Slashdot Mirror
A Mouse With Two Mothers
jabberjaw writes "Both the BBC and Nature are reporting that scientists at Tokyo University of Agriculture have used two sets of chromosomes belonging to a female mouse to create what are essentially fatherless mice. The process by which this was accomplished (parthenogenesis) does not naturally occur in mammals. The mouse used lacked a gene known as H19 which in turn activated the Igf2 which allowed this process to occur."
All jokes aside (as I am sure many "two daddy trailerpark" jokes are immanent) but this is indeed quite an advancement in biotech, because we may see future developments arrive in the development of cloning endangered species back from the brink of extinction; now species threatened from a lack of suitable mates, could be quite possibly saved, with the proper funding. The hard part would be digging deeper gene pools, enabling a true future for endangered species (although, I guess that's next week on /., right CmdrTaco?). Also, I wonder if it's possible to grow offspring with only two male subjects.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
is it still considered a bastard?
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
Who's your daddy???
So does this mean we men have no use anymore?
"The process by which this was accomplished (parthenogenesis) does not naturally occur in mammals"
What about baby Jesus.
Damn you, Freud!
The virgin birth, now who is god? Mouse society must be up in cheese at the moment. Could this be the second coming of the Mousiahh ?
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
They dont need us anymore!
Panic!
Everyone loves lesbians! Even mice!
Because I always thought Heather Has Two Mommies
The phenomenon of parthenogenesis was discovered in the 18th cent. by Charles Bonnet. In 1900, Jacques Loeb accomplished the first clear case of artificial parthenogenesis when he pricked unfertilized frog eggs with a needle and found that in some cases normal embryonic development ensued
Artificial parthenogenesis has since been achieved in almost all major groups of animals, although it usually results in incomplete and abnormal development
The phenomenon is rarer among plants (where it is called parthenocarpy) than among animals
Go ahead and mod me down as a troll, but why do I have this feeling we'll see a religiously-based backlash against this? Given the furor over stem cell research, cloning, etc., I'd imagine social conservatives would see this as yet another threat of some kind. After all, this is the holy grail in separating sex from reproduction. Hell, I could easily imagine them complaining about "them thar homo-shex-u-als" now being able to reproduce.
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
Doubt it. The Y chromosome is a mutation of the X chromosome and contains much less information. But let's see how this mouse goes. I've my suspicions that in addition to grand pronouncements we'll invent a host of new varients of immune deficencie and progeria like disorders before we've got the kinks more or less understood, let alone under control.
So as much as I'm looking forward to an all lesbian (but bi curious) amazon go-go dancer future where I'm the last man standing; this research and my time machine seem about equally incomplete. All for one and snu-snu for all.
They only got a couple of eggs to work out of hundreds, and we still don't know the hidden impacts of such an abnormal mammalian progenation. What happens when this mouse breeds sexually? How long does it live? The whole thing could foreseeably collapse in less than two generations, or give rise to whole new genetic failures and degrading mutations in inobvious parts of the genome. I know this sort of research is promising, but it also scares me silly, because some whack-job is probably dying to try it on humans, no matter how risky.
Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
Parthenogenesis (straight from the Wikipedia Link): Parthenogenesis (Greek , "virgin", + , "birth") means the growth and development of an embryo or seed without fertilization by a male. In other words, an embryo/seed develops without receiving a second set of chromosomes from a 'father'. It doesn't matter if that second set came from a female or a male. When NPR covered this story, one of the scientists interviewed actually SAID this was different from parthenogensis, which had been demonstrated previously in many species.
seems to me this has occurred in rabbits already. Any biologists here correct me if I am wrong. I also think that pregnant rabbits, in some instances, when highly stressed, will literally reabsorb their foetuses.
.. mice that walk around complaining all the time.
"You're not wearing that to the exercise wheel?!"
"You never give me fresh seeds anymore!"
"Ever since we had the brood you ignore me in the wood shavings!"
Trolling is a art,
Now, we will be running into a Moral debate over wether this is right or not. There will be homosexual couples pushing for this with people. If it gets to that then they will push for marriage saying they can have families. This could really open up a huge "can of worms" so to speak
Evolution or ID?
