Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China Science

Scientists Create Healthy Mice With Same-Sex Parents (bbc.com) 183

Posted by BeauHD from the breaking-the-rules dept.
Researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences were able to make baby mice with two moms and no dad. "The aim of the Chinese researchers was to work out which rules of reproduction they needed to break to make baby mice from same-sex parents," reports the BBC. "That in turn helps understand why the rules are so important." From the report: It was easier with double mums. The researchers took an egg from one mouse and a special type of cell -- a haploid embryonic stem cell -- from another. Both contained only half the required genetic instructions or DNA, but just bringing them together wasn't enough. The researchers had to use a technology called gene editing to delete three sets of genetic instructions to make them compatible (more on that later). The double-dad approach was slightly more complicated. It took a sperm, a male haploid embryonic stem cell, an egg that had all of its own genetic information removed and the deletion of seven genes to make it all work.

The reason we need to have sex is because our DNA -- our genetic code -- behaves differently depending on whether it comes from mum or dad, the study in Cell Stem Cell suggests. And without a female copy and a male copy our whole development gets thrown out of whack. It's called genomic imprinting with parts of the DNA in sperm and parts of the DNA in eggs getting different "stamps" that alter how they work. The bits of DNA carrying these stamps were the ones the researchers had to delete in order to make the baby mice viable.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Create Healthy Mice With Same-Sex Parents More

Scientists Create Healthy Mice With Same-Sex Parents

Comments Filter:

  • Oh, boy (Score:4, Funny)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Thursday October 11, 2018 @11:01PM (#57465360)

    Wait a second while I grab my popcorn.

  • Done Before? (Score:3)

    by mentil ( 1748130 ) on Thursday October 11, 2018 @11:16PM (#57465398)

    Swear I read about something like this on Slashdot a year or two ago. Although I don't recall gene editing being involved.
    TFA says the mice created from the DNA of two females lived long enough to reproduce, but the ones created from two males died shortly after birth (presumably due to genomic imprinting errors). It's in doubt that even the ones with two mothers were fully healthy/normal.

    • An offspring from tow males would not have an X chromosome.
      I doubt they even would grow in a jar.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by vbdasc ( 146051 )

        FYI, male placental mammals have X chromosomes.

      • Re:Done Before? (Score:4, Informative)

        by FalcDot ( 1224920 ) on Friday October 12, 2018 @02:21AM (#57465792)

        Almost right.

        Our chromosomes exist in pairs, and we have 23 pairs of them.

        On one particular pair, women have two X chromosomes and men have an XY combination. Thus, the most obvious genetic difference between our sexes exists only on one chromosome, which is why in common parliance we refer to "the X chromosome" or "the Y chromosome". But again, in both cases these are part of a pair.

        When reproducing, both parents give one (pretty much randomly selected) of each pair of their own chromosomes to the child.

        Meaning that women always give an X sex chromosome to their child, and men give 50% X and 50% Y.

        Thus, two women will indeed always give two X chromosomes, leading to a girl. Two men will have 25% female children, 50% male children and 25% children with YY chromosomes. A quick google shows that pretty much no-one knows what that would be like. It is not impossible that it would not be viable.

        • Re:Done Before? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot&worf,net> on Friday October 12, 2018 @03:13AM (#57465912)

          Thus, two women will indeed always give two X chromosomes, leading to a girl. Two men will have 25% female children, 50% male children and 25% children with YY chromosomes. A quick google shows that pretty much no-one knows what that would be like. It is not impossible that it would not be viable.

          It is widely believed that the Y chromosome, because of its size, is more of a "patch" chromosome. During conception, the X chromosome is "dominant" and the fetus will actually have ovaries and vagina and other female characteristics. However, a little while later, the Y chromosome disables several genes in the X chromosome, and several changes take place. The ovaries "drop" and turn into testicles. Likewise, the vaginal organs and such descend and modify themselves to become the scrotal sac and penis. The Y chromosome patches other genes inside the X chromosome to give other male characteristics.

          Thus, a YY pair will be non-viable as it will lack genes only in the X chromosome.

