Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists 3D-Print Ovaries To Allow Infertile Mice To Mate and Give Birth (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the miracles-of-life dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Infertile mice have given birth to healthy pups after having their fertility restored with ovary implants made with a 3D printer. Researchers created the synthetic ovaries by printing porous scaffolds from a gelatin ink and filling them with follicles, the tiny, fluid-holding sacs that contain immature egg cells. In tests on mice that had one ovary surgically removed, scientists found that the implants hooked up to the blood supply within a week and went on to release eggs naturally through the pores built into the gelatin structures. The work marks a step towards making artificial ovaries for young women whose reproductive systems have been damaged by cancer treatments, leaving them infertile or with hormone imbalances that require them to take regular hormone-boosting drugs. Of seven mice that mated after receiving the artificial ovaries, three gave birth to pups that had developed from eggs released by the implants. The mice fed normally on their mother's milk and went on to have healthy litters of their own later in life. Writing in the journal Nature Communications, the scientists describe how they printed layered lattices of gelatin strips to make the ovary implants. The sizes and positions of the holes in the structures were carefully controlled to hold dozens of follicles and allow blood vessels to connect to the implants. Mature eggs were then released from the implants as happens in normal ovulation.

64 comments

  1. Idiotcracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    If you never watched idiotcracy you need to at least watch the about the first 10 minutes of that movie.

    MICE SHOULD NOT GET HELP WITH INFERTILITY!!! WTF?

    Just as that sounds crazy it should be equally as crazy that this is being done to help humans who unlike mice have overpopulated the planet and just like a simple animal overpopulation study, we are using up all the resources to the point of hurting our population. Being so smart, we are messing it up worse than any single animal overpopulation situation in history.

    captcha: shouted

    1. Re:Idiotcracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      It's true. Those people need their "scientist" licenses taken off them. How much time and money did they waste on this?
      When the human race suddenly fails to reproduce, and the population gets down to say 1% of the current count, maybe then scientists would have a reason for doing this kind of research.
      Right now it sounds like making up a new way to get money from distressed people. The hard reality is if somebody is unable to reproduce, they should get a sympathy card and the offer to adopt.

    2. Re:Idiotcracy by Beau1080p · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, your lopsided view of things does not always work well. Take for instance if we were going to engineer a better human race, tools like this would be useful to promote the genes. Or if there were a mistake with sterilization, maybe it could be reversed. Your trolling here is not appreciated.

      --Beau

    3. Re: Idiotcracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Exactly. The human race needs to weed out the bad genes. White genes are the right genes. We are the further evolved race after all. Everyone else is an evolutionary dead end.

    4. Re: Idiotcracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I understand where you are coming from and agree with some of your statements (exploitation for profit), there are people in this world that could emotionally benefit if this research leads to applicability in humans.

      My wife and I adopted because we couldn't have children naturally (even medically assisted). We received worse news after, when due to a life threatening medical condition, my wife's ovaries had to be surgically removed. Our women in the world face this situation more often than we think (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3913114/).

      The ovaries are quite important to the health and wellbeing of women. Hormones get produced, and, if removed early in life, require nasty, side-effect bearing hormone supplement therapy. Early menopause is an unpleasant thing to young women (N.B.: as a man, I cannot put this in proper words - I only experience this as a partner to a woman).

      If there were a way to restore my wife's womb and ovaries, we would - even though we wouldn't use this for procreation. It would be for her mental and physical wellbeing.

      If I drew a parallel to male conditions, like testicular cancers requiring the removal of a ball or two and researchers found a way to 3-D print a set, people would applaud their efforts. So, you can STFU!

    5. Re:Idiotcracy by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, one, there is no "scientist license."

      Two, "hard reality" when it comes to biomedical science? "Adopt rather than have a baby" is a weird place to draw the line. "The hard reality is if you get cancer, you should probably just accept there are more than enough people on earth, so just hurry up and die and be glad you get time to make peace with it rather than in a car accident."

      Three, TFA specifically points out, in case high school biology fails you, that the ovary does more than just poop out eggs.

