"UK to Approve Technique to Create Babies From 3 People"

[PugMum]

(Sorry I'm too lazy to read the article)

My biggest question would be why? Babies turn out just fine from 2 people. Why mess with a good thing? I could forsee this causing major issues, but I'm no scientist.

[PugMum]

Feb 4, 2015 6:41:59 GMT -5 @littleliverpill said:

Feb 4, 2015 6:39:08 GMT -5 PugMum said:

(Sorry I'm too lazy to read the article)

My biggest question would be why? Babies turn out just fine from 2 people. Why mess with a good thing? I could forsee this causing major issues, but I'm no scientist.

This question would be answered if you read the article.

Thanks @littleliverpill ... 

It's too early and my coffee has not kicked in yet to comprehend much reading. 

[thechickencoop]

I think it's amazing that science allows us to do this. I'm not quite sure how I feel from an ethical standpoint; first blush I'm all for it, but then I wonder, who contributes that third DNA? Anonymous donor? Friend? Do they have any rights if they would want them? I'm unfamiliar with any type of donor process so I suspect those would all be answered in any type of donor situation through.

[juliayadda]

Very cool

My cousin in law has the gene for Elephant man disease and it is devastating for to think of having children that may be born with the disease. How cool if there was an option for her?

[Ray]

The genetics nerd in me says cool, wouldn't be difficult, could prevent some diseases. The social ethics side of me says this is eugenics and people who may not be able to have this procedure done will be looked at as faulty. Some GATTACA type shit right there.

Will these people be able to get health insurance for these diseases if they opt out of this procedure knowing the risks? Would it be considered a previously known health concern that they could have eliminated but chose not to? All kinds of tricky questions associated with this..


Still really cool.

[limetintsmyworld]

Feb 4, 2015 6:49:25 GMT -5 thechickencoop said:

I think it's amazing that science allows us to do this. I'm not quite sure how I feel from an ethical standpoint; first blush I'm all for it, but then I wonder, who contributes that third DNA? Anonymous donor? Friend? Do they have any rights if they would want them? I'm unfamiliar with any type of donor process so I suspect those would all be answered in any type of donor situation through.

They just had a clip about this on The Today Show- they said the third person would be female and would be seen more like a blood donor than a guardian.

[empireceo]

Feb 4, 2015 7:03:25 GMT -5 Ray said:

The genetics nerd in me says cool, wouldn't be difficult, could prevent some diseases. The social ethics side of me says this is eugenics and people who may not be able to have this procedure done will be looked at as faulty. Some GATTACA type shit right there.

Will these people be able to get health insurance for these diseases if they opt out of this procedure knowing the risks? Would it be considered a previously known health concern that they could have eliminated but chose not to? All kinds of tricky questions associated with this..


Still really cool.

This is where I am at. 

[joy]

Mitochondrial diseases are the only ones I can think of (at this early hour) where this would work. I was really confused when I started reading this because I could not think of an example where three people would help a child. Now, I understand this particular example but really can't come up with another.

Eggs are basically one big cell with a nucleus (where half the human genome hangs out) and other organelles, including mitochondria. Sperm provide the other half of the genome. That's it. Everything else the cell needs to grow (nutrients like amino acids) are strictly from the mother. It totally makes sense that the genomic DNA from an egg with faulty mitochondria could be removed and placed in another egg with healthy mitochondria, but no genomic DNA. The child would be genetically the parents' but have functional cellular organelles.

It's not terribly different from gene therapy that places a healthy gene inside a human who has two defective ones. Originally, the gene had to come from someone (although, this is a really loose analogy for lots of scientific reasons).

Organelles are cool little "rooms" inside a cell. Mitochondria are the coolest because it is believed that they started as a bacteria (hence why it has its own DNA) that was enveloped by larger cell. Eventually, they developed a reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationship so we still have them and their DNA. To prove that someone is the mother of a child irrefutably, you can compare mitochondrial DNA. It's actually useful for determining who is the mother of who for historical peoples.

I can't see this working for other things, though. tRNAs, proteins to run the cell outside of the mitochondria, etc. are all encoded by the genomic DNA. Putting it in another egg won't fix that. This seems like a niche problem that has a very unique solution. Unless someone else can give me another example? I'm tired this morning.

