""Homo 3DNA-sis": Preparing The Way For Our Replacement?" Topic

link

If, as some opponents are claiming, a new species has been created …

If more are made and they end up breeding, could ostracism or fear drive them to try to supplant us old H. Sapiens?

Thought?

Dan

THIS can't go bad.

We will create a race of…. Very nice people.

I'm not sure it is a new species being created; even if two of these 'three parent' children married and had kids, those kids would have DNA from just two people (their parents), so they don't 'breed true' and hence can't be a true 'species'.

And even if it is, they would be completely physically and visually indistinguishable from us- you'd only 'know' if someone had 'three parents' by doing a DNA sequencing exercise on them, and their parents as well (or grandparents if they are 'second generation')…. And that seems like a lot of work to try to single people out for hate. Hard to get fired up against a minority that looks, thinks, acts just like you and whom you'd never notice if they sat next to you in the front of the bus. :)

-Will

So you'd be ok with having one as a daughter-in-law or som-in-law?

Very admirable.

Dan

> So you'd be ok with having one as a daughter-in-law or som-in-law?

Why wouldn't I be ok with it? As for a new species, this is not even close to it.

Um, yes, why wouldn't I be? I'd certainly prefer that to a debilitating hereditary disease my kid-in-law would suffer their entire life from.

And more to the point, unless this theoretical kid-in-law *told* us that they had 'three parents', we would have *no way of ever knowing* this had taken place, and hence would always be in the dark and never have any cause to be irrationally prejudiced in the first place. We wouldn't know, no-one else in town would know, the kid-in-law might not even know unless her parents told her. How are you going to get all worked up about it then?

-Will

You would not be able to tell by normal DNA testing as the third set is mitochondrial DNA which needs different testing.

x42

SPECTRE infiltrated this. They'll slip in a mod that makes them allergic to tea in order to destroy the economy…shhhh…Hail Hydra….BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Reminds me of what people used to say about European/African "mix" children, "Eurasians," etc., etc.

link

A bit of reading about mitochondria will reveal that the mitochondrial genome (currently) encodes ~40 genes. Most of the mitochondrial make up is determined by nuclear encoded genes (i.e. the initial parent).

Therefore, as the embryo grows and mitochondria increase in number the contribution of the 'third parent' will be proteins limited to mitochondrially encoded genes only. All other components that make up mitochondria will be determined by initial parent's genome.

What will happen, as Will points out, is that kids who would otherwise have highly debilitating disease caused my mutations in mitochondrial DNA will be healthy and essentially cured.

And will pose absolutely no possible threat to the child itself (like a latent autoimmune response*) or to the general gene pool, both in the short and long term?

Just wondering, since science hardly ever looks further than the next grant, funding or publishing opportunity.

Now, I wonder, why the social hostility against cloning then? Seems to be just as harmless, right?

* Cloned sheep Dolly died from a rare "retrovirus" complication:
link

Dan
PS. Personally, I've always felt that responsible parenting included avoiding having children if the children were guaranteed to suffer immensely from our own genetic contribution – almost borders on abuse, but that's just me. I don't expect anyone else to see it the same way, of course.

These folks are no different than the people who have had a bone marrow transplant, whose blood DNA is different from their regular cellular DNA.

These individuals have mitochondrial DNA from a healthy person, nucleic DNA from their biological parents. I'd be willing to bet that we could pull mitochondrial DNA from their Father in a couple years, or from their father's mother (who provided their father's mitochondrial DNA in the first place) today.

Dan,

Good question on immunogenicity. As the embryo will grow and develop into a child with 'third parent' inherited mitochondrially encoded genes the immune system will develop alongside the mitochondrially encoded proteins. They will 'belong' to the child, so, No, no immunogeneic response. The answer may be different if transplanting intact mitochondria into cells (for example using autologous transplants)

As for 'general gene pool'. These kids will not be differnt to the general population as the 'third parent' inherited mitochondra are naturally part of the pool.

Mitochondria, like the genome, has variation in DNA pools (Haplogroups) there is significant variation in these haplogrpoups in the normal population. So, when we discuss variation on these kids vs. the 'general pool its worth considereing th ewide variation in the 'general' population.

With respect to scientific and medical vision, I'd encourage you to look up some of the ethical discussions that have taken place around mitochondrial transplantation.

Dan

I generally love your posts and the gaming related ideas that you come up with. Your comments on this thread, though, imply that you haven't understood the topic you are discussing.

Given that children are likely to be born using this technique in the very near future, your "So you'd be ok with having one as a daughter-in-law or som-in-law?" comment is on the edge of offensive.

"Just wondering, since science hardly ever looks further than the next grant, funding or publishing opportunity."

Really? That's not just a rather sweeping generalization?

From the linked article…

"Scientists at a Food and Drug Administration meeting on the techniques last year warned that it could take decades to determine whether they are safe."

"Scientists around the world … have raised many cautions about the risks to any children that might result from these techniques," said Marcy Darnovsky, director of the Center for Genetics and Society, an American advocacy group. "We urge women who might consider undergoing this biologically extreme procedure to carefully investigate."

As a scientist it's good to know that I and my colleagues hardly ever look beyond the next grant, funding or publication opportunity. I'm not saying there's none but very few of the colleagues I know would fit that description.

Just a little on the edge of offensive, no? Nevertheless I will assume that the comment was merely rhetorical excess.

These folks are no different than the people who have had a bone marrow transplant, whose blood DNA is different from their regular cellular DNA.

