Category Archives: Embryology

Fertility clinic error caused ‘hurt and distress’ – Marilyn Stowe Blog

The female partner of a woman who gave birth to a child following fertility treatment is entitled a declaration of parenthood, the High Court has ruled.

The couple in question lived together but were not married or in a civil partnership. They underwent fertility treatment at a clinic in Nottingham regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. A child was born to one of the women, referred to in the carefully anonymised judgement as Y. The couple later split up but remained on good terms and her former partner continued to play an active role in the childs life. Both women believed she held the status of parent.

But the biological mothers partner, X, later made the upsetting discovery that due to an administrative error she had not, after all, become the second legal parent of the couples child, C. She therefore applied for a fresh declaration of parentage under sections 43 and 44 of Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.

In the High Court, Family Division President Sir James Munby noted:

Y was not present [during the High Court hearing] but had sent a handwritten letter to the court dated 18 July 2017 to confirm my support for the applicant, in the hearing to obtain parental status for our [child]. The letter, having explained why she could not be present, went on:

[X] has my full support and backing in this case. I hope in court on Friday this terrible error by [the fertility clinic] is rectified and we can start to move on from all the stress and upset it has caused.

The emotional upheaval caused by the discovery was clear, the President added.

I asked X [during the hearing] if she wanted to speak. She did so from the well of the court I saw no need for her to be sworn. Her words, though brief, were powerful and very moving; for some of the time she was in tears, and I can well understand why.

She had described her own reaction to the discovery in a witness statement:

when I was made aware of the fact that I legally had no rights in respect of [C] due to a significant error by [the clinic] my whole world was turned upside down and this obviously had a significant effect on me and my ability to cope with life generally on a day to day basis.

She added:

A declaration from the court cannot take away the hurt and distress that I have felt from the moment that I found out about this issue until it will have been resolved, it also cannot undo the ongoing effects that this situation has caused

An apology issued by the clinic was insufficient she stressed.

Yes they accept in the statement that they made a mistake but they seem to somewhat try to pass it off as insignificant and non consequential in terms of the effect that this has had on me. I felt sick to my stomach when I read the statement because I felt that they, of all people, would have at least recognised the harm and upset that they would have caused.

Sir James said he was:

quite satisfied that this is no exaggeration on Xs part.

The case as the latest in a series of similar fertility clinic errors to come before the President: he estimated that there had been 37 to date.

Sir James conclusion was brusque:

X is entitled to the declaration she seeks.

Read the ruling here.

Photo byChris Costes via Flickr

Originally posted here:
Fertility clinic error caused 'hurt and distress' - Marilyn Stowe Blog

New Microscope Technique Reveals Internal Structure of Live Embryos – Futurism

Advancing Science

University of Illinois researchers have developed a way to produce 3-D images of live embryos in cattle that could help determine embryo viability before in vitro fertilization in humans.

Infertility can be devastating for those who want children. Many seek treatment, and the cost of a single IVF cycle can be $20,000, making it desirable to succeed in as few attempts as possible. Advanced knowledge regarding the health ofembryoscould help physicians select those that are most likely to lead to successful pregnancies.

The newmethod, published in the journalNature Communications, brought together electrical and computer engineering professor Gabriel Popescu and animal sciences professor Matthew Wheeler in a collaborative project through the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology at the U. of I.

Called gradient light interference microscopy, the method solves a challenge that other methods have struggled withimaging thick, multicellular samples.

In many forms of traditional biomedical microscopy, light is shined through very thin slices of tissue to produce an image. Other methods use chemical or physical markers that allow the operator to find the specific object they are looking for within a thicksample, but those markers can be toxic to living tissue, Popescu said.

When looking at thick samples with other methods, your image becomes washed out due to the light bouncing off of all surfaces in the sample, said graduate student Mikhail Kandel, the co-lead author of the study. It is like looking into a cloud.

GLIM can probe deep into thick samples by controlling the path length over which light travels through the specimen. The technique allows the researchers to produce images from multiple depths that are then composited into a single 3-D image.

To demonstrate the new method, Popescus group joined forces with Wheeler and his team to examine cow embryos.

One of the holy grails of embryology is finding a way to determine which embryos are most viable, Wheeler said. Having a noninvasive way to correlate to embryo viability is key; before GLIM, we were taking more of an educated guess.

Those educated guesses are made by examining factors like the color of fluids inside the embryonic cells and the timing of development, among others, but there is no universal marker for determining embryo health, Wheeler said.

This method lets us see the whole picture, like a three-dimensional model of the entire embryo at one time, said Tan Nguyen, the other co-lead author of the study.

Choosing the healthiest embryo is not the end of the story, though. The ultimate test will be to prove that we have picked a healthy embryo and that it has gone on to develop a live calf, said Marcello Rubessa, a postdoctoral researcher and co-author of the study.

