A new mitochondrial donation technique called spindle nuclear transfer has been successfully used in order to prevent a child from inheriting a mitochondrial disorder:
It's not the first time scientists have created babies that have DNA from three people - that breakthrough began in the late 1990s - but it is an entirely new and significant method. [...] The US team, who travelled to Mexico to carry out the procedure because there are no laws there that prohibit it, used a method that takes all the vital DNA from the mother's egg plus healthy mitochondria from a donor egg to create a healthy new egg that can be fertilised with the father's sperm.
[...] Some have questioned whether we are only now hearing the success story while failed attempts could have gone unreported. Prof Alison Murdoch, part of the team at Newcastle University that has been at the forefront of three person IVF work in the UK, said: "The translation of mitochondrial donation to a clinical procedure is not a race but a goal to be achieved with caution to ensure both safety and reproducibility." Critics say the work is irresponsible. Dr David King from the pro-choice group Human Genetics Alert, said: "It is outrageous that they simply ignored the cautious approach of US regulators and went to Mexico, because they think they know better. Since when is a simplistic "to save lives is the ethical thing to do" a balanced medical ethics approach, especially when no lives were being saved?" Dr Zhang and his team say they will answer these questions when they presents[sic] their findings at a meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in October.
Also at The New York Times and NPR.
First live birth using human oocytes reconstituted by spindle nuclear transfer for mitochondrial DNA mutation causing Leigh syndrome (open, DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.004) (DX)
As far as I can tell, what you see in the above Fertility and Sterility paper is all that has been released.
Related Stories
Back in September, it was reported that spindle nuclear transfer was used to successfully transfer mitochondrial DNA into an egg in order to prevent a child from inheriting a mitochondrial disorder. The procedure was carried out in Mexico due to U.S. laws against it. Now, the FDA has warned the doctor behind this milestone to stop using the achievement in marketing materials for his fertility clinic:
The US Food and Drug Administration has told a New York fertility doctor to stop marketing a controversial three-parent fertility treatment, which makes it possible for babies to be made from two women and a man.
The health watchdog published a letter to Dr. John Zhang, founder of the New Hope Fertility Center in New York City, whose "spindle nuclear transfer" technique was used to conceive a boy born in Mexico in April 2016.
Zhang detailed the procedure in the journal Fertility and Sterility [open, DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.004] [DX] last year and is now marketing the technique, but the letter reminds Zhang the FDA has not authorized his use of the procedure in humans.
Singapore could become the second country to legalize mitochondrial replacement therapy
This small city state could become the second country—after the United Kingdom—to explicitly legalize mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT), a controversial assisted reproduction technique that allows women who are carriers of some rare genetic disorders to give birth to healthy babies.
Members of the Singaporean public and religious groups have until 15 June to provide their feedback about MRT to the Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC). Based on its findings, a 13-member BAC review committee will make formal recommendations to the government later this year about whether to legalize the technology.
"Our position is to keep a close watch on what happens in the U.K., to track the U.K. experience, and to learn from what they have done," says Oi Lian Kon, who studies human genetics at the National Cancer Centre Singapore and is leading the BAC review group.
MRT is used to address devastating genetic diseases that arise from abnormalities in the DNA in mitochondria, the cell's power sources, and that commonly affect energy-intensive organs such as the brain and heart, as well as muscles. Children inherit mitochondria only from their mothers; replacing faulty mitochondria in an egg or embryo with normal ones from a donor can result in healthy babies. But it also means that offspring will bear DNA from three "parents," which makes MRT a controversial procedure.
Previously: UK Parliament Gives Three-"Source" IVF the Go-Ahead.
Approval for Three-Parent Embryo Trials
UK's Fertility Regulator Approves Creation of First "Three-Parent" Babies
Related: U.S. Panel Gives Tentative Endorsement to Three-Person IVF
Newcastle University Study Verifies Safety of Three-Person IVF
First Three-Person Baby Born Using Spindle Nuclear Transfer
Baby Girl Born in Ukraine Using Three-Parent Pronuclear Transfer Technique
Mitochondrial donation treatment aims to prevent children from inheriting incurable diseases:
The first UK baby created with DNA from three people has been born after doctors performed a groundbreaking IVF procedure that aims to prevent children from inheriting incurable diseases.
