Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

A Mouse With Two Mothers 413

Posted by timothy from the limited-utility-setting-in dept.
jabberjaw writes "Both the BBC and Nature are reporting that scientists at Tokyo University of Agriculture have used two sets of chromosomes belonging to a female mouse to create what are essentially fatherless mice. The process by which this was accomplished (parthenogenesis) does not naturally occur in mammals. The mouse used lacked a gene known as H19 which in turn activated the Igf2 which allowed this process to occur."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Mouse With Two Mothers More

A Mouse With Two Mothers

Comments Filter:

  • Good News, Really (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:30AM (#8937672) Homepage Journal
    All jokes aside (as I am sure many "two daddy trailerpark" jokes are immanent) but this is indeed quite an advancement in biotech, because we may see future developments arrive in the development of cloning endangered species back from the brink of extinction; now species threatened from a lack of suitable mates [stuff.co.nz], could be quite possibly saved, with the proper funding. The hard part would be digging deeper gene pools, enabling a true future for endangered species (although, I guess that's next week on /., right CmdrTaco?). Also, I wonder if it's possible [nih.gov] to grow offspring with only two male subjects.

    • Two daddies? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:42AM (#8937731)
      Doubt it. The Y chromosome is a mutation of the X chromosome and contains much less information. But let's see how this mouse goes. I've my suspicions that in addition to grand pronouncements we'll invent a host of new varients of immune deficencie and progeria like disorders before we've got the kinks more or less understood, let alone under control.

      So as much as I'm looking forward to an all lesbian (but bi curious) amazon go-go dancer future where I'm the last man standing; this research and my time machine seem about equally incomplete. All for one and snu-snu for all.

      • Re:Two daddies? (Score:5, Informative)

        by trewornan ( 608722 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:58AM (#8937835)

        The Y chromosome is a mutation of the X chromosome and contains much less information

        True but misleading.

        Yes, the Y chromosomes contains less genetic data but it's information not found in the X chromosome. So because data is repeated, two X chromosomes contain less information than an X and a Y.

        Yes, it's likely that the Y chromosome is a mutation of an X chromosome, but it differentiated so long ago that 95% of the Y chromosome is male specific [nature.com].

        BTW: I'm not suggesting that this is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

        • The information on the X chromosome consists mostly of "housekeeping" genes; the only one I remember offhand is an enzyme used in the Kreb's cycle.

          The Y chromosome is almost entirely useless; the only gene found on the Y chromosome is TDF, Testes Determining Factor. As you know, female is the default sex in mammals; TDF activates partway through fetal development and tells the embryo to develop testes instead of ovaries.

          I'm not sure about the Y chromosome being a mutant form of the X; AFAIK, the two are r

      • Re:Two daddies? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Walkiry ( 698192 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @09:00AM (#8937848) Homepage
        > Doubt it. The Y chromosome is a mutation of the X chromosome and contains much less information.

        Well, that's why you want to use two parents, each carries an X chromosome. I'd guess it'd involve the use of Cyst Progenitor Cells and an Artificial Womb [mhhe.com].

        > this research and my time machine seem about equally incomplete

        That's what Ebay [slashdot.org] is for ;)

      • Re:Two daddies? (Score:5, Informative)

        by joe_bruin ( 266648 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @09:03AM (#8937866) Homepage Journal
        The Y chromosome is a mutation of the X chromosome and contains much less information.

        but you forget that males have both X and Y chromosomes. so, while 2 females (only X's) can only create female offspring, males can create both male (XY), female (XX).
    • now species threatened from a lack of suitable mates [stuff.co.nz], could be quite possibly saved

      There is STILL hope!.

  • But... (Score:5, Funny)

    by the_gh0st ( 746656 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:31AM (#8937674) Homepage
    is it still considered a bastard?

  • it must be asked... (Score:5, Funny)

    by flynt ( 248848 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:31AM (#8937675)
    Who's your daddy???
    • Imagine finally having The Talk with your pubescent kid. The birds and the birds? The bees and the bees... and the scientists??
      Parthenogenesis... H19... Igf2... How would you explain it?

      Q: Mum, where do babies come from?
      A: Eh? What? Ask your OTHER mother.

  • At BBC too (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheFairElf ( 669537 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:31AM (#8937676)
    Same story at BBC [bbc.co.uk]

    So does this mean we men have no use anymore?