Illinois has been performing in vitro studies with cows since the 1950s, Wheeler said. Having the resources made available through Gabriels research and the other resources at Beckman Institute have worked out to be a perfect-storm scenario.

The team hopes to apply GLIM technology to human fertility research and treatment, as well as a range of different types of tissue research. Popescu plans to continue collaborating with other biomedical researchers and already has had success looking at thick samples of brain tissue in marine life for neuroscience studies.

This article was provided by University of Illinois of Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). Materials may have been edited for clarity and brevity. And make the name of the source a link back to their website.

Read the rest here:
New Microscope Technique Reveals Internal Structure of Live Embryos - Futurism

Surrogacy Bill Should Be Broadened, Include Compensation, Says Parliamentary Panel – The Wire

Calling the draft surrogacy Bill narrow, the parliamentary committee has recommended allowing live-in couples, divorced women and widows to use surrogates, adding that a surrogate should not have to belong to the parents family.

The committee has said that purely altruistic surrogacy will infringe on the surrogates rights. Credit: Reuters

New Delhi:Criticising the Centres draft Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016 for having a narrow understanding of Indian society and playing into patriarchal assumptions, the parliamentary panel that was set up to look into the Bills provisions and speak to experts in the field has recommended broadening the Bills purview and a more liberal surrogacy framework in an 88-page report.

No such thing as purely altruistic surrogacy

The original Bill wanted to do away with commercial surrogacy and instead base it on altruism. The surrogate has to be a close relative of the married couple in question (who must be infertile, of Indian origin, married for at least five years and between 23-50 for women and 26-55 for men years of age). A woman can act as a surrogate only once, the Bill said, while she is between 25 and 35 years of age.

This definition of altruistic surrogacy, the 31-member has said in its report, cannot work in a patriarchal structure. The surrogate is likely to be coerced and will get nothing out of this arrangement, while everyone else will benefit, reinforcing the idea that a womans body is not her own.

Pregnancy is not a one minute job but a labour of nine months with far reaching implications regarding her health, her time and her family. In the altruistic arrangement, the commissioning couple gets a child; and doctors, lawyers and hospitals get paid. However, the surrogate mothers are expected to practice altruism without a single penny.

The Committee, therefore, finds merit in the argument that the proposed altruistic surrogacy is far removed from the ground realities. The Committee is, therefore, of the view that expecting a woman, that too, a close relative to be altruistic enough to become a surrogate and endure all hardships of the surrogacy procedure in the pregnancy period and post partum period is tantamount to a another form of exploitation.

The Bill limits the circle of choosing a surrogate mother from within close relatives. Given the patriarchal familial structure and power equations within families, not every member of a family has the ability to resist a demand that she be a surrogate for another family member. A close relative of the intending couple may be forced to become a surrogate which might become even more exploitative than commercial surrogacy. The Committee, therefore, firmly believes that altruistic surrogacy only by close relatives will always be because of compulsion and coercion and not because of altruism.

The committee hailed the fact that regulation was need in the surrogacy sector, given the economic and social power imbalance that exists between the actors in most cases, but said the regulations should be of a different kind than what is suggested in the Bill, like authorities fixing the compensation amount to be paid to a surrogate and making sure that payments begin the moment the process is started. The panel agrees that no women should be a surrogate more than once surrogacy cannot be a way out for women opting for surrogacy due to poverty and should not be allowed as a profession.

Shouldnt be limited to married couples

The provision that only Indian couples who have been married for at least five years can avail of a surrogate overlooks a large section of society, the panel has argued.

The Department of Health Research by imposing prohibition on widows and divorced women seems to have closed its eyes to the ground reality. Besides, the decision to keep live-in partners out of the purview of the Bill is indicative of the fact that the Bill is not in consonance with the present day modern social milieu that we live in and is too narrow in its understanding. Even the Supreme Court has given a legal sanctity to live-in relationships. Surrogacy is one of the least used options by childless Indians. If all these categories are to be banned then why have surrogacy at all. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Department should broadbase the eligibility criteria in this regard and widen the ambit of persons who can avail surrogacy services by including live-in couples, divorced women/ widows.

The report also recommends doing away with the five-year waiting period meant for couples to avail all assisted reproductive techniques to have a child of their own, saying it does not make sense as the couples involved may already be in their 30s and 40s. This waiting period is also inconsistent with the WHOs definition of infertility, the committee has argued, which defines infertility as the inability to conceive after at least one year of unprotected coitus.

The committee stood by the provision that surrogacy be limited to Indian citizens, saying foreigners only come to India to find surrogates because it is much cheaper here.

One of the other criticisms of the Bill was that it left out homosexual couples. But the report does not say anything about that.