The technique, known as mitochondrial donation treatment (MDT), uses tissue from the eggs of healthy female donors to create IVF embryos that are free from harmful mutations their mothers carry and are likely to pass on to their children.
Because the embryos combine sperm and egg from the biological parents with tiny battery-like structures called mitochondria from the donor's egg, the resulting baby has DNA from the mother and father as usual, plus a small amount of genetic material – about 37 genes – from the donor.
The process has led to the phrase "three-parent babies", though more than 99.8% of the DNA in the babies comes from the mother and father.
Research on MDT, which is also known as mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT), was pioneered in the UK by doctors at the Newcastle Fertility Centre. The work aimed to help women with mutated mitochondria to have babies without the risk of passing on genetic disorders. People inherit all their mitochondria from their mother, so harmful mutations in the "batteries" can affect all of the children a woman has.
[...] The Newcastle process has several steps. First, sperm from the father is used to fertilise eggs from the affected mother and a healthy female donor. The nuclear genetic material from the donor's egg is then removed and replaced with that from the couple's fertilised egg. The resulting egg has a full set of chromosomes from both parents, but carries the donor's healthy mitochondria instead of the mother's faulty ones. This is then implanted in the womb.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:31AM
SciFi is chock full of stories about how engineering humans might be abused.
How 'bout you were created to be a soldier, with an amazing physique, phenomenal strength, you could feel no pain, you're fearless, amazing reflexes - the ultimate soldier. But, all you want to do in life is to paint, or play the flute, or whatever.
Yeah, we CAN do some cool stuff today. And, in years to come, we'll be able to do more. But, is it "right"?
Eugenics. What a concept. Creating the perfect man - and woman. But, who decides what "perfect" means?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:41AM
That last would actually be a bad thing. People who feel no pain injure themselves without realizing it.
A competently designed soldier would feel pain at least as acutely as the average, if not more so.
But yeah of course there are plenty of scenarios where this could go horribly wrong.
The one that struck me personally at first glance was a bit different though.
They went to Mexico to perform the operation because it's not legal in the US?
Now under old school law and order ideas that's fine since Mexico is sovereign, but under the new NWO line that idea has been discarded and they probably shouldn't expect to keep getting away with that for long.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:58AM
The pain thing? Implanted sensors to let you know how much damage you have taken, but no real pain.
In real life, some people feel pain more acutely than others, while some people are almost immune to pain. Such people either survive childhood, or they do not.
Mexico law? You have a good point there. The infamous "They" will come up with something soon to prevent people going to Mexico for experimental drugs, surgery, and other procedures.
(Score: 2) by Some call me Tim on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:01AM
Exactly. I don't want my health to be held hostage to the globalists for their own profit.
Questioning science is how you do science!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:28AM
The best sensors are the ones telling you that are in pain. Modifying how you respond to that information is better than getting rid of the sensor network for a more inferior one. You need to notice the damage, and unless it's routed direct to the "optics" it could be disregarded.
You would be far better served to alter the sensory cortex to change the sensation of pain reaching a threshold and substitute with a different sensation and reaction which could be physical and/or emotional. A deep state of calm can come over you, and if my watching Samurai has taught me anything, the deadliest ones are the calmest :) As a bonus, it could short circuit going into a state of shock related to emotions and traumatic stress reducing the consequences of being greatly hurt.
If you felt this way you would know you have considerable damage, but at least your brain wouldn't be fighting your need to continue as if you weren't in pain. Although, you would still be gimpy if the damage were severe enough. That's something useful for a soldier, and anybody in a very traumatic situation.
The feeling of pain is genetic too. I recall an article about how redheaded people have different genetics that allow them a higher sensitivity to pain. They literally do hurt more than we do from the same stimulus. It would seem to follow to me that there is genetic variations in how we handle pain in other populations too, to what extent I don't know.
As for the multiple parents deal you mentioned in an earlier post (beyond the typical mom/dad), I'm divided. In one way it sounds like Eugenics, but this is before they are born. Which is just like GATTACA, but the problem there was how we treated people based on their genetics, and this is about how we treat genetic disorders before birth.
Consider this, we are all just information. Our design plans came from our parents, but they were defective, as every plan is defective to some extent. These allow us enough variation to have adapted differently to different environments. Some traits are purely aesthetic which I share your concern, but other traits are more functional, like diabetes Type I and Down Syndrome.
