Talk:Regeneration in humans

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Regeneration in humans article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 27 March 2015. Further details are available here.

Willjw123 (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 14 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GreenPencils.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organ self-repair function

Most organ transplants last only 20 years or so; compared to original organs (of the person itself) which last as long as the person lives (100 years or more). I'm assuming this is due to the inability of the organ to repair itself once transplanted into a new host. This inability is I believe caused by the histocompatibility-mismatch (i.e. the body identifying the organ as foreign tissue). This histocompatibility-mismatch is adressed by various techniques (immunosuppressants, ...) so it doesn't cause any further problems (organ rejection, ...) but is NOT solved, so the organ remains seen by the body as foreign tissue. Once we succeed in actually solving the histocompatibility-mismatch (i.e. using gene therapy) won't this cause a new problem to pop-up, namely the attempting of the body to "repair" the transplanted organ ? The body has the construction DNA of its previous organ in it (the one that has been removed from the body) so will identify the newly transplanted organ as being the same and will try to use the old organ construction DNA to "repair" it. If the person has had the organ removed due to genetic defects on that organ, the body will thus try to re-implement these defects into the new organ, which is definitely not a good thing. With xenotransplants, the problem would be even worse, as organs of other animals differ significantly from their human counterparts, so the changes it would then introduce would be great, and could cause much problems.

Can the body's self-repair function thus be "deactivated" by altering the patients DNA using gene therapy ?
If the self-repair function can't be deactivated per organ (which I assume), could the entire old organ construction DNA be removed from the patient's DNA (or overwritten with the construction DNA of the newly transplanted organ) ?
Just to be certain, is there any data confirming that transplanted organs (where the patient uses immunosuppressants) indeed DON'T regenerate ?

KVDP (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Include new Israeli research in "heart" paragraph?

I am not in any way a medical professional, so I'm not sure whether to edit the paragraph on regenerating human hearts. In Israel, researchers have successfully created an entire functioning (rabbit's) heart from stem cells and a 3D-printed scaffolding. Said scientists claim that within 10 years, this technique may be used to create new hearts for implanting into people.

Here's the link: https://www.livescience.com/65257-3d-printed-heart-human-tissue.html

Does anybody here with more medical expertise believe that one ought to include this in the article? --Thank You.

Pine (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is a fairly recent article on an American team's generating pig's lungs.

https://www.wired.com/story/four-successful-bel-transplants/

Pine (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1976 Tissue Regeneration Mentioned Three Times

The particular case of a non-diabetic patient regenerating a 3cm scar in 1976 thanks to insulin injections is mentioned three times in the article:

History of human tissue regeneration: History of regeneration techniques: Regeneration by instrument
History of human tissue regeneration: History of regeneration techniques:Regeneration with drugs
Induced regeneration in humans: Fat

Perhaps those separate instances could be combined into one?

mdMcAlister (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, citations can be used many times to cite and validate different premise in any article. IMO, there is nothing logically, or structurally wrong with one citation (something 1976) validating three separate, premise arguments, or structured subjects like that in any article. However, you would clearly have a great point if the same logical premise was mentioned three times in an article, but this is not the case as 'Regeneration by instrument', 'regeneration by drugs' and 'fat' are three different premise arguments.Melvapent (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regeneration by Recellularization

several of the examples in the 3D printing subsection actually use decellularization and subsequent recellularization of existing tissue. since this only involves washing the tissue and then dripping a cell culture solution on the remaining "ghost" tissue, it's not 3D printing at all. the micro- and macro-structure already exist in the ghost tissue and are not created by any sort of printer. recellularization should get its own subsection. 157.131.95.172 (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]