For that reason, I like this option for parents.

EDITed the underlined area.  tRNAs, ribosomes, and proteins are encoded by both the mother and father's genetic information.  Organelles (like mitochondria) and nutrients come from what is already inside the mother's egg.  I need to draw a map.

[Ray]

@buttmonkey not necessarily. I majored in biology and specialized in genetics. Definitely a scientific thinker here but I still don't necessarily agree. As part of my specialist we had to take a course called "genetics and society" that focused on the ethics and social consequences that come with the technology. It really expanded how I think. It's not so much the preventing infant death part I have a problem with (duh lol) it's "fixing" heart disease etc. - diseases that are (relatively) manageable, still have long life expectancy etc. and the implications for those who aren't "fixed".

[joy]

Ah, Ray brings up a point that I meant to write. If the mother lived to adulthood and is otherwise able to get pregnant, her mitochondrial disease is not incompatible with life. I don't know enough about these diseases specifically and how they effect quality of life. That would be a factor for me in weighing when this procedure should be used.

[juliayadda]

Feb 4, 2015 8:13:06 GMT -5 joy said:

Ah, Ray brings up a point that I meant to write. If the mother lived to adulthood and is otherwise able to get pregnant, her mitochondrial disease is not incompatible with life. I don't know enough about these diseases specifically and how they effect quality of life. That would be a factor for me in weighing when this procedure should be used.

Here is what I am wondering:

Through IVF, I believe a person could test the embryos to see which would most likely have muscular dystrophy, correct? So if you knew you carried the genes for the disease, a person could pick embryos without it. However, in the new scenario where the DNA is from a third person, the muscular dystrophy is removed from the genome completely? 
 

We live in the future people

[Ray]

Feb 4, 2015 8:27:57 GMT -5 juliayadda said:

Feb 4, 2015 8:13:06 GMT -5 joy said:

Ah, Ray brings up a point that I meant to write. If the mother lived to adulthood and is otherwise able to get pregnant, her mitochondrial disease is not incompatible with life. I don't know enough about these diseases specifically and how they effect quality of life. That would be a factor for me in weighing when this procedure should be used.

Here is what I am wondering:

Through IVF, I believe a person could test the embryos to see which would most likely have muscular dystrophy, correct? So if you knew you carried the genes for the disease, a person could pick embryos without it. However, in the new scenario where the DNA is from a third person, the muscular dystrophy is removed from the genome completely? 
 

We live in the future people

Yeah that's basically the gist of it.

[SheilaTheTank]

Feb 3, 2015 23:39:56 GMT -5 @littleliverpill said:

Have we already discussed this?

"Britain Set to Approve Technique to Create Babies From 3 People":

www.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/world/europe/britain-nears-approval-of-fertilization-technique-that-combines-dna-of-three-people.html

Thoughts?

I have nothing to add other than this gif makes me miss Mike Myers in SNL.

[madamewaffles]

Feb 4, 2015 8:27:57 GMT -5 juliayadda said:

Feb 4, 2015 8:13:06 GMT -5 joy said:

Ah, Ray brings up a point that I meant to write. If the mother lived to adulthood and is otherwise able to get pregnant, her mitochondrial disease is not incompatible with life. I don't know enough about these diseases specifically and how they effect quality of life. That would be a factor for me in weighing when this procedure should be used.

Here is what I am wondering:

Through IVF, I believe a person could test the embryos to see which would most likely have muscular dystrophy, correct? So if you knew you carried the genes for the disease, a person could pick embryos without it. However, in the new scenario where the DNA is from a third person, the muscular dystrophy is removed from the genome completely? 
 

We live in the future people

I love it. As a person affected by a form of MD, I absolutely think this is fantastic news.

In my situation, DH and I have had the genetic testing and our genetic counselor determined our offspring would most definitely be carriers of the mutation, but not affected. If I had the opportunity to eliminate the potential for my kids' offspring to be affected, I would definitely take it.

[joy]

I had not considered the elimination of the mutation angle.

Interesting. I need to chew on that.

[bunnyfungo]

Feb 4, 2015 8:35:06 GMT -5 @mrsjohnmarston said:

I read this last night and didn't comment because I know nothing about this kind of stuff. Thanks joy and Ray for some background information.

