The prospect of all-female conception

michaels

Banned
Nov 30, 2005
4,329
0
0
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2444462.ece


Humans needs to learn boundaries

The prospect of all-female conception
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 13 April 2007

Women might soon be able to produce sperm in a development that could allow lesbian couples to have their own biological daughters, according to a pioneering study published today.

Scientists are seeking ethical permission to produce synthetic sperm cells from a woman's bone marrow tissue after showing that it possible to produce rudimentary sperm cells from male bone-marrow tissue.

The researchers said they had already produced early sperm cells from bone-marrow tissue taken from men. They believe the findings show that it may be possible to restore fertility to men who cannot naturally produce their own sperm.

But the results also raise the prospect of being able to take bone-marrow tissue from women and coaxing the stem cells within the female tissue to develop into sperm cells, said Professor Karim Nayernia of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Creating sperm from women would mean they would only be able to produce daughters because the Y chromosome of male sperm would still be needed to produce sons. The latest research brings the prospect of female-only conception a step closer.

"Theoretically is it possible," Professor Nayernia said. "The problem is whether the sperm cells are functional or not. I don't think there is an ethical barrier, so long as it's safe. We are in the process of applying for ethical approval. We are preparing now to apply to use the existing bone marrow stem cell bank here in Newcastle. We need permission from the patient who supplied the bone marrow, the ethics committee and the hospital itself."

If sperm cells can be developed from female bone-marrow tissue they will be matured in the laboratory and tested for their ability to penetrate the outer "shell" of a hamster's egg - a standard fertility test for sperm.

"We want to test the functionality of any male and female sperm that is made by this way," Professor Nayernia said. But he said there was no intention at this stage to produce female sperm that would be used to fertilise a human egg, a move that would require the approval of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

The immediate aim is to see if female bone marrow can be lured into developing into the stem cells that can make sperm cells. The ultimate aim is to discover if these secondary stem cells can then be made into other useful tissues of the body, he said.

The latest findings, published in the journal Reproduction: Gamete Biology, show that male bone marrow can be used to make the early "spermatagonial" stem cells that normally mature into fully developed sperm cells.

"Our next goal is to see if we can get the spermatagonial stem cells to progress to mature sperm in the laboratory and this should take around three to five years of experiments," Professor Nayernia said.

Last year, Professor Nayernia led scientists at the University of Gottingen in Germany who became the first to produce viable artificial sperm from mouse embryonic stem cells, which were used to produce seven live offspring.

His latest work on stem cells derived from human bone marrow suggests that it could be possible to develop the techniques to help men who cannot produce their own sperm naturally.

"We're very excited about this discovery, particularly as our earlier work in mice suggests that we could develop this work even further," Professor Nayernia said.

Whether the scientists will ever be able to develop the techniques to help real patients - male or female - will depend on future legislation that the Government is preparing as a replacement to the existing Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

A White Paper on genetics suggested that artificial gametes produced from the ordinary "somatic" tissue of the body may be banned from being used to fertilise human eggs by in vitro fertilisation.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Originally posted by: michaels
Creating sperm from women would mean they would only be able to produce daughters because the Y chromosome of male sperm would still be needed to produce sons. The latest research brings the prospect of female-only conception a step closer.

Oooh this part is scary. You could feasibly end up with an ALL women society.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: michaels

Wymyn might soon be able to produce sperm in a development that could allow lesbian couples to have their own biological daughters, according to a pioneering study published today.

Creating sperm from women would mean they would only be able to produce daughters because the Y chromosome of male sperm would still be needed to produce sons. The latest research brings the prospect of female-only conception a step closer.
[/quote]


This is great news to feminist lesbians everywhere!
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: michaels
Creating sperm from women would mean they would only be able to produce daughters because the Y chromosome of male sperm would still be needed to produce sons. The latest research brings the prospect of female-only conception a step closer.

Oooh this part is scary. You could feasibly end up with an ALL women society.

As long as I'm the last guy on Earth, I'm totally OK with that.
 

Shawn

Lifer
Apr 20, 2003
32,236
53
91
A White Paper on genetics suggested that artificial gametes produced from the ordinary "somatic" tissue of the body may be banned from being used to fertilise human eggs by in vitro fertilisation.

LAME! :roll:

 

NanoStuff

Banned
Mar 23, 2006
2,981
1
0
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Oooh this part is scary. You could feasibly end up with an ALL women society.

Not really. They still need men to work, manufacture and maintain the artificial fertilization equipment. That and everything else in the world. It could never work.
 

Shawn

Lifer
Apr 20, 2003
32,236
53
91
Plus there are too many straight women in this world who would never allow that to happen.
 

bdude

Golden Member
Feb 9, 2004
1,645
0
76
Originally posted by: SVT Cobra
What's scary about it? ...just more new science. I for one welcome it.

Here, here. Progress and discovery are the hallmarks of man.
 

Special K

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2000
7,098
0
76
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: michaels
Creating sperm from women would mean they would only be able to produce daughters because the Y chromosome of male sperm would still be needed to produce sons. The latest research brings the prospect of female-only conception a step closer.

Oooh this part is scary. You could feasibly end up with an ALL women society.

As long as I'm the last guy on Earth, I'm totally OK with that.