Story in The Independent is also a good read.
Now that women have this, combined with a device to open jars, we men are officially obsolete.
But I would have thought that it also removed the possibility of men being produced by this method... I'm not a biology nerd, so I might be completely wrong, but I just can't see where the 'Y' chromasome would come from in order to be able to make a boy!
So now it's actually feasible for a purely lesbian society to exist and reproduce?
This should pose some interesting questions for the Christian right's arguments against homosexuality based on infeasiblity of universalization in nature.
May we never see th
IIRC, parthenogenesis is what's known in laymen's terms as a 'virgin birth' phenomenon, in which an egg fertilizes itself after being tricked into believing that it has received DNA from another parent. There is only one contributor of genetic material, making the offspring a clone of the parent.
In this experiment, DNA was received from two sources, both of them just happened to be female. This difference is profound, because it produced the effects of traditional genetics, (hold on to those Punnett squares!) without the need for males.
-R
Dip me in honey and throw me to the lesbians!
OK, when they will do the same with two MALE mouses, I'll eat my shoe, I swear :)
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
Imagine finally having The Talk with your pubescent kid. The birds and the birds? The bees and the bees... and the scientists??
Parthenogenesis... H19... Igf2... How would you explain it?
Q: Mum, where do babies come from?
A: Eh? What? Ask your OTHER mother.
((U+C+I) x (10-S))/20 x A x 1/(1-sin(F/10))
I think some one has been watching this movie too many times.
You won't even feel a little prick.
The information on the X chromosome consists mostly of "housekeeping" genes; the only one I remember offhand is an enzyme used in the Kreb's cycle.
The Y chromosome is almost entirely useless; the only gene found on the Y chromosome is TDF, Testes Determining Factor. As you know, female is the default sex in mammals; TDF activates partway through fetal development and tells the embryo to develop testes instead of ovaries.
I'm not sure about the Y chromosome being a mutant form of the X; AFAIK, the two are radically different and contain very little similar genetic information.
"It never got weird enough for me." - HST (RIP)
There is STILL hope!.
I'd like to clarify this a bit. Many plants DO/CAN reproduce "sexually" without crossing with another individual, wheat is an example. They actually self-pollenate (self-mate), a fine distinction from parthenocarpy, which is fruit/seed production without any pollenation (fertilization). While the progreny of a selfed plant essentially have the sample genes, crossing-over and other genetic events usually result in the chromosomes not being identical.
To welcome our new lesbian overlords!
I've been on slashdot so long I'm starting to get out of touch with the cool stuff if it ain't on slashdot.
Any of the four combinations of parents should be possible then. Its been known for some time that parental chromosomes retain parental markers. The two mother experiement made female chromosomes look male.
The recent book "The X Chromosome" has several interesting chapters about the slight differences between the parental chromosomes. The cells in a female body mostly disable the second X chromosome. The disabled chromosome actaully separates into a chunk called a Barr body. Most of the time, only one parental X is turned off. But in some cases a female is a genetic mosaic with the mother-X turned on in some tissues, and the father in the other. It is thought this might partly explain why females have a much higher incidence of auto-immune diseases like lupus: Some have two different genomes expressed and each side attacks the other.
A small fraction of children may have the wrong number of X chromosomes- from 1 to 4, plus maybe a Y. There may be some gender anomalies. But because the extra X's are mostly turned off, it is not fatal.
Well, you understand, don't you, that Poet Laureate is a position that most poets hold in derision? So much so that a while ago California was begging for applicants and couldn't find one.
The title is bestowed as a curse, not a blessing, like a white elephant.
Even given that, Malvina was a lyricist, not a poet, with a special knack for humorous songs, and you really have to hear that one performed. It's quite funny, but just doesn't come across the same in print.
Given even that she could turn a phrase or two. If you want to hear her a bit more poetically inclined check out "Look What They've Done to the Rain." An anti-nuclear testing song that never once mentions nuclear testing or being anti to it.
"Just a little boy, standing in the rain
The gentle rain that falls for years."
