UK Scientists Create a Three-Parent Embryo 201
Troll-Under-D'Bridge writes "The BBC reports that British scientists have manufactured embryos containing genetic material from a man and two women. Under the procedure developed by scientists from Newcastle University, the nuclei from a father's sperm and a mother's egg are transferred into a second woman's egg 'from which the nucleus had been removed, but which retained its mitochondria.' The research, which may 'help mothers with rare genetic disorders have healthy children,' used embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization treatment."
Wow . . . (Score:5, Funny)
So Heather REALLY HAS two mommies!
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if that means the father gets double the action...
Re:Wow . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Nah - just double the headaches, and a 'honeydo' list that's twice as long.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They've Finally Done It. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
so god is black? hmm...
Well, many Rastafarians [wikipedia.org] think Haile Selassie I was an incarnation of god, and they're no less likely to be right than any of the others....
Re: (Score:2)
It could be a long-dormant genetic thing. My mother’s brother and his entire family look like they have a great tan, at all times. Because that side of the family is Irish through and through, we’re guessing that there’s some Black Irish in our family—long-since descendants of Spanish and Portuguese settlers in Ireland—and my uncle, for whatever reason, wound up with a phenotype that expresses it.
Of course, how that would come through Hong Kong and a Latvian Jew, I can’t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not what you think (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the 'mothers' only contributes mitochondrial DNA, which does not affect any characteristics to the offspring.
Re:Not what you think (Score:5, Informative)
At another level, the mitochondria set the rate at which the cell creates energy which directly affects the ability of the cell to regenerate, reproduce and function which can itself cause differences in gene expression.
Re:Not what you think (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but since the mitochondrial DNA only codes for a small amount of the respiration chain -- cytochrome C oxidase, ATP synthase, and some of the core proteins of the NADH reductase complex, in most eukaryotic cells -- while the nuclear DNA codes for much of the rest of the proteins in the respiration chain, you need to have an excellent match between proteins that come from two different chunks of DNA. There's no guarantee that'll happen, and there's evidence that one of the reasons cloning has such a poor success rate and so many cloned animals die young of strange damage, is precisely because of poor matching between mitochondrial and nuclear dna products, leading to oxidative damage throughout the cell and early cell death because of leakage from the poorly-functioning respiration chain.
Man, once our genetic engineering is good enough, one of the first things we should do is migrate those mtDNA genes into the nucleus, already, and get them working under proper sexual reproduction/selection. Clean that shit up.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, once our genetic engineering is good enough, one of the first things we should do is migrate those mtDNA genes into the nucleus, already, and get them working under proper sexual reproduction/selection. Clean that shit up.
Bad idea. Somewhere between 80 and 99.5% of the mitochondrial DNA has already migrated into the nucleus (comparing to bacteria that are somewhat similar to what we think mitochondria were, like Rickettsia sp.) because when an individual mitochondrion dies, it breaks apart and its DNA is floating around where it can easily be picked up.
Since there are significant differences between retained mtDNA in different animal and plant species, but there are *always* (as far as I or apparently anyone else knows)
Re: (Score:2)
Very interesting. If the problem were mismatch between mitochondrial and nuclear products, wouldn't we expect much more problems with regular births considering situations where the offspring may get a lot of nuclear dna from the father? Especially in genetically diverse couples?
Re: (Score:2)
In any human, mitochondria ONLY comes from the mother. The mitochondria in the sperm are clustered at the base of the flagella and are used to provide energy for swimming. After insemination, the father's mitochondria are "discarded", left outside of the egg. There is also no worry that the father's mitochondria is "too different". So in current human biology, the mother's mitochondria is extremely important, as any defects/dna damage will be inherited by the offspring.
The father's mitochondria decides how
Re: (Score:2)
Since you seem to have some understanding beyond "teh Slahsbot" level:
When one fine day we get to a point where we can do serious gengineering, would it make sense to finish what started a long time ago and move the genes for producing mitochondria into the nuclear DNA, and let the mitochondria become just another organelle?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would say the mitochondria definitely affect the characteristics of the offspring. Mitochondria are the place where much of the metabolic pathways are involved.
I believe the whole point of this procedure was for would-be mothers who suffer from mitochondrial-related disorders to be able to bear children with their own chromosomal DNA but having healthy mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) (and thus healthy mitochondria).
Metabolism is a very big player in an organism's characteristics.
Re: (Score:2)
New meaning for the phrase "Go F*** yourself?" (Score:2)
Just asking.....
Re: (Score:2)
Ménage à trois (Score:3, Funny)
A very scientific, high tech, in vitro ménage à trois.
Re:Ménage à trois (Score:5, Funny)
I prefer the old fashioned way of combining the genetic material of a man and two women personally.
