Dec. 29, 2005
ROE Junghye, Dean of Research Office at SNU
As stated in the interim report on Dec. 23, the Committee requested DNA fingerprint analyses to three independent organizations of samples taken from Hwang’s lab. They include nine stem cell lines in frozen storage, nine lines in culture, thirteen kinds of somatic cells from nuclear donors, three teratoma tissues, and blood samples from three dogs (donor, cloned dog Snuppy, and the surrogate mother).
Today’s report is a summary of facts that the Investigation Committee has uncovered from the DNA fingerprint analyses related with Prof. Hwang’s 2005 Science paper.
About Stem Cell Lines 2 and 3 (NT-hESC-2, NT-hESC-3)
The results from three independent organizations for lines 2 and 3 all agreed.
They did not match with any of donor’s somatic cells. They turned out to match exactly with the stem cell lines generated from in vitro fertilized eggs at MizMedi Hospital.
About other Stem Cell Lines in Hwang’s laboratory
Eight stem cell lines claimed to be patient-specific ones, including SC-2 and SC-3, were being kept (frozen storage) and cultured in Hwang’s laboratory. The frozen stocks were thawed and grown sufficiently well to be sent for analyses. The results from three independent organizations again all agreed, indicating that none of these “patient-specific” cells lines matched with donor’s (patient’s) somatic cells. Again they turned out to be the stem cell lines from the fertilized egges at MizMedi Hospital.
The results on teratoma tissues and bloods from dogs have not yet reached the Committee. Regarding the stem cell line (SCNT-hES-1) reported in Hwang’s 2004 Science paper, the analyses are not yet completed. In addition to the cultured cell line, the Committee obtained a blood sample from the donor, a cell line deposited in an authorized Cell Line Stock Center, and a stored cell line kept in Prof. S.Y. Moon’s lab at SNU, a co-author in Hwang et al., 2004 Science paper. After analyzing the results, Committee expects to include statements on the authenticity of the data related with the 2004 paper in the final report.
Regarding 2005 Science paper, the Committee concludes that there are neither patient-specific (nuclear-transferred) stem cell lines in Hwang’s laboratory nor any scientific evidences to support the claim that such cell lines ever existed.
SNU NOW / Newsroom