Oregon scientists make embryos with genes from 2 women, 1 man

NEW YORK (AP) - Scientists in Oregon have created embryos with genes from one man and two women, using a provocative technique that could someday be used to prevent babies from inheriting certain rare incurable diseases.
The researchers at Oregon Health & Sciences University said they are not using the embryos to produce children, and it is not clear when or even if this technique will be put to use. But it has already stirred a debate over its risks and ethics in Britain, where scientists did similar work a few years ago.
The British experiments, reported in 2008, led to headlines about the possibility someday of babies with three parents. But that's an overstatement. The DNA from the second woman amounts to less than 1 percent of the embryo's genes, and it isn't the sort that makes a child look like Mom or Dad. The procedure is simply a way of replacing some defective genes that sabotage the normal workings of cells.
The British government is asking for public comment on the technology before it decides whether to allow its use in the future. One concern it cites is whether such DNA alteration could be an early step down a slippery slope toward "designer babies" - ordering up, say, a petite, blue-eyed girl or tall, dark-haired boy.
Questions have also arisen about the safety of the technique, not only for the baby who results from the egg, but also for the child's descendants.
In June, an influential British bioethics group concluded that the technology would be ethical to use if proven safe and effective. An expert panel in Britain said in 2011 that there was no evidence the technology was unsafe but urged further study.
Laurie Zoloth, a bioethicist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., said in an interview that safety problems might not show up for several generations. She said she hopes the United States will follow Britain's lead in having a wide-ranging discussion of the technology.
While the kind of diseases it seeks to fight can be terrible, "this might not be the best way to address it," Zoloth said.
Over the past few years, scientists have reported that such experiments produced healthy monkeys and that tests in human eggs showed encouraging results. The Oregon scientists reported Wednesday that they have produced about a dozen early human embryos and found the technique is highly effective in replacing DNA.
The genes they want to replace aren't the kind most people think of, which are found in the nucleus of cells and influence traits such as eye color and height. Rather, these genes reside outside the nucleus in energy-producing structures called mitochondria. These genes are passed along only by mothers, not fathers.
About 1 in every 5,000 children inherits a disease caused by defective mitochondrial genes. The defects can cause many rare diseases with a host of symptoms, including strokes, epilepsy, dementia, blindness, deafness, kidney failure and heart disease.
The new technique, if approved someday for routine use, would allow a woman to give birth to a baby who inherits her nucleus DNA but not her mitochondrial DNA. Here's how it would work:
Doctors would need unfertilized eggs from the patient and a healthy donor. They would remove the nucleus DNA from the donor eggs and replace it with nucleus DNA from the patient's eggs. So, they would end up with eggs that have the prospective mother's nucleus DNA, but the donor's healthy mitochondrial DNA.
In a report published online Wednesday by the journal Nature, Shoukhrat Mitalipov and others at OHSU report transplanting nucleus DNA into 64 unfertilized eggs from healthy donors. After fertilization, 13 eggs showed normal development and went on to form early embryos.
The researchers also reported that four monkeys born in 2009 from eggs that had DNA transplants remain healthy, giving some assurance on safety.
Mitalipov said in an interview that the researchers hope to get federal approval to test the procedure in women, but that current restrictions on using federal money on human embryo research stand in the way of such studies.
The research was funded by the university and the Leducq Foundation in Paris.
Dr. Douglass Turnbull of Newcastle University in Britain, whose team has transplanted DNA between eggs using a different technique, called the new research "very important and encouraging" in showing that such transplants could work.
But "clearly, safety is an issue" with either technique if it is applied to humans, he said.
The researchers at Oregon Health & Sciences University said they are not using the embryos to produce children, and it is not clear when or even if this technique will be put to use. But it has already stirred a debate over its risks and ethics in Britain, where scientists did similar work a few years ago.
The British experiments, reported in 2008, led to headlines about the possibility someday of babies with three parents. But that's an overstatement. The DNA from the second woman amounts to less than 1 percent of the embryo's genes, and it isn't the sort that makes a child look like Mom or Dad. The procedure is simply a way of replacing some defective genes that sabotage the normal workings of cells.
The British government is asking for public comment on the technology before it decides whether to allow its use in the future. One concern it cites is whether such DNA alteration could be an early step down a slippery slope toward "designer babies" - ordering up, say, a petite, blue-eyed girl or tall, dark-haired boy.
Questions have also arisen about the safety of the technique, not only for the baby who results from the egg, but also for the child's descendants.
In June, an influential British bioethics group concluded that the technology would be ethical to use if proven safe and effective. An expert panel in Britain said in 2011 that there was no evidence the technology was unsafe but urged further study.
Laurie Zoloth, a bioethicist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., said in an interview that safety problems might not show up for several generations. She said she hopes the United States will follow Britain's lead in having a wide-ranging discussion of the technology.
While the kind of diseases it seeks to fight can be terrible, "this might not be the best way to address it," Zoloth said.
Over the past few years, scientists have reported that such experiments produced healthy monkeys and that tests in human eggs showed encouraging results. The Oregon scientists reported Wednesday that they have produced about a dozen early human embryos and found the technique is highly effective in replacing DNA.
The genes they want to replace aren't the kind most people think of, which are found in the nucleus of cells and influence traits such as eye color and height. Rather, these genes reside outside the nucleus in energy-producing structures called mitochondria. These genes are passed along only by mothers, not fathers.
