Seeing as someone, presumably he who throws out insults like...

Seeing as someone, presumably he who throws out insults like they were rice at a wedding, had my post moderated, I will repost the more informative aspects, leaving out those light retorts that were presumably deemed to override the otherwise informative discussion that actually pertains to the topic of this ASX release - that most of the above deviates from.

As said before, rather than wasting your time with errant arguments on these threads, I would urge "Cynutters" to read the study in whole given the informative content:

"Whilst MSCs were originally predicted to repair injured tissues through engraftment and subsequent differentiation, most studies in which MSCs have been administered lack evidence of long-term cell survival, despite showing functional improvements. Indeed, up to 95% of systemically administered MSCs are cleared from the bloodstream in less than 5 min and repair of injured tissues is often observed too rapidly to be explained by direct differentiation of administered MSCs. As such, the therapeutic potential of MSCs is now strongly attributed to their secretion of bioactive and paracrine factors, which are known to change rapidly, reflecting the phenotypic plasticity of MSCs."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41536-024-00382-y

The report obviously discusses in depth the dynamic nature of stromal MSCs (senescence, etc) and heterogeneity they exhibit between tissue sources, donors, and between individual populations - the reason most of us are invested in CYP of course - but also importantly, for me I will happily admit, the unknown/suspected bonus of distinct proteins were identified (IP)MSCs as compared to MSCs from other sources.

We now have extra reason for investing CYP, beyond the obvious scaling and consistency arguments. The additional senescence (decay in quality) arguments have been clarified with this report, by showing that (IP)MSC's have essentially "a ‘younger’ profile of cells in effect that have more "proteins linked to ECM structure" and therefore may provide more "active involvement in tissue repair and microenvironment maintenance" than more traditionally sourced MSC's.Basically the (IP) stem cells are actually better than those sourced from adipose tissue and bone marrow, as well as more consistent and scalable.

I've been a recipient of autologous stem cells (both MSC's and tenocyte stem cells) to much mocking by those parties you can imagine (for daring to share my experience and gratitude) and picked both differing stem cell treatments according to the injury - tenocytes the natural choice in a pure proximal bicep tendon injury, mesenchymals the natural choice in a fibrous cartiliage/ligament/tendon mixed shoulder junction injury. Just as there is plenty of room for different stem cells approaches, certain MSB investors need to grow up and realise there is plenty of room for CYP and MSB to co-exist for some while in the market, and most "Cynutters" will hope for MSB to succeed for the benefit of patients worldwide who presently have very dire outcome possibilities under present standards of care - they also grease the wheels nicely for CYP's pathways to regulatory and commercial success.

As the report says itself:

"This can be used to inform the design of more effective MSC-based therapies by identifying the most suitable MSC source for a particular application, allowing the development of tailored culture conditions and/or preconditioning methods to enhance the therapeutic potential of these cells, or even identifying specific factors that can be adapted for pharmaceutical intervention."

i.e. there is room for all of these approaches and its more important that any of them are out there commercially available to desperate patients often with no options. IPSC's will perhaps one day dominate the sourcing, but MSB will probably still be the grand old King of allogeneic stem cells at least for the next decade, such is the uphill task of introducing novel medical treatments in the conservative medical world.