My understanding is that the difference between the 2 technologies, Cynata (ECQ) and MSB, is to do with stem cell precursors.
MSB use a Mesenchymal precursor derived from bone marrow and elsewhere, for both autologous and allogeneic stem cells.
Cynata (ECQ) are patenting the use of Mesenchymoangioblasts (MCA) for allogeneic stem cells.
Actually, if I have this correct, MCAs are precursors to Mesenchymals which are precursors to stem cells.
The further back in the precursor stem cell chain you go, the more allogeneic and extensive (becomes the use of the stem cells derived). At least, I think this is what Cynata are hoping (but have not proven yet).
I think that the idea they are hoping to prove up is that the MCAs will be far more multi-purpose and will be able to be mass produced (hopefully cheaply) without reference to any specific individual.
It is almost like the search for a generic particle, you go back so far to the point where you have a cell like an MCA, and you fire an instruction at it such that depending on the instruction, it can generate itself into any organ or tissue, and be available (without risk or rejection) to any human.
The original cell may have been derived from anyone (allogeneic), and perhaps only once, such that all proceeding MCAs or stem cells are cloned.
MCAs are just an earlier form of Mesenchymals.
I wish we had a stem cell PhD scientist on this forum, to help with the understanding of all this stuff.
This stuff is complex and I am still trying to understand it's derivation and terminologies, and the medical directors of Cynata have been helpful so far.
Gw
ECQ Price at posting:
1.9¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