I find this incredibly interesting. The article kept mentioning "designer babies" but from what joy said, it doesn't seem like you would be choosing any characteristics for the baby. I don't know, I'm still undecided. I think it's great to be able to prevent some diseases of course.

I don't know if any of this is making sense. I just woke up.

The article says this "opens the door for designer babies." What they're saying is that once you allow certain kinds of genetic manipulation it can be a slippery slope to other forms. I'm not sure I completely agree. I think it's possible to say, this is the only circumstance where this type of procedure would be allowed. And, really, there's not another reason to swap out mitochondrial DNA. But it makes for a more glamorous story if they blow it out of proportion.

[bunnyfungo]

Cell structure and function was one my my favorite classes in college. Should I go on a long spiel about how awesome ATP is?!

[frankenboom]

Feb 4, 2015 9:54:01 GMT -5 W said:

All this taught me was: I should have taken more science courses in college.

The only science course I took in college was Astronomy. Our "lectures" were in the planetarium and our activities included looking at the moon and drawing pictures of it.

[sister13]

Lol @littleliverpill.

This makes me think of the Madeleine L'Engle books (maybe A Wind in the Door) where they went inside the mitochondria. That's about all I remember but was one of my favorite books/series growing up. I should re-read those.

SPOILER: Click to show

Also, this was a series of books that I recall being way better and more complex than Harry Potter but do not get the same notoriety.


(My spoiler was supposed to say "Don't click me if you love Harry Potter more than life.")

[joy]

Feb 4, 2015 10:00:13 GMT -5 bunnyfungo said:

Cell structure and function was one my my favorite classes in college. Should I go on a long spiel about how awesome ATP is?!

ugh, ATP.  It's so needy (when I use it in experiments.  I have to keep it cold, I can't thaw it too long, I must time everything so everyone has ATP for the exact same amount of time, blah blah blah).

I did avoid ever having to do the test question of how many ATPs are made when you eat a donut or something.

[risscaboobs]

WOW! Science is fucking amazeballs.

[bunnyfungo]

I'm just glad I never have to experiment with drosophila again. Nope. No thank you.

[daisy818]

Now my brain is all like, "Science! So cool!" And then that reminds me of my huge nerd-crush on Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

[idkcobra]

This is quite interesting and I hope it is successful. I just wonder what side effects their could be in the child's future?

[joy]

Would this technique be useful for - say - situations where "bad eggs" are a problem?

As we age, our egg quality decreases. However, our genomic information should be okay. Could the genomic DNA of a woman with "poor eggs" be moved to a "good" donor egg?

[pismoduo]

Feb 4, 2015 12:50:20 GMT -5 joy said:

Would this technique be useful for - say - situations where "bad eggs" are a problem?

As we age, our egg quality decreases. However, our genomic information should be okay. Could the genomic DNA of a woman with "poor eggs" be moved to a "good" donor egg?

Based on what I'm reading (and I am in no way a scientist) that seems a likely possibility. And it would line up with the concept of this being more like a blood donation than anything else.

Originally, I was feeling the same way as some others about where this could go (and yes, I also thought of Gattaca). But after reading through the rest of the comments, I feel more positive about it. It seems like it really could help people.

And @moonandback141 - punnett squares were my favorite part of biology.

[Deleted]

But it's so sticky!

[DanaScullyX]

Feb 4, 2015 10:05:59 GMT -5 frankenboom said:

Feb 4, 2015 9:54:01 GMT -5 W said:

All this taught me was: I should have taken more science courses in college.

The only science course I took in college was Astronomy. Our "lectures" were in the planetarium and our activities included looking at the moon and drawing pictures of it.

The only one I took was a 1-unit on comets. Yes, an entire semester on comets. We got time at the super expensive and nationally-used telescope outside of town, though.

[twinkie0612]

Feb 4, 2015 12:50:20 GMT -5 joy said:

Would this technique be useful for - say - situations where "bad eggs" are a problem?

As we age, our egg quality decreases. However, our genomic information should be okay. Could the genomic DNA of a woman with "poor eggs" be moved to a "good" donor egg?

