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?
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
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.
Well, if you believe that baby Jesus was born of a virgin, then you quite likely also believe that he is/was the son of God - divine intervention.
Divine intervention is not natural.
Hence baby Jesus is not proof that it does occur naturally.
If it did occur naturally, baby Jesus' birth would not be a miracle, which would tend to discredit the claim he is the son of God.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
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!
Some called Tony Hawk doing the 900 a miracle.
But then again, Tony's 900, as spectacular as it was, didn't fit over 100 pieces of specific predictive prophecy from several hundreds of years of writing, most several hundreds of years prior to the event. And, Tony's 900 didn't quite heal hundreds or feed thousands and deliver moral teachings or resurrect after a decent Roman crucifixion.
But then again, there are those who think that the sun rising every morning is the result of an image broadcast into their brain by evil goverrnment agents while their bodies are actually asleep on the slab in the lab. They'll say that Tony's 900 will have sufficient artificial prophecy written about it in the near future to make it seem as if it was a predicted event, and they'll say that's it's just a matter of time before there's a Church of the Tony Hawk 900.
You know, some people believe some whacky things.
Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
Indeed, if this rare occurrance could happen perchance...I didnt think that this was really possible at all but having shown that it is...
You probably didn't read the article, but hopefully I can explain why this isn't possible by chance in humans.
First, they were only able to do this using a mutant immature mouse egg cell. Two genes had to be mutated in order to stop it from imprinting an egg transcriptome (basically, what genes are on). This also would seem to prevent, at least for the forseeable future, doing this in humans. It's hard to mutagenize humans, while it might be possible to turn off the gene using something like siRNA who knows if we could get human egg cells in that premature of a form
The second, and much larger, problem is that they took genetic material from a second egg and injected it into the first. This is not going to happen naturally. Sperm has a special cellular mechanism that allows it to fuse with an egg. Eggs do not contain these cellular components and therefore would have a hard time (read: impossible) doing this in vivo.
Basically, the process of parthenogenesis does not happen in mammals in vivo. Can we set up an artificial system to do it with humans, yes probably we can eventually. However setting up an in vitro situation has no implications for in vivo possibilities.
Yep, if parthenogenisis did occur to cause the virgin birth of Jesus (a male), that would indeed be a miracle. Not so much because it wouldn't require a man for the pregnancy to occur, but that an X chromosome would have to change to a Y (quite an evolutionary change for a single chromosome transcription event) in such a way as to make a person who didn't look much different than other men.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
[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.
The supposed fulfillment of these prophecies was recorded so as to give the impression that Jesus was the Messiah. The writers didn't quite get there stories together, though, and mistakenly wrote about Jesus fulfilling prophecies that were never meant for him to fulfill, like the Virgin birth of Emmanuel.
'The Septuagint had retained the Ishtar-worshipping virgin-temple practices in part by insisting on the physical virgin-birth of Isaiah's prophetic Emmanuel in verses 7:14. The later writers of Matthew and Luke relied on the Septuagint for their references. After reading this passage in Isaiah, Matthew sought to find a way to fit Jesus into the virgin-birth role that Isaiah spoke of, thus achieving a prophecy in Jesus' own birth. The impetus for the idea and the motivation which would eventually permanently seal it into the canon, came from the huge numbers of pagan converts. These converts didn't want to leave behind Mithras and Perseus, who were both virgin-born, in exchange for a Jewish Messiah who was not.' (From infidels.org)
I agree with your point, though, about the abuse of the term 'miracle'.
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
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.