 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Spermless Pregnancy
|
|
|
Subject: Spermless Pregnancy - The Final Frontier? From: SINSULL Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:06 AM To keep it musical: "Why can't a woman Be more like a man?" Sorry guys. We really don't need you anymore. Of course someone still has to pump my gas....
Australian Research Fertilizes Eggs Without Sperm Reuters Jul 10 2001 5:19AM ADELAIDE (Reuters) - Australian researchers said on Tuesday they may have found a way to fertilize an egg with cells from any parts of the body, rather than sperm, in a new study which offers hope to infertile men and even lesbian couples. Australian infertility scientist Orly Lacham-Kaplan said early research on mice could produce a breakthrough for many men who have no sperm or sperm-making cells. "This is the group for which this kind of technique probably will be very helpful," she said. "A lot of (these) people would like to father their own biological children." Lacham-Kaplan said the research, if successful in humans, also theoretically could allow babies to be born without any input from men, although she admitted that such an outcome could open up an ethical can of worms. "If, as a technology, it would be used as a treatment for infertile couples then I would accept it very well," she told Reuters in a telephone interview. "However I think we need to draw the line where it is used, and I believe a lot of ethical groups would draw the line." Lacham-Kaplan's research unit at the Monash University's Institute of Reproduction and Development in Melbourne has so far been able to fertilize mice eggs with somatic cells from the non-reproductive parts of the animals' bodies. The process has effectively "mimicked" fertilization with sperm, allowing the team to grow embryos in laboratory cultures. The next critical test in the study is to transfer hundreds of those embryos into surrogate mice mothers, to see if they can live and flourish. "Then we have a long process of testing those pups, (to see) whether they will be born, whether they are normal, whether they are capable of reproducing, and if the offspring from those pups will be normal as well," she said. "If we get live, healthy babies out of those embryos, then we'll say 'yes' this is a possibility of fertilizing an egg with a somatic cell," she said. The mice experiments were expected to take up to a year. If they are successful -- and Lacham-Kaplan admits to some doubts -- then it will be possible to experiment on humans, although where such trials could take place would be limited. Australia, like many other countries, has banned all experiments involving somatic cell transfer into human eggs, but the United States could be an option, she said. "At the moment I feel there will be more problems than success, but if it is a success, it will be quite a good surprise," she said. "It would be an incredible breakthrough."
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: MMario Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:15 AM hmmmmm- interesting - a logical progression from the various cloning experiments - but somatic cells are diploid, the egg is haploid - which might mean a sterile, triploid offspring (tho' I doubt if such would be viable) - unless they somehow either double the chromosomes of the egg first or halve the somatic cell's... I wonder if they will find out that the offspring are actually clones rather then fertilized embryos |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Mrrzy Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:23 AM Interesting indeed, and a good point about the diploidy. I remember some old research where they fused 2 sperm or 2 eggs, to see what would happen. Here they aren't saying whose cells were mingled with the egg, a man's or a woman's, and yes it should matter, no? Anyway, what they got with 2 sperm was structure with no material, and with 2 eggs, material with no structure. And there is a lot of research showing that the identical allele on different (from the male v. from the female) members of one pair of chromosomes would have different actions, that the genes from Mom are not the same as the same genes, but from Dad. Ferry interestink. But no way would anything mixed from 2 organisms be a clone, in fact, all the cloning research to date is misnamed, they aren't cloning, they are taking one cell's nucleus and another cell's rest-of-cell, and the end result is NOT identical to either, it is one individual's nuclear DNA and another individual's mitochondrial DNA. But they are ignoring the mitochondrial DNA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Les from Hull Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:31 AM Does that mean that we men are all now redundant? We'll get our coats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: MMario Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:36 AM Mrzzy - true re: "clone" - what I meant tho' was that perhaps the embryos that are resulting are the result of the inserted nucleus - and the haploid dna of the egg nucleus "drops" out in the first division - much as during the formation of the polar bodies (There is a similar thing that occasionaly happens in naturaly occuring triploid plants - such as apples) This would result in what they are currently terming "clones" - an embroyo resulting from the nucleus of a somatic cell - though with extra-nuclear dna and rna from the donor egg. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: SINSULL Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:38 AM Awwwww! Don't go away mad Les... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Noreen Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:10 PM I read this through a couple of times, but it doesn't make it clear at all what cells were being used. Sinsull, were there any references with the article to link to the original? I'd be interested to know more. Mrrzy, the mitochondrial DNA has no influence on the development of the organism, from what I remember, but remains within the mitochondria, so is a separarte issue. I take your point though about the 'clone' definition. Noreen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: MMario Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:14 PM Noreen - they don't actually say which cells are being used - other then that they are non-reproductive. The cells used for the fertilization (proxy sperm). the ovum remains a reproductive cell of course. Does that make sense? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Mrrzy Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:15 PM Yes, I'm quibbling, but it bugs me when they say they cloned a sheep, when they didn't in the biological sense of cloning. I guess once again a jargon term has been taken into a real language where it gets its own meaning... like English did with many French words... Also, from what I read, the effects of extranuclear DNA on development are completely unknown, not known to be completely absent. Yes, it remains in the mitochondria, but mitochondria have a lot to do with how a cell grows and functions... wish I knew how to do this in fine print, since it is a nitpicky aside. I still wonder who's cells they are thinking of using... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Noreen Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:26 PM Yes, MMario, and as you did, I wondered how the diploid/haploid issue would be resolved. Mrrz, I understand your quibble- I feel the same when people take about being 'allergic' to something, when it's not a true allergic response they mean. And try this to make fine print: < small > fine print < /small > Noreen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Kim C Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:43 PM Just because you can, don't mean you ought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: SINSULL Date: 10 Jul 01 - 12:52 PM Sorry Noreen. This is from Reuters. There were no further links. However a Google search on Orly Lacham-Kaplan turns up a number of articles. If I find anything, I will post it here. Scary thought or interesting prospect - a race of sterile humans relying on test tubes to produce an embryo? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Grab Date: 10 Jul 01 - 03:25 PM On the BBC News site here. Apparently, the extra chromosomes are actually removed chemically. Looks like the question is whether the foetus can still develop normally, if there's anything specific to male cells that's required. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: MMario Date: 10 Jul 01 - 03:44 PM Okay - and I remeber reading some articles that they are begining to suspect that extrachromosomal materials from the sperm (which they denied even existed until recently) may have various effects. Among other things, it is the only reason they can think of that would explain the correlation between age of father at conception and incidence of Alzhiemer's when there is no evidence of chromosomal damage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: GUEST,Karen Date: 10 Jul 01 - 05:09 PM I'm for the old-fashioned way. If I'm going to go through nine months of no alcohol, increased weight, nausea and a multitude of new aches and pains then, by God, I'd better at least be allowed to remember fondly the event that caused it! I say we keep the men around!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Mrs.Duck Date: 10 Jul 01 - 05:19 PM What all of the hassle and none of the fun!! I'm with Karen - well actually I'm with Geoff but you know what I mean! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: GUEST,Kernow John Date: 10 Jul 01 - 06:38 PM Spaw or Art Where are you when we need you? Regards KJ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: DougR Date: 10 Jul 01 - 06:43 PM Thank God for ladies like Karen and Mrs. Duck! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: mousethief Date: 10 Jul 01 - 06:55 PM Amen, Doug, Amen! Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Noreen Date: 10 Jul 01 - 07:10 PM I'm purely interested in the technical side of this (thanks for the link, Graham)- I'll look out for the New Scientist. Anyone know if it's online? Men do have other uses... :0) Noreen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: GUEST,Eclipse Date: 10 Jul 01 - 07:21 PM The diploid haploid issue could conceiveablely be resolved in one of two ways 1) stimulating the diploid to divide without replicating the DNA (changing the diploid) 2) using a DNAless cell as the proxy sperm and stimulating the haploid cell to miss divide & become diploid (not unlike how identical twins come about). Having not read the article I'm not sure which is the more likely, but both of the above methods have been used in research situations. -Eclipse |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: MarkS Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:04 PM A scarey thought is what would happen to future generations without the influence of gene pooling and variation. We might become an entirely new species, not quite human. O brave new world. Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: MMario Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:12 PM The article says they use "chemical means" to reduce the chromosome count. no specifics |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Burke Date: 10 Jul 01 - 09:12 PM It's the ethical part that bothers me. The articles says: "If, as a technology, it would be used as a treatment for infertile couples then I would accept it very well," she told Reuters in a telephone interview. "However I think we need to draw the line where it is used, and I believe a lot of ethical groups would draw the line." The thing about technology is that once it's possible, it's pretty hard to limit to only the ethical uses; as if there would be a consensus on what the ethical use is. When it comes to some of these reproductive 'advances' I border on being a Luddite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Bill D Date: 10 Jul 01 - 11:22 PM you mean we DIDN'T spring forth from the head