  • Baby Jesus (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:32AM (#8937680)
    "The process by which this was accomplished (parthenogenesis) does not naturally occur in mammals"

    What about baby Jesus.
    • Indeed, if this rare occurrance could happen perchance, say 2004 years ago it truly would be a miricle birth. Maybe the lack off scientific understanding at that time would lead people to believe that the virgin mary had been impregnated by god.

      I didnt think that this was really possible at all but having shown that it is; that miracle of birth as written in the bible maybe isnt such a miracle at all just a freak occurance that happend after thousands of generations human habitation of the earth.

      If this w

      • Re:Baby Jesus (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Perdition ( 208487 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:57AM (#8937829)
        Some called Tony Hawk doing the 900 a miracle.

        But then again, Tony's 900, as spectacular as it was, didn't fit over 100 pieces of specific predictive prophecy from several hundreds of years of writing, most several hundreds of years prior to the event. And, Tony's 900 didn't quite heal hundreds or feed thousands and deliver moral teachings or resurrect after a decent Roman crucifixion.
        But then again, there are those who think that the sun rising every morning is the result of an image broadcast into their brain by evil goverrnment agents while their bodies are actually asleep on the slab in the lab. They'll say that Tony's 900 will have sufficient artificial prophecy written about it in the near future to make it seem as if it was a predicted event, and they'll say that's it's just a matter of time before there's a Church of the Tony Hawk 900.
        You know, some people believe some whacky things.

        • Re:Baby Jesus (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Jason Ford ( 635431 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @11:12AM (#8939091)
          Interesting figure about '100 specific pieces of predictive prophecy'. Unfortunately, it doesn't account for the fact that the writings about Jesus were written many years after his death.

          The supposed fulfillment of these prophecies was recorded so as to give the impression that Jesus was the Messiah. The writers didn't quite get there stories together, though, and mistakenly wrote about Jesus fulfilling prophecies that were never meant for him to fulfill, like the Virgin birth of Emmanuel.

          'The Septuagint had retained the Ishtar-worshipping virgin-temple practices in part by insisting on the physical virgin-birth of Isaiah's prophetic Emmanuel in verses 7:14. The later writers of Matthew and Luke relied on the Septuagint for their references. After reading this passage in Isaiah, Matthew sought to find a way to fit Jesus into the virgin-birth role that Isaiah spoke of, thus achieving a prophecy in Jesus' own birth. The impetus for the idea and the motivation which would eventually permanently seal it into the canon, came from the huge numbers of pagan converts. These converts didn't want to leave behind Mithras and Perseus, who were both virgin-born, in exchange for a Jewish Messiah who was not.' (From infidels.org [infidels.org])

          I agree with your point, though, about the abuse of the term 'miracle'.

        • Some called Tony Hawk doing the 900 a miracle.

          At least we have conclusive proof that Tony Hawk did indeed perform a 900. That seems to move it out of the miracle category.

          But then again, Tony's 900, as spectacular as it was, didn't fit over 100 pieces of specific predictive prophecy from several hundreds of years of writing, most several hundreds of years prior to the event.

          For every piece of prophecy that the birth-o-Jesus fit, there are probably twenty pieces of predictive prophecy that were viola

      • Re:Baby Jesus (Score:5, Informative)

        by efatapo ( 567889 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @09:04AM (#8937875)
        Indeed, if this rare occurrance could happen perchance...I didnt think that this was really possible at all but having shown that it is...

        You probably didn't read the article, but hopefully I can explain why this isn't possible by chance in humans.

        First, they were only able to do this using a mutant immature mouse egg cell. Two genes had to be mutated in order to stop it from imprinting an egg transcriptome (basically, what genes are on). This also would seem to prevent, at least for the forseeable future, doing this in humans. It's hard to mutagenize humans, while it might be possible to turn off the gene using something like siRNA who knows if we could get human egg cells in that premature of a form

        The second, and much larger, problem is that they took genetic material from a second egg and injected it into the first. This is not going to happen naturally. Sperm has a special cellular mechanism that allows it to fuse with an egg. Eggs do not contain these cellular components and therefore would have a hard time (read: impossible) doing this in vivo.

