ones , How long will the average human live ?
Today it 's generally seen that you can easily live 100 years or more , but people with fresh new organs ?
What of the mind ?
I wonder where this will lead for future developments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we can easily swap decaying/dead organs for fresh ones, How long will the average human live?
Today it's generally seen that you can easily live 100 years or more, but people with fresh new organs?
What of the mind?
I wonder where this will lead for future developments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159283</id>
	<title>Depends</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1243793640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>how close that brings us to everyday-use of stem cells for regenerative therapy, and exactly what obstacles remain before such therapies can be put to use.</p></div></blockquote><p>It depends what you mean.  Stem cells are being used for a variety of therapies at the moment.  If you mean growing complete organs then you probably have a while to wait.  It's one thing to grow some cells in a petrie dish and quite another to convince them to organize into, say, a heart.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>how close that brings us to everyday-use of stem cells for regenerative therapy , and exactly what obstacles remain before such therapies can be put to use.It depends what you mean .
Stem cells are being used for a variety of therapies at the moment .
If you mean growing complete organs then you probably have a while to wait .
It 's one thing to grow some cells in a petrie dish and quite another to convince them to organize into , say , a heart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how close that brings us to everyday-use of stem cells for regenerative therapy, and exactly what obstacles remain before such therapies can be put to use.It depends what you mean.
Stem cells are being used for a variety of therapies at the moment.
If you mean growing complete organs then you probably have a while to wait.
It's one thing to grow some cells in a petrie dish and quite another to convince them to organize into, say, a heart.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28163421</id>
	<title>Re:Human Lifespan?</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1243783920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well assume you can change any organ for a new one, except the brain, you'd probably be limited to 180 years which the is
age a natural brain can live to. You would live lot less long if your unfortunate to have the genes for some neurological condition.
You can't transplant a new brain in when your old one goes,so your a bit stuck there. Gradually topping up your brain with new stem cells, and periodical remove old damage ones, would
be possible, you'd feel consistency in your self, despite being slow changed, and that is not too different from normal living.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well assume you can change any organ for a new one , except the brain , you 'd probably be limited to 180 years which the is age a natural brain can live to .
You would live lot less long if your unfortunate to have the genes for some neurological condition .
You ca n't transplant a new brain in when your old one goes,so your a bit stuck there .
Gradually topping up your brain with new stem cells , and periodical remove old damage ones , would be possible , you 'd feel consistency in your self , despite being slow changed , and that is not too different from normal living .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well assume you can change any organ for a new one, except the brain, you'd probably be limited to 180 years which the is
age a natural brain can live to.
You would live lot less long if your unfortunate to have the genes for some neurological condition.
You can't transplant a new brain in when your old one goes,so your a bit stuck there.
Gradually topping up your brain with new stem cells, and periodical remove old damage ones, would
be possible, you'd feel consistency in your self, despite being slow changed, and that is not too different from normal living.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28160581</id>
	<title>Of moderate importance</title>
	<author>Mutatis Mutandis</author>
	<datestamp>1243803240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Creating stem cells from adult cells is so far mainly interesting for research purposes. The first hope of researchers is that in the petri dish, culture flask or microtiterplate, stem cells and stem cell derived cell lines may be better research tools than the current cell lines. The cell lines currently used in laboratories are often <em>cancer</em> cell lines and poorly representative of the cells in someones brain or liver. Stem cells may also help us to better understand cell development and what happens when it goes awry.</p><p>For therapeutic applications, the first applications may depend on finding drugs that stimulate stem cells to differentiate: It may not be necessary to inject stem cells or cell derived from stem cells, because we may all carry cells with a differentiation potential. For example, regions of the brain seem to contain cells that could potentially differentiate to help people who are suffering brain damage or degeneration.</p><p>However, controlling differentiation is complex. While only four factors are sufficient to induce any cell to revert to a stem-cell state, inducing a stem cell to become e.g. a motor neuron is a very complex process that needs to be controlled step by step.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Creating stem cells from adult cells is so far mainly interesting for research purposes .
The first hope of researchers is that in the petri dish , culture flask or microtiterplate , stem cells and stem cell derived cell lines may be better research tools than the current cell lines .
The cell lines currently used in laboratories are often cancer cell lines and poorly representative of the cells in someones brain or liver .