Or... (Score:4, Insightful)
The french have been trying this forever (Score:2)
Unconscionablereligious prohibition (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As a parent who has gone through 7 years of infertility, I can say that I find religious objections to new fertility treatments unconscionable. The Church's belief that people who suffer from infertility should "accept the will of god" to be disgusting and akin to telling a cancer patient that they should do the same.
It's not like they're saying "suck it up" for no reason. They _really_ believe that abortion is murder and that creation of a fetus for scientific study (and mandatory destruction) is a perversion of science equal to the Nazi's death camp science. If cancer studies used the same methods, the same people _would_ oppose the studies, and would tell a cancer patient that they should do the same. Take a moment and think whether you'd like to have specific infertility studies continue if full term, born babies
Re: (Score:2)
They _really_ believe that abortion is murder
No, they don't. Otherwise they'd be holding funerals for miscarriages. (And yes, I know that some of them *are* that crazy.) They simply find it a convenient reason to be outraged that people don't ascribe to their religious dogma.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, we resolved our infertility by adopting.
Aww, crap. Missed that, sorry.
Re:Unconscionablereligious prohibition (Score:5, Insightful)
In response to your Religious accusations, you have to remember most of these religious institutions do not have anything against new fertility treatments. But when you draw the line for humanity at conception, any fertility treatments that involve destroying embryos would be viewed with the same level of morality as people who kill babies after they are born. However, the Church would support it if the embryos were adopted out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It took me a second though to make the connection so I can see why they wouldn't get it. But the comparison is accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Lesbian mothers will be able to have children (Score:2)
This is great progress, because it means that lesbian mothers will eventually be able to have children that are genetically related to both parents. This would mean that all their children are female, but they may not mind.
Re: (Score:2)
This is false. Male and female genetic contributions are different because of maternal and paternal imprinting - certain genes are "flagged" on or off by methylation of DNA segments, and the pattern is different in men and women. This results in a careful balance - if you used two femal
Too much slashdot (Score:2)
Darn, I read that headline as "three-patent embryo" and thought it's some kind of IP gripe article.
Never mind, I'm sure the number of patents on this is bigger by the order of magnitude anyways.
Nick Lanes book on Mitchondria (Score:2)
Obviously inspired by... (Score:2)
A group grope?
Hope there is good code separation (Score:2)
I have to admit that this makes me nervous.
The mitochondria "code" is supposed to be totally separate from the nuclear "code," but what if it isn't ? Even if the DNA is totally different in heritage, the cell and its mitochondria have evolved together, and that might extend to assuming that certain proteins, say, will be available even though they are produced by the other body. Plop another mitochondria in there, and there might be problems down the road.
Now that we've cracked that nut, we can move on... (Score:2)
...to the five-assed monkey!
Dan Fogleberg (Score:2)
Adoption? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting! (Score:2)
Looks like now it will be possible to be half Irish, half English, and half German.
Also, this comic. [shawntionary.com]
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
The research, which may 'help mothers with rare genetic disorders have healthy children...'
I'd say that's a pretty good reason for this research.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say not at all better than the people with rare genetic disorders being responsible and adopting if they insist on having kids. Insurance premiums will go up to cover the costs of this treatment so that people can have vanity kids instead of adopting one ready-made and otherwise unwanted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One problem with your theory - biology.
Human reproduction is an instinct that drives human beings to pass on their own genetic material... not someone else's.
'course, one could balance that against the human instinct to protect other children in a communal group, but I suspect the drive to have one's own baby is primary. Would make for an interesting philosophical discussion, but...
I do agree with you - we're allegedly a rational species that can (not does, "can") place ourselves above base instincts and dr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I do agree with you - we're allegedly a rational species that can (not does, "can") place ourselves above base instincts and drives. Unfortunately, it's not just biology
One could reasonably argue that manufacturing a child via syringe is literally a part of biology but it has nothing to do with instinct.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And then one could then argue that you have the right to sell what you manufacture.
This kind of science has been known before and has been dealt with before.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One problem with your theory - biology.
Human reproduction is an instinct that drives human beings to pass on their own genetic material... not someone else's.
It's a new era and a brave new world. Just think of this as "genetic spoofing". If it's good enough for spammers it's good enough for future spam recipients.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Kids with spam for genetic material?
I'm sure Hormel has that patented. :)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a common moral squeamishness about deciding, for the greater financial good, who gets to precreate. It's a squeamishness I happen to share. If you're going to refuse to pay for their vanity kids, why pay for those of infertile couples? Why pay for a guy to store a sperm sample when he has a vascectomy? I guess it would take something like the US healthcare system to turn a free-market economy into a cold-war totalitarian nightmare.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a common moral squeamishness about deciding, for the greater financial good, who gets to precreate.