      The goal of the project is to be able to restore fertility and endocrine health to young cancer patients

      A woman in her 20s gets ovarian cancer and is unable to reproduce ever again, that's bad enough, but there's also the added awfulness of menopause. Osteoporosis, heart disease, a bunch of other shit that cancer survivors really shouldn't have to deal with.

      Fourth, tissue engineering like this is really in it's infancy. Successfully duplicating an organ should be exciting to you even if you don't happen to have that organ and you aren't convinced the organ's function is really so important. You like your testicles functional? How about having a non-diabetic pancreas? Odds aren't bad you'll have problems with some organ some day and could benefit from a new one. Lessons learned here won't be strictly confined to ovaries, it makes it more likely an organ you'll want to replace will be possible. Plus, what the fuck? Slashdot is news for nerds who are supposed to like technology. Just because it's wet, squishy, and feminine, we've decided we don't like THIS technology?

      Fifth, how much time and money were "wasted" on this? From NIH reporter, it looks like $300,000 was spent specifically on this project. About a third of a single tomahawk missile, like the 60 we used to do fuck all in Syria in a vain attempt to boost Trump's ratings. Or less than three times as much as has been raised to make onesies for fully grown manchildren.

      In conclusion, leave questions about science and priorities to the adults.

    6. Re:Idiotcracy by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2

      "better human race"... only hind-sight will decide the "better" part. "Be careful what you wish for..."

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    7. Re:Idiotcracy by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      Crap. Thanks for reminding me to renew my Science License!

    8. Re:Idiotcracy by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 0

      "The hard reality is if you get cancer, you should probably just accept there are more than enough people on earth, so just hurry up and die and be glad you get time to make peace with it rather than in a car accident." hmmm...this sounds suspiciously like the current GOP healthcare bill...

    9. Re:Idiotcracy by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Fifth, how much time and money were "wasted" on this? From NIH reporter, it looks like $300,000 [nih.gov] was spent specifically on this project.

      Best investment this year.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re: Idiotcracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe you should not reproduce and give your ticket to them?

    11. Re: Idiotcracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At some point someone do any of you creeps who thinks we are overpopulated wonder what yourselves are doing by staying alive? Hell of a thing to ask other people not to reproduce. What about your own self?

    12. Re:Idiotcracy by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm sure SuperKendall will be along shortly to tell you that it's socialised medicine that has the death panels.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Idiotcracy by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... That sounded like an uninformed snark.

    14. Re:Idiotcracy by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Right, they should have researched a cure for baldness. Or impotence. Or something to make my armpits less sweaty. Or make my feet smell good.

      But yes, I agree, the last thing we need is more people. We already have way too many and we'd be better off if some just vanished. You and your post just reminded me of this.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Idiotcracy by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Actually I was more concerned that the GOP healthcare bill goes along the lines of having more young people die young so we can harvest and sell their organs to rich people to prolong their lives.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Idiotcracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your life comes crashing down at the announcement of infertility, you were not emotionally stable enough to have a family in the first place.

    17. Re:Idiotcracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hehheheh

      ur dum

      Okay, I could have gone into more detail, but it seemed redundant. Other people have done eloquent justice to your pitifully idiotic post.

      lol

    18. Re: Idiotcracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just renewed myself. I can carry science concealed too!

    19. Re:Idiotcracy by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      When the human race suddenly fails to reproduce, and the population gets down to say 1% of the current count, maybe then scientists would have a reason for doing this kind of research.
      Right now it sounds like making up a new way to get money from distressed people. The hard reality is if somebody is unable to reproduce, they should get a sympathy card and the offer to adopt.

      Says the Greenpeacer who thinks that the human species is an infestation to be erased from the environment.

      Congratulations on deciding not to have any children of your own. May your ideas die with you and not be transmitted to a new generation.

    20. Re:Idiotcracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next Hearts and kidneys

    21. Re:Idiotcracy by interkin3tic · · Score: 0

      I wish it were, but the GOP is legitimately intent on bringing down quality of coverage simply because a black man brought it up.