        Basically, the process of parthenogenesis does not happen in mammals in vivo. Can we set up an artificial system to do it with humans, yes probably we can eventually. However setting up an in vitro situation has no implications for in vivo possibilities.
      • Then again, maybe it is just a myth. Just like all the virgin births from pagan mythology (Krishna, Perseus, Heracles, Romulus, Dionysus, Attis...) that christianity gets many of its concepts from.
      • Indeed, if this rare occurrance could happen perchance, say 2004 years ago it truly would be a miricle birth. Maybe the lack off scientific understanding at that time would lead people to believe that the virgin mary had been impregnated by god.
        Except that, lacking a 'Y' chromosome, any parthenogentic child of Mary's would have been female, not male -- which would have shut things down right there in the androcentric Judaic culture.

      • Re:Baby Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mdielmann ( 514750 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @09:56AM (#8938333) Homepage Journal
        Yep, if parthenogenisis did occur to cause the virgin birth of Jesus (a male), that would indeed be a miracle. Not so much because it wouldn't require a man for the pregnancy to occur, but that an X chromosome would have to change to a Y (quite an evolutionary change for a single chromosome transcription event) in such a way as to make a person who didn't look much different than other men.

    • Re:Baby Jesus (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Hektor_Troy ( 262592 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:50AM (#8937778)
      Well, if you believe that baby Jesus was born of a virgin, then you quite likely also believe that he is/was the son of God - divine intervention.

      Divine intervention is not natural.

      Hence baby Jesus is not proof that it does occur naturally.

      If it did occur naturally, baby Jesus' birth would not be a miracle, which would tend to discredit the claim he is the son of God.
    • Most biology students, when they first learn about parthenogenisis, arrive at the Jesus question. However, with two mothers, a baby only has X chromosomes to choose from. To make a male, you need one X and one Y. You can't just "break off a branch" to make a Y, so you can't explain Jesus with parthenogenisis (however, the milkman theory is still viable).

      As for the question of whether males are now superfluous, the answer is: not quite yet. It's true that an all female population could reproduce itself

    • Not likely. The result of parthenogenesis is always female. So unless Jesus was the daughter of God, the theory still needs work.

  • 2 mothers = 4 breasts! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:32AM (#8937681)
    Damn you, Freud!

  • Behold (Score:2, Funny)

    by polyp2000 ( 444682 )
    The virgin birth, now who is god? Mouse society must be up in cheese at the moment. Could this be the second coming of the Mousiahh ?

  • This is it... (Score:4, Funny)

    by kop ( 122772 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:34AM (#8937688)
    They dont need us anymore!

    Panic!

    • Re:This is it... (Score:5, Funny)

      by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:50AM (#8937776)
      They dont need us anymore!

      Remember the quote from Red Green "If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy."

      So as long as we are handy with the duct tape, and can kill the occasional bug, I'd say we have a fighting chance.

      Unless you are nerd.....
      • Does that mean geeks will be more popular with the ladies? Many of us are skilled at fixing things in general in addition to operating a computer. I've known football players who would surprise me if they knew how to tie their own shoes.

        So, the ladies will want us (geeks) around, but we still won't be getting laid (because they don't need us for that anymore). At least we'll have some eye candy. See. It doesn't sound so bad now.

        ;)
      • Unless you are nerd.....

        Some of us eradicate bugs fairly often. :-)

      • Unless you are a nerd (Score:5, Funny)

        by phorm ( 591458 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @11:18AM (#8939158) Journal
        Are you kidding me... where else could females find that friend to:
        "Confide her intimate relationship problems in excruciating detail while at the same time telling you she wishes she could meet a 'decent' man"

        Male nerds, don't tell me this hasn't happened to you.

  • Howard Stern was right (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Everyone loves lesbians! Even mice!

  • Did they name it Heather? (Score:4, Funny)

    by ThePretender ( 180143 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:35AM (#8937697) Homepage
    Because I always thought Heather Has Two Mommies [amazon.com]

  • Parthenogenesis (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aacool ( 700143 ) <aamanlamba2gmail...com> on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:35AM (#8937698) Journal
    This terms comes from the Greek for virgin birth (;))Natural parthenogenesis has been observed in many lower animals (it is characteristic of the rotifers), especially insects, e.g., the aphid

    The phenomenon of parthenogenesis was discovered in the 18th cent. by Charles Bonnet. In 1900, Jacques Loeb accomplished the first clear case of artificial parthenogenesis when he pricked unfertilized frog eggs with a needle and found that in some cases normal embryonic development ensued

    Artificial parthenogenesis has since been achieved in almost all major groups of animals, although it usually results in incomplete and abnormal development

    The phenomenon is rarer among plants (where it is called parthenocarpy) than among animals

