Healthy Babies Born in Britain After Scientists Used DNA From Three People to Avoid Genetic Disease (phys.org) 54
"Eight healthy babies were born in Britain," reports Phys.org, "with the help of an experimental technique that uses DNA from three people to help mothers avoid passing devastating rare diseases to their children, researchers reported Wednesday."
Mutations in mitochondrial DNA "can cause a range of diseases in children that can lead to muscle weakness, seizures, developmental delays, major organ failure and death," and in rare cases even pre-IVF testing can't clearly detect their presence. Researchers have been developing a technique that tries to avoid the problem by using the healthy mitochondria from a donor egg. They reported in 2023 that the first babies had been born using this method... Using this method means the embryo has DNA from three people — from the mother's egg, the father's sperm and the donor's mitochondria — and it required a 2016 U.K. law change to approve it. It is also allowed in Australia but not in many other countries, including the U.S. Experts at Britain's Newcastle University and Monash University in Australia reported in the New England Journal of Medicine Wednesday that they performed the new technique in fertilized embryos from 22 patients, which resulted in eight babies that appear to be free of mitochondrial diseases. One woman is still pregnant...
Robin Lovell-Badge [a stem cell and developmental genetics scientist at the Francis Crick Institute who was not involved in the research] said the amount of DNA from the donor is insignificant, noting that any resulting child would have no traits from the woman who donated the healthy mitochondria...
In the U.K., every couple seeking a baby born through donated mitochondria must be approved by the country's fertility regulator. As of this month, 35 patients have been authorized to undergo the technique. Critics have previously raised concerns, warning that it's impossible to know the impact these sorts of novel techniques might have on future generations... But in countries where the technique is allowed, advocates say it could provide a promising alternative for some families.
Mutations in mitochondrial DNA "can cause a range of diseases in children that can lead to muscle weakness, seizures, developmental delays, major organ failure and death," and in rare cases even pre-IVF testing can't clearly detect their presence. Researchers have been developing a technique that tries to avoid the problem by using the healthy mitochondria from a donor egg. They reported in 2023 that the first babies had been born using this method... Using this method means the embryo has DNA from three people — from the mother's egg, the father's sperm and the donor's mitochondria — and it required a 2016 U.K. law change to approve it. It is also allowed in Australia but not in many other countries, including the U.S. Experts at Britain's Newcastle University and Monash University in Australia reported in the New England Journal of Medicine Wednesday that they performed the new technique in fertilized embryos from 22 patients, which resulted in eight babies that appear to be free of mitochondrial diseases. One woman is still pregnant...
Robin Lovell-Badge [a stem cell and developmental genetics scientist at the Francis Crick Institute who was not involved in the research] said the amount of DNA from the donor is insignificant, noting that any resulting child would have no traits from the woman who donated the healthy mitochondria...
In the U.K., every couple seeking a baby born through donated mitochondria must be approved by the country's fertility regulator. As of this month, 35 patients have been authorized to undergo the technique. Critics have previously raised concerns, warning that it's impossible to know the impact these sorts of novel techniques might have on future generations... But in countries where the technique is allowed, advocates say it could provide a promising alternative for some families.
Great news (Score:2)
My throuple can have a baby! I'll tell my polycule.
How is this any different than organ donation anyway? Funny to watch the right-wing losers freak out over it though.
Re:Great news (Score:5, Interesting)
Are people really freaking out about this? How sad. This is a fantastic development.
A couple could otherwise have good nuclear DNA, but a high risk of defective mitochondria- this puts them back in the gene pool as healthy reproducers.
Hard to see it as anything but a win for humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
No, honey! I wasn't cheating! I was just testing the quality of her mitochondria...
Re: (Score:3)
Way to wildly misrepresent statistics. Either you're extremely dumb or you think everyone else was born yesterday.
The "30%" figure is the number of paternity tests that come back negative in cases where one has been ordered.
You seriously think 1 in 3 women have cheated and lied to their partners about the paternity of their children??? Get help.
Re: (Score:2)
>"A couple could otherwise have good nuclear DNA, but a high risk of defective mitochondria- this puts them back in the gene pool as healthy reproducers."
Couples in that situation could already have healthy reproduction with egg donation, which requires no genetic manipulation at all. Normal carry term, have baby, enjoy. It wouldn't have the rest of the DNA from the pregnant/delivering mother, but I am not sure why that should be all that important. It is not like humans are endangered species.
>"Ha
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure why that should be all that important.
Are you also on board with infidelity, handmaids, and other means to have children that are not biologically related to both parents?