Surrogates should not be limited to close family members

The Bills provision that a surrogate must a 25-35-year-old woman who is a close relative of the couple and has one child of her has been criticised by the committee on various grounds. For one, they have said the woman may be coerced into doing it by her family against her wishes. Two, the child and surrogate mother will be living in close proximity given the nature of Indian families, and this could have a detrimental impact on both their mental heath. Three, most nuclear families may find it hard to find someone in their family who fits all the criteria. Four, couples who want to keep the surrogacy private wont have that option and will be forced to tell their families, despite the social taboos involved. Given all of this,

The Committee is convinced that limiting the practice of surrogacy to close relatives is not only non pragmatic and unworkable but also has no connect with the object to stop exploitation of surrogates envisaged in the proposed legislation. The Committee, therefore, recommends that this clause of close relative should be removed to widen the scope of getting surrogate mothers from outside the close confines of the family of intending couple. In fact, both related and unrelated women should be permitted to become a surrogate.

Surrogacy is not regulated in India yet. Credit: Reuters

Finding non-existent doctors

One of the committees other recommendations is based on the Bills definition of a human embryologist. According to the Bill, human embryologist means a person who possesses any post-graduate medical qualification in the field of human embryology recognized under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or who possesses a post-graduate degree in human embryology from a recognized university with not less than two years of clinical experience. However, the committee has noted in its report, no such post-graduate degree in human embryology is offered at an Indian university, so this definition mustbe rephrased so people know what sort of specialty doctors they should be consulting. As it stands now,

The Committee fails to understand how the Department would utilize the services of such specialty doctors in every corner of the country when these doctors do not exist.

Keeping track of cases

In order to make sure that regulations around surrogacy are followed, the committee has recommended the creation of a national database where surrogacy cases are tracked from start to finish.

Having a centralized database at the National level would be a step in right direction so as to monitor the surrogates, surrogacy clinics and the commissioning parents. All State Surrogacy Boards should be required to submit to the National Surrogacy Board, data on the surrogacy services and arrangements. Therefore, the Committee is in unison with the suggestion of keeping a registry at the national level having details of the registration and conduct of every surrogacy clinic, surrogacy arrangements, including its stakeholders, taking place across the country. Such a registry will also help in tracking the surrogate mothers who will act as surrogate only once in their lifetime

What to read next:

See original here:
Surrogacy Bill Should Be Broadened, Include Compensation, Says Parliamentary Panel - The Wire

New microscope technique reveals internal structure of live embryos – Feedstuffs

University of Illinois researchers have developed a way to produce 3-D images of live embryos in cattle that could help determine embryo viability before in vitro fertilization (IVF) in people.

Infertility can be devastating for those who want children, and many seek treatment. As the cost of a single IVF cycle can be $20,000, it is desirable to succeed in as few attempts as possible. Advanced knowledge regarding the health of embryos could help physicians select those that are most likely to lead to successful pregnancies.

The new method, published in the journal Nature Communications, brought together electrical and computer engineering professor Gabriel Popescu and animal sciences professor Matthew Wheeler in a collaborative project through the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science & Technology at the University of Illinois. Called gradient light interference microscopy (GLIM), the method solves a challenge that other methods have struggled with: imaging thick, multicellular samples.

In many forms of traditional biomedical microscopy, light is shined through very thin slices of tissue to produce an image. Other methods use chemical or physical markers that allow the operator to find the specific object they are looking for within a thick sample, but those markers can be toxic to living tissue, Popescu said.

When looking at thick samples with other methods, your image becomes washed out due to the light bouncing off of all surfaces in the sample. It is like looking into a cloud, said graduate student Mikhail Kandel, co-lead author of the study.

GLIM can probe deep into thick samples by controlling the length of the path over which light travels through the specimen. The technique allows the researchers to produce images from multiple depths that are then composited into a single 3-D image.

To demonstrate the new method, Popescus group joined forces with Wheeler and his team to examine cow embryos.

One of the 'holy grails' of embryology is finding a way to determine which embryos are most viable, Wheeler said. Having a non-invasive way to correlate to embryo viability is key; before GLIM, we were taking more of an educated guess.

Those educated guesses are made by examining factors like the color of fluids inside the embryonic cells and the timing of development, among others, but there is no universal marker for determining embryo health, Wheeler said.

This method lets us see the whole picture, like a three-dimensional model of the entire embryo at one time, said Tan Nguyen, the other co-lead author of the study.

Choosing the healthiest embryo is not the end of the story, though. The ultimate test will be to prove that we have picked a healthy embryo and that it has gone on to develop a live calf, said Marcello Rubessa, a postdoctoral researcher and co-author of the study.

Illinois has been performing in vitro studies with cows since the 1950s, Wheeler said. Having the resources made available through Gabriels research and the other resources at Beckman Institute have worked out to be a perfect-storm scenario.

The team hopes to apply GLIM technology to human fertility research and treatment, as well as a range of different types of tissue research. Popescu plans to continue collaborating with other biomedical researchers and already has had success looking at thick samples of brain tissue in marine life for neuroscience studies.

