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!
They dont need us anymore!
Panic!
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.
.. 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,
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
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'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.
[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.
Ahhh, that explains it.
The word in the bible is not supposed to read virgin, but H19 deficient.
Easy mistake to make.
Yes, but you'd then need a female to donate eggs, remove the host egg's chromosomes and inject in the two fathers' DNA.
Sounds rather more risky, with more trauma being done to the egg, and the failure rate would be higher due to the possibility of Y-Y pairings which would be unviable.
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
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.
The gene is called SRY.
And idea that SRY is the only functional/useful gene on the Y chromosome was debunked years ago. Dozens of genes have since been found on the Y chromosome.
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.