          And this would also explain things like transgenderism or gender fluidity - the patching process isn't perfect and during development errors can occur.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            It is not a "patch".

            Sexual reproduction exists because females have redundant chromosomes that prevent genetic mutations. Males have no such redundancy, and are subject to much higher rates of mutation. Evolution and adaption are driven by females selecting males with beneficial mutations and avoiding males with deleterious mutations.

            For every single metric we have regarding genetic variables, the bell curves between the sexes are the same. For females, they are tall with narrow tails. For males, they are

            • Except that many species don't have a simple binary XY pair, even other mammalian species.

              Aslo, given the history of biology, it's far too premature to proclaim any dogma in this area. There are many species fish that will readily change gender as needed, and those are certainly complex organisms.

        • Two men will have 25% female children, 50% male children and 25% children with YY chromosomes.
          You are right.
          I realized this after I clicked send :D

        • > Two men will have 25% female children, 50% male children and 25% children with YY chromosomes

          *facepalm*

          XYY syndrome [wikipedia.org]

          XXY syndrome [wikipedia.org] aka Klinefelter syndrome

          • > Two men will have 25% female children, 50% male children and 25% children with YY chromosomes

            *facepalm*

            XYY syndrome

            XXY syndrome aka Klinefelter syndrome

            *facepalm*????

            You do realize you are pointing out anomalous genetics, don't you? These are rounding errors on specifying that there would be 25% this and 50% that. The articles you linked to specify that these mutations occur in 1 of 1000 live births. Even if we add up all variations of mutations that might occur on the sex determinant chromosomes there is likely far less than 1% of the total population with these mutations, and quite a few of which could render a person infertile and unable to produce t

        • Well, we already have humans with XXY, XXX, XYY etc. The "perfect" XX+XY rule is readily broken in nature. We even have XX that appear as male. Also, not all X's behave the same and not all Y's behave the same. YY is the one that doesn't readily work because it misses far too many genes.

          Also not all sex disphorphism genes necessarily have to be on X or Y only.

          This is all vastly more complicated than what they teach in third grade.

  • I have no fear. My wife still needs me, if only to catch spiders and to splatter her back with sunscreen.

  • Of Mice and Men (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by aglider ( 2435074 )

    You want to promote same sex marriages.
    You are free as in freedom.
    You want to prove that having same sex parents isn't any worse than having parents with different sex.
    You are free as in beer.
    The problem lies withing the concept of "good" and "bad".
    Did you check the psychology status of those mice against the reference samples?
    For how long?
    What are you reference samples?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

      You want to promote same sex marriages.
      You are free as in freedom.
      You want to prove that having same sex parents isn't any worse than having parents with different sex.
      You are free as in beer.

      If you even glance at the article or summary for a moment, even just the first sentence, you will learn that Chinese researchers in this experiment were trying to do neither of these things.

      Sometimes, a Slashdot article is like a Rorschach test. Peoples' reactions are much more informative (and sometimes unintentional

      • Re:Of Mice and Men (Score:4, Insightful)

        by nukenerd ( 172703 ) on Friday October 12, 2018 @05:09AM (#57466110)

        You want to promote same sex marriages.
        .......

        If you even glance at the article or summary for a moment ... you will learn that Chinese researchers in this experiment were trying to do neither of these things

        Whatever the Chinese researches intended, or did not intend, has nothing to do with it. Others will make of it and use it however they will. In any case I took the GP's "you" as a general one, not just to the researchers, as part of a question addressed to the world at large.

        Peoples' reactions are much more informative .... than anything in the article.

        That applies to your reaction too (and my reaction to your reaction, to save you saying it).

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Others will make of it and use it however they will.

          Not in China though, same sex marriage is illegal there and you can bet this would be too.

          • Not legally supported and illegal are two different things.
            I doubt you have any trouble if you e.g. marry in Germany and come back to China as a married couple.
            Would you be eligible for any tax benefits? I doubt so however ...

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              You could find it to be very problematic if you have children.