About 1 in every 5,000 children inherits a disease caused by defective mitochondrial genes. The defects can cause many rare diseases with a host of symptoms, including strokes, epilepsy, dementia, blindness, deafness, kidney failure and heart disease.
The new technique, if approved someday for routine use, would allow a woman to give birth to a baby who inherits her nucleus DNA but not her mitochondrial DNA. Here's how it would work:
Doctors would need unfertilized eggs from the patient and a healthy donor. They would remove the nucleus DNA from the donor eggs and replace it with nucleus DNA from the patient's eggs. So, they would end up with eggs that have the prospective mother's nucleus DNA, but the donor's healthy mitochondrial DNA.
In a report published online Wednesday by the journal Nature, Shoukhrat Mitalipov and others at OHSU report transplanting nucleus DNA into 64 unfertilized eggs from healthy donors. After fertilization, 13 eggs showed normal development and went on to form early embryos.
The researchers also reported that four monkeys born in 2009 from eggs that had DNA transplants remain healthy, giving some assurance on safety.
Mitalipov said in an interview that the researchers hope to get federal approval to test the procedure in women, but that current restrictions on using federal money on human embryo research stand in the way of such studies.
The research was funded by the university and the Leducq Foundation in Paris.
Dr. Douglass Turnbull of Newcastle University in Britain, whose team has transplanted DNA between eggs using a different technique, called the new research "very important and encouraging" in showing that such transplants could work.
But "clearly, safety is an issue" with either technique if it is applied to humans, he said.
NO! NO! NO!
This is F'd up.
This is ADVANCEMENT (????) in what we can do today, regarding creating embryos? Let me repeat that. Creating embryos??? This is not advancement. This is creating 'artificial life' that helps us how?
Â
We certainly have enough artificial and natural ways to 'create' embryos. One of them is sex between a man and a woman. And then there is ...
 @My opinion is choose your words wisely. If a baby was born through this technique, they wouldn't be called "artificial". and when they say "creating embryos" they're talking about modifying the egg. the embryo is what is produced after being fertilized.
Â
Nice job trying to confuse everybody but please don't spread panic if you didn't read the article or have no idea what you're talking about.
Â
on a side note, we eat genetically modified food; genetically modifying things isn't new
You are the one who should choose your words wisely. For starters when you say that WE eat genetically modified food, you are way off base. I choose my foods wisely, I don't buy genetically modified crap.
Â
Back to your original rant about they are not 'creating embryos'.  Read again, this is a quote from the article. "The Oregon scientists reported Wednesday that they have produced about a dozen early human embryos and found the technique is highly effective in replacing DNA."
Â
Lastly there was nothing in my post that has anything at all to do with me spreading panic!!
Keep Oregon weird.
Lets put more work into getting some dinosaurs at the zoo
@SkaBob LOL!!! "You bred Raptors?"
I doubt they'd be viable. Nature has a way of keeping us from going too far with genetic alteration. Which is why human cloning is thought to be impossible.
First thought that came to mind was lesbian couples would be able to have a child with both partners genes.
So it does take two women to equal one man!
@Jeeper in this equation, it take 2 women to equal one woman. The man is still required.
So does that mean that the baby would have the mitochondrial DNA of the donor woman in all its cells, or that of the patient? Because mitochondrial DNA can only be passed down by mothers, it can be used to trace every human's ancestral lineage thousands of years in time to fairly specific geographic areas. What happens then to a baby born with another woman's mitochondrial DNA?
Â
"O brave new world..."
 @SusieQ THey said it was less than %1 from one woman. I assume they took out genetic markers for X & Y disease and replaced 'only' them.
The Polygamists will love this!
If this could wipe out some serious birth defects that would be wonderful, parents who want children but carry bad genes would definately benefit. As long as this would be used JUST for that purpose I don't see anything wrong with it.
 @Jatok If a couple wanted to have a child but are too worried that they'd pass something on to them, then the best answer is to adopt the children who have no parents.
@Robinsnest Or, if they decided to have a child of their own they could have a choice. Nothing wrong with that.
If this is used strictly for medical research and curing disease... I might be for this. I have a hunch it won't be used this way. Scary thought.
 @makeadifference I'll bet you right now that the next step will be to try and make one out of 2 men or 2 women......
Â
@Gino @makeadifference Yeah... that won't work. A baby cannot come from 2 men or from 2 women. It simply doesn't work that way, and science can't change that. It takes 2 components to make a baby, one of which comes from a woman and the other which comes from a man. Period. No other way.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if in the 1 or 2 men scenarios if you replaced the nucleus in the egg with the nucleus from a Y sperm. Would the embryo even be viable having 2Y and no X chromosomes? Better try that with something other than a human.
How about this?
Â
For the 2 men scenario you would still need an unfertilized egg from a woman. Take the nucleus out of the egg and replace it with the nucleus from an X sperm from male A. Let a sperm from male B fertilize the egg. You would get either a male or female child.
Â
A 1 man scenario it would be similar to the 2 men scenario but the egg would be fertilized using sperm from male A. Not quite a clone.
Â
For the 2 women scenario you would need an X sperm from a donor male. Remove the nucleus from the sperm and replace it with the nucleus from an egg from female A. Let the sperm fertilize an egg from female B. You would only get a female child.
Â
A 1 woman scenario would be similar but the nucleus in the sperm and the egg both come from the same woman. Also not quite a clone.
Since when did Britain start caring about ethics??
Is there a "tube" site for that?
 Humm a lab three way.....   OK I thought it was funny - South Park or SNL should run with this one!Â
 @Truth Percolates bored deviant scientist?