Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    A mouse embryo is fertilised in the University of Bath experiment

    Motherless babies could be on the horizon after scientists discovered a method of creating offspring without the need for a female egg.

    The landmark experiment by the University of Bath rewrites 200 years of biology teaching and could pave the way for a baby to be born from the DNA of two men.

    It was always thought that only a female egg could spark the changes in a sperm required to make a baby, because an egg forms from a special kind of cell division in which just half the number of chromosomes are carried over.

    Imagine that you could take skin cells and make embryos from them. This would have all kinds of utility.
    Dr Tony Perry, University of Bath

    Sperm cells form in the same way, so that when a sperm and egg meet they form a full genetic quota, with half our DNA coming from our mother and half from our father.

    But now scientists have shown embryos could be created from cells which carry all their chromosomes which means that, in theory, any cell in the human body could be fertilised by a sperm.

    Three generations of mice have already been created using the technique and are fit and healthy and now researchers are planning to test out the theory using skin cells.

    [IMG]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/science/2016/09/13/mouse5-medium_trans++VKOd1ILXaurCHi1o16 wQuaHxSnsjjYOBMSJiOgQYU2U.PNG [/img]
    Scientists now want to test whether the same result could be achieved using skin cells

    Dr Tony Perry, a molecular embryologist and senior author of the study, said: “Some people say start the day with an egg, but what this paper says is that you don’t necessarily have to start development with one.

    “It has been thought that only an egg cell was capable of reprogramming sperm to allow embryonic development to take place.

    “Our work challenges that dogma, held since early embryologists first observed mammalian eggs in around 1827 and observed fertilisation 50 years later, that only an egg cell fertilised with a sperm cell can result in a live mammalian birth.

    “We’re talking about different ways of making embryos. Imagine that you could take skin cells and make embryos from them. This would have all kinds of utility.”

    For the initial experiments, scientists "tricked" an egg into developing into an embryo using special chemicals which makes the egg think it has been fertilised. Crucially the cells in an embryo copy themselves completely when they divide, and so mirror closely most other cells in the body, such as skin cells.

    When scientists injected the embryos with sperm, they grew into healthy mice which went on to produce their own litters.

    [IMG]:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/science/2016/09/13/mice2-medium_trans++Ov2p73e_QZMCcudCaE zl4O3WNhk1bofH91kuwyauPKk.PNG) [/img]
    The fertilised non-egg cell developed into an embryo in the same way as a normal egg cell

    Although the researchers began with an egg cell for the experiment, they do not believe it is required to spark the same development. In theory, the technique should work with any cell in the body as long as half the chromosomes are removed first to allow them to fuse with the sperm’s chromosomes.

    Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, group leader at The Francis Crick Institute, said: “I’m not surprised that the authors are excited about this. I think it is a very interesting paper, and a technical tour de force.

    “And I am sure it will tell us something important about reprogramming at these early steps of development that are relevant to fertilisation - and perhaps more broadly about reprogramming of cell fate in other situations.

    “It doesn't yet tell us how, but the paper gives a number of clear pointers.”

    The technique raises the possibility that gay men, for instance, could have a child whose DNA was half of each of the couple, although a woman would still need to act as a surrogate to carry the baby.

    It also raises the possibility that a man could even fertilise his own cells to produce offspring containing a mixture of genes inherited from him and his parents.

    More realistically, the technique could allow women whose fertility has been wiped out by cancer drugs or radiotherapy to have their own children.

    While eggs can be frozen before cancer therapy and later fertilised in an IVF clinic, currently nothing can be done once they have been lost. It may also help women to continue having children later in life. Women are born with all their eggs and they degrade with age, which makes conception more difficult in later life. But if it was possible to fertilise a new skin cell, it could improve the chance of having a baby.

    Conception using sperm and non-egg cells could also aid the preservation of endangered species, since it avoids the need to recover eggs.

    In the study, 30 mouse pups were born with a success rate of 24 per cent. This compares with a 1 per cent to 2 per cent success rate for offspring created by the Dolly the Sheep method of cloning by transferring DNA to donated eggs.

    Some of the mice went on to have offspring themselves, and a number had offspring that went on to have their own pups. Fertility is generally seen as a sign of fitness and good health.

    Dr Perry said that his team was planning to take the next step of attempting to produce live offspring from ordinary non-egg cells, such as skin cells.