              Marriage carries more benefits than tax breaks too. It's basically a pre-packaged contract that sets up lots of defaults for things like inheritance, and is referenced by many other contracts and law such as stuff governing insurance and worker's rights.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            -1 troll huh? Seems we have a moderator who finds same sex marriage offensive and supports banning it.

      • That is why I read /.

        Peoples' reactions are much more informative (and sometimes unintentionally so and funny) than anything in the article. I added the funny part, but perhaps silly would nail it better.

      • People often only read the headline and then start their rant. Sometimes they misread the headline and still go on the rant.

  • When she suggested reducing population of men to 10%, she meant non-brutal methods.

    In her early career, Gearhart took part in a series of seminars at San Francisco State University, where feminist scholars were critically discussed issues of rape, slavery, and the possibility of nuclear annihilation. Gearhart outlines and justifies a three-step proposal for female-led social change:

    I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future.
    II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture.
    III) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.
    Gearhart does not base this radical proposal on the idea that men are innately violent or oppressive, but rather on the "real danger is in the phenomenon of male-bonding, that commitment of groups of men to each other whether in an army, a gang, a service club, a lodge, a monastic order, a corporation, or a competitive sport." Gearhart identifies the self-perpetuating, male-exclusive reinforcement of power within these groups as corrosive to female-led social change. Thus, if "men were reduced in number, the threat would not be so great and the placement of species responsibility with the female would be assured." Gearhart, a dedicated pacifist, recognized that this kind of change could not be achieved through mass violence. On the critical question of how women could achieve this, Gearhart argues that it is by women's own capacity for reproduction that the ratio of men to women can be changed though the technologies of cloning or ovular merging, both of which would only produce female births. She argues that as women take advantage of these reproductive technologies, the sex ratio would change over generations.[13]

    Sally Miller Gearhart, one of the founders of gender studies` [wikipedia.org]

    • Of course that would have been around 1950, some 70 years ago. Reading her later writing and how she describes her early ideas, I have a feeling she probably wouldn't be all that pleased.

      It seems like you must be aware of this because you linked to her Wikipedia page that explains it. So I'm wondering what the purpose of presenting this information in such a misleading way is.

      It's been modded as "informative" which suggests that at least some people accepted it without checking. That's a great demonstration

      • "We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and

      • Of course that would have been around 1950, some 70 years ago.

        No, it was after 1970, nothing shows she has ever changed her opinion, but good try.

        It seems like you must be aware of this because you linked to her Wikipedia page that explains it.

        Lies. Although mentioned wiki page does try to elaborate how peaceful and non-hateful of her that idea is, as it would have been achieved by "reproduction technologies", she was "a pacifist" after all.

        The two other pieces in her speech are also notable, with all the "The Force is Female", "The Future is Female" and "wait, why are rebels ruled exclusively by women in Star Wars" going on, some, perhaps would understand why it

      • I found no mention of anything that you claim in your post, which is kind of funny given that you're bemoaning people for not reading something. I checked the version history in case someone had recently edited the Wikipedia page, but it was last edited on September 29, so it would not have changed between when Kartu wrote his/her post.

        The quote that the original poster provided is at the very end of the section on her writing. Earlier in that section it mentions some of her more recent fictional work: "

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Both stories explore a dystopian world where women outnumber men

          Sounds like she thought it was a terrible idea.

          You are right thought, it was only about 45-50 years ago she made those statements. Long before she wrote the above.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by voss ( 52565 )

      Its not the men who would revolt. Men would love it, it would be like every man would be the protagonist in their own harem anime.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      So 9 women for every man, i think most men would actually support this.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I can finally go back to playing videogames without fearing the onslaught of women trying to use me as a piece of man-meat, day in and day out.

  • Political implications (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Friday October 12, 2018 @07:53AM (#57466530)

    When the Democrats keep inventing new genders, it will now be possible to test them on mice first.

  • Can someone who's read the detail confirm my understanding that whatever you do with two female mice, you can only get daughters? Have I got it wrong about Y-DNA?
  • uh, finds a way

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close