    22. Re:Idiotcracy by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      There's no real order: Hearts and kidney efforts are well underway. Liver might be a bigger priority than kidneys actually. Dialysis is terrible compared to where we need to be with kidney function, but IIRC it's much further than where we are with liver dysfunction. Plus livers seem to have a better ability to organize and repair itself. The kidney would need a lot higher architectural precision, so it's a more distant goal unfortunately.

    23. Re:Idiotcracy by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true anonymous coward.

    24. Re:Idiotcracy by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      I hope you're not stupid enough to think that. Hey why don't you look back to the 1994 midterm and tell me why the Democrats lost control of the House for the first time in 50 years.

      Oh yeah. HillaryCare.

      Keep believing your racist sh!t and see where it gets you,
      (Racist because you assume the only reason I, and others like me, are against ObamaCare is because Obama is black.)

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    25. Re:Idiotcracy by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      1994 is really too recent to be doing revisionist history like that. It was because of the economy and NAFTA.

      Give me a different reason other than race why people are so infuriated that health care insurance companies need to cover sick people with pre-existing conditions then. Bonus points if you can explain why it's totally unrelated that the GOP continues to have so many racist gaffes, or why the openly racist southern strategy isn't still in effect, or why Jeff Sessions is trying to get back to the racist war on drugs.

      You, and others like you, suffer from the dunning kruger effect when it comes to race.

    26. Re:Idiotcracy by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      No dude. I was around at the time. The energy was over health care. And by the way the economy was doing just fine in 1994. We came out of the recession in early 1992 and the economy was humming along. Just checked. GDP was a healthy 4.0.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  2. Hmmm... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Speaking of mice, I just emptied the traps in my garage. Interesting how the eyes bulge out.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re: Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Parasitic smelly H1B indo-chimps breed like cockroaches. The moment they infest American soil they start breeding non-stop, thanks to sponsoring self-genocidal libturd fucks.

      If anything, we need less of parasites indo-chimps, not more. Invent something useful.

    2. Re: Hmmm... by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      A better human trap, maybe? I wonder what to use as bait, the trolling may commence now!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re: Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure synthetic ovaries are the first step in making better traps.

  3. Restoring fertility - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - to young women whose ovaries have been damaged by cancer treatments. Should we be restoring fertility to women who develop cancer at an early age? Unless they spend a lot of time around cancer-causing agents, it would be indicative of an hereditary condition.

    1. Re: Restoring fertility - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      That's right. People with inferior genes shouldn't be allowed to breed. In fact, the ones that can should be sterilized. Margaret Sanger had the right idea.

    2. Re:Restoring fertility - by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative

      - to young women whose ovaries have been damaged by cancer treatments. Should we be restoring fertility to women who develop cancer at an early age? Unless they spend a lot of time around cancer-causing agents, it would be indicative of an hereditary condition.

      For most cancers in general, that would probably be true, but not for cancer of the female reproductive system. Only about 20–25% of ovarian cancer is believed to be caused by a genetic predisposition (specifically by one of two relatively common gene mutations that also cause a genetic predisposition for breast cancer). And approximately 0% of cervical cancer is believed to be hereditary; rather, it is generally believed to generally be caused by the HPV virus. So no, it is not generally indicative of a hereditary condition.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Restoring fertility - by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes. Because we're human beings for fuck's sake!

      Eugenics is so 1940s, get with the times!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Restoring fertility - by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      And approximately 0% of cervical cancer is believed to be hereditary; rather, it is generally believed to generally be caused by the HPV virus.

      Rubbish. It's a multifactorial process. While HPV is an important factor genetic predisposition is also a factor. Not all women infected with a given carcinogenic strain of HPV develop cancer. So what's the variable? Genetics.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Restoring fertility - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, everybody has the right to "marry and found a family". It says so right here on this piece of paper.

      Never mind the fact that it fucks the kids and everybody else. The important thing is that only 7+ billion people can't to screw up the planet fast enough. We need everybody to breed as fast as possible.

    6. Re:Restoring fertility - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubbish. It's a multifactorial process. While HPV is an important factor genetic predisposition [plos.org] is also a factor. Not all women infected with a given carcinogenic strain of HPV develop cancer. So what's the variable? Genetics.