Read the original:
New microscope technique reveals internal structure of live embryos - Feedstuffs

Saving Haeckel: Why Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny Isn’t so Wrong – Patheos (blog)

Ernst Haeckel was an influential German scientist who supported Charles Darwins theory of evolution. He published his influential theory of embryology, distilled as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny in 1866, seven years after Darwins On the Origin of Species. Haeckels theory fell out of favor and hasnt been part of evolutionary theory for many decades, but its still cited today as a cause of mischief by modern Creationists.

Haeckels theory

The similarities between embryos of different animal species were noted decades before Darwin: while adults of different species are easy to tell apart, their embryos are not. Haeckel took this further and is most known for his 1874 drawing (above) of the development of various animal embryosfish, chicken, human, and so onto illustrate his point.

Ontogeny is the development of an embryo, and phylogeny is an organisms evolutionary history. So by ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, Haeckel was saying that you can watch through an organisms development as an embryo a replay of its development through hundreds of million years of evolution. For example, a human embryo first looks like a fish (notice the gill-like structure), then like a reptile (four limbs and a tail), and finally like a mammal, which is the evolutionary path that humans took.

But it doesnt work like that.

What embryology actually tells us

Lets put Haeckel aside for now and look for clues to evolution within embryology. Whats fascinating is how embryonic structures that developed in animals that preceded humans, like fish and reptiles, have been repurposed by evolution for humans.

Pharyngeal arches or folds (often improperly called gill slits) are the double-chin-like folds under the head in the early embryo stage. This striking visual commonality is found in all vertebrate embryos.

The arches that develop into gills in fish become various cartilages, glands, muscles, and other tissue in the human neck and face.

These arches explain the strange path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Pharyngeal arches four, five, and six (arch one is closest to the head) fuse early in the development of mammal embryos. The recurrent laryngeal nerve comes from the fourth arch, and after the fusion, it is near an artery from the sixth arch. This creates a straightforward layout in fish, but in mammals the neck takes the brain and larynx (connected by this nerve) away from the heart. The problem is that the nerve is hooked around that artery. That means that in all mammalsyes, even the long-necked giraffethe nerve goes from the brain, down around this artery, and back up to the larynx. No perfect designer would create this, but it is nicely explained by evolution.

Another example of repurposing (technically, exaptation) is the mammalian ear. Structures that develop into a multi-bone jaw in reptiles have been repurposed to become ear bones in mammals. In fact, it was embryology, not fossils, that provided the first clues of this evolution.

The Creationists

Creationists respond that the perfect designer was making variations on a theme. If youve got a great design, why design everything from scratch? Why not simply tweak it for various environments? This designer is like a car company that makes small cars (shrews, mice) and big ones (elephants, whales), cars that are beautiful (peacock, gazelle) and cars for tough environments (camel, yak).

In the first place, the supernatural assumption adds nothing when we have a natural theory that explains evolution just fine. God is a solution looking for a problem, and we dont have a problem here.

And second, if land animals are like cars, why do they begin life looking like submarines? (h/t Troy Britain)

See also: Argument from Design BUSTED!

Another obvious similarity across early embryos is the tail. Human embryonic tails are absorbed later in development. The hind limbs of cetaceans like whales also appear in embryos and are likewise absorbed.

If you saw the movie Avatar, did you catch the evolution mistake it makes? The land animals had six limbs and breathed through a second mouth on their shoulders. The winged creatures also had six limbsfour legs and two wings. But the Navi people had four limbs and no shoulder mouths. If they had a common ancestor with the other animals of their world, like people on earth, you would see these fundamental characteristics shared.

Ah, wellHollywood.

Creationisms failure

Why do adult animals differ in appearance but look similar as embryos? Why should the same basic embryonic components become gills in fish but faces in mammals? Why do human embryos have a tail that is later reabsorbed? The common beginning as early embryos and later divergence to satisfy different body plans points to common ancestry, not design. Evolution explains all this nicely, while Creationism has no explanation.

The Creationist play book is to attack evolution, usually by asking questions that are important but already answered. Biologists have a ready answer, but these questions stump the average person, which is the target audience.

Even if Creationisms questions were new and insightful (they never are), Creationism doesnt become the dominant scientific paradigm by showing flaws in evolution; it could only do that by explaining the evidence better. But since Creationists are only pretending to be scientific, playing by sciences rules is never the goal. Creationists dont participate in the domain of regular biology, which includes conferences, journals, and laboratories. Theyve already lost there, and thats been true for a century. So they peddle their message exclusively to the public, another admission that they arent doing science.

Yes, Haeckel was wrong, and his error, like any popular wrong turn, delayed progress. But evolution was never built with this as part of its foundation. Turn back humans evolutionary clock and we see the tail grows back (as in other mammals), the ear bones become jaws (as in reptiles), and the throat becomes gills (as in fish). Haeckel got a lot wrong, but he was right that embryology holds clues to where we came from.