of Zeus?. (it is fascinating that so many here are conversant in this...we are quite a group) (I do know that triploid is NOT a good thing...we lost a baby in the 3rd trimester after an amnio showed the problem...the condition is so uncommon, the slide reader didn't know what it was...the hospital said they only knew of one case of full-term triploid,,,and it didn't survive but a few days) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: paddymac Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:05 AM A part of the fertilization process is a poorly defined thing usually referred to as "activation". Thirty years ago, as a young grad student, the best example of this phenomenon was in a species of poeciliid fish (live-bearers, or ovoviviparous cyprinodonts) from the Gulf coast area of mexico. In "the wild", it existed only as females, but they could reproduce by "activation" brought on by sperm delivery by a male of either of the two species thought to have been their "progenitor" species. There was apparently no addition of genetic materials from the "activating" male to the developing embryos. I must hasten to add that I am no longer "current" on the literature, and more "advanced" explanations my have come along in the interim. Fascinating stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Metchosin Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:35 AM gee, I always thought this was called parthenogenesis. When I was young, we were told in Biology that this sometimes occurred in chickens, especially when they we exposed to a rooster but couldn't have contact, I started worrying about the consequences of my lustful imaginings at that point. Sorry, some females may not need men, other than to pump gas, thankfully some of still have other pumping requirements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Amergin Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:03 AM just so long as I can still be used as a pleasure slave...I don't care... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Noreen Date: 11 Jul 01 - 04:18 AM Very interesting, paddymac. Yes Bill (thanks for sharing that), we're a wide-ranging bunch here... but why is this subject more acceptable than Pink Floyd? (You know I'm not getting at you, just wondering... *smile*) Noreen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Noreen Date: 11 Jul 01 - 04:33 AM Metchosin, parthenogenesis is asexual reproduction and occurs reasonably commonly in nature, aphids spring to mind, though they do occasionally resort to sexual reproduction, to make life more interesting... I wasn't aware that this happened in hens- they can produce fertile eggs which are clones of the mother? Noreen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: pavane Date: 11 Jul 01 - 05:42 AM I read recently (New Scientist, I think) that in many species, parthenogenesis is actually triggered by a virus, which has hijacked the reproductive process to its own ends (the offspring carry the virus too) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: ermintrudeclaire Date: 11 Jul 01 - 06:06 AM I am with the 'technically OK but not half as much fun' school of thought! I always found getting preg was a lot too easy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: GUEST,LynnT Date: 11 Jul 01 - 09:55 AM I remember reading recent articles on correlation between father's age and mental illness in the kids -- but I thought it was schizophrenia, not altzheimer's. Anyone know more details? LynnT |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: SINSULL Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:30 PM Where is Spaw when I need him???? It was a joke. A double entendre. A not so vague insinuation at something other than "pumping gas". I give up. When did you guys get so defensive? This is safe territory. We love you here - every hairy one of you.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: DougR Date: 11 Jul 01 - 01:44 PM Unhairy ones too, Sinsull? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: SINSULL Date: 11 Jul 01 - 04:33 PM How are you at pumping gas????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Bill D Date: 11 Jul 01 - 04:41 PM Noreen, I don't think I will clutter this thread with my opinion on why certain BS & off-topic stuff can be defended more easily than Pink Floydisms...*smile*...it is not a 30 second typing exercise. Let me think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Metchosin Date: 11 Jul 01 - 04:44 PM You're correct Noreen, parthenogenesis, a form of reproduction in which an unfertilized egg develops into an adult animal, usually occurs in what we consider "lower" life forms, such as rotifers, some gastropod molluscs and some crustaceans.
However, in 1953 the USDA reported the first case of advanced natural parthenogenesis in birds; spontaneous development of embryos without normal fertilization. I have no idea if they are clones of the mother (I would assume they would be ) or as in the case of honeybees, the unfertilized egg would produce a drone or male. Interesting, pavane, that parthenogenesis has been found to be triggered by a virus, clever little things aren't they? Still it doesn't explain why, as I was told years ago, that this occurred more often when the hen was exposed to the sight of a rooster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: MMario Date: 11 Jul 01 - 04:48 PM it could be partially because egg production in general is increased when a hen has sight of a rooster (even though no contact) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: DougR Date: 11 Jul 01 - 07:37 PM Well, SINSULL, I haven't pumped any lately, but I think it would come back to me! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Jul 01 - 08:02 PM Talking about cloning - here's one I wrote earlier (at the time Dolly the sheep got into the headlines):
They'll clone you cos they like the way you run,
And they'll clone you cos you are the Greast Dictator,
And they'll clone you cos you are as rich as Croesus,
And they'll clone you cos you've got such funny eyes.