A lot of people want to have and raise their own children, not somebody else's offspring. What's the difference in biological substance between accepting egg donation and being a surrogate mother for the egg donor?
Re: (Score:3)
>"Are you also on board with infidelity, handmaids, and other means to have children that are not biologically related to both parents?"
That has nothing to do with what I posted. Having children is about raising and teaching and loving them for many years. The biology part should be very, very minor, it is an extremely minor contribution; the love you have for your full, partial, or no DNA relation children should be the same.
The biology of creating new life is simple and has almost no investment at al
Re: (Score:2)
>"A couple could otherwise have good nuclear DNA, but a high risk of defective mitochondria- this puts them back in the gene pool as healthy reproducers."
Couples in that situation could already have healthy reproduction with egg donation, which requires no genetic manipulation at all.
Don't even bother with that. Couples in that situation could have healthy reproduction by adopting.
Once you've made the declaration "it doesn't matter if your baby isn't actually related to you", you've already said adoption is the easybanswer.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Once you've made the declaration "it doesn't matter if your baby isn't actually related to you", you've already said adoption is the easy answer."
Some might care somewhat about the "related to" and in the egg donation, the child would at least carry half the DNA of the couple (the father, not the mother, in this example).
I get what you are saying, though. And yes, adoption can/should be just or almost as fulfilling (especially if very young) in such cases.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this any different than organ donation anyway?
Organ transplants will not be inherited, mitochondrial transplants will be inherited. Well, that's true for the babies that grow up to be mothers, mitochondria would be propagated ova, not by sperm.
There's laws against gene modifications that could be passed on to offspring, and for a good reason. At least with an organ transplant if something goes wrong there's no passing on altered genes to another generation. Well, assuming reproductive organs are not transplanted.
There's a lot we still don't know, an
Re:Great news (Score:5, Informative)
They're not modifying the nuclear or mitochondrial DNA.
They're merely transplating the nuclear DNA into a gamete with its own functioning mitochondria.
Could there be consequences to that? Of course. Those mitochondria may not play well with that particular nuclear combination- but it's not like you're going to create a new heritable disease that never existed before or some shit.
Those mitochondria already existed.
Re: Great news (Score:2)
Exactly, this isn't genetic modification. It's more like Frankenstein's monster, just swapping in a few parts from various places.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Sure, like an organ transplant."
Except an organ transplant doesn't pass down "forever" through genes in progeny.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a genetic experiment.
It's at least far from routine.
They're not modifying the nuclear or mitochondrial DNA.
They're merely transplating the nuclear DNA into a gamete with its own functioning mitochondria.
That's messing with the gene pool in ways that hasn't been tried before, that makes this experimental. We likely won't know if there's any impact on the gene pool until these babies are grandparents.
Could there be consequences to that? Of course. Those mitochondria may not play well with that particular nuclear combination- but it's not like you're going to create a new heritable disease that never existed before or some shit.
Spreading a combination of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA that might not play well together sounds like it meets the definition of an inheritable disease to me.
Couldn't they have somehow used the mitochondrial DNA from the father to mitigate against any kind of mismatch between the
Re: (Score:2)
Mitochondria from the father would be equally experimental. Mitochondria are almost never inherited from the father.
But, yeah, it's experimental. Some mitochondria don't play well with some nuclear DNA combinations. (Part of the mitochondrial DNA is stored in the cell nucleus.) But it won't create a "new genetic disease" because those things already happen once in awhile. It's just that it might not fix the problem. Presumably they check that before they do the implantation though.
Re: (Score:2)
(Part of the mitochondrial DNA is stored in the cell nucleus.)
I'm a little dubious about this, but I noted the unusual phrasing "stored in the cell nucleus."
I suppose it's possible that some mitochondrial DNA somehow gets inside the nuclear envelope, but "stored in the cell nucleus" is not identical as "transmitted in the chromosomal DNA". I'm not sure if we care about where mitochondrial DNA that's not the part that's inherited is located.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? It's worse then. Because someone who needs an organ transplant likely has a weak organ .. a trait they might pass on to their kid. With DNA the fix is a gift to the subsequent generations. By the way your argument is ridiculous, it's like saying if you have brown eyes you shouldn't marry someone with blue eyes because then you're playing God because it's unnatural to mix brown eye and blue eye genes.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? It's worse then. Because someone who needs an organ transplant likely has a weak organ .. a trait they might pass on to their kid.
That was already the case since if this was an inherited condition then it was passed down already. Well, there can be a de novo mutation that can cause problems for offspring but that's not something this procedure is intended to treat. De novo mutations happen but they are rarely inherited for a number of reasons. If an organ transplant is an option then it would appear that the genes weren't so bad as to result in stillbirth. There's also other reasons for an organ transplant than a genetic condition
Re: Great news (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No one is upset over this, but they are living rent free in your head.
