Scientists 3D-Print Ovaries To Allow Infertile Mice To Mate and Give Birth (theguardian.com) 64
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Infertile mice have given birth to healthy pups after having their fertility restored with ovary implants made with a 3D printer. Researchers created the synthetic ovaries by printing porous scaffolds from a gelatin ink and filling them with follicles, the tiny, fluid-holding sacs that contain immature egg cells. In tests on mice that had one ovary surgically removed, scientists found that the implants hooked up to the blood supply within a week and went on to release eggs naturally through the pores built into the gelatin structures. The work marks a step towards making artificial ovaries for young women whose reproductive systems have been damaged by cancer treatments, leaving them infertile or with hormone imbalances that require them to take regular hormone-boosting drugs. Of seven mice that mated after receiving the artificial ovaries, three gave birth to pups that had developed from eggs released by the implants. The mice fed normally on their mother's milk and went on to have healthy litters of their own later in life. Writing in the journal Nature Communications, the scientists describe how they printed layered lattices of gelatin strips to make the ovary implants. The sizes and positions of the holes in the structures were carefully controlled to hold dozens of follicles and allow blood vessels to connect to the implants. Mature eggs were then released from the implants as happens in normal ovulation.
Re: Idiotcracy (Score:5, Insightful)
While I understand where you are coming from and agree with some of your statements (exploitation for profit), there are people in this world that could emotionally benefit if this research leads to applicability in humans.
My wife and I adopted because we couldn't have children naturally (even medically assisted). We received worse news after, when due to a life threatening medical condition, my wife's ovaries had to be surgically removed. Our women in the world face this situation more often than we think (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3913114/).
The ovaries are quite important to the health and wellbeing of women. Hormones get produced, and, if removed early in life, require nasty, side-effect bearing hormone supplement therapy. Early menopause is an unpleasant thing to young women (N.B.: as a man, I cannot put this in proper words - I only experience this as a partner to a woman).
If there were a way to restore my wife's womb and ovaries, we would - even though we wouldn't use this for procreation. It would be for her mental and physical wellbeing.
If I drew a parallel to male conditions, like testicular cancers requiring the removal of a ball or two and researchers found a way to 3-D print a set, people would applaud their efforts. So, you can STFU!
Re:Idiotcracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Two, "hard reality" when it comes to biomedical science? "Adopt rather than have a baby" is a weird place to draw the line. "The hard reality is if you get cancer, you should probably just accept there are more than enough people on earth, so just hurry up and die and be glad you get time to make peace with it rather than in a car accident."
Three, TFA specifically points out, in case high school biology fails you, that the ovary does more than just poop out eggs.
The goal of the project is to be able to restore fertility and endocrine health to young cancer patients
A woman in her 20s gets ovarian cancer and is unable to reproduce ever again, that's bad enough, but there's also the added awfulness of menopause. Osteoporosis, heart disease, a bunch of other shit that cancer survivors really shouldn't have to deal with.
Fourth, tissue engineering like this is really in it's infancy. Successfully duplicating an organ should be exciting to you even if you don't happen to have that organ and you aren't convinced the organ's function is really so important. You like your testicles functional? How about having a non-diabetic pancreas? Odds aren't bad you'll have problems with some organ some day and could benefit from a new one. Lessons learned here won't be strictly confined to ovaries, it makes it more likely an organ you'll want to replace will be possible. Plus, what the fuck? Slashdot is news for nerds who are supposed to like technology. Just because it's wet, squishy, and feminine, we've decided we don't like THIS technology?
Fifth, how much time and money were "wasted" on this? From NIH reporter, it looks like $300,000 [nih.gov] was spent specifically on this project. About a third of a single tomahawk missile, like the 60 we used to do fuck all in Syria in a vain attempt to boost Trump's ratings [marketwatch.com]. Or less than three times as much as has been raised to make onesies for fully grown manchildren. [kickstarter.com]
In conclusion, leave questions about science and priorities to the adults.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure SuperKendall will be along shortly to tell you that it's socialised medicine that has the death panels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah. HillaryCare.
Keep believing your racist sh!t and see where it gets you,
(Racist because you assume the only reason I, and others like me, are against ObamaCare is because Obama is black.)
Re: (Score:2)
Give me a different reason other than race why people are so infuriated that health care insurance companies need to cover sick people with pre-existing conditions then. Bonus points if you can explain why it's totally unrelated that the GOP continues to have so many racist gaffes, or why the openly racist southern strategy isn't still in effect, or why Jeff Sessions is trying to get back to the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I was more concerned that the GOP healthcare bill goes along the lines of having more young people die young so we can harvest and sell their organs to rich people to prolong their lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Fifth, how much time and money were "wasted" on this? From NIH reporter, it looks like $300,000 [nih.gov] was spent specifically on this project.