    [IMG] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/science/2016/09/13/mouse6-medium_trans++LzLrDmuUc_Tf9Lumyc 958I0GrmFi4NKbJHo_DVGhhN0.PNG [/img]

    Mouse pups in the experiment were healthy and went on to produce their own offspring

    Dr Paul Colville-Nash, from the Medical Research Council, which funded the study, said: "This is an exciting piece of research which may help us to understand more about how human life begins and what controls the viability of embryos, mechanisms which may be important in fertility.

    "It may one day even have implications for how we treat infertility, though that's probably still a long way off."

    The research was published in the journal Nature Communications.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2...e-offspring-w/

    will the feminist scream to ban this experiment?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    It's pretty offensive to imply women are only needed for breeding.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    So, women only exist for making babies?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Lmao this is great, gonna shut down all the radfems claiming "we won't need men to create children one day so you'll be useless!!!" as the tables have turned
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I love how you misphrase the title and people pounce on you for that. Honestly, I am not sure I like the implications this has.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    With regard to your nonsense title, what part of "a woman would still need to act as a surrogate to carry the baby." was unclear? :holmes: That's ignoring the fact that not all women have a uterus/not everyone who has a uterus is a woman but you get my point.

    Personally I think this is really cool research, and if you're somehow interpreting this as anything that feminism would necessarily be against, then you don't understand feminism.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Tail Chaser)
    With regard to your nonsense title, what part of "a woman would still need to act as a surrogate to carry the baby." was unclear? :holmes:
    forgive me, I am using my threads on tsr as my cv to apply for editor job in daily mail.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So could it be delivered without a woman?
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    To be fair, with artificial insemination and all that, most men could be rendered useless as well (you'd only need a few sperm donors fapping for weeks on end to supply a large female population).
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Or we could just forget the silly sex wars and continue the birth procedure as it is? :O
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Tail Chaser)
    Personally I think this is really cool research, and if you're somehow interpreting this as anything that feminism would necessarily be against, then you don't understand feminism.
    I don't think it's about feminism being against it so much as it is elements of feminism (ie; certain rad-fems) having the tables turned on them.

    Because logically speaking, if they're fine with men being made obsolete due to the advances in artificial insemination (their words, not mine) then they'd have to be fine with women being made obsolete due to... whatever this is (haven't read the article).

    Obviously it's fairly sexist regardless of which angle you look at it from (judging the worth of people concerning their reproductive qualities based on their sex), but I'd be interested to hear the reaction from the aforementioned group of people.
    Then again, there is very little reasoning to be had with them sometimes; no doubt they'd just scream "PATRIARCHEEEEEEE!!1" in my face and storm off.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSR Mustafa)
    It's pretty offensive to imply women are only needed for breeding.
    :argh: tell it
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saba XD)
    So, women only exist for making babies?
    AND making sure dinner is on the table when the menfolk get home from doing actual things.


    I JOKE!

    I remember a few years back there was a claim that the Y chromosome was on the way out spelling extinction for male kind.

    Then there was talk around it, ultimately coming to the point where people were like "women can use artificial means to get pregnant, we wont even need men" and talk of "what are men useful for aside from providing sperm?", etc.

    But as you say, people have value above and beyond just their gender.

    Women exist for more than just making babies, and men exist for more than simply providing genetic material (although it's still a big part of all of us, no babies no species).

    Being able to create viable embryos without an egg is important scientifically since it adds to our understanding of genetics and biology, so medical science can benefit.
    Maybe a few fringe nutbars will want a womanless or manless society but I think that is a somewhat distant prospect. Most men and women like having the opposite sex around because...well. It's more fun that way.

    Nothing really changes and life goes on.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    AND making sure dinner is on the table when the menfolk get home from doing actual things.


    I JOKE!

    I remember a few years back there was a claim that the Y chromosome was on the way out spelling extinction for male kind.

    Then there was talk around it, ultimately coming to the point where people were like "women can use artificial means to get pregnant, we wont even need men" and talk of "what are men useful for aside from providing sperm?", etc.

    But as you say, people have value above and beyond just their gender.

    Women exist for more than just making babies, and men exist for more than simply providing genetic material (although it's still a big part of all of us, no babies no species).

    Being able to create viable embryos without an egg is important scientifically since it adds to our understanding of genetics and biology, so medical science can benefit.
    Maybe a few fringe nutbars will want a womanless or manless society but I think that is a somewhat distant prospect. Most men and women like having the opposite sex around because...well. It's more fun that way.

    Nothing really changes and life goes on.
    Agreed. :yep:
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.