That song, unlike "We Don't Need the Men," rhymes though, which as I understand it is not "the in thing" in poetry at the moment.
See Robert Frost's response to the same criticism.
KFG
[Hey, I'm not starting an off-topic thread, I'm merely continuing it :-)]
Not only are the usual methods of getting children -- "unpleasant sex" and adoption, but this method will also be available to (at least) some homosexual couples.
The "Christian Right" (not just Christian, and not just "right") are correct in saying, it diminishes the traditional concept of marriage. However, IMHO, the concept is long diminished through other, perfectly heterosexual means. And it is not anyone's fault in particular. The economies have changed. A single parent can raise a child or two (even without government help). Having a good partner in life is not as important to survive as it used to be.
The "sanctity of marriage" is important for the Society only because it leads to more (and better) children. That's why the State affords special protections and privileges to married (as opposed to co-habitating) couples -- in inheritance, in not testifying against each other, etc.
Yet children tend to grow up better having two parents. There are no statistics that show, children in homosexual couples grow better or worse off.
Here is my proposal to the conundrum of gay marriage. Change all laws, that apply to "married couples," to apply to "any pair of people involved in raising children" (the exact formula should be phrased better, of course, it has to mention mutual devotion and loyalty -- borrow from the classic definition of marriage).
The actual acts of marriage should stop being administered by the State (both directly through mayors and through licensing). People, who wish to publicly swear their mutual love, respect, and devotion are still very welcome to do that (banning people of same sex from such expressions is directly against the 1st Amendment) in places of their choosing (including government buildings even), but it should not be the State's business.
The State's business only begins when a couple gives birth to (regardless of the conception method) or adopts a child -- that's when it qualifies for the privileges now afforded to the married only.
This way, the Society will reward exactly those it should want to, regardless of their sexual orientation, which is not, regretfully, a voluntary choice, it seems.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2003
And on artificial wombs:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/st
So in 20 years or so, neither men nor women will be required for reproduction.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I guess they'll have to deliberate over this one first.
Ahhh, that explains it.
The word in the bible is not supposed to read virgin, but H19 deficient.
Easy mistake to make.
Are you kidding me... where else could females find that friend to:
"Confide her intimate relationship problems in excruciating detail while at the same time telling you she wishes she could meet a 'decent' man"
Male nerds, don't tell me this hasn't happened to you.
Rosie O'Donnell is going to fave a field day with this one!
First, the alternate mother was a mutant. As they started to mention, she had a gene knocked out - a gene that supresses the expresion of about 1000 other genes.
Second, an X from a female will not align with an X from another female (because of the above, and other reasons). What they effectively did was make a female mouse that could make X chromosomes that behaved in the same way that X chromosomes from a male behave.
To have this occur in humans, they'd have to figure out how to create a mutant human female that produced X chromosomes that behaved like the X chromosomes a male produces. They'd then have to take said X chromosomes out of her eggs, and match them with her partner's eggs, just like in this experiment. As such, this has absolutely no implications for lesbians, unless one just happens to be such a mutant already somehow (they aren't).
The research has little impact on allowing lesbians to reproduce. The process for doing that to two women, when neither is a mutant, is a wholy seperate process. In vitro fertilization is about as related to the eventual female reproduction potential as this experiement is (and this experiment is only that related simply because it *involves* IVF). This has no new implications for that eventuality.
I long dreaded the day this would come. Now it is official, guys, we are superfluous now.
That's it. Dead meat. Face it! What would the girls need a guy for. I guess now we have to come with something fast, or the guys born now will soon become the last of their gender. Please think of something quick.
And don't be so lame as to go: Spider Squashers (what do You think they will come up with next: Spider Squashing Robots).
Note to self: Learn how to give good backrubs.
"Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity."
Parthenogenesis can only occur where a haploid individual is viable, such as in bees (that's how the drone males are produced). This is more closely hermaphroditic reproduction, similar to earthworms, where they exchange genetic material and both become pregnant.
-I am an elective eunuch.
Tokyo University of Agriculture did not get permission to try the same with two male mice.
Tokyo government agreed that this might form some sort of mighty-mouse.
There is no way to cage this product if it gets angry.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!