Now, what if you could see all the information of your prospective child and understand the defects (that we know of) with the knowledge of how to fix them? Is it right to deny them that information that would lead towards proper functioning? Is it right to deny them information that would lead to enhanced functioning?
We might see it this way. Two parents can construct design plans that are quite suitable to us sustaining life and continuing to evolve naturally. Or we can construct design plans that get rid of all functioning defects by merging enough information from enough people. Interestingly enough this seems to be restricted to one man/many females. So having 14 mothers could give you strength, resilience, and a high functioning body. That's a neat idea with problematic implications.
I don't have a problem with the idea of having 15 parents, or two parents with the gifted information from 13 other people. Whichever way works best for society, or those people. Not when it leads towards the elimination of true defects. I can imagine that's difficult for people, but we are talking about before conception even. Down Syndrome may disappear in this world, along with many other defects simply because we saw the future and could change it. It's not about acceptance of a living being and granting them equality, love, and compassion, but impetus to take reasonable action.
On the other hand, making elective modifications and merging information just to try and create the most beautiful people to us, may end up just making us very shallow and superficial hotties. Practically, it will get racist and bigoted and the terms cultural and racial genocide will take on different meaning. Something like this could be forced upon people in the same way rape was used to alter genetics, but just more evil and perhaps hidden. Basically people suck and inevitably a few people will use this in terrible ways.
Yeah, it's not fair to those of us around now too. Unless I could save up and pay Brad Pitt, George Clooney, John Holmesian gentleman, and a few football players to merge information with me. Kind hard to turn it down then, unless it's priced like our current medical industry prices shit :)
Maybe we could make better people. Who knows. Giving our track record, I'll bet the opposite.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday October 03 2016, @01:07AM
That's already what happens when you take a mortal wound, at least if you are paying attention on that level.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:48AM
I expect that laws preventing you from going abroad to get experimental/unethical health care will fall pretty flat. Especially if those procedures aren't very affordable.
My real fear is that China will stop being the Wild West of genetics, regenerative medicine, and cloning. Not Mexico. If China starts doing more than paying lip service to ethicists, then you can talk about the NWO.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday September 29 2016, @12:54PM
We have sensors, they're called nerves, and there's no particular reason why you need to feel pain just because the nerves are telling you to.
One of the few alternative treatments that does actually work is hypnosis. Granted, it doesn't work for everything, but it is particularly effective for pain. Therapy also tends to work fairly well.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:44AM
I'll only be concerned if they prevent people from going to China for banned medical treatments, or if China shapes up its ethical standards. China doesn't have the religious or ethical hangups that the U.S. does, but they could pretend to care.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Thursday September 29 2016, @12:36PM
I don't think it would be properly described as "shaping up" Chinese ethics, rather than "westernizing" them.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 29 2016, @12:57PM
I don't think that's entirely accurate either. There are Chinese ethics, but they are not particularly adhered to on the mainland. Taiwan, yes, Hong Kong, yes, Chinese Diaspora, yes. Mainland, not really. The Communists have done a lot of very thorough indoctrination to eradicate the Four Olds [wikipedia.org]. The Cultural Revolution was a horror, but its legacy remains. Deep in the night of the small village hut in the hinterland, there are traditional Chinese ethics. Come morning, it's put on the happy peasant face.
So "shaping up" mainland ethics to Chinese ethics would be a step up.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:40PM
The pain free thing is more likely to create an amputee than a super soldier. There are people now who have a genetic quirk that eliminates the ability to feel pain. They have to learn to constantly check themselves for injuries of all kinds and have frequent medical exams to detect conditions the rest of us couldn't NOT know we have. If their parents and then they are VERY diligent, they may not end up with amputations, crippling injuries, or early death, but it's quite difficult.
Without the aversive feedback of pain, we aren't very good at self preservation. For example. [nbcnews.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:13AM
“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 4, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday September 29 2016, @08:56AM
"Your momma's mitochondria so fat, she had to get some donated from your other Momma. Who's also fat."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:24PM
Scientists doing the research aren't supposed to be the ones making that decision or there'll be a "Who watches the watchers?" situation without any oversight. Nobody, in practice, is really trustworthy enough to leave with power and no oversight.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:35PM
Who decides what perfect means? The people on top of society who are actively seeking to support its degeneration.
Idiocracy is the desire of the ruling class, and the media with their family-destroying single-mother-creating crap (Did you know children's shows on Cartoon Network now contain "twerking"?) are leading the populace over a cliff.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:43AM
I can just imagine what the answer will be when little Hillary Trump asks "Where do babies come from?"
(Score: 3, Funny) by Some call me Tim on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:55AM
They come from Mt. Everest and a sniper in Bosnia. The rest of the details have been redacted for your own protection!
Questioning science is how you do science!
(Score: 5, Funny) by jelizondo on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:06AM
NOT PERSONAL
Crossword. Horizontal, five letters: a woman who engages in sexual acts for money.
Mommy?
(Score: 2) by Some call me Tim on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:13AM
+1 Funny, LOL!
Questioning science is how you do science!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 29 2016, @12:59PM
Answer: It's when people are "Extremely careless?"
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:17PM
Hilly, Donny, Vladi...and baby makes three!
(Score: 4, Informative) by jelizondo on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:13AM
Even though I know the procedure approved [bbc.com] in the UK is somewhat different from that used in Mexico, where it is not regulated, it pains me that such research is highly restricted in the U.S.
Watch this panel [youtube.com] at the World Science Festival and you can feel the grief from Dr. Grifo not being able to use perfectly safe procedures to produce healthy babies because regulators in the US are too chicken-shit scared of Frankie or the Tea Party or both.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday September 29 2016, @12:57PM
This kind of research should be strictly restricted. It does not further any useful goal and has a huge set of potential downsides that need to be addressed before allowing the research to continue.
I do think it's rather ironic that there are strict controls on this and few controls when it comes to conducting genetic testing on crops that are then planted where the genes are then able to spread in unpredictable ways to other plants.
(Score: 2) by computersareevil on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:17PM
That is because this doesn't (yet) have a megocorporation buying congressmen to make sure it's allowed. Give it time.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:22PM
There should be no restrictions on this kind of research whatsoever. Restricting this is a waste of time and money.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday September 29 2016, @09:06PM
so you have no problems with researching biological weapons?
Bottom line here is that Some lines of research are so dangerous that there needs to be careful consideration over the results. Once research is done, you can't undo it. For example, nuclear bombs are out for good, so are chemical weapons.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:05PM
Biological weapons can't be effectively controlled in the long run, unlike nukes which require enriched nuclear material. The best offense is a good defense, and making the research more difficult with unnecessary and burdensome regulations does not help.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Some call me Tim on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:21AM
You should ask the sperm donor about that. ;-)
Questioning science is how you do science!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Thursday September 29 2016, @08:44AM
Before we get our panties all in a bunch, there are some rather basic ethical questions about intentional genetic characteristics. They are useful to someone, so we are dealing with a qui bono situation. Once upon a time, a couple had a child with a disease that needed a bone marrow transplant in order to cure it. Relatives and public outreach provided no compatible donor. The parents were advised that a sibling would be the best match. So, they got busy, as parents do, and a sibling was soon produced. After a decent interval, the bone marrow transplant was successfully carried out. Success, yes? But just imagine the dialogue between the siblings at some later date: "If it wasn't for me, you wouldn't be alive!" "Oh yeah, if it wasn't for me, you wouldn't exist!" See, relations between siblings is already fraught enough. No need to go injecting somatic cell elitism into the entire mix. Any time we create a life for a reason, it is not really a life. Think about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @10:46AM
It's a human resource.
cui bono?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:39AM
Siblings will make each other cry at some point, no matter what the reason.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:01PM
Then are the only ones among us who are really alive the Oops! babies?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:07PM
Yo Momma's mitochondria so fat, her cell walls got graffiti on the inside.
(Score: 1) by OrugTor on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:49PM
What pains me about the research is that the only application is for a rich person with defective mitochondrial DNA can propagate his/her bloodline. Heroic and expensive efforts in a world of 7+ billion people, earth's cheapest commodity.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:27PM
The Jordanian couple have not been identified, but how do you know they are rich?
As for the global population, that problem will solve itself.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by OrugTor on Friday September 30 2016, @04:00PM
Not the Jordanian couple, but if the technique becomes a commercial product it will surely be expensive and only affordable by the rich.