(h/t commenter MR for links to articles)

Acknowledgements: these excellent articles were helpful in writing this post.

Somebodys gotta stand up to experts. Don McLeroy, Texas board of education,speaking against evolution in public schools

Image credit: Wikimedia

Read more from the original source:
Saving Haeckel: Why Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny Isn't so Wrong - Patheos (blog)

New Microscope Technique Reveals Internal Structure of Live Embryos – R & D Magazine

University of Illinois researchers have developed a way to produce 3-D images of live embryos in cattle that could help determine embryo viability before in vitro fertilization in humans.

Infertility can be devastating for those who want children. Many seek treatment, and the cost of a single IVF cycle can be $20,000, making it desirable to succeed in as few attempts as possible. Advanced knowledge regarding the health of embryos could help physicians select those that are most likely to lead to successful pregnancies.

The new method, published in the journalNature Communications, brought together electrical and computer engineering professorGabriel Popescuand animal sciences professorMatthew Wheelerin a collaborative project through the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology at the U. of I.

Called gradient light interference microscopy, the method solves a challenge that other methods have struggled with -- imaging thick, multicellular samples.

In many forms of traditional biomedical microscopy, light is shined through very thin slices of tissue to produce an image. Other methods use chemical or physical markers that allow the operator to find the specific object they are looking for within a thick sample, but those markers can be toxic to living tissue, Popescu said.

"When looking at thick samples with other methods, your image becomes washed out due to the light bouncing off of all surfaces in the sample," said graduate student Mikhail Kandel, the co-lead author of the study. "It is like looking into a cloud."

GLIM can probe deep into thick samples by controlling the path length over which light travels through the specimen. The technique allows the researchers to produce images from multiple depths that are then composited into a single 3-D image.

To demonstrate the new method, Popescu's group joined forces with Wheeler and his team to examine cow embryos.

"One of the holy grails of embryology is finding a way to determine which embryos are most viable," Wheeler said. "Having a noninvasive way to correlate to embryo viability is key; before GLIM, we were taking more of an educated guess."

Those educated guesses are made by examining factors like the color of fluids inside the embryonic cells and the timing of development, among others, but there is no universal marker for determining embryo health, Wheeler said.

"This method lets us see the whole picture, like a three-dimensional model of the entire embryo at one time," said Tan Nguyen, the other co-lead author of the study.

Choosing the healthiest embryo is not the end of the story, though. "The ultimate test will be to prove that we have picked a healthy embryo and that it has gone on to develop a live calf," said Marcello Rubessa, a postdoctoral researcher and co-author of the study.

"Illinois has been performing in vitro studies with cows since the 1950s," Wheeler said. "Having the resources made available through Gabriel's research and the other resources at Beckman Institute have worked out to be a perfect-storm scenario."

The team hopes to apply GLIM technology to human fertility research and treatment, as well as a range of different types of tissue research. Popescu plans to continue collaborating with other biomedical researchers and already has had success looking at thick samples of brain tissue in marine life for neuroscience studies.

The rest is here:
New Microscope Technique Reveals Internal Structure of Live Embryos - R & D Magazine

What Is an Embryologist? – Newswise – Newswise (press release)

Nicole Burns and Melissa Nanidzhanyan, Embryologists, The Valley Hospital Fertility Center

Newswise If you or a loved one is having difficulty conceiving, you may have researched in vitro fertilization options. In vitro fertilization, which is commonly referred to as IVF, is a process that begins with ovulation induction to stimulate a womans ovaries. Next, the eggs are harvested through an ultrasound-guided technique. Once the eggs have been retrieved, they are fertilized and grown in a laboratory for three to five days before the embryos are transferred into the womans uterus or frozen for implantation at a later date.

A key member of an IVF patients clinical team is her embryologist. An embryologist is a scientist who has a bachelors degree in the clinical sciences and who participates in continuing education to ensure that she is aware of any clinical developments in the field of embryology. She specializes in the care of embryos from the time of egg retrieval to the time when the embryo is implanted into the womans uterus. The embryologist is responsible for:

As an IVF patient, there are two different embryo cycles that may be involved in your care. The first, a fresh cycle, involves the embryologist inseminating the egg so that an embryo can be implanted into the patients uterus five days after the eggs retrieval. The second cycle is called the frozen cycle. In the frozen cycle, the embryologist creates the embryos and freezes them rather than implanting them. The patient will return to the office approximately a month later to have the embryo implanted into her uterus.

If the embryos require genetic testing, five cells are gathered from the embryo on day five or six after insemination. The cells are then sent to a specialized lab for genetic testing, which can take approximately a week. While the cells are undergoing genetic testing, the embryologists will closely examine the embryos to identify those that are morphologically strongest. This includes testing all 23 chromosomes for any visible abnormalities. Because of the length of time involved in these additional steps, the patients are generally completing a frozen cycle rather than a fresh cycle. However, for certain patients, this extra testing can increase the chance of a successful pregnancy by reducing instances of miscarriages.

