Body May Reject Transplanted Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Finding suggests that embryonic stem cell therapy could encounter the same problems organ transplants do

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The much-ballyhooed human embryonic stem cell apparently may share a problem with transplanted organs: a high probability of rejection.

Researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine found that mice mounted an immune response after being injected with human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). The result: all the transplanted stem cells—which hold the promise of maturing into several different types of tissue—were dead within a week.

Wu says that the fact that the hESCs could not survive in the mouse, coupled with previous work showing that the animals also reject mice ESCs, suggests that if human stem cells were transplanted to a patient, they would very likely provoke an immune response. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, however, has not approved the injection of hESCs into patients because the raw cells have the potential to become cancerous.

According to Stanford radiologist Joseph Wu, co-author of a study appearing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, the study tells scientists that such cells do not slip under the radar of our immune systems. Some scientists had believed they did, because an embryo is "foreign" to a mother. After all, half of its genes—and therefore some percentage of its protein makeup—are from the father.

The new study not only showed that these cells are not invisible to the immune system, but using a noninvasive molecular imaging technique, the scientists could see when exactly the cells were dying off. The finding means that people who may one day be treated using pools of stem cells taken from many lines could reject them, making the therapy useless.

"[This result is] not a disappointment, it's more of a reality check," Wu says. "I think there's some promise [to hESCs], but you don't want to be foolish and say these cells are going to cure things in the next five years."

When Wu and his team took hESCs and injected them into the legs of mice with compromised immune systems, the cells thrived and multiplied. In mice with functioning immune systems, however, the cells began to die within a week and were completely gone after 10 days. When the researchers tried to inject more stem cells into the mice, their immune systems remembered the foreign invaders, and the cells fared worse—dying in two to four days.

The Stanford team noted that the immune reaction was similar to rejections during organ transplantation. So, the group repeated the experiment in animals that received two common antirejection medications—tacrolimus and sirolimus—which they hoped would suppress their immune systems enough to let the stem cells thrive. They lasted up to 28 days.

But, is that enough time for them to have a therapeutic effect?

"We don't know if that's long enough for them to mature and have an effect," Wu says. "Our only finding here is that this combo of drugs can have a medicating effect on these cells"—allowing them to survive longer.

Leslie Silberstein, program leader for cell therapy at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, called the new findings important, but said he was not surprised to find that human ESCs were attacked in the same way as other cells.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe