E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
AP/Sam Ogden via The Whitehead Institute
This photo shows a mouse composed, in part, of cells that were reprogrammed to a stem cell-like state. New research has used these type of cells to create offspring from two fathers.
Reproductive scientists have used stem cell technology to create mice from two dads. The breakthrough could be a boon to efforts to save endangered species -- and the procedure could make it possible for same-sex couples to have their own genetic children.
The scientists, led by Richard Berhringer at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Texas, describe the process in a study posted Wednesday in the journal Biology of Reproduction. Here's how it works:
Cells from a male mouse fetus were manipulated to produce an induced pluripotent stem cell line. These iPS cells are ordinary cells that have been reprogrammed to take on a state similar to that of an embryonic stem cell, which can develop into virtually any kind of tissue in the body.
About 1 percent of the iPS cell colonies spontaneously lost their Y chromosome, turning them into "XO" cells. These cells were injected into embryos from donor female mice, and transplanted into surrogate mothers.
The mommy mice gave birth to babies carrying one X chromosome from the original male mouse. Once these mice matured, the females were mated with normal male mice. Some of their offspring had genetic contributions from both fathers.
The study authors say their technique could be applied to animal breeding efforts, so that two males with desirable traits could be crossed without mixing in traits from females. "It is also possible that one male could produce both oocytes (eggs) and sperm for self-fertilization to generate male and female progeny," the team writes. This could help save an endangered species that no longer had females to mate with, for example.
In the future, scientists may be able to create human eggs from male iPS cells in vitro, allowing them to eliminate the need for the intermediate offspring, though a surrogate mother would still be needed to carry the two-father pregnancy to term.
With a variation of the technique, "it may also be possible to generate sperm from a female donor and produce viable male and female progeny with two mothers," the researchers write.
The research joins a long list of stem cell breakthroughs with mouse models. Check out the stories below to learn what else researchers have done with mice.
- Whole mice created from skin cells
- Stem cells reverse defects in mice embryos
- Sex differences found in stem cells
- Mice born without a dad's DNA
- Paralyzed mice given stem cells walk again
John Roach is a contributing writer for msnbc.com. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by hitting the "like" button on the Cosmic Log Facebook page or following msnbc.com's science editor, Alan Boyle, on Twitter (@b0yle).
Leave a Comment:
Wow. Any mention of God is "craming religion" down someone's throat. I thought we were all "tolerant". I guess not. I'm not tolerant of intolerant people. And if you disagree with me, I can call you a "Hater". Hmmmm. How about........we are all entitled to our opinions, and sharing an opinion is just sharing an opinion. Don't cram your intolerant anti-God religion down MY throat! THERE! As far as creating people, I don't think we should. (That would be an opinion). If I want my wife pregnant, all I have to do is PRAY and do what comes naturally, even though I am "fixed". I did that, and immediately she conceived our daughter faith. Since then, I have not prayed for another pregnancy, and she has NOT concieved, though we do what we did. Personally, I think that might be more pleasing to God instead of trying to play creator. Again, just my opinion, Haters. Using our FAITH, we have found healing for cancer, her back, and many other things. Faith works.
You must be of those peoples that thanks god after getting out of a successful surgery, why not thank modern medicine and the doctor that graciously went through 10+ years of college to cure you.
Also if your wife got pregnant after your vasectomy it was no act of God, statistically men have a 1/1000 chance that their tubes will grow back together and be able to get their partner pregnant again.
Also about the cancer thing sorry but also not an act of God, glad the human body is so resilient though.
"William Boyd, a pathologist, documented a large number of such instances in a book he published in 1961. He estimated that approx one in every 100,000 cases of cancer will show spontaneous remission. "
You'd be very lucky indeed if your cancer went away with no treatment.
Stop experimenting on animals. They are sentient beings that feel pain and are able to suffer just like humans. All animal testing is cruel, inhumane and unnecessary. We have no right to do this to them!
For most things, I agree absolutely. No animal should ever have to be subjected to cosmetic testing or the like. However, when it comes down to things like advancing our technology and furthering our understanding of life and the universe, I don't see how experimenting on them is any different than people using them for food. Both are about sustainability of our own species. Alternatives to using live specimens is preferable but it would also be nice if we could just get by on eating rocks so no life form ever gets hurt. That's just reality.
Actually Rocks take millions of years to form so we would run out of rocks pretty fast, Unless of course they came out the same way they went in...ouch
Back to reality, While I do not condone animal testing for non essential things like cosmetics I do feel that a certain amount is essential when it comes to advances in medicines and cures which by the way not only end up helping humans but also find their way to veterinary use to help animals.
If it were not for science and medicine there are many people who probably would not be here now(Including some of the posters on this thread)
Now..where did I put that darn mousetrap
Whatever the agenda of these scientists...and I can only speculate...they are also very aware that this civilization is facing a generation we can call Pottenger's offspring.
Dr. Francis Pottenger conducted a now famous independent study about the long-term effect of eating certain foods. The study involved 900 cats over the course of 10 years. During the study, Dr.Pottenger fed two sets of cats raw milk and raw meat and another three sets pasteurized milk and cooked meat. The cats that ate the raw food were healthy and disease-free and produced healthy kittens generation after generation. At the end of the first generation, cats that ate only cooked foods were lethargic and began to suffer from allergies, infections, and other maladies, including kidney, heart, thyroid, and gum diseases. Each succeeding generation of cats that ate cooked food showed progressively more illness and disease. The third generation of cats that ate cooked food were not even able to produce offspring.
Whether we are cats, dogs, or human beings, when enzyme dead food is eaten, the body is overburdened to produce enzymes to aid in the process of digestion. The body will actually interrupt the making of vital metabolic enzymes in order to compensate for the enzyme deficiencies in the foods we eat. Enzyme-less diets are responsible for many ills, including the shortening of lives.
Scientists are no doubt also looking for an artificial method to a problem they know will become very evident in the near future. The solution may well be found in your back yard organic garden but ahhh...big biz can't charge for that.
Actually organic foods are big business..Just go to any supermarket and you will find an organic food section and you will notice that they all cost more than the non organic foods.
Unfortunately most humans can not either mentally stomach or physically tolerate raw meat plus there is the problem of storage or maintaining a fresh source, Fruits and vegetables on the other hand are readily available raw and widely touted as a healthy food source, Grains,seeds,nuts,grasses are all available to those desiring a healthy diet, There are many things that grow wild in your own back yard(assuming you have a back yard) that are delicious consumable foods that provide nutrition.
Problem is that many of us just want to be able to throw that TV dinner in the microwave and eat.
@Igottasaythis...First off, I am very happy for you and your wife that you were able to conceive when you wanted to and your daughter truly is a miracle of nature.
Now I must disagree with your beliefs about faith (not intolerance) in order to defend my own perspective on what you just said. Personally, I don't attribute your story to be the work of a God, because it is still entirely within the realm of explanation based on the laws of the physical world that we know. Until there comes a day that I observe something that directly contradicts some very basic law of physics (such as the Earth's gravity entirely dissapearing), and then God appears to do whatever it is God does, I have no reason to believe it exists. The wonderful thing about believing in the power of observing the physical world and manipulating it vs. hoping things will just change on their own (or from the intervention by an all powerful being) is that you can actually observe what is happening and have some degree of prediction and control of the outcome. Positive thinking (believing things will get better) does help people recover from many illnesses, but positive thinking itself is quantifiable. It can be measured in terms of chemical signals and molecular level interactions. It doesn't require a mysterious force. And that to me is even more incredible than a mystical, seemingly unmeasurable force being responsible.
Erm... the intolerance of the religiously rigid is always quite interesting.
I think it has exciting potential. And ya know what - if my nephew and his boyfriend could have a kid this way X yrs down the road... that's awesome. there's plenty of people out there having kids who have half a brain and nothing more than the ability to breed, not the desire to parent. Folks that would go this route would surely have the desire and have the right to not be saddled by someone elses religious beliefs.
I do find it FAR more interesting that this could be used to save potential endangered species though. I find it so depressing I could see tigers disappear in my lifetime.
I totally agree. Tigers are amazing creatures.
Read the Dune series of books, you may find them interesting.
Jesus Loves you:)
I'm sure an outraged Pope will weigh in before long....
Cue religious outrage in 3, 2, 1, BOOOOM
For those who say we shouldn't go against nature, then return your glasses, give up your insulin shots, your anti-bacterial soaps, your antibiotics, your cars, your house, your computer, and even clothing and go live in the woods. Enjoy a severely diminished life expectancy and quite possibly death via injury or starvation. Didn't think anyone would believe we should do that. This is yet another discovery that can prove to be advantageous, much as fire was a revolutionary discovery. Conquer your fears of the unknown and actually study the science and the intended use of that science--use your brains to help guide its application.
Either side of this conversation is full of s***. If you kept your nose out of each others crap then we wouldn't have this problem.
As for medical advances, why not check out what is going on in teleportation technology. You want to solve things in this verse through medical "chemical" science, why not do it with your own molecules. Got Cancer? (teleport it out) Got a penis you don't want? (teleport it off) Want bigger boobs? (zap in those implants and change them up as you like) Got AIDS? (tag into the bag you go AIDS)
Think this is BS and a satirical rant about how people should get along? Check it out for yourself, Google it.
I would quit worrying about things (animals) going extinct if I were you. Many people don't realize that more than 90% of the species that have lived on this planet are now extinct; and that's a good thing, too. For instance, just take the dinosaurs. That's a good place to start. Guess what? If they hadn't gone extinct, human beings wouldn't be here today. With more than 90% of what has lived here gone now, well, that has left the necessary room on this planet for what is here today to develop. I've heard that spotted owls are good on the bbq...
Humans were with the dinosaurs..That is why the Dinosaurs went extinct..Science dont want to admit that though it goes against there teaching...hahaha
Yep, you keep thinking that Smead! One day the real gods will come back for you and take you to the mother ship! Also, you keep learning from them thar church folk and they'll learn ya real good! uh he uh he uh he...woooo doggy!!
I knew the movie Twins would be a reality one day.
Ezekiel 16:49-50
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness (sic) of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
Has nothing to do with being gay. Don't just stop on one scripture... keep reading and understand the context.
Why is that when someone has a valid opinion instead of a rebutle or debate, he gets insults? Whos really the ignorant ones? Theres scientific proof that homosexuality is a mental defect and counter productive to natural evolution. Yet when anyone brings up a good point they are labeled intolerant or ignorant. I ask ignorant to what exactly?
Please show some of this scientific proof, then show it to all the animal species that show the same behavior... You're deluded.
I'm not doing your work for you, read a book. Also excuse me but all the animal species? There's very few, and they also do it for reproduction/survival. Again, read a book. Your talking to a 20 year microbiologist here not some forum twit.
And I'm not doing yours, Mr. Morgen. Please read up on this fascinating field of biology:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Homosexuality+in+animals&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=10000000001&as_sdtp=on
Ignorance is thinking that there is scientific proof that homosexuality is counter productive to "natural" evolution.
Again with the title manipulation. They created gametes from stem cells. They still used a female donor egg and had to be gestated inside a female mother. The title somehow suggests that female parts were not used in the process at all.
This is how bad science starts. They release these experiements with glorified titles to the general public who then repeat the title of the article over and over again until the world seems to think that scientists actually created an offspring without a female component.
Want the same results..Inbred..There i just save the Science community millions of dollars..Hey cousin Luke hey cousin Daisy let go to the barn and create a Cousin baby from the same daddy gene..LOL
Oh yeah, thank you scientist. We have now give the homosexuals more power and rights. "oh, we can get married and rub it in your face, NOW we can actually have children together". This is SO f&*king sick and disgusting, and an abomination. What's next, we actually create Frankensteins monster now? Take my tax dollars and put it someplace else. You all have now just opened up one hell of a can of worms. We won't allow stem cell research for the good of saving lives but we're going to allow 2 guys to actually create and have a child together. They better put a stop to this before we have a nation/world for a guy-on-guy kids....unbelievable.
They still need the woman seed and a woman to give it birth...All they created was a inbred..
I'm quite sure you are right, it's the way the artile is written. I don't like the thought of taking the woman out of the picture on it and also to imply that they can now, or in the future, make it to where same sex couples can have their own children. It's an abomination and it's bad enough the thought of allowing them to have children together. If you want to be gay, I don't care, I don't want it rubbed in my face, that they are allowed to get married and now have children together.
Oh no the sky is falling! And you're idea that the entire population of the United States is going to somehow turn homosexual is ridiculous.
this is unethical and shouldn't be done.
The End!
I know it is all speculation, but what if this happens? What will the consequences be on the child(ren) who are born of 2 guys/women? Obviously, tolerance of homosexuals is pushed every day, and the reality of it all is it will NEVER be tolerated 100% and the victims of it all will be the child(ren) of such a mating. I trully hope the gay community (or who ever) will take that into consideration before it ever comes to that. It's not about we are having a child because we can and want to be happy, its going to be the future consequences of how that child(ren) are treated by other children in the future. We all know, the MEANEST people in the world are children and how they treat others.
Sterilize women that receive welfare for more than two children. I loved making fun of kids on welfare when I was young. We should have drawn the line on reproduction generations ago, I agree. If you don't beat someone up for one thing then you get laughed at for another. This starts in the home my friend not because children are born with a mean gene that disappears at college graduation. Look what someone succeeded at thought was awesome. How can I always turn it in to something negative and pull in as many different societal groups as I can to ruin it for the rest instead of just trying to make it work?
Being a single gay, taxpaying (into your kids school system) man with no children I want my penny back because: I'm sick and tired of these scientists shoving their views, ideas, capabilites, knowledge, perspectives, ungodly behaviors and pure denial of Jesus Christ as thier savior down our throats. What's next; are they going to try and have a male mouse and a male dog procreate? I bet God is going to give these mice AIDS and a big fat protest from the Westboro Baptist Freak Show. I think it's sick and I don't know why I have to put up with them prancing all over showing off what they do behind closed doors and expect me to accept this as SCIENCE? It's unnatural, I was born this way and I'm also totally down with Jesus. I think this is scientific success is totally cool. As I see it, I can't make an opinion because I don't have enough [complete] information other than someone thought it was a good idea and IT'S MY BODY FOR CRYING OUTLOUD not yours. I hope this turns out positively in the interest of man to possibly help out in other areas of research like prenatal health or babies addicted to drugs You never know. Guys, how many responses did I cover on the map?
You don't have to accept it and no one is forcing you. If you think its unnatural stay away from it, the rest of human kind doesn't need to be held back by your religion.
How ridiculous. It still took a female to carry the babies. Same-sex couples can't reproduce naturally, period. They can, of course, have genetically-related offspring, but those offspring must be created in a Petri dish and, for a male couple, must be carried by a surrogate mother. For a female couple, sure, one or the other can carry a child, but that child must still be created artificially. It's just wrong. If a same-sex couple wants a child to raise, there are plenty of orphaned children, all over the world, who need good homes. Too, with heterosexual couples who can't conceive naturally and spend thousands and thousands of dollars on fertility treatments- why not spend that money on a living child who needs a home right now?
Dani -
There are a lot of heterosexual married couples that also aren't able to have children. My sister-in-law is 21 and has already went through menopause. Are you suggesting that since the only way she and my brother-in-law will ever be able to have a child is if they have an egg donor and artifically create that child that they are not worthy of being parents?
No, I'm saying that they can't have one naturally, so please don't put words in my mouth. Do you believe that only "unworthy" parents have adopted children? If you will notice, I did address heterosexual couples in my previous post.
Sometimes, bad things happen to good people. Your sister and brother-in-law may indeed make fine parents, but a child conceived in a lab, with a donor egg, is still not biologically your sister's child. It's the same thing with an adopted child. It's still her child, though not genetically. This article is about same-sex couples having "genetic" offspring, although there is nothing natural about the process. And, if you will notice, what I said was that if same-sex or infertile heterosexual couples want children to raise, there are millions of orphans all over the world. Are those children not worthy of a good home?
This is truly a fascinating topic. I don't understand why the religeous hate science so much. I'm a Christian (grew up very conservative) but truly love science because it opens up the mind of God to us. I don't look at science as competing against God. How we USE what we learn could be the tricky part. If we use it to better humanity and to conserve/preserve/protect the world that we are supposed to be taking care of, then I won't complain.