Best investment this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Crap. Thanks for reminding me to renew my Science License!
Re: Idiotcracy (Score:1)
Just renewed myself. I can carry science concealed too!
Re: (Score:2)
Right, they should have researched a cure for baldness. Or impotence. Or something to make my armpits less sweaty. Or make my feet smell good.
But yes, I agree, the last thing we need is more people. We already have way too many and we'd be better off if some just vanished. You and your post just reminded me of this.
Re: (Score:2)
When the human race suddenly fails to reproduce, and the population gets down to say 1% of the current count, maybe then scientists would have a reason for doing this kind of research.
Right now it sounds like making up a new way to get money from distressed people. The hard reality is if somebody is unable to reproduce, they should get a sympathy card and the offer to adopt.
Says the Greenpeacer who thinks that the human species is an infestation to be erased from the environment.
Congratulations on deciding not to have any children of your own. May your ideas die with you and not be transmitted to a new generation.
Re: (Score:2)
--Beau
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
A better human trap, maybe? I wonder what to use as bait, the trolling may commence now!
Re:Restoring fertility - (Score:5, Informative)
For most cancers in general, that would probably be true, but not for cancer of the female reproductive system. Only about 20–25% of ovarian cancer is believed to be caused by a genetic predisposition (specifically by one of two relatively common gene mutations that also cause a genetic predisposition for breast cancer). And approximately 0% of cervical cancer is believed to be hereditary; rather, it is generally believed to generally be caused by the HPV virus. So no, it is not generally indicative of a hereditary condition.
Re: (Score:3)
And approximately 0% of cervical cancer is believed to be hereditary; rather, it is generally believed to generally be caused by the HPV virus.
Rubbish. It's a multifactorial process. While HPV is an important factor genetic predisposition [plos.org] is also a factor. Not all women infected with a given carcinogenic strain of HPV develop cancer. So what's the variable? Genetics.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of variables. When a virus infects a cell, it injects its DNA into the host's DNA. Unless it is carefully designed to splice itself into a specific spot in the host DNA, there's a decent chance that it will cause damage when it does this. The extent to whi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Because we're human beings for fuck's sake!
Eugenics is so 1940s, get with the times!
Poor Article (Score:4, Interesting)
How exactly was the gelatin engineered to respond to estrogen and release an egg only upon estrus? I'm guessing it wasn't, and this printed ovary just periodically released eggs. The article also contains this gem: "an ovary implant could also help cancer survivors whose eggs are so damaged that they need hormone replacement therapy to trigger puberty". My understanding is that eggs don't cause puberty; and this 'ovarian prosthetic' does nothing to grow new follicles, so if your eggs are damaged, you're still sterile.
Also poor headlines (Score:2)
Headlines have to be short I suppose but so short they are misleading is a bit annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like you're complaining an ad for a printer doesn't tell you how to install the drivers, while ignoring the manual it came with.
From a brief skimming of the nature article, it's much more impressive than you for some reason assume. These are not just eggs, they're the follicle. The non-egg components of the follicle secre
Eggs (Score:2)
Infertile females don't produce the "follicles, the tiny, fluid-holding sacs that contain immature egg cells" which are implanted. They would have to come from a fertile donor. Am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Eggs (Score:2)
I didn't miss that, just discounted it as a reason for the research because women with one working ovary don't need two and infertile women can already use IVF with donated eggs.
Re: (Score:3)
Rome wasn't built in a day.
You're missing the part where they've managed to build a WORKING OVARY from spare parts. Next up is learning to build the individual parts, ie. the follicles.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I think the first people to volunteer for the suicide booth should be the people who clearly misunderstood, probably willfully, what Darwin was trying to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you want to print the ovaries? Be honest, you're actually looking for the STL for a related but very different part...
Filled with awe and gratitude... (Score:1)
"I can haz moar mices???"
- My Lazy, Overweight Cat -
Like we don't have enough mice in the world...or people, for that matter.
Does that mean men (Score:2)
Does that mean men can give birth too any time soon?
Not saying I wish to bear children. But it'd stifle a few abject misandry opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, no, men cannot use this to have babies. You still need follicles to seed into the ovary, which you don't have. You'd also need a Fallopian tube and a uterus.
Feminist Dystopian Fantasy (Score:2)
Yay the Feminist Dystopian Fantasy comes closer to reality! Men be gone!
Re: (Score:1)
Men-B-Gone ??
I think Lady Ada sells the kit. It's similar to this.
https://www.adafruit.com/product/73
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One small step at a time bro.