6 ms·

Stem cell therapy trial reverses "irreversible" damage to cornea

224 points by 01-_- 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nashashmi 2y ago
> The new study … investigated a new treatment called cultivated autologous limbal epithelial cells (CALEC). This involves removing stem cells from a patient’s uninjured eye, growing their population in the lab for a few weeks, then surgically transplanting them into the injured eye. 14 patients tested. 79% reported healing in 12 months.
- aetherson 2y ago
  Note here that "complete success" doesn't seem to necessarily mean recovery of vision, just some kinds of testing of corneal health. The article vaguely says that "most" patients had some improvement of vision. I couldn't quickly find discussion of this in the actual study, but the study claims success in proving safety and suggests further investigation is necessary to show therapeutic efficacy.
  - Chance-Device 2y ago
    This is an important point. It looks like they didn’t directly make any measurements of vision, just biological markers of corneal health. That doesn’t mean that vision didn’t improve. It’s just a bit odd that if it did, they wouldn’t have quantified it and added that to this paper.
    - momento 2y ago
      If you read the article, they clearly test vision in the patients. >the majority of patients regained some sight, with some advancing from legally blind to low vision.
javiramos 2y ago
Can’t comment on the technical quality of this paper but wanted to highlight that the research was funded by the NIH which our government is currently chaotically gutting. Link to paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56461-1.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56461-1.pdf
- AnthonBerg 2y ago
  Thank you!
- dpatru 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - 0x70dd 2y ago
    You should take everything he says with a grain of salt. He’s defunding research on transgenic mice, not transgender.
    - gryfft 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - javiramos 2y ago
        /s?
    - bhk 2y ago
      Where did this bogus "transgenic" narrative come from? And BTW he didn't say "research on transgender mice", he said "making mice transgender"... which is technically incorrect but obvious to me (and, I thought, anyone knowledgeable in the field) that the research involved giving mice hormone therapy. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/04/politics/fact-check-trump-address-congress/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/04/politics/fact-check-trump-add...
      - 2y ago
rewqa 2y ago
[flagged]
- Chance-Device 2y ago
  Is it?
fdfdsafa 2y ago
[dead]
erwiue 2y ago
[dead]
fadreqrew 2y ago
[dead]
wtk 2y ago
My mom is 76 and she had a virus ruin one of corneas. I wish this was already a common practice but I doubt she will be able to benefit from this. If your eye is irritated and redness doesn't go away for days - visit your doctor.
- iknowstuff 2y ago
  Whoa thats wild. Did they identify the virus?
  - wtk 2y ago
    I don't remember details, just it was a virus.
underlipton 2y ago
Tangentially-related: the recurrent corneal erosion that I've been managing (painfully and unsuccessfully) for a decade has finally seen some measure of remission after I started self-treating with Fingerprick Autologous Blood. It's what it says on the tin: I use a blood testing fingerprick to draw a few drops of blood, which I insert under my eyelid. Blink. Done. Not even a month and half with a bandage contact lens helped as much. It's a little frustrating that years of dealing with far-flung ophthalmologists and expensive eye ointments that make things worse (Muro 128 costs more than printer ink) could have been preempted with a application of a substance that's already inside me.
- iknowstuff 2y ago
  Damn that’s metal as fuck.
- sizzle 2y ago
  Is there any medical studies on this or how did you know to try it? What’s going on at the biomolecular level?
  - underlipton 2y ago
    It was mentioned on a reddit thread that I can no longer find, which prompted me to look up studies. I don't think that the mechanism is fully known, but apparently the research that has been done was prompted by the success of designer drugs that are derived from a patient's blood, as a way to make a similar treatment more accessible.
therealdkz 2y ago
[dead]
bluechair 2y ago
Not for the faint of heart but look at figure 3 of the original paper: * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56461-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56461-1 Amazing!
yapyap 2y ago
Although I understand it doesn’t mean this is even nearly useable for a real thing rn, that’s fucking dope.
Rebeccapwilson5 2y ago
[dead]
cced 2y ago
How do we know if something is truly irreversible?
- mylastattempt 2y ago
  Irreversible might not be the thing to wonder about. Can it be changed to a more desired state or result? That has a much more definitive answer: pretty much always 'yes'.
westurner 2y ago
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37204123 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37204123 (2023) : > From "Sight for sore eyes" (2009) https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sight-sore-eyes https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sight-sore-eyes : >> "A contact lens-based technique for expansion and transplantation of autologous epithelial progenitors for ocular surface reconstruction" (2009) http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TP.0b013e3181a4bbf2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TP.0b013e3181a4bbf2 >> In this study, they found that only one brand (Bausch and Lomb IIRC) of contact lens worked well as a scaffold for the SC Good to see stem cell research in the US. Stem cell laws and policy in the United States: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_laws_and_policy_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_laws_and_policy_in...
stuckinhell 2y ago
holy moly