Continued here:
What Is an Embryologist? - Newswise - Newswise (press release)

In Breakthrough, Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation From Genes in Human Embryos – New York Times

Weve always said in the past gene editing shouldnt be done, mostly because it couldnt be done safely, said Richard Hynes, a cancer researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who co-led the committee. Thats still true, but now it looks like its going to be done safely soon, he said, adding that the research is a big breakthrough.

What our report said was, once the technical hurdles are cleared, then there will be societal issues that have to be considered and discussions that are going to have to happen. Nows the time.

Scientists at Oregon Health and Science University, with colleagues in California, China and South Korea, reported that they repaired dozens of embryos, fixing a mutation that causes a common heart condition that can lead to sudden death later in life.

Scientists tried two techniques to remove a dangerous mutation. In the first, genetic scissors were inserted into fertilized eggs. The mutation was repaired in some of the resulting embryos but not always in every cell. The second method worked better: By injecting the scissors along with the sperm into the egg, more embryos emerged with repaired genes in every cell.

When gene-editing components were introduced into a fertilized egg, some embryos contained a patchwork of repaired and unrepaired cells.

Gene-editing

components inserted

after fertilization

Cell with

unrepaired

gene

Mosaicism in

later-stage embryo

When gene-editing components were introduced with sperm to the egg before fertilization, more embryos had repaired mutations in every cell.

Gene-editing components

inserted together with sperm,

before fertilization

In 42 of 58

embryos

tested, all

cells were

repaired

Uniform

later-stage embryo

When gene-editing components were introduced into a fertilized egg, some embryos contained a patchwork of repaired and unrepaired cells.

Gene-editing

components inserted

after fertilization

Cell with

unrepaired

gene

Mosaicism in

later-stage embryo

When gene-editing components were introduced with sperm to the egg before fertilization, more embryos had repaired mutations in every cell.

Gene-editing

components inserted

together with sperm,

before fertilization

In 42 of 58

embryos

tested, all

cells were

repaired

Uniform

later-stage embryo

If embryos with the repaired mutation were allowed to develop into babies, they would not only be disease-free but also would not transmit the disease to descendants.

The researchers averted two important safety problems: They produced embryos in which all cells not just some were mutation-free, and they avoided creating unwanted extra mutations.

It feels a bit like a one small step for (hu)mans, one giant leap for (hu)mankind moment, Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist who helped discover the gene-editing method used, called CRISPR-Cas9, said in an email.

I expect these results will be encouraging to those who hope to use human embryo editing for either research or eventual clinical purposes, said Dr. Doudna, who was not involved in the study.

Much more research is needed before the method could be tested in clinical trials, currently impermissible under federal law. But if the technique is found to work safely with this and other mutations, it might help some couples who could not otherwise have healthy children.

Potentially, it could apply to any of more than 10,000 conditions caused by specific inherited mutations. Researchers and experts said those might include breast and ovarian cancer linked to BRCA mutations, as well as diseases like Huntingtons, Tay-Sachs, beta thalassemia, and even sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis or some cases of early-onset Alzheimers.

You could certainly help families who have been blighted by a horrible genetic disease, said Robin Lovell-Badge, a professor of genetics and embryology at the Francis Crick Institute in London, who was not involved in the study.

You could quite imagine that in the future the demand would increase. Maybe it will still be small, but for those individuals it will be very important.

The researchers also discovered something unexpected: a previously unknown way that embryos repair themselves.

In other cells in the body, the editing process is carried out by genes that copy a DNA template introduced by scientists. In these embryos, the sperm cells mutant gene ignored that template and instead copied the healthy DNA sequence from the egg cell.

We were so surprised that we just couldnt get this template that we made to be used, said Shoukhrat Mitalipov, director of the Center for Embryonic Cell and Gene Therapy at Oregon Health and Science University and senior author of the study. It was very new and unusual.

The research significantly improves upon previous efforts. In three sets of experiments in China since 2015, researchers seldom managed to get the intended change into embryonic genes.

And some embryos had cells that did not get repaired a phenomenon called mosaicism that could result in the mutation being passed on as well as unplanned mutations that could cause other health problems.

In February, a National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine committee endorsed modifying embryos, but only to correct mutations that cause a serious disease or condition and when no reasonable alternatives exist.

Sheldon Krimsky, a bioethicist at Tufts University, said the main uncertainty about the new technique was whether reasonable alternatives to gene editing already exist.

As the authors themselves noted, many couples use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to screen embryos at fertility clinics, allowing only healthy ones to be implanted. For these parents, gene editing could help by repairing mutant embryos so that more disease-free embryos would be available for implantation.