I for one welcome our new lesbian overlords ;)
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: michaels
Creating sperm from women would mean they would only be able to produce daughters because the Y chromosome of male sperm would still be needed to produce sons. The latest research brings the prospect of female-only conception a step closer.

Oooh this part is scary. You could feasibly end up with an ALL women society.


All women I have met are no where as homophobic as men. But I doubt that all women are going to go through this to reproduce.

Seeing how successful sexual reproduction is among multicellular life, humans are not going to step away from it.
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Hmm, so if you make an artificial sperm using a woman's own cells, would her baby essentially be a clone since it's genetically identical?
 

Shawn

Lifer
Apr 20, 2003
32,236
53
91
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Hmm, so if you make an artificial sperm using a woman's own cells, would her baby essentially be a clone since it's genetically identical?

No, the artificial sperm would still only get half of the chromosomes. The other half would come from the mother so it would still be a completely different person.

One thing that's interesting though is that naturally chromosomes swap bits of dna with their sister chromosomes during meiosis due to crossing over. This creates an almost infinite amount of possible combinations in the gametes and is why it's basically impossible to have the same child twice.

I'm not sure if crossing over would still occur in this artificial process. Probably not, but even if it didn't there would still be plenty of variably. There are 23 chromosomes, one set from the father, and one set from the mother. If my math is right then that equals 2^23 or 8,388,608 different possible combinations for each sperm cell, even without crossing over. Then you would have to take into account the genetic variability of the mother's natural egg which is basically infinite.


So in short, no they would definitely not be a clone.
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Originally posted by: Shawn
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Hmm, so if you make an artificial sperm using a woman's own cells, would her baby essentially be a clone since it's genetically identical?

No, the artificial sperm would still only get half of the chromosomes. The other half would come from the mother so it would still be a completely different person.

One thing that's interesting though is that naturally chromosomes swap bits of dna with their sister chromosomes during meiosis due to crossing over. This creates an almost infinite amount of possible combinations in the gametes and is why it's basically impossible to have the same child twice.

I'm not sure if crossing over would still occur in this artificial process. Probably not, but even if it didn't there would still be plenty of variably. There are 23 chromosomes, one set from the father, and one set from the mother. If my math is right then that equals 2^23 or 8,388,608 different possible combinations for each sperm cell, even without crossing over. Then you would have to take into account the genetic variability of the mother's natural egg which is basically infinite.


So in short, no they would definitely not be a clone.

What i mean is, what if you take the bone marrow mother to make the sperm. Then essentially both halves of the diploid zygote would be from the mother. But i guess it still wouldn't be a clone, it'd just have both alleles from the mother, increasing the chances of homozygosity.

And crossing over would still have to occur since that happens in the making of the gametes themselves
 

Shawn

Lifer
Apr 20, 2003
32,236
53
91
No, that would not work. Gametes are haploid. If you made a diploid sperm cell and tried to fertilize an egg there would be 3 copies of chromosomes and the egg would die. Cloning is completely different. It involves taking the egg of a surrogate mother and destroying the DNA inside the egg. Then they insert the exact diploid copy of DNA from the animal they want to clone into the now DNA-less egg and it divides and makes an exact copy.

edit: Are you talking about self fertilization? Even then it would not be a clone.
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Originally posted by: Shawn
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: Shawn
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Hmm, so if you make an artificial sperm using a woman's own cells, would her baby essentially be a clone since it's genetically identical?

No, the artificial sperm would still only get half of the chromosomes. The other half would come from the mother so it would still be a completely different person.

One thing that's interesting though is that naturally chromosomes swap bits of dna with their sister chromosomes during meiosis due to crossing over. This creates an almost infinite amount of possible combinations in the gametes and is why it's basically impossible to have the same child twice.

I'm not sure if crossing over would still occur in this artificial process. Probably not, but even if it didn't there would still be plenty of variably. There are 23 chromosomes, one set from the father, and one set from the mother. If my math is right then that equals 2^23 or 8,388,608 different possible combinations for each sperm cell, even without crossing over. Then you would have to take into account the genetic variability of the mother's natural egg which is basically infinite.


So in short, no they would definitely not be a clone.

What i mean is, what if you take the bone marrow mother to make the sperm. Then essentially both halves of the diploid zygote would be from the mother. But i guess it still wouldn't be a clone, it'd just have both alleles from the mother, increasing the chances of homozygosity.

And crossing over would still have to occur since that happens in the making of the gametes themselves

No, that would not work. Gametes are haploid. If you made a diploid sperm cell and tried to fertilize an egg there would be 3 copies of chromosomes and the egg would die. Cloning is completely different. It involves taking the egg of a surrogate mother and destroying the DNA inside the egg. Then they insert the exact diploid copy of DNA from the animal they want to clone into the now DNA-less egg and it divides and makes an exact copy.

Yeah i never said the gametes weren't haploid...

You have mom's egg, haploid
Get mom's stem cell to become a gamete, haploid

They form to make diploid. I already said it wouldn't be a clone. This would most likely be banned since its the essentially inbreeding

Crossing over happens at prophase of meiosis 1, when the diploid cells are becoming haploid gametes. From what i've read, teh stem cells must go through this same process no? And obviously the egg would have to as well
 

Shawn

Lifer
Apr 20, 2003
32,236
53
91
Yeah, it would be inbreeding. Even more so than siblings interbreeding. :Q