And they'll clone you cos they like your woolly hair, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: SINSULL Date: 11 Jul 01 - 08:03 PM Well Doug. They tell me it's like riding a bicycle...you never forget. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: DougR Date: 12 Jul 01 - 04:37 PM I devoutly hope "they" are right, SINSULL! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: mousethief Date: 12 Jul 01 - 05:56 PM Shouldn't they really be working on pregnancyless sperm? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Bill D Date: 12 Jul 01 - 06:28 PM LOL...exactly MT!...you want to be rich? perfect that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: DougR Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:46 AM Isn't that sort of what a vascectomy does? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: mousethief Date: 13 Jul 01 - 03:45 AM Well, actually, Doug, that's spermless semen. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: SINSULL Date: 13 Jul 01 - 08:46 AM Anything I say at this point will get me in trouble with the "Pump Your Own Gas" contingent. But it is cruel and unjust to keep feeding me these openings. SINS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: GUEST,Karen Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:01 PM Don't even mention the V word to me! I can't tell you the number of times my husband has said that he needs to get that procedure done then just leaves it at that! I've brought home the brochures and talked to my doctor but Mr. Wimpasaurus can't seem to get up enough nerve to get himself into the doctor's office. Men! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: mousethief Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:06 PM Shoot, it ain't so bad. Tell him to email me. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: GUEST,Karen Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:10 PM Oh, please, Alex! It wouldn't help. He's ALLLLL talk and no action concerning that particular procedure. We have plenty of friends who have been through it and all claim it's no big deal (...the procedure, that is!). Thanks for the offer though. I've even tried the "if you don't go have a doctor do it, I'll do it myself" routine. It doesn't phase him, the wussy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: mousethief Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:13 PM Get some of his biggest, buffest guy friends to just hog-tie him and drag him in. At least to a consultation appointment. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: paddymac Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:21 PM The "V" word ? Well, it does take the worry out of being close. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: GUEST,Karen Date: 13 Jul 01 - 12:24 PM But probably not real good for a pub name, huh Paddymac? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: DougR Date: 13 Jul 01 - 03:36 PM Then have him call me AND Alex! As one who went through that "terrible" procedure over 40 years ago, I can vouch for the fact that there's nothing to it. Some have had problems with it, but only a very small percentage of those who have it done. DougR P.S. Alex, I suppose now that we are out of the closet, we should be prepared for the thousands of PMs that will likely be forthcoming. **BBG** |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: GUEST,Karen Date: 13 Jul 01 - 05:23 PM Speaking of that consultation appointment, my girlfriend's husband got that far. When they explained the procedure he got real light-headed and had to sit down with his head between his knees. She never got him back in for the actual appointment! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: DougR Date: 13 Jul 01 - 05:31 PM That probably happens often, Karen, and he probably would have reacted the same way were he investigating the possibility of having his tonsils removed. Some men will encourage their wives to submit to a far more dangerous procedure than the "V" job, because they are too self-centered to submit themselves to an out-patient procedure. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: Don Firth Date: 13 Jul 01 - 07:06 PM There are worse ways than in a doctor's office: The following is a nominee for the 2000 Darwin Award (for people who do something so stupid that they are either killed or something else happens to them so they can and no longer pass on their genes) -- it didn't make it, because they were unable to confirm the story and suspect that it might be an urban myth. nevertheless:--- A 24-year-old supermarket shoplifter stuffed a pair of live lobsters in his pants and sprinted for the door, but he never had a chance. The violated crustaceans brought the thief to his knees in front of startled cashiers when they fastened their powerful claws around his delicate parts. Doctors were able to remove the animals with pliers. They say the thief will fully recover -- except for one small detail. "It was a do-it-yourself vasectomy." This man's daring supermarket exploits make him one of the few Darwin Award winners to live to tell the tale. The supermarket manager declined to press charges, saying the culprit has already "gone through enough pain (to) learn his lesson." A lobster down the pants could be used as a last resort. Don Firth
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: SINSULL Date: 13 Jul 01 - 10:39 PM Is that anything like crabs? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: mg Date: 13 Jul 01 - 11:19 PM I was under the impression that the procedure for women actually was much safer. If it was even in the ball park, I would have it done rather than ask a man to have something done. I think all the information is not in on either sex, but the situation is much more complicated in the man...continuous production etc. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Spermless Pregnancy From: DougR Date: 13 Jul 01 - 11:42 PM mary garvey, don't know where you are getting your information, but it is directly opposite what I have been led to believe. Since my procedure took place forty years ago, there may be much less risky ways for women than there were then, but I kind of doubt it. I can assure you, though, that with a man, the procedure is not complicated. DougR |