Groundbreaking Experiment Creates Life Without Fertilizing Eggs

[Jonny]

Groundbreaking Experiment Creates Life Without Fertilizing Eggs – RealClearLife

Turns out, sperm, not eggs, are the key to life.

 

[entropie]

Excellent, first steps on the way to get rid of the womans are taken...

 

[PeaceBaby]

Interesting research. Eggs were needed though at this point to create the mitotic cell.

"There are two types of cell: "meiotic" reproductive cells (eggs and sperm), and "mitotic" cells which include most of the tissues and organs in our bodies.

Mammal reproduction requires a sperm and egg to fuse, creating an embryo.

But instead of using a meiotic egg cell to produce their mouse pups, the researchers used a type of mitotic cell called a parthenogenote.

These are very early-stage, single-celled embryos that form without fertilization – in this case by chemically activating a mouse egg.

Just before the parthenogenotes divided into two cells, they were injected with sperm nuclei to fertilize them.

The resulting pups' survival rate was a quarter that of other mice.

For now, though, the team still need eggs to create their parthenogenotes."​

Source: Who says you need an egg to create an embryo?

 

[entropie]

We already hve alternative sources for "eggs"

 

[OrangeAppled]

It brings to mind this old article I read about how not all ova released are capable of becoming life, even if fertilized. It is like there is some kind of screening going on in the woman's body, something that gets missed in the dish with IVF.
The Good Egg | DiscoverMagazine.com

They argue that the fate of an embryo depends on the way the egg organizes itself, and that polarity in the egg can ordain either a successful or failed pregnancy before conception.

...the success of the embryo may have less to do with embryonic genes than with maternal proteins passed on by the mother, and less to do with the embryo’s DNA than with the maternal dowry the egg brings to conception.

...it raises the possibility that some popular IVF techniques might have subtle but long-term health implications for children conceived in a dish.

Hertig suspected that there was a very early commitment by embryonic cells to become either a fetus or the placenta.

As of now, there seems to be health/survival issues for the eggless babies too.... I wonder if it is really for any greater good to have people produce children who are unable to do it naturally.

 

[Cellmold]

In some ways I look forward to a world without reproduction in the normal activity.

Think of all that could be accomplished without the distraction that is the urge to procreate. Assuming we could stop the urge without reducing passions for other things.

I don't like to be too Darwinian about this, though, as it could just be something else essential lost along the way, burnt on the pyre of the illusion of control. But certainly a degree of control over global populations might have it's benefits as well as negatives.

Inconsiderate procreation is just as much an infringement after all, as having the freedom to procreate whenever taken away from you.

Social convincing and the application of shame might be the most reasonable middle ground.

One of the main issues in the modern world is rampant birth rates by people who cannot possibly (or are highly unlikely to) achieve the resources to support what they create, ironically creating inequality and infrastructural instability in the process, while complaining that there isn't enough for them to survive on.

It's irresponsible and dangerous, but as legislation against it Infringes on its status as an essential human right, it becomes hard to challenge and change.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

In some ways I look forward to a world without reproduction in the normal activity.

Think of all that could be accomplished without the distraction that is the urge to procreate. Assuming we could stop the urge without reducing passions for other things.

I don't like to be too Darwinian about this, though, as it could just be something else essential lost along the way. But certainly a degree of control over global populations might have it's benefits as well as negatives.

Inconsiderate procreation is just as much an infringement after all, as having the freedom to procreate whenever.

Social convincing and the application of shame might be the most reasonable middle ground.

I think social convincing is the best anyone can do. Otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and it's a slippery slope toward a Eugenic system of who is "allowed" to procreate.

China tried something to control it's populations. On paper, seemed to make sense but cultural bias/sexism messed that up. Now they are in another mess.

While I agree with you, collectively we don't give enough thought to having children, I don't see any enforcements or infringements upon this decision as a positive. Many more negatives.

 

[entropie]

In some ways I look forward to a world without reproduction in the normal activity.

Think of all that could be accomplished without the distraction that is the urge to procreate. Assuming we could stop the urge without reducing passions for other things.

I don't like to be too Darwinian about this, though, as it could just be something else essential lost along the way, burnt on the pyre of the illusion of control. But certainly a degree of control over global populations might have it's benefits as well as negatives.

Inconsiderate procreation is just as much an infringement after all, as having the freedom to procreate whenever taken away from you.

Social convincing and the application of shame might be the most reasonable middle ground.

One of the main issues in the modern world is rampant birth rates by people who cannot possibly (or are highly unlikely to) achieve the resources to support what they create, ironically creating inequality and infrastructural instability in the process, while complaining that there isn't enough for them to survive on.

It's irresponsible and dangerous, but as legislation against it Infringes on its status as an essential human right, it becomes hard to challenge and change.

Thoughts like that make me a big fan of the vote against scientists to ever become politicians .

 

[EcK]

Groundbreaking Experiment Creates Life Without Fertilizing Eggs – RealClearLife

Turns out, sperm, not eggs, are the key to life.

Yep, the ancient cultures knew that, that's why they'd often make boys drink cum to become men in the eye of the tribe.


Or maybe they were just pedophiles.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Another step toward the singularity. Eeeeexcellent

 

[Ingrid in grids]

Another step toward the singularity. Eeeeexcellent

Eggggsellent?

Soon enough we will be breeding like fish and reptiles, who naturally breed via pathogenesis.

The research still has a long way to go, but this has really exciting implications for assisting the breeding of endangered species.

So cool to see developmental biology research featured in the news.

 

[Forever]

Dumb question: Where do they get the embryo from?

 

[Ingrid in grids]

Dumb question: Where do they get the embryo from?

They used a mouse oocyte, so a regular egg from a mother.

They basically "tricked" the oocyte into thinking it was an embryo, which is a process usually kickstarted by fertilisation. As a result, the egg, which is a haploid cell will go on to divide and multiply as if it's a normal embryo.

Before the first division, they injected the egg with sperm before the first division, and a quarter of those that were "fertilised" this way went on to survive.

Because of the timing that they injected the sperm, it should follow that, in theory, you could create offspring from cells sourced elsewhere in the body, providing that half the chromosomes are removed.

 

[Forever]

They used a mouse oocyte, so a regular egg from a mother.

They basically "tricked" the oocyte into thinking it was an embryo, which is a process usually kickstarted by fertilisation. As a result, the egg, which is a haploid cell will go on to divide and multiply as if it's a normal embryo.

Before the first division, they injected the egg with sperm before the first division, and a quarter of those that were "fertilised" this way went on to survive.

Because of the timing that they injected the sperm, it should follow that, in theory, you could create offspring from cells sourced elsewhere in the body, providing that half the chromosomes are removed.

Interesting! Thank you for the explanation.