It could soon be possible to create a baby from three people, if it is made legal.
The technique, using eggs from two women and one man's sperm, would be used to prevent deadly mitochondrial diseases. The UK fertility regulator said there was no evidence that it would be unsafe, but called for extra checks. Changes to fertility regulations are being considered by government.
The illnesses are caused by damage to the tiny power stations in every cell of the body called mitochondria. One in every 6,500 babies are born with severe mitochondrial disease which means they have insufficient energy to function it leads to muscle weakness, blindness, heart failure and even death.
Related Stories
The US House of Representatives is wading into the debate over whether human embryos should be modified to introduce heritable changes. Its fiscal year 2016 spending bill for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would prohibit the agency from spending money to evaluate research or clinical applications for such products.
In an unusual twist, the bill—introduced on June 17—would also direct the FDA to create a committee that includes religious experts to review a forthcoming report from the US Institute of Medicine (IOM). The IOM's analysis, which considers the ethics of creating embryos that have three genetic parents, was commissioned by the FDA.
The House legislation comes during a time of intense debate on such matters, sparked by the announcement in April that researchers in China had edited the genomes of human embryos. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) moved quickly to remind the public that a 1996 law prevents the federal government from funding work that destroys human embryos or creates them for research purposes.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-congress-moves-to-block-human-embryo-editing/
[Source]: http://www.nature.com/news/us-congress-moves-to-block-human-embryo-editing-1.17858
We covered a related story, Three-Person Babies Could Be Possible in Two Years just over a year ago.
Original Submission
Scientists have recreated heteroplasmy by producing embryos with both maternal and paternal mitochondrial DNA:
A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) from the University of Missouri has succeeded in creating embryos with "heteroplasmy," or the presence of both maternal and paternal mitochondrial DNA. This new innovation will allow scientists to study treatments for mitochondrial diseases in humans as well as the significance of mitochondrial inheritance for livestock.
When parents pass along their genes to their children, most of the DNA from the mother and father is evenly divided. However, children only receive one type of [mitochondrial DNA] from their mothers, while the fathers' mitochondrial DNA is naturally removed from the embryos. Peter Sutovsky, a professor of reproductive physiology at Mizzou and lead author Won-Hee Song, a doctoral candidate in the Mizzou College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, have found a way to prevent this paternal mitochondrial DNA removal process in pig embryos, thus creating embryos with "heteroplasmy."
"As many as 4,000 children are born in the U.S. every year with some form of mitochondrial disease, which can include poor growth, loss of muscle coordination, learning disabilities and heart disease," Sutovsky said. "Some scientists believe some of these diseases may be caused by heteroplasmy, or cells possessing both maternal and paternal mitochondrial DNA. We have succeeded in creating this condition of heteroplasmy within pig embryos, which will allow scientists to further study whether paternal heteroplasmy could cause mitochondrial diseases in humans."
Autophagy and ubiquitin–proteasome system contribute to sperm mitophagy after mammalian fertilization (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1605844113) (DX)
Previous/Related:
Project to Repair Mitochondria Funded
Three-Person Babies Could Be Possible in Two Years
U.S. Panel Gives Tentative Endorsement to Three-Person IVF
Newcastle University Study Verifies Safety of Three-Person IVF
(Score: 1) by IndigoFreak on Wednesday June 04 2014, @02:53AM
If it's safe. Great I guess? Just seems odd that they were working towards a cure for something that only affects 1 in 6500? Then the legal questions...Along with two mothers. Thought a father and mother fighting for custody was bad.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday June 04 2014, @03:23AM
And who knew there was such a thing as "fertility regulations"?
Everybody I know is a total scoff-law regarding such regulations.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Wednesday June 04 2014, @08:55AM
This confusion often arrises due to their less formal moniker of "Fucking Regulations", which is a common name shared with many species in the Regulations genus.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MozeeToby on Wednesday June 04 2014, @01:19PM
Lets assume population growth became stagnant overnight, i.e. everyone in the world had on average 1 child (so 2 per couple obviously). That would mean over the next 70 years or so, there would be over a million people who's lives could be significantly improved by this technology. As for legal battles: any expert witness will happily testify that mitochondrial DNA is relatively insignificant and is massively outweighed by the DNA supplied by the traditional parents.
Finally... why three parents? Why not just give the kid the father's mitochondrial DNA?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Max Hyre on Wednesday June 04 2014, @04:34PM
Not having read TFA, I presume the idea is you take
You then proceed to replace egg 2's nucleus with egg 1's (nuclear transfers are already routine), fertilize it with sperm 3, and voilà---you have a zygote that any police force's DNA tests will show to be the child of the father and conventional-DNA mother. Basically nobody outside of a bio lab tests mitrochondrial DNA.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday June 04 2014, @03:51PM
It's probably about money. Middle-class (esp. upper middle class) people are spending scads of money on fertility treatments these days: IVFs, etc. These people have money, and want their own kids, so we end up with ethical questions about what to do with unused embryos, etc., and meanwhile other kids go unwanted. It's unfortunate, though understandable: people have a biological urge to have and raise their own children, and not that many people are willing to sign up for the difficulties inherent in raising someone else's kids who likely have problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 04 2014, @03:02AM
Already been done. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/three-biological-parents-and-a-baby/ [nytimes.com]
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Wednesday June 04 2014, @09:33PM
Well, I wouldn't quite describe this as "old news". The report [hfea.gov.uk] that was released this week brings us one step closer to having this kind of treatment available again (after it was halted in 2001).