Sure, but it is just the next step after making people pay to raise other people's kids.
If I have to pay for the care of somebody who is sick, or whatever, now suddenly I have a voice (like it or not) in whether such a person should be born in the first place. The only alternative is to give people a voice in whether to care for said kids after they are born, which is clearly less desirable as now the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The inability to differentiate between necessary and desireable medical treatments is a lot of where the healcare issue is rooted. It's a tough problem, but I don't believe real progress will
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like it or not, there is a strong (instinctually enforced) tendency to want to pass on your own genes to the next generation. We are basically built at a basic level to want to live, eat, and reproduce. For many people that means having kids that are genetically their own.
There's also the desire to have a kid that recognizes you as their parent. That can happen just fine with adopted children, but typically only if they're very, very young when adopted. Competition for adopting babies is pretty fierce.
Also, adopting requires a LOT of justification and the like. There's a ton of paperwork determining whether or not you financially qualify, whether or not you're an appropriate match (ie, some people with certain health problems aren't allowed to adopt), or other factors (such as if the person is single. A single woman has a hell of a time adopting a child. A single man can pretty much forget about it). Having your own biological children simplifies this, as it takes a mountain of good cause and paperwork to remove a child from their parent. Pretty much the exact opposite of adoption.
All in all, while a noble goal, the reality is that adoption simply isn't for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
25-50% discounts if you considered black or mixed race babies
Hummm wake me when it gets to 3/4th's....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a shortage of families willing to adopt black children.
It seems that people express at least to some degree a preference for children of their own colour. Now I'm not going to argue whether or not it would be beneficial for us to catch a mild case of the Williams syndrome with regards to our affinities to different strangers, but isn't the percentage of black children among all children more or less proportional to the percentage of all black people among all people? If that is the case, I would expect the number of childless black families willing to adopt a b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand this method, the zygote (err, excuse me, child) will not inherit the disorder. So it's not irresponsible in the sense of passing on a genetic disorder.
As for insurance costs... eh, if you hadn't insisted on government-controlled health care, it'd be up to the insurance providers whether or not to pay for treatments like this, and up to you whether you wanted to
Re: (Score:2)
The doctors are doing it for the same reason dogs lick their balls, because they can. Morality aside, if this practice catches on it would seriously screw up genetic studies in the future. Since mitochondrial DNA is used
Re: (Score:2)
The research, which may 'help mothers with rare genetic disorders have healthy children...'
I'd say that's a pretty good reason for this research.
Adoption is a better option, if you really have to have a child to raise.
Re: (Score:2)
And what if it's a rare mitochondrial genetic disorder? That would be eliminated for all future generations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But she supplied eggs which would allow the genetic parents to develop a healthy child, which indeed makes her a co-parent.
This won't be an issue, however, because there are plenty of women who donate their eggs specifically for this reason.
My question is this: wouldn't this have to happen before meoisis I occurs? If so, how long do the parents have to perform this procedure?
Re: (Score:2)
The mitochondria are separate from the nuclear chromosomal DNA. The timing of this experiment is only dependent on meiosis in that the chromosomal dna from the mother and father should be the product of meiosis: Haploid.
The mitochondrial DNA is unique and present in the mitochondria themselves. This is part of the understanding that mitochondria are from endosymbionts.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
RTFA They're getting the mitochondrial DNA from the host egg.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Three parents? Not really. (Score:5, Informative)
Mitochondrial DNA is also child's DNA...
And since it greatly affects methabolism, it's one of the most important traits of an organism. Certainly can affect one of the traits you list, height.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, would there be any compatibility issues.
Car analogy: I guess having a not so matched engine in your car is usually better than having one that's faulty or fails prematurely?
Re: (Score:2)
Hm, interesting question; OTOH children of parents who are very distant, as far as ethnic background goes, are supposedly more likely to be healthy, etc. Even though in this case the nuclear DNA is bound to be a mix od two sets which would have to be "matched" (if that indeed occurs) to their local mitchondrial DNA; but the mix has to cooperate only with one original set of mtDNA.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Three parents? Not really. (Score:4, Interesting)
The definition of biological parentage (as opposed to adopted parentage) has always been genetic. Just because the egg cell came from a third party does not make her a parent. She supplied no DNA. I'm sure that one day scientists will mix and match DNA from three human beings, but that is not what this article is about.
but mitochondrial dna has a larger effect then you might think. Specifically metabolism can you imagine two identical twins where one was fat and the other skinny?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Sure, if I replace the word "identical" with "very different".
Re:Three parents? Not really. (Score:4, Informative)
can you imagine two identical twins where one was fat and the other skinny?