Stem cells may also help us to better understand cell development and what happens when it goes awry.For therapeutic applications , the first applications may depend on finding drugs that stimulate stem cells to differentiate : It may not be necessary to inject stem cells or cell derived from stem cells , because we may all carry cells with a differentiation potential .
For example , regions of the brain seem to contain cells that could potentially differentiate to help people who are suffering brain damage or degeneration.However , controlling differentiation is complex .
While only four factors are sufficient to induce any cell to revert to a stem-cell state , inducing a stem cell to become e.g .
a motor neuron is a very complex process that needs to be controlled step by step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Creating stem cells from adult cells is so far mainly interesting for research purposes.
The first hope of researchers is that in the petri dish, culture flask or microtiterplate, stem cells and stem cell derived cell lines may be better research tools than the current cell lines.
The cell lines currently used in laboratories are often cancer cell lines and poorly representative of the cells in someones brain or liver.
Stem cells may also help us to better understand cell development and what happens when it goes awry.For therapeutic applications, the first applications may depend on finding drugs that stimulate stem cells to differentiate: It may not be necessary to inject stem cells or cell derived from stem cells, because we may all carry cells with a differentiation potential.
For example, regions of the brain seem to contain cells that could potentially differentiate to help people who are suffering brain damage or degeneration.However, controlling differentiation is complex.
While only four factors are sufficient to induce any cell to revert to a stem-cell state, inducing a stem cell to become e.g.
a motor neuron is a very complex process that needs to be controlled step by step.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159103</id>
	<title>Finally</title>
	<author>buttfscking</author>
	<datestamp>1243792260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can manifest those mutant powers I've always wanted!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can manifest those mutant powers I 've always wanted !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can manifest those mutant powers I've always wanted!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28162443</id>
	<title>Re:Adult stem cells is the answer.</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1243775640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Though fetal stem cells (taken from aborted fetuses) may be useful for research,</p></div><p>Haha.. you fell into the Conservative lies.</p><p>It's called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic\_stem\_cell" title="wikipedia.org">embryonic stem cell</a> [wikipedia.org] technology because the stem cells come from embryos.  We're talking no more than 50-150 cell bundles here.  But some people believe that "life starts at conception" and, to them, that means any fertilized ovum should be carried to term.  They encourage people to adopt frozen embryos and call the babies that result "snowflake children".  Of course, the vast majority of frozen embryos are not adopted (and it would be completely impractical to do so anyway) so they are destroyed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though fetal stem cells ( taken from aborted fetuses ) may be useful for research,Haha.. you fell into the Conservative lies.It 's called embryonic stem cell [ wikipedia.org ] technology because the stem cells come from embryos .
We 're talking no more than 50-150 cell bundles here .
But some people believe that " life starts at conception " and , to them , that means any fertilized ovum should be carried to term .
They encourage people to adopt frozen embryos and call the babies that result " snowflake children " .
Of course , the vast majority of frozen embryos are not adopted ( and it would be completely impractical to do so anyway ) so they are destroyed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though fetal stem cells (taken from aborted fetuses) may be useful for research,Haha.. you fell into the Conservative lies.It's called embryonic stem cell [wikipedia.org] technology because the stem cells come from embryos.
We're talking no more than 50-150 cell bundles here.
But some people believe that "life starts at conception" and, to them, that means any fertilized ovum should be carried to term.
They encourage people to adopt frozen embryos and call the babies that result "snowflake children".
Of course, the vast majority of frozen embryos are not adopted (and it would be completely impractical to do so anyway) so they are destroyed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159257</id>
	<title>Second post!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243793460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wooop woop woop woop</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wooop woop woop woop</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wooop woop woop woop</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1630200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28162813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1630200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28162443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1630200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28169991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28162051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1630200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1630200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28164327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28161089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1630200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28160485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1630200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28177491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1630200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1630200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1630200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28161039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1630200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28163421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1630200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28160049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_1630200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28164151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28162051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1630200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28162485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1630200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1630200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28163421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1630200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1630200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28162051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28164151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28169991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1630200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159049
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1630200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159261
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1630200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28160049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1630200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28160413
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1630200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159307
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1630200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28161039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28162443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28177491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28161089
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28164327
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1630200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28160485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_1630200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28162813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_1630200.28159721
</commentlist>
</conversation>
