Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday September 24 2017, @06:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the does-the-editor-have-an-undo-function? dept.

Scientists at the Francis Crick Institute have performed the UK's first human embryo editing experiment:

The blueprint for life - DNA - has been altered in human embryos for the first time in the UK. The team at the Francis Crick Institute are unravelling the mysteries of the earliest moments of life. Understanding what happens after a sperm fertilises an egg could lead to ways of improving IVF or explain why some women miscarry. The embryos were modified shortly after fertilisation and allowed to develop for seven days.

[...] The researchers used 41 embryos that had been donated by couples who no longer needed them for IVF. After performing the genetic modification, the team could watch how the embryos developed without OCT4.

Over the course of the first seven days, a healthy, normal embryo goes from one cell to about 200. It also goes through the first steps of organising itself and handing out specialised jobs to different cells. The embryo forms a hollow sphere called a blastocyst, with some cells destined to go on to form the placenta, some the yolk sac and others, ultimately, us. But without OCT4 the blastocyst cannot form. It tries - but implodes in on itself. From the embryo's perspective it is a disaster but for scientists it has given unprecedented insight.

Oct-4.

Also at CNN, Science Magazine, and The Guardian.

Genome editing reveals a role for OCT4 in human embryogenesis (open, DOI: 10.1038/nature24033) (DX)


Original Submission

Related Stories

UK's Fertility Regulator Approves Creation of First "Three-Parent" Babies 13 comments

Doctors have been given permission to create the UK's first "three-parent" or "three-person" babies to mitigate the risk of inheritable mitochondrial diseases:

Doctors have received permission to create the UK's first "three-person" babies for two women at risk of passing inheritable diseases to their children.

The two cases involve women who have mitochondrial diseases, which are passed down by the mother and can prove fatal.

Three-person babies involve an advanced form of IVF that uses a donor egg, the mother's egg and the father's sperm.

Doctors at the Newcastle Fertility Centre will carry out the procedure.

The decision was approved by the UK Fertility Regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA).

Also at New Scientist.

Previously: Mitochondrial DNA Manipulation and Ethics
Approval for Three-Parent Embryo Trials
Fatal Genetic Conditions Could Return in Some 'Three-Parent' Babies
Baby Girl Born in Ukraine Using Three-Parent Pronuclear Transfer Technique
FDA Warns Doctor Against Marketing Three-Person IVF Technique

Related: First Human Embryo Editing Performed in the UK


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday September 24 2017, @08:20AM (4 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 24 2017, @08:20AM (#572262) Journal

    Operation complete. Save or abort, that's the ethical question.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 24 2017, @12:37PM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday September 24 2017, @12:37PM (#572296) Journal

      Depends on your net worth.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Sunday September 24 2017, @12:46PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 24 2017, @12:46PM (#572299) Journal

        Depends on your net worth.

        I refuse to think that the entire "designer kids" industry depends on my net worth.
        First, why mine? Second, why the net worth of a single person?

        (grin)

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by lx on Sunday September 24 2017, @05:02PM (1 child)

      by lx (1915) on Sunday September 24 2017, @05:02PM (#572371)

      The only question that matters in the Universe is:

      Abort, Retry, Fail?_

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday September 24 2017, @05:37PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 24 2017, @05:37PM (#572384) Journal

        Sorry, but it was about nanomatters in the Universe. As in:

        'Abort, Retry, Fail?' was the phrase some wormdog scrawled next to the door of the Edit Universe project room. And when the new dataspinners started working, fabricating their worlds on the huge organic comp systems, we'd remind them: if you see this message, always choose 'Retry.

        — Bad'l Ron, Wakener, Morgan Polysoft

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @06:59PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 24 2017, @06:59PM (#572406)

    Was the treatment toxic? Yes:

    Forty-seven per cent (8 out of 17) of Cas9-microinjected control embryos developed to the blastocyst stage, a rate equivalent to those of uninjected controls28, suggesting that the microinjection technique did not affect embryo viability (Fig. 2d). However, significantly fewer of the sgRNA2b–Cas9-microinjected embryos—only 19% (7 out of 37)— developed to the blastocyst stage (Fig. 2d, P = 0.03). The blastocysts that formed following sgRNA2b–Cas9 protein microinjection were of variable quality (Extended Data Fig. 6c).

    Did pre-existing mutants exist? Maybe:
    Extended data figure 7 shows up to 5% of the OCT4 copies from control cells were determined to have indels (they call this "background PCR error rates" but really what it means is that their methods cannot detect levels less than that). Also, who knows how many copies these cells had since most are grossly aneuploid:

    We collected blastomeres from sgRNA2b–Cas9-microinjected embryos arrested up to the eight-cell stage and detected chromosomal loss or gain in 83% (five out of six) of these embryos (Extended Data Fig. 6a), which is consistent with rates reported by preimplantation genetic screening26,27

    This is a tough one to disentangle since they expect knocking out OCT4 to be so toxic anyway (regardless of the method used). How can we tell whether toxicity is due to losing OCT4 vs Cas9-induced DNA damage? I don't see a way from this data, maybe if they had also done a knockdown study?

    Also, for figure 2a it shows a comparison on the right of treated (sgRNA2b-Cas9) vs control (Cas9 protein) at blastocyst stage (~200 cells) on the right. For treated embryos they checked, 18, 10, 32, and 22 cells. For control, only 5, 5, 2, and 7 cells. Seems fishy.

(1)