      Hmm... You insist on the cause of the cancer is from multiple factors, which I agree. However, your conclusion implies there are only 2 factors (if not HPV, then genetic)? Hmm...

    7. Re:Restoring fertility - by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Rubbish. It's a multifactorial process. While HPV is an important factor genetic predisposition [plos.org] is also a factor. Not all women infected with a given carcinogenic strain of HPV develop cancer. So what's the variable? Genetics.

      There are a lot of variables. When a virus infects a cell, it injects its DNA into the host's DNA. Unless it is carefully designed to splice itself into a specific spot in the host DNA, there's a decent chance that it will cause damage when it does this. The extent to which that damage matters is relatively random, and whether the damaged cell is screwed up enough to get the host's immune system involved is also relatively random.

      Sure, there could be some genetic markers that make it more or less likely for HPV to cause cancer, but random chance will always play a very big role, too. Either way, though, there's a causative agent without which those genetic markers are harmless, which means it isn't entirely accurate to say that they are genetically predisposed to cancer, and certainly not to a degree that can't be solved through proper vaccination.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  4. Gross! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatsa woman gonna do with mouse ovaries?!? Shes gonna giva da birth to mice!!! Oh, help us president Trumpa. Pleeeeeeeesa!!!

  5. Poor Article by mentil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How exactly was the gelatin engineered to respond to estrogen and release an egg only upon estrus? I'm guessing it wasn't, and this printed ovary just periodically released eggs. The article also contains this gem: "an ovary implant could also help cancer survivors whose eggs are so damaged that they need hormone replacement therapy to trigger puberty". My understanding is that eggs don't cause puberty; and this 'ovarian prosthetic' does nothing to grow new follicles, so if your eggs are damaged, you're still sterile.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Poor Article by interkin3tic · · Score: 1
      The first article is basically a press release blurb. That second link? The one you ignored? That's the published paper which has the answers you chose to make assumptions about.

      It's like you're complaining an ad for a printer doesn't tell you how to install the drivers, while ignoring the manual it came with.

      From a brief skimming of the nature article, it's much more impressive than you for some reason assume. These are not just eggs, they're the follicle. The non-egg components of the follicle secrete hormones.

      From TFA :

      Ovarian follicles are spherical, multicellular aggregates that include a centralized oocyte (female gamete) and surrounding support cells, granulosa and theca, that produce hormones in response to stimulation from the pituitary.

      In the conclusions:

      Importantly, we accomplish on-platform ovulation through a biomaterial that did not require mechanical manipulation or digestion of the material to release an egg... Since exogenous hormones were not given to the animals, ovulation was triggered endogenously which depends on estradiol and inhibin production from the follicles seeded within the implanted bioprosthesis...

      In other words, no dude, the professional biomedical researchers who have specialized in the female reproductive system know more about it than you have despite the fact that you read an article in the guardian about it. When they say "We've accomplished this thing," maybe take them at their word. The gem you bring up is an accurate soundbite about an impressive technical advance they made possible.

  6. Also poor headlines by dbIII · · Score: 1

    File it with the one about the economist with a headline that suggested he said there would be no oil burning vehicles on the road in eight years - only he didn't.
    Headlines have to be short I suppose but so short they are misleading is a bit annoying.

  7. Eggs by bestweasel · · Score: 2

    Infertile females don't produce the "follicles, the tiny, fluid-holding sacs that contain immature egg cells" which are implanted. They would have to come from a fertile donor. Am I missing something?

    1. Re:Eggs by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are missing something. The summary states: "In tests on mice that had one ovary surgically removed"; one would assume this is the source of the follicles. For infertile women, the follicles would have to come from someone else, depending on the exact reason they are infertile.

    2. Re: Eggs by bestweasel · · Score: 2

      I didn't miss that, just discounted it as a reason for the research because women with one working ovary don't need two and infertile women can already use IVF with donated eggs.

    3. Re: Eggs by Calydor · · Score: 2

      Rome wasn't built in a day.