Hank Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford, said creating fewer defective embryos also would reduce the number discarded by fertility clinics, which some people oppose.

The larger issue is so-called germline engineering, which refers to changes made to embryo that are inheritable.

A new technique known as Crispr has revolutionized humans ability to edit DNA. See if you can identify whether a given development has already happened, could eventually happen or is pure fiction.

If youre in one camp, its a horror to be avoided, and if youre in the other camp, its desirable, Dr. Greely said. Thats going to continue to be the fight, whether its a feature or a bug.

For now, the fight is theoretical. Congress has barred the Food and Drug Administration from considering clinical trials involving germline engineering. And the National Institutes of Health is prohibited from funding gene-editing research in human embryos. (The new study was funded by Oregon Health and Science University, the Institute for Basic Science in South Korea, and several foundations.)

The authors say they hope that once the method is optimized and studied with other mutations, officials in the United States or another country will allow regulated clinical trials.

I think it could be widely used, if its proven safe, said Dr. Paula Amato, a co-author of the study and reproductive endocrinologist at O.H.S.U. Besides creating more healthy embryos for in vitro fertilization, she said, it could be used when screening embryos is not an option or to reduce arduous IVF cycles for women.

Dr. Mitalipov has pushed the scientific envelope before, generating ethical controversy with a so-called three-parent baby procedure that would place the nucleus of the egg of a woman with defective cellular mitochondria into the egg from a healthy woman. The F.D.A. has not approved trials of the method, but Britain may begin one soon.

The new study involves hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a disease affecting about one in 500 people, which can cause sudden heart failure, often in young athletes.

It is caused by a mutation in a gene called MYBPC3. If one parent has a mutated copy, there is a 50 percent chance of passing the disease to children.

Using sperm from a man with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and eggs from 12 healthy women, the researchers created fertilized eggs. Injecting CRISPR-Cas9, which works as a genetic scissors, they snipped out the mutated DNA sequence on the male MYBPC3 gene.

They injected a synthetic healthy DNA sequence into the fertilized egg, expecting that the male genome would copy that sequence into the cut portion. That is how this gene-editing process works in other cells in the body, and in mouse embryos, Dr. Mitalipov said.

Instead, the male gene copied the healthy sequence from the female gene. The authors dont know why it happened.

Maybe human sex cells or gametes evolved to repair themselves because they are the only cells that transmit genes to offspring and need special protection, said Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, a co-author and geneticist at the Salk Institute.

Out of 54 embryos, 36 emerged mutation-free, a significant improvement over natural circumstances in which about half would not have the mutation. Another 13 embryos also emerged without the mutation, but not in every cell.

The researchers tried to eliminate the problem by acting at an earlier stage, injecting the egg with the sperm and CRISPR-Cas9 simultaneously, instead of waiting to inject CRISPR-Cas9 into the already fertilized egg.

That resulted in 42 of 58 embryos, 72 percent, with two mutation-free copies of the gene in every cell. They also found no unwanted mutations in the embryos, which were destroyed after about three days.

The method was not perfect. The remaining 16 embryos had unwanted additions or deletions of DNA. Dr. Mitalipov said he believed fine-tuning the process would make at least 90 percent of embryos mutation-free.

And for disease-causing mutations on maternal genes, the same process should occur, with the fathers healthy genetic sequence being copied, he said.

But the technique will not work if both parents have two defective copies. Then, scientists would have to determine how to coax one gene to copy a synthetic DNA sequence, Dr. Mitalipov said.

Otherwise, he said, it should work with many diseases, a variety of different heritable mutations.

R. Alta Charo, a bioethicist at University of Wisconsin at Madison, who led the committee with Dr. Hynes, said the new discovery could also yield more information about causes of infertility and miscarriages.

She doubts a flood of couples will have edited children.

Nobodys going to do this for trivial reasons, Dr. Charo said. Sex is cheaper and its more fun than IVF, so unless youve got a real need, youre not going to use it.

Excerpt from:
In Breakthrough, Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation From Genes in Human Embryos - New York Times

From fantasy to possibility – The Statesman

A landmark study suggests that scientists could soon edit out genetic mutations to prevent babies being born with diseases.

The technique could eventually let doctors remove inherited conditions from embryos before they go on to become a child. That, in turn, opens the possibility for inherited diseases to be wiped out entirely, according to doctors. But experts have warned that urgent work is needed to answer the ethical and legal questions surrounding the work.

Though the scientists only edited out mutations that could cause diseases, it modified the nuclear DNA that sits right at the heart of the cell, which also influences personal characteristics such as intelligence, height, facial appearance and eye colour.

The breakthrough means that the possibility of germline genome editing has moved from future fantasy to the world of possibility, and the debate about its use, outside of fears about the safety of the technology, needs to run to catch up, said Professor Peter Braude from Kings College London.