    • It's known to happen in Snakes [pcisys.net] too. The general theory is that if a female is approaching the end of her reproductive stage, and she can't find a mate, it's more beneficial to the species for her to clone her own offspring, than to not have any offspring at all.
    • "Big black nemesis: parthenogenesis
      No one move a muscle as the dead come home!"
      - "Nemesis", Shriekback
      One of my favorite songs, from one of my favorite albums.
    • The scientists quoted on NPR said that the all-maternal mice were created by a similar process but they were not sure that it would actually fall into the definition of Parthenogenesis. They did not just activate the cells to spur them into self-subdivision. They basically cultivated the proteins or hormones to make them more "male-like," I suppose so that the cells would do the activation (fertilization) themselves. They said that the overall chemistry isn't so black-and-white, male-and-female, but tha

    • Parthenocarpy (Score:3, Informative)

      by LothDaddy ( 169765 )
      I'd like to clarify this a bit. Many plants DO/CAN reproduce "sexually" without crossing with another individual, wheat is an example. They actually self-pollenate (self-mate), a fine distinction from parthenocarpy, which is fruit/seed production without any pollenation (fertilization). While the progreny of a selfed plant essentially have the sample genes, crossing-over and other genetic events usually result in the chromosomes not being identical.

  • Just waiting for the backlash (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zymurgy_cat ( 627260 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:39AM (#8937718) Homepage
    Go ahead and mod me down as a troll, but why do I have this feeling we'll see a religiously-based backlash against this? Given the furor over stem cell research, cloning, etc., I'd imagine social conservatives would see this as yet another threat of some kind. After all, this is the holy grail in separating sex from reproduction. Hell, I could easily imagine them complaining about "them thar homo-shex-u-als" now being able to reproduce.
    • It would be interesting to make a study and see if the offspring of homosexuals has a greater tendency towards being homosexuals that offspring of heterosexual mates...

      I have to guess that there would be in fact no significant difference, because heterosexuals have been breeding homosexuals for centuries...

  • .06 success rate... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Perdition ( 208487 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:43AM (#8937739)
    They only got a couple of eggs to work out of hundreds, and we still don't know the hidden impacts of such an abnormal mammalian progenation. What happens when this mouse breeds sexually? How long does it live? The whole thing could foreseeably collapse in less than two generations, or give rise to whole new genetic failures and degrading mutations in inobvious parts of the genome. I know this sort of research is promising, but it also scares me silly, because some whack-job is probably dying to try it on humans, no matter how risky.

    • Re:.06 success rate... (Score:5, Informative)

      by wintermind ( 160780 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @09:45AM (#8938208) Homepage
      I AM a scientist, and I read the research paper in Nature rather than the popular-press rehashings of the article. Of the 371 embryos that were transferred to recipients there were 8 born live and 2 who survived the perinatal period. That should stop the handwaving about the likelihood of producing humans infants using ths approach on the grounds of cost alone.

      An extensive amount of genetic engineering was done in order to produce parthenotes that were capable of surviving past 10d of gestation, which is when naturally-occuring parthenotes usually die. One of the two survivors was raised by a foster mother to adulthood and has herself produced a litter of apparently normal pups. The other survivor was sacrificed for gene expression profile studies.

      Some whack job might indeed try this on humans, but it is unlikely. It is easy to obtain enough mice recipients for 371 embryos. It will be significantly more challenging to do that for humans. We also do not know what regulatory differences there may be between mice and humans that would prevent the reported protocol from producing viable embryos in vitro.

    • Re:.06 success rate... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dan dan the dna man ( 461768 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @09:52AM (#8938282) Homepage Journal
      Of course if you it RTFA you'd realise they had already bred it. And the success rate is about equivalent to the early mammalian cloning experiments (eg Dolly) so its not that surprising, techniques always get more effective the longer they are in use and the more widespread they become.

  • This is NOT parthenogenesis. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Necromancyr ( 602950 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:45AM (#8937752)
    Parthenogenesis (straight from the Wikipedia Link): Parthenogenesis (Greek , "virgin", + , "birth") means the growth and development of an embryo or seed without fertilization by a male. In other words, an embryo/seed develops without receiving a second set of chromosomes from a 'father'. It doesn't matter if that second set came from a female or a male. When NPR covered this story, one of the scientists interviewed actually SAID this was different from parthenogensis, which had been demonstrated previously in many species.
    • Partenogenesis is, in general, spontaneous generation of life without the actual act of procreation. Granted, the biology community has narrowed the definition, but I think it's safe to say that classically, this is parthenogenesis, no?
      • I think it's safe to say that classically, this is parthenogenesis, no?