      You're missing the part where they've managed to build a WORKING OVARY from spare parts. Next up is learning to build the individual parts, ie. the follicles.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  8. Movie "Junior" was well prophetic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Forget the women, now trans-men can have babies soon, just implement artificial uterus already.

    Captcha:Annoyed.

    So true...

    1. Re:Movie "Junior" was well prophetic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trans men can already have babies, as they are typically born with ovaries.

      This, however, is a great hope for trans women.

  9. Why why oh why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are enough people in this world we don't need to be continuing the propogation of people that have defective genes!! If they can't have a kid naturally then there are hundreds and thousands of kids that need someone to take care of them... selfish pricks...

    1. Re: Why why oh why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Defective genes can be fixed, haven't you hea D of genome editing? Second, there could be intellectually important genes lost if you optimize solely for environmental survival. As in, maybe there will be a time when that capability is needed but a shortsighted dingbat like you caused them to be lost from the gene pool so we might go extinct. You lack basic technological logic (you didn't consider that gene editing is a possibility) and analytical skills (you didn't think there may be an intellect related gene or set of genes worth keeping in the gene pool even from physically less abled). Seriously maybe it's your genes that shouldn't propagate?

    2. Re: Why why oh why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hundreds and thousands? It's hundreds, thousands or hundreds OF thousands. I'd say you're defective. Maybe it's time to retire you.

    3. Re: Why why oh why by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I think the first people to volunteer for the suicide booth should be the people who clearly misunderstood, probably willfully, what Darwin was trying to say.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  10. Humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if it can be done in mice, surely this will work for humans. Is there an STL for it?

    1. Re:Humans by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why do you want to print the ovaries? Be honest, you're actually looking for the STL for a related but very different part...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Filled with awe and gratitude... by hyades1 · · Score: 0

    "I can haz moar mices???"

    - My Lazy, Overweight Cat -

    Like we don't have enough mice in the world...or people, for that matter.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  12. Does that mean men by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    Does that mean men can give birth too any time soon?

    Not saying I wish to bear children. But it'd stifle a few abject misandry opinions.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    1. Re:Does that mean men by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      "Misandry" on Slashdot seems to typically mean "Thinks sexual harassment should be punished rather than tolerated in the 'tech' industry." So no, I don't think it would.

      Anyway, no, men cannot use this to have babies. You still need follicles to seed into the ovary, which you don't have. You'd also need a Fallopian tube and a uterus.

  13. Feminist Dystopian Fantasy by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    Yay the Feminist Dystopian Fantasy comes closer to reality! Men be gone!

    1. Re:Feminist Dystopian Fantasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Men-B-Gone ??
      I think Lady Ada sells the kit. It's similar to this.
      https://www.adafruit.com/product/73

    2. Re:Feminist Dystopian Fantasy by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      How do you figure that? This is about restoring female reproductive equipment to its original spec, not modifying it for parthenogenesis.

    3. Re:Feminist Dystopian Fantasy by sproketboy · · Score: 1

      One small step at a time bro.

  14. Idiot^Hcracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi, I am not originally part of the thread but just to interject on first-hand experience with female anatomy I must disclose that: Ovaries are a gland not a follice, menopause is a lack of nutrient in diet to keep that gland flowing where similarly if a woman had consumed strawberry roots durring her period then she would rxperience uterine orgasms dor ejecting the unused egg and factory workers, and last too much estrogen causes the health problems you speak of in such matter as fat cell mismanagement invents hormones stored in bodily fat that will time-release as a does a gland.

    I suggest an equator diet for optimal genital health.

    So, btw, iorn, iirc: go fuck yourself and say the same to your wife that this wouldnt be a problem if she ate right and exchanged her aerobics and yoga class for 2 hours of trampoline sex with you.

  15. Stop animal cruelty in the name of science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get permission from each mouse before experimenting on it. Scientists should falsify their assumption that mice can't communicate before killing them in experiments. Science must have a code of ethics that prevents experimentation on anyone including animals without their express consent. If you can get the mice to voluntarily come into your experimental setup, when they have a free choice to run away, then maybe you can test them but they should always be free to leave.