Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- Creators: School of Life Sciences
Description
Studies in neocortical neurogenesis have experienced an explosive growth since the early 2000s, measured by the increasing number of publications each year. I examine here the influence of Arnold Kriegstein in the field using Topic Modeling, a set of algorithms that can be applied to a collection of texts to elucidate the central themes of said collection. Using a Java-based software called MALLET, I obtained data for his corpus, and compared it to the texts of other researchers in the field. This latter collection, which I dub "General Corpus", was separated by year from 2000 to 2014. I found that Kriegstein's most frequently discussed topic concerned highly unique terms such as GABA, glutamate, and receptor, which did not appear in any of the primary topics of the General Corpus. This was in contrast to my initial hypothesis that Kriegstein's importance stemmed from his examination of different phenomena that constitute the broader aspect of neocortical neurogenesis. I predicted that the terms in Kriegstein's primary topic would appear many times throughout the topics of the General Corpus, but it was not so, aside from the common ones such as neurons, cortical, and development. Taken in tandem with NIH Reporter data, these results suggest that Kriegstein obtains a large amount of research funding because his studies concern unique topics when compared to others in the field. The implications of these findings are especially relevant in a world where funding is becoming increasingly difficult to come by.
ContributorsChhetri, Chandra Divyash (Author) / Laubichler, Manfred (Thesis director) / Maienschein, Jane (Committee member) / Aiello, Kenneth (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
the project led by Professor Emma Frow, researching of stem cell clinics focused on stem cell applications, adherence to FDA guidelines, and characterization of information available and physician credentials. Regenerative medicine clinics commonly offered stem cell therapy, but introduced platelet rich plasma (PRP) and prolotherapy as regenerative therapies.
PRP and Prolotherapy are individual treatments that were even suggested and used in combination with stem cell therapies. Prolotherapy predates PRP as a chemical irritant therapy originally used to sclerose tissues. Prolotherapy is meant to stimulate platelet derived growth factors release to improve tissue healing response. Prolotherapy shows negligible efficacy improvements over corticosteroids, but may have underlying side effects from being an irritant. PRP is a more modern therapy for improved healing. Speculations state initial use was in an open heart surgery to improve healing post-surgery. PRP is created via centrifugation of patient blood to isolate growth factors by removing serum and other biological components to increase platelet concentration. PRP is comparable to corticosteroid injections in efficacy, but as an autologous application, there are no side effects making it more advantageous. Growth factors induce healing response and reduce inflammation. Growth factors stimulate cell growth, proliferation, differentiation, and stimulate cellular response mechanism such as angiogenesis and mitogenesis. The growth factor stimulation of PRP and prolotherapy both assist stem cell proliferation. Additional research is needed to determine differential capacity to ensure multipotent stem cells regenerate the correct cell type from the increased differential capacity offered by growth factor recruitment. The application of combination therapy for stem cells is unsubstantiated and applications violate FDA ‘minimal manipulation’ guidelines.
PRP and Prolotherapy are individual treatments that were even suggested and used in combination with stem cell therapies. Prolotherapy predates PRP as a chemical irritant therapy originally used to sclerose tissues. Prolotherapy is meant to stimulate platelet derived growth factors release to improve tissue healing response. Prolotherapy shows negligible efficacy improvements over corticosteroids, but may have underlying side effects from being an irritant. PRP is a more modern therapy for improved healing. Speculations state initial use was in an open heart surgery to improve healing post-surgery. PRP is created via centrifugation of patient blood to isolate growth factors by removing serum and other biological components to increase platelet concentration. PRP is comparable to corticosteroid injections in efficacy, but as an autologous application, there are no side effects making it more advantageous. Growth factors induce healing response and reduce inflammation. Growth factors stimulate cell growth, proliferation, differentiation, and stimulate cellular response mechanism such as angiogenesis and mitogenesis. The growth factor stimulation of PRP and prolotherapy both assist stem cell proliferation. Additional research is needed to determine differential capacity to ensure multipotent stem cells regenerate the correct cell type from the increased differential capacity offered by growth factor recruitment. The application of combination therapy for stem cells is unsubstantiated and applications violate FDA ‘minimal manipulation’ guidelines.
ContributorsKrum, Logan (Author) / Frow, Emma (Thesis director) / Brafman, David (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
Genetic manipulation of human cell lines has widespread applications in biomedical research ranging from disease modeling to therapeutic development. Human cells are generally difficult to genetically engineer, but exogenous nucleic acids can be expressed by viral, chemical, or nonchemical means. Chemical transfections are simpler in practice than both viral and nonchemical delivery of genetic material, but often suffer from cytotoxicity and low efficiency. Novel aminoglycoside antibiotic-derived lipopolymers have been synthesized to mediate transgene delivery to human cells. These polymers are comprised of either paromomycin or apramycin crosslinked with glycerol diglycidylether and derivatized with stearoyl chloride in varying molar ratios. In this work, three previously identified target lipopolymers were screened against a library of human embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cell lines. Cells were transfected with a plasmid encoding green fluorescent protein (GFP) and expression was quantified with flow cytometry 48 hours after transfection. Transfection efficiency was evaluated between three distinct lipopolymers and four lipopolymer:DNA mass ratios. GFP expression was compared to that of cells transfected with commercially available chemical gene delivery reagent controls\u2014JetPEI, Lipofectamine, and Fugene\u2014at their recommended reagent:DNA ratios. Improved transgene expression in stem cell lines allows for improved research methods. Human stem cell-derived neurons that have been genetically manipulated to express phenotypic characteristics of aging can be utilized to model neurodegenerative diseases, elucidating information about these diseases that would be inaccessible in unmanipulated tissue.
ContributorsMehta, Frea (Author) / Brafman, David (Thesis director) / Rege, Kaushal (Committee member) / Chemical Engineering Program (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
Biological therapies are substances made from living organisms used to treat disease or injury. Common biologic therapies today include platelet rich plasma injections (PRP), stem cell therapy, and growth factor therapy. Ever since their emergence just over a decade ago, biological treatments have been used to treat a variety of conditions including tendonitis. Tendonitis commonly affects athletes of all levels and is the inflammation or irritation of a tendon that leads to pain and tenderness. Despite the potential promise of biological treatments in treating persistent injuries like tendonitis, there is not a consensus in the scientific community on their effectiveness in treating non-surgical injuries. However, many athletes still seek these forms of treatment. Currently, there are many unknowns regarding how up and coming high-level athletes perceive biologics, if they understand what biologics are, how they’re learning about biologics, and what type of injuries they believe should warrant biologics treatment. Here we show that the majority of high-level collegiate athletes at Arizona State University (ASU) know what biological therapies are, but do not possess accurate information about their effectiveness and medical use. We found through a survey sent out to the student athletes at ASU that while athletes are familiar with PRP and stem cell injections, they are primarily learning about them from potentially unreliable sources such as social media, friends, and family. Further, student athletes falsely perceive biologics are commonly used in physician treatment protocols for persistent tendonitis and are recommended to athletes months earlier than in reality. Our results demonstrate that high-level collegiate athletes do have a misperception on the effectiveness of biological treatments and that further education is needed for athletes about the truth and myths of biologics.
ContributorsSmith, Haley (Author) / Holloway, Julianne (Thesis director) / Chhabra, Anikar (Committee member) / Brinkman, Joseph (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2022-05