        In short, no. They injected this cell with DNA from another species. This is much closer to cloning than it is parthenogenesis. The Nature article refers to it as such, but I would have to disagree. This isn't virgin birth so much as this is birth from two parents...one just isn't a father. Classic parthenogenesis involves some sort of cellular insult to an egg that triggers embryogenesis (be it osmotic, electric, or physical).

  • rabbits (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zogger ( 617870 )
    seems to me this has occurred in rabbits already. Any biologists here correct me if I am wrong. I also think that pregnant rabbits, in some instances, when highly stressed, will literally reabsorb their foetuses.

  • Swell.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:49AM (#8937768) Homepage Journal

    .. mice that walk around complaining all the time.

    "You're not wearing that to the exercise wheel?!"
    "You never give me fresh seeds anymore!"
    "Ever since we had the brood you ignore me in the wood shavings!"

  • Moral Discussion (Score:3, Interesting)

    by millahtime ( 710421 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:50AM (#8937772) Homepage Journal
    Now, we will be running into a Moral debate over wether this is right or not. There will be homosexual couples pushing for this with people. If it gets to that then they will push for marriage saying they can have families. This could really open up a huge "can of worms" so to speak

    • Re:Moral Discussion (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Tiram ( 650450 )

      Gay and lesbian couples can already have families. You don't need to be able to breed for that. And having children is hardly a reason to marry anymore.

      I have no doubt quite a few arch-conservatives will freaked out over this, but really ...

  • Also in The Independent (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mostaphalles ( 113587 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:50AM (#8937777) Homepage

    Story in The Independent [independent.co.uk] is also a good read.

  • Oh, that's just GREAT. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Adam Schumacher ( 267 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:50AM (#8937780) Homepage
    Now that women have this, combined with a device to open jars [canadiantire.ca], we men are officially obsolete.

  • Not only does this help remove the need for men... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jamieswith ( 682838 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:51AM (#8937782)
    But I would have thought that it also removed the possibility of men being produced by this method... I'm not a biology nerd, so I might be completely wrong, but I just can't see where the 'Y' chromasome would come from in order to be able to make a boy!

  • Lesbian society (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:53AM (#8937801) Journal
    So now it's actually feasible for a purely lesbian society to exist and reproduce?

    This should pose some interesting questions for the Christian right's arguments against homosexuality based on infeasiblity of universalization in nature.

    • [Hey, I'm not starting an off-topic thread, I'm merely continuing it :-)]

      Not only are the usual methods of getting children -- "unpleasant sex" and adoption, but this method will also be available to (at least) some homosexual couples.

      The "Christian Right" (not just Christian, and not just "right") are correct in saying, it diminishes the traditional concept of marriage. However, IMHO, the concept is long diminished through other, perfectly heterosexual means. And it is not anyone's fault in particular. The economies have changed. A single parent can raise a child or two (even without government help). Having a good partner in life is not as important to survive as it used to be.

      The "sanctity of marriage" is important for the Society only because it leads to more (and better) children. That's why the State affords special protections and privileges to married (as opposed to co-habitating) couples -- in inheritance, in not testifying against each other, etc.

      Yet children tend to grow up better having two parents. There are no statistics that show, children in homosexual couples grow better or worse off.

      Here is my proposal to the conundrum of gay marriage. Change all laws, that apply to "married couples," to apply to "any pair of people involved in raising children" (the exact formula should be phrased better, of course, it has to mention mutual devotion and loyalty -- borrow from the classic definition of marriage).

      The actual acts of marriage should stop being administered by the State (both directly through mayors and through licensing). People, who wish to publicly swear their mutual love, respect, and devotion are still very welcome to do that (banning people of same sex from such expressions is directly against the 1st Amendment) in places of their choosing (including government buildings even), but it should not be the State's business.

      The State's business only begins when a couple gives birth to (regardless of the conception method) or adopts a child -- that's when it qualifies for the privileges now afforded to the married only.

      This way, the Society will reward exactly those it should want to, regardless of their sexual orientation, which is not, regretfully, a voluntary choice, it seems.