224 points by 01-_- 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

> The new study … investigated a new treatment called cultivated autologous limbal epithelial cells (CALEC). This involves removing stem cells from a patient’s uninjured eye, growing their population in the lab for a few weeks, then surgically transplanting them into the injured eye. 14 patients tested. 79% reported healing in 12 months.

aetherson 2y ago
Note here that "complete success" doesn't seem to necessarily mean recovery of vision, just some kinds of testing of corneal health. The article vaguely says that "most" patients had some improvement of vision. I couldn't quickly find discussion of this in the actual study, but the study claims success in proving safety and suggests further investigation is necessary to show therapeutic efficacy.
- Chance-Device 2y ago
  This is an important point. It looks like they didn’t directly make any measurements of vision, just biological markers of corneal health. That doesn’t mean that vision didn’t improve. It’s just a bit odd that if it did, they wouldn’t have quantified it and added that to this paper.
  - momento 2y ago
    If you read the article, they clearly test vision in the patients. >the majority of patients regained some sight, with some advancing from legally blind to low vision.

javiramos 2y ago

Can’t comment on the technical quality of this paper but wanted to highlight that the research was funded by the NIH which our government is currently chaotically gutting. Link to paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56461-1.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56461-1.pdf

AnthonBerg 2y ago
Thank you!
dpatru 2y ago
[flagged]
- 0x70dd 2y ago
  You should take everything he says with a grain of salt. He’s defunding research on transgenic mice, not transgender.
  - gryfft 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - javiramos 2y ago
      /s?
  - bhk 2y ago
    Where did this bogus "transgenic" narrative come from? And BTW he didn't say "research on transgender mice", he said "making mice transgender"... which is technically incorrect but obvious to me (and, I thought, anyone knowledgeable in the field) that the research involved giving mice hormone therapy. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/04/politics/fact-check-trump-address-congress/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/04/politics/fact-check-trump-add...
    - 2y ago

rewqa 2y ago

[flagged]

Chance-Device 2y ago
Is it?

fdfdsafa 2y ago

[dead]

erwiue 2y ago

[dead]

fadreqrew 2y ago

[dead]

wtk 2y ago

My mom is 76 and she had a virus ruin one of corneas. I wish this was already a common practice but I doubt she will be able to benefit from this. If your eye is irritated and redness doesn't go away for days - visit your doctor.

iknowstuff 2y ago
Whoa thats wild. Did they identify the virus?
- wtk 2y ago
  I don't remember details, just it was a virus.

underlipton 2y ago

Tangentially-related: the recurrent corneal erosion that I've been managing (painfully and unsuccessfully) for a decade has finally seen some measure of remission after I started self-treating with Fingerprick Autologous Blood. It's what it says on the tin: I use a blood testing fingerprick to draw a few drops of blood, which I insert under my eyelid. Blink. Done. Not even a month and half with a bandage contact lens helped as much. It's a little frustrating that years of dealing with far-flung ophthalmologists and expensive eye ointments that make things worse (Muro 128 costs more than printer ink) could have been preempted with a application of a substance that's already inside me.

iknowstuff 2y ago
Damn that’s metal as fuck.
sizzle 2y ago
Is there any medical studies on this or how did you know to try it? What’s going on at the biomolecular level?
- underlipton 2y ago
  It was mentioned on a reddit thread that I can no longer find, which prompted me to look up studies. I don't think that the mechanism is fully known, but apparently the research that has been done was prompted by the success of designer drugs that are derived from a patient's blood, as a way to make a similar treatment more accessible.

therealdkz 2y ago

[dead]

bluechair 2y ago

Not for the faint of heart but look at figure 3 of the original paper: * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56461-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56461-1 Amazing!

yapyap 2y ago

Although I understand it doesn’t mean this is even nearly useable for a real thing rn, that’s fucking dope.

Rebeccapwilson5 2y ago

[dead]

cced 2y ago

How do we know if something is truly irreversible?

mylastattempt 2y ago
Irreversible might not be the thing to wonder about. Can it be changed to a more desired state or result? That has a much more definitive answer: pretty much always 'yes'.

westurner 2y ago

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37204123 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37204123 (2023) : > From "Sight for sore eyes" (2009) https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sight-sore-eyes https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sight-sore-eyes : >> "A contact lens-based technique for expansion and transplantation of autologous epithelial progenitors for ocular surface reconstruction" (2009) http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TP.0b013e3181a4bbf2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/TP.0b013e3181a4bbf2 >> In this study, they found that only one brand (Bausch and Lomb IIRC) of contact lens worked well as a scaffold for the SC Good to see stem cell research in the US. Stem cell laws and policy in the United States: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_laws_and_policy_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_laws_and_policy_in...

stuckinhell 2y ago

holy moly