But still, thank you for the link. I didn't even know that it had ever been done before. It didn't come up during the previous (February) discussion about this procedure (Mitochondrial DNA Manipulation and Ethics [soylentnews.org]).
(Score: 2) by bryan on Wednesday June 04 2014, @03:06AM
Sure sounds fun :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 04 2014, @03:47AM
When and by what laws was it made "illegal"? And where? On what levels? Etc. Some things the article should have covered.
By what logic do journalists operate on these days?
(Score: 1) by compro01 on Wednesday June 04 2014, @04:33AM
More accurate phrasing would be "if it is approved". It's not illegal, but it's not an approved medical treatment.
(Score: 2) by lhsi on Wednesday June 04 2014, @07:48AM
When and by what laws was it made "illegal"? And where? On what levels? Etc. Some things the article should have covered.
By what logic do journalists operate on these days?
From the summary:
So, UK laws, in the UK. As the article is about the new treatment itself they probably didn't go into too much detail about the current regulation.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Theophrastus on Wednesday June 04 2014, @04:36AM
Egg, mitochondria, sperm, and, surrogate uterus. ok ok... the uterus doesn't become involved in the germ line; but won't someone think of the lawyers?
(next up: one parental source per chromosome, 23!)
(Score: 1) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday June 04 2014, @05:19AM
I like the way you're thinking Dr. Frankenstein :)
Snipped from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
So if we crowdsource one base each nearly everyone could be the parent of only one baby :D
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 1) by kaszz on Wednesday June 04 2014, @04:44AM
So it's more important that all people may choose to be parents even if it means a huge risk to the child? Nice to set the priorities. I assume feature children may sue the state for any misshaps? "oops"
Not everyone should be a parent.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Wednesday June 04 2014, @06:58AM
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Wednesday June 04 2014, @08:09AM
OK, lets get this straight before all the "two girls, one petri dish" people show up. One: this is not a genetic offspring of three people, it is the genetic offspring of two (2) parents, with the donation of mitochondrial dna from another person. Mitochondrial dna is not, I repeat, not human, specifically. Second: who the hell ever are the genetic donors to a new member of the human species, the parents are the ones who care for and raise said human to maturity, or some part thereof. Blood is nothing, since it cannot even perpetuate itself if it is the blood of those who eat their own, like Republicans in the USA. So thanks for the DNA, and thanks for the womb, but what have you done for me lately? And who are you, anyway? Nemo? Is that you?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Theophrastus on Wednesday June 04 2014, @01:41PM
"Mitochondrial dna is not, I repeat, not human"
There lies a big-time slippery slope category confusion. If "human" DNA cannot be classed as something which was endosymbiosed long long ago, then what DNA in the nucleus of your cells can be? The vast majority of your somatic DNA long preceded when humans were humans. And there's a substantial part of your DNA which arrived by virus and other transposable elements. Human mitochondrial DNA is human (mitochondrial) DNA as much as the rest by any measure and your human mother passed it on to you down a long line of humans. If your mitochondrial donor was from a third party then you'd have three parents.
As for the rest of your curious, (i'll hope not really serious), statement, it's more or less "nature versus nurture", which is fine; but not what this article was about (except for the legal ramifications). But, "Blood is nothing, since it cannot even perpetuate itself"? even non-transformed white blood cells can live autonomously for quite some time, and there's not a single organ of a human that can 'perpetuate itself' without a lot of futuristic help.
We're entering a technological period where there will be a lot of challenges to traditional views of (human) biology, and I'd humbly suggest we all try to carefully understand what's going on so that we can all sensibly participate in deciding the direction it takes.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 05 2014, @02:29AM
Thank you. Now this is what Soylent is about, some idiot like myself spouting off only to be responded to by informed and thoughtful comments. God, I hate it when that happens! But on the other hand, it is sooo good.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday June 04 2014, @03:53PM
That's crap. Mitochondria are just as much a part of you as anything else. Similarly, so is bacteria that lives in your intestines and elsewhere. Don't believe me? Try killing it all off, permanently, and see how long you live.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday June 05 2014, @02:26AM
You're right. I am wrong. But in my defense, perhaps I was thinking of midiclorians, the genes that make Jedis.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday June 04 2014, @08:24AM
It's already possible ( http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/three-biological-parents-and-a-baby/ [nytimes.com] ). The real headline is more of a tautology:
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday June 04 2014, @09:14AM
Alright, game over, we are back to the the Burger King anti-Chicken McNuggets ads: Part is parts.
Only question now, is them legal parts? And who owns the residuals?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 04 2014, @11:45AM
"could ... if ... would be" Nothing speculative about this.
(Score: 2) by egcagrac0 on Wednesday June 04 2014, @02:03PM
... so all the child's genetic contributors can be a (legal) family, if they so choose.
Yes, I see that this is a long stretch. But... any two (or more) competent consenting adults should be able to get married, if they so choose. Now, if there's a semi-plausible genetic reason ("I want to be part of my mitochondrial child's life!"), maybe it will happen.
(Score: 1) by kbahey on Wednesday June 04 2014, @03:15PM
One thought on this for the long term ...
So far, we are able to do analysis on matrilineal lines and infer population genetics, people movement, evolution, ...etc. because so far mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the biological mother.
By doing what the article suggests, we will be confusing future geneticists to no end. They can no longer assume that there is a single continuous mtDNA lineage with known mutation rate.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning [2bits.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 04 2014, @04:19PM
Sucks to be them, but I guess we will just have to let them deal with a small bit of confusion.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 04 2014, @04:28PM
CATS: You have no chance to survive make your time.
(Too soon?)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"