Dude there's people freaking out about this in this very comment section. Right wingers in America specifically have a long standing ban on any research involving modifying human embryos, and the right-wingers have banned specifically this class of clinical treatment.
This isn't living rent free in people's head. This is people actively impacting the lives of others. It's a very real thing that is happening. Pretending it doesn't is dumb on a level as bad as those we are criticising. Either that you're gas l
Re: (Score:2)
No one is freaking out over this
I only said gaslighting arsehole once. Normally we need to chant it three times to summon you. If you're one of the "solidly rightwingers" I feel you want to be a representative here, so then behalf on 330 million Americans fuck you on this particular issue.
Re: (Score:2)
>"My throuple can have a baby! I'll tell my polycule."
Next up: redefining marriage yet again, but for three or more people?
GMO Humans (Score:2, Informative)
These scientists are not stopping to think how they may be injecting their own mistakes into the permanent gene pool. As soon as these babies start having children of their own the gene pool will be polluted with GMO humans and any oversights the scientists made. This could potentially bring down our species, at worst, depending on the oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
No, scientists won't be the death of our species. You fucking morons not understanding how stupid you are will be.
Re: (Score:2)
Cute. But a bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver. The genes are form the same species.
Re: (Score:2)
A point, but given the mutation rate of mitochondria, not a good one. More to the point, if it doesn't fix the problem, or creates a worse problem, the kids probably won't reproduce.
Also, since mitochondria are inherited almost only along the maternal line, it won't spread widely. It will be confined to the descendants in the female line of one family. (Sons may carry it, but won't spread it.)
Re: (Score:3)
You realise these scientists didn't create anything right? They simply repeated a process that occurs naturally except instead of limiting the genes to those present in the egg and sperm they spliced some out and replaced them with those of a third party.
Evolution is often a self correcting process. If they made a mistake it's likely the oversights will die out. It's insanely difficult to progress a gene in the wider gene pool without multiplying it millions of times first - like what they do with GMO mosqu
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't gene line surgery. It's inheritable only along the female line. (But, yeah, mistakes WILL happen. Even normal mitochondria have a high mutation rate. And those with problems will be disadvantaged, and probably have no grandchildren. And if they do, only the granddaughters will spread the mutation.)
Re: (Score:2)
False. They literally consulted an ethics board and had it approved. Hmm. How many ethics experts approved your comment before you spewed it out into the world?
Re: (Score:2)
EVERYONE's defective. Guaranteed. They're just defective in different ways, or in different environments.
Re: (Score:2)
You're being a bit harsh on parents.
trait (Score:3)
any resulting child would have no traits from the woman who donated the healthy mitochondria
isn't healthy mitochindria a trait ?
Anyway, I certainly don't fault them for wanting a healthy baby and I wish the familes luck
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it? Got a reference? I've heard several ideas, and thought there were lots of different causes.
Breaking the Laws of GOD (Score:5, Interesting)
You just know the fundies are going to be all over this. When do we expect the executive order from Trump banning it in the US?
So, which bit of the cell after "conception" does the soul come from?
Re: (Score:3)
Reading the blurb and the article, it always DNA is being donated from an egg. Nothing is said about a fertilized egg.
But yes, guaranteed the fundies will jump on this at some point even though it contradicts their own words. All they care about is something popping out, no matter how much pain and suffering it has to live with.
Abortion (Score:2)
So this will fall under the same purview as ivf treatments. It'll
Why three people, though? (Score:1)
Why not just use the mitochondria from the father if the problem was with the ones provided by the mother?
Re: (Score:3)
You know designer babies will (Score:1)
be big and controversial someday. They can't be banned because they can be arranged out of country.
No traits (Score:1)
This is a remarkable leap. Critics raising alarms about future generations shouldn't be regul
Born, isn’t a metric of health. (Score:2)
"Eight healthy babies were born in Britain,"
Tech avoiding future harm is promising, but you’re going to have to sell a lot harder than that to convince people.
The most organic human ever is still breathing the same air we have polluted for centuries now. The same food chain. The same water. The same microplastic problem to be found in our very veins years from now. Just as we’re doing to fish today.
Being born healthy, is quickly becoming a tiny fraction of the challenge of selling survival.
suck on that, ancestry.com! (Score:1)
Let's see you figure out how to connect them in your family tree database!
was one named (Score:2)
Was the physician named Noonien Soong?
Khan Noonien Singh?