I think this is a possibility.  Here is an article on mitochondrial DNA and egg quality: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704965/

From what I understand is there are times when normal chromosome embryos fail to grow because the of mitochondrial issues, which makes complete sense when you think of the mitochondria as the "powerhouse" to a cell, the embryos just run out of steam.  I know a someone whose doctor proposed mitochondrial issues as a potential explanation for their failed IVF cycles, this person went on to get pregnant through donor egg.  If this was the issue for their infertility a treatment like this could allow her and her husband to have genetic children.  There are currently no treatments for mitochondria.

I do wonder how long it would take for a treatment like this to be approved in the US.  Several years ago a somewhat similar treatment was studied where cytoplasm from a healthy egg was injected into the poor quality eggs of an IVF patient.  The idea was that it was issues with they cytoplasm that caused the poor embryo quality, so young cytoplasm plus mothers DNA and father's sperm would create a viable embryo.  The treatment was kind of haulted by the FDA and no docotors or clinics have been able to get approval for research.  From what I have read the issue with this treatment was that it didn't "cure" any disease, only improved success rates for IVF patients.

As someone preparing for their seventh IVF/FET cycle (only 3 have resulted in transfer so far) I am in favor of any treatment that helps a woman give birth to a healthy baby.  Like other's have stated, these treatments are more similar to blood donation than they are to creating "designer" babies.  Also as someone who is a carrier of a genetic disease (I wouldn't be helped by this treatment), I understand the fear of passing of passing a disease on to my child. I am lucky that the disease I carry is an autosomal recessive disease and my husband is not a carrier, which means if we have genetic children they will only be a carrier. I also have dealt with slow growing poor quality embryos. In fact or first IVF our transfer was cancelled because all of our embryos arrested.  I was under 30 when I did my first IVF cycle, which generally means that I should have decent egg quality. I have often wondered if I have mitochondrial issues, which would explain the poor egg/embryo quality at a young age.

[joy]

Feb 4, 2015 16:40:54 GMT -5 twinkie0612 said:

Feb 4, 2015 12:50:20 GMT -5 joy said:

Would this technique be useful for - say - situations where "bad eggs" are a problem?

As we age, our egg quality decreases. However, our genomic information should be okay. Could the genomic DNA of a woman with "poor eggs" be moved to a "good" donor egg?

I think this is a possibility.  Here is an article on mitochondrial DNA and egg quality: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704965/

From what I understand is there are times when normal chromosome embryos fail to grow because the of mitochondrial issues, which makes complete sense when you think of the mitochondria as the "powerhouse" to a cell, the embryos just run out of steam.  I know a someone whose doctor proposed mitochondrial issues as a potential explanation for their failed IVF cycles, this person went on to get pregnant through donor egg.  If this was the issue for their infertility a treatment like this could allow her and her husband to have genetic children.  There are currently no treatments for mitochondria.

I do wonder how long it would take for a treatment like this to be approved in the US.  Several years ago a somewhat similar treatment was studied where cytoplasm from a healthy egg was injected into the poor quality eggs of an IVF patient.  The idea was that it was issues with they cytoplasm that caused the poor embryo quality, so young cytoplasm plus mothers DNA and father's sperm would create a viable embryo.  The treatment was kind of haulted by the FDA and no docotors or clinics have been able to get approval for research.  From what I have read the issue with this treatment was that it didn't "cure" any disease, only improved success rates for IVF patients.

As someone preparing for their seventh IVF/FET cycle (only 3 have resulted in transfer so far) I am in favor of any treatment that helps a woman give birth to a healthy baby.  Like other's have stated, these treatments are more similar to blood donation than they are to creating "designer" babies.  Also as someone who is a carrier of a genetic disease (I wouldn't be helped by this treatment), I understand the fear of passing of passing a disease on to my child. I am lucky that the disease I carry is an autosomal recessive disease and my husband is not a carrier, which means if we have genetic children they will only be a carrier. I also have dealt with slow growing poor quality embryos. In fact or first IVF our transfer was cancelled because all of our embryos arrested.  I was under 30 when I did my first IVF cycle, which generally means that I should have decent egg quality. I have often wondered if I have mitochondrial issues, which would explain the poor egg/embryo quality at a young age.

Depending on how the cytoplasm was treated upon removal from the donor egg (Was it spun down?  What speed?), they may have been injecting mitochondria into the recipient egg with this method.

This is so interesting.  I still don't know how I feel about it, but the idea of it is amazing.