3 ms·
It is a very important distinction. It is the difference between three sizable but incremental advances - rehabilitating unsuitable donor organs, the potential
by reasonattlm 11y ago
It is a very important distinction. It is the difference between three sizable but incremental advances - rehabilitating unsuitable donor organs, the potential to use pig organs, and elimination of immune rejection - and the far, far greater advance of being able to grow entire patient-matched organs from scratch as needed with no donor.
Being shackled to the need for a donor organ for tissue much thicker than a centimeter is a big drag on the progression of this field. It is a function of blood vessels, largely - being able to create scaffolds of sufficient complexity and size with the right chemical guides to allow formation of blood vessel networks is still not there yet. Hence the need for the natural scaffold of the donor organ.
- alextgordon 11y agoI don't think I understand. If they could rehabilitate unsuitable donor organs and didn't have to worry about rejection, there wouldn't be a shortage. Isn't that the end game?
- reasonattlm 11y agoThere would still be a great shortage. The supply of donor organs is tiny.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- astazangasta 11y agoYou could use a much broader range of donor organs, and not having to worry about matching would vastly increase the number of usable donations.
- jack9 11y agoNo shortage is more like it. Intact cadaverous hearts are plentiful by comparison to awaiting heart transplant patients. Most heart failures are immediate and fatal, but people who have progressive failure are relatively rare. Transplant patients would conceivably be donors for the program (since most heart damage is soft tissue failure).