Yes I know a pair. Both are attractive, but one is single and jogs, the other is married, doesn't exercise, and eats a lot. It's not all in the genes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Three parents? Not really. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand of the present case, the mitochondrial DNA of the mother who supplied the nucleus indeed contained genes for a disease and that is what motivated the change. So the change is not unimportant at all.
Re: (Score:2)
which is not unimportant
I think you mean:
which is important
I am not usually one to pick on double negatives as I abuse them myself plenty. However, this was needless obfuscation and, at first glance, was confusing enough to take away from the content of your sentence.
Re:Three parents? Not really. (Score:5, Informative)
She did contribute DNA, its Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA). Mitochondrial DNA is unique from the rest of the genome and is not in the nucleus. It is found in the mitochondria.
All MtDNA in humans is transmitted from the mother because it is her mitochondria in the egg that will propagate into each cell as cells divide in development.
So she has contributed genes.
MtDNA from egg donor.
Maternal chromosomal DNA is from the nuclear DNA donor.
Paternal chromosomal DNA is from the sperm.
So how would this affect ability to use the force? (Score:2, Funny)
Anakin Skywalker's mother, for instance.
non-high midichlorin femaile character, like... not Princess Leia, she clearly has midichlorins. Were there any other females in those movies?
from Han Solo. Or, god forbid, Jar Jar Binks. So, basically, because of the importance of this midichlorinal DNA, Jar Jar could be given Jedi powers? That is messed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Princess Leia, she clearly has midichlorins. Were there any other females in those movies?
How could you forget Mon Mothma? Even her name is hot.
Re: (Score:2)
The "mitochondrial" DNA is separate from the nucleos DNA. In nature mitochondrial DNA is always wholy inherited from the mother. In this experiment the nucleus DNA for the egg comes from one woman and the mitochondrial DNA comes from the 2nd woman so the embryo does have 3 parents.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, using unsupported third party libraries totally voids any support agreements you might have with the vendor...
Re:More nonsense use to justify immoral action (Score:5, Funny)
I have severe moral issues with people who think that morality is anything more than an arbitrary human construct largely defined by unconscious mental process shaped by evolution, thus making axiology a faux endeavor, you insensitive clod!
Re:More nonsense use to justify immoral action (Score:5, Funny)
Did you mean to say "I don't like this." ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe that such as thing as absolute morality exists. However, there is such a thing as contractual morality (it is wrong to cheat on your spouse because you have an implicit contract that you won't. If you and your spouse have an agreement that sleeping around is ok, then it is not immoral). So, if something offends your sense of right and wrong, DON'T DO IT! But you have no right to bitch about other people doing something that does not harm you. (Your moral indignity is a harm you impose on yourself.)
You don't believe in absolute morality. Fine. Then you tell someone they "have no right" to complain about something. If there is no absolute morality then what do you mean by "right", exactly? I'm sure based on his morals he has every right to complain. And his complaint doesn't harm you, does it? By your own argument you have no right to complain about his complaining.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool story, bro.
Re: (Score:2)
In your answer, please note: between implantation failures and spontaneous abortion, somewhere between 50 and 70% of eggs that are fertilized by traditional means never make it. If deliberate destruction of an embryo is immoral, an attempt at conception, through perfectly standard sexual means, no science stuff, is recklessly negligent.
Punchline is, while humans aren't organisms of the "rel
Re: (Score:2)
Because you still haven't explained how destroying an unfertilized egg is immoral in the scope of rule-set deontology. Your parent poster was giving an example of the many paradoxes to which deontologists open themselves up. Yes, that particular example is easy to dismiss - but others aren't. And unless you describe in more detail which rule-sets you subscribe to as part of your deontologic philosphy, it is impossible to understand how you initial assessment is anything more than an "I don't like this" with
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Morals are a system of rules that exist to ensure that humans thrive. I can't think of a simpler way to put it. It's basically a social construct that guides everything from the value of an individual all the way up to ensuring the success of society. It's not something people just made up for the fun of it or for the sake of control. It's probably something that evolved out of necessity as human moved beyond basic animal instincts.
Religions have simply taken those morals and have codified them. Morals didn
Re: (Score:2)
Wait'll you find out what's really involved (hint: the guy has to donate his sperm without contaminating it... guess how that happens? The answer is as close as your nearest hand).
(I'm also thinking that the women aren't going to be wearing thigh-high stockings and stiletto heels to their egg extraction procedures either, given taht those usually involve really long needles, IIRC).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Last time they tried that I was a wiseguy and submitted a turing machine which would halt iff the collatz conjecture was true. Next thing you know, Slashdot went down trying to verify whether the thing halted. I don't think my post ever made it either.