Scientists warned that soon the public could demand such treatment and that the world might not be ready. Families with genetic diseases have a strong drive to find cures, said Yalda Jamshidi, reader in genomic medicine at St Georges, University of London.

Whilst we are just beginning to understand the complexity of genetic disease, gene-editing will likely become acceptable when its potential benefits, both to individuals and to the broader society, exceeds its risks. The new research, published in Nature, marks the first time the powerful Crispr-Cas9 tool has been used to fix mutations. The US study destroyed the embryos after just a few days and the work remains at an experimental stage. In the study, scientists fertilised donor eggs with sperm that included a gene that causes a type of heart failure.

As the eggs were fertilised, they also applied the gene-editing tool, which works like a pair of specific scissors and cuts away the defective parts of the gene. When those problematic parts are cut away, the cells can repair themselves with the healthy versions and so get rid of the mutation that causes the disease. Some 42 out of 58 embryos were fixed so that they didnt carry the mutation stopping a disease that usually has a 50 per cent chance of being passed on.

If those embryos had been allowed to develop into children, then they would no longer have carried the disease. That would stop them from being vulnerable to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and would save their children, too. Every generation on would carry this repair because weve removed the disease-causing gene variant from that familys lineage, said Dr Shoukhrat Mitalipov, from Oregon Health and Science University, who led the study. By using this technique, its possible to reduce the burden of this inheritable disease on the family and eventually the human population.

The heart problem is just one of more than 10,000 conditions that are caused by an error in the gene. The same tool could be used to cut out faults for all of those, and eventually be used to target cancer mutations. The work could lead to treatments that would be given to patients, once it becomes more efficient and safe. Using such a treatment on humans is illegal in both the US and the UK but some experts expect that law will soon be changed, and that the legal and ethical frameworks need to catch up with the technology. There is some suggestion that the editing work could take place in the UK.

Though using the research as treatment is illegal there as well as the US, the regulatory barriers are much higher in America and look unlikely to be changed. In the US, there are various regulations and restrictions on how embryos can be edited, including stipulations that such work cant be carried out with taxpayers money. UK regulators are more relaxed and liberal about those restrictions, leading to suggestions that it could eventually become the home of such work in the West.

The UK has become the first country that allows mitochondrial replacement therapy, another treatment that opponents warn could allow for the creation of designer babies. UK researchers can apply for a licence to edit human embryos in research, but offering it as a treatment is currently illegal, said a spokesperson for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which would regulate any such experiments.

Introducing new, controversial techniques is not just about developing the science gene editing would need to offer new options to couples at risk of having a child with a genetic disease, beyond current treatments like embryo testing. Our experience of introducing mitochondrial donation in the UK shows that high-quality public discussion about the ethics of new treatments, expert scientific advice and a robust regulatory system are crucial when considering new treatments of this kind.

Doctors said that any change in the law would have to strictly keep such treatment to being used for medical reasons, and not for designer babies that have other characteristics edited out. It may be that some countries never permit germline genome editing because of moral and ethical concerns, said Professor Joyce Harper from University College London. If the law in the UK was changed to allow genome editing, it would be highly regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, as is PGD, to ensure it is only used for medical reasons.

But that work has already received significant opposition. Dr David King, director of the Human Genetics Alert, which opposes all tampering with the human genome, said, If irresponsible scientists are not stopped, the world may soon be presented with a fait accompli of the first genetically-modified baby.

We call on governments and international organisations to wake up and pass an immediate global ban on creating cloned or GM babies, before it is too late. Professor Robin Lovell-Badge from the Francis Crick Institute said the research only appears to work when the father is carrying the defective gene, and that it would not work for more sophisticated alterations.

The possibility of producing designer babies, which is unjustified in any case, is now even further away, he said.

(The independent)

Read more:
From fantasy to possibility - The Statesman

Collaborative Co-Parenting and Heteronormativity: Recognising the Interests of Gay Fathers – Family Law

Philip Bremner,Lecturer, School of Law, University of Sussex

Keywords: same-sex parents - gay fathers - family law -assisted reproduction -procreative consciousness -multiple parents

Find out moreorrequest a free 1-week trialof Child and Family Law Quarterly. Please quote: 100482.

The article further argues that the lamentable lack of explicit judicial consideration of the interests of gay men involved in collaborative co-parenting reflects the gender-based disparity perpetuated by the parenthood provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. These provide for the recognition without court involvement of women-led, homonuclear families but not male-led parenting. Therefore, courts must be sensitive to this disparity by explicitly considering the procreative consciousness of gay men, as they currently do with the potential vulnerability of women-led families. Only in this way, will judicial reasoning reflect the various interests at stake in collaborative co-parenting arrangements rather than privileging a particular family form.

Read the original here:
Collaborative Co-Parenting and Heteronormativity: Recognising the Interests of Gay Fathers - Family Law