  • Not exactly parthenogenesis (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Remik ( 412425 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @08:54AM (#8937807)
    IIRC, parthenogenesis is what's known in laymen's terms as a 'virgin birth' phenomenon, in which an egg fertilizes itself after being tricked into believing that it has received DNA from another parent. There is only one contributor of genetic material, making the offspring a clone of the parent.

    In this experiment, DNA was received from two sources, both of them just happened to be female. This difference is profound, because it produced the effects of traditional genetics, (hold on to those Punnett squares!) without the need for males.

    -R
  • The Tokyo University Femputer order the mice to have snoo-snoo.
  • - as if that was anything. Balder the Asa had 9.
  • We, as a species (males) have to come up with something, ANYTHING to make women keep needing us.

    Scratching yourself and burping doesn't count.

  • Like the saying goes.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by shplorb ( 24647 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @09:05AM (#8937879) Homepage Journal
    Dip me in honey and throw me to the lesbians!
  • OK, when they will do the same with two MALE mouses, I'll eat my shoe, I swear :)
  • Sorry... I just had to be the first to say it... but I'm a slow writer so someone else is writing the same thing probably so I'm not actually the first... maybe...

    I read on PopSci a couple months back that men are doomed to obsolescence... I guess it might happen sooner than they predicted.
  • The process by which this was accomplished (parthenogenesis) does not naturally occur in mammals.

    Nothing like stating the obvious.

  • Sexmission? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Helish ( 20119 )
    I think some one has been watching this [imdb.com] movie too many times.
  • You won't even feel a little prick.

  • Let me be the first... (Score:3, Funny)

    by James McP ( 3700 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @09:41AM (#8938179)
    To welcome our new lesbian overlords!

  • "two fathers" should be possible (Score:3, Insightful)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @09:41AM (#8938180)
    Any of the four combinations of parents should be possible then. Its been known for some time that parental chromosomes retain parental markers. The two mother experiement made female chromosomes look male.

    The recent book "The X Chromosome" has several interesting chapters about the slight differences between the parental chromosomes. The cells in a female body mostly disable the second X chromosome. The disabled chromosome actaully separates into a chunk called a Barr body. Most of the time, only one parental X is turned off. But in some cases a female is a genetic mosaic with the mother-X turned on in some tissues, and the father in the other. It is thought this might partly explain why females have a much higher incidence of auto-immune diseases like lupus: Some have two different genomes expressed and each side attacks the other.
    A small fraction of children may have the wrong number of X chromosomes- from 1 to 4, plus maybe a Y. There may be some gender anomalies. But because the extra X's are mostly turned off, it is not fatal.

  • So... (Score:3, Funny)

    by X86Daddy ( 446356 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @10:19AM (#8938544) Journal
    Will the christian response be to:
    • scream and rant about a mouse having two mommies
    • jump, clap, and gesticulate about parthenogenysis being proven

    I guess they'll have to deliberate over this one first. :-)

  • Bible translation error (Score:5, Funny)

    by Wirr ( 157970 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @10:26AM (#8938612)
    Ahhh, that explains it.

    The word in the bible is not supposed to read virgin, but H19 deficient.
    Easy mistake to make.

  • Oh Great! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Luscious868 ( 679143 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @11:30AM (#8939286)
    Rosie O'Donnell is going to fave a field day with this one!

  • sigh, again (Score:3, Informative)

    by dAzED1 ( 33635 ) on Thursday April 22, 2004 @11:51AM (#8939521) Journal
    2 important details most people are missing.

    First, the alternate mother was a mutant. As they started to mention, she had a gene knocked out - a gene that supresses the expresion of about 1000 other genes.

    Second, an X from a female will not align with an X from another female (because of the above, and other reasons). What they effectively did was make a female mouse that could make X chromosomes that behaved in the same way that X chromosomes from a male behave.
    To have this occur in humans, they'd have to figure out how to create a mutant human female that produced X chromosomes that behaved like the X chromosomes a male produces. They'd then have to take said X chromosomes out of her eggs, and match them with her partner's eggs, just like in this experiment. As such, this has absolutely no implications for lesbians, unless one just happens to be such a mutant already somehow (they aren't).


    The research has little impact on allowing lesbians to reproduce. The process for doing that to two women, when neither is a mutant, is a wholy seperate process. In vitro fertilization is about as related to the eventual female reproduction potential as this experiement is (and this experiment is only that related simply because it *involves* IVF). This has no new implications for that eventuality.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close