EXACTLY. Are we supposed to rail against bone marrow recipients as some sort of 'freaks of nature'?

And will pose absolutely no possible threat to the child itself (like a latent autoimmune response*) or to the general gene pool, both in the short and long term?

No, since the DNA would be inherently part of the cells of the body, so there's no chance to 'rejection'. And zero threat to the gene pool, since that mitochondrial DNA is already *part* of the gene pool.

-Will

BaldLea: "Given that children are likely to be born using this technique in the very near future, your "So you'd be ok with having one as a daughter-in-law or som-in-law?" comment is on the edge of offensive."

Only if easily offended. Others here commented and debated back passionately but rationally, without sounding offended.

Being that many are often quick to comment on things they feel will never happen to them, I felt that pushing the subject closer to home would prompt a more careful moderate reconsideration. And maybe, just maybe, make people understand some of the normal objections that might be out there before putting this new science inside an instant infallibility bubble.

Wow! Unbelievable.

Dan
PS. And yes, I am not fully aware of all the issues on this topic. THAT'S why I'm asking about it!!!

Being that many are often quick to comment on things they feel will never happen to them, I felt that pushing the subject closer to home would prompt a more careful moderate reconsideration.

That reconsideration being 'yes, in fact I do have a totally irrational fear of my child marrying someone who was subject to a cutting-edge medical procedure as an embryo'? Yikes, thank but no thanks. I stick to my original response.

-Will

The danger to the population as whole would come if there were only 3 or 4 'donors' chosen for the Mitochondrial donations.

In theory, some hidden genetic defect in one of these donors could then propagate more extensively thru the gene pool and become more prevalent than would otherwise be the case.

Of course, since Natural Selection has all but stopped, this is really no different than someone with known genetic disorders choosing (yes – in some cases it's a conscious choice) to have 6 kids.

Thanks Will, for proving my point.

Dan

Sorry, Dan. You and I go way back, but I have to agree with BaldLea on this one.

Your comments on the procedure definitely come across as misinformed at best. A new species? "If they end up breeding"?

"Would you want one marrying your daughter?" is such a dog-whistle, freighted with literally centuries of negative connotations. I'm genuinely surprised that you used it. That's hardly the way to "prompt a more careful moderate reconsideration."

Shadoe01 has already rebutted your crack about science, so I won't repeat his points.

You did get one thing right, though, regarding your own comments: "Wow! Unbelievable!"

"Would you want one marrying your daughter?"

That was intentionally asked, and I've already explained why.

Anyway, let's see how trendy and abused the procedure gets. And what serious side effects (if any) are discovered in the next 10-20 years. Why not wait a generation to find out how they grow up, before embracing it completely?

But who am I kidding. Even if (God forbid) those poor children suffer any horrible unforeseen consequences (just like the jury is still out on cloning), I feel like I'll still be viewed here as some sort of insensitive bigot with no right to worry and bring up questions about an issue that I'm having difficulty understanding. At least that's the feeling I'm getting.

I get it. I'm a caveman.

Dan

I'm not offended. I was just pointing out that your comments would probably be offensive to some people.

jpattern2 more eloquently expressed what I was thinking.

Why not wait a generation to find out how they grow up, before embracing it completely?

Well, if it's any consolation, the bill only authorizes experimentation in this field, it does NOT give blanket permission for anyone to go ahead and just do it. So there's plenty of more years of research ahead before this is actually tried 'in the field', and then it will be years before it becomes reliable and cost effective enough to become widespread.

And we *still* won't be able to tell who had this procedure as a baby from those that did not. ;)

-Will

In history books he's the kind of poster who used to call replicants "skin jobs".

Will,

Good. Going slow, and further research is good. There are children's lives involved.

BadLea: "In history books he's the kind of poster who used to call replicants 'skin jobs'".

That's me! Poor JR Sebastian might agree, after he helped them.

Dan

> Good. Going slow, and further research is good. There are children's lives involved.

this cuts both ways. What we rarely acknowledge is the children that can be helped by such procedures. The "bogeyman" of genetics is vastly overblown.

Not to say that there has to be TONS of testing before I would want to see this on a human but that goes for ANY procedure of any kind – even something as "simple" as a new makeup.

Not 3 people's DNA, but 2.001. The mitochondrial DNA repair uses only 1/10 of 1% of the donor DNA.

But who am I kidding.

Martyr alert!

That's me! :)

Dan

Sure seems like it would take the fun out of it all, doing it the old fashion way. ;)

Seems like good developments.

I know a few people with hereditary health conditions and it would be great for future generations not to have these.

To play the game….

Another species? As mentioned above not even close. Even if such 2.001 people can't reproduce with 2.0 people they aren't likely to be able to reproduce with each other. Plus it's all DNA from the same pre-existing human gene pool. So not a separate species….worst case is a sterile individual.

Ok with a kid-in-law? I'd judge that on character not DNA. If said in-law is of good character I'd consider the right to be accepting. Not admirable….just the right thing to do.

As for ethics, if by the science comment what's meant is that it's not a question for scientists alone, you're right….that's why the decision was by the British parliament – a democratic institution – and not by a group of scientists. FYI – not offended, just pointing out that's hardly the way to begin a reasoned exchange of views. Presumably you'd want to hear the view of geneticists but, then again, maybe not.

FYI – 2.001 people are already here through a process called cytoplasmic transfer to treat infertility due damaged mitochondria.

And Dolly didn't die of a rare disease. It is, after all, a contagious disease that can devastate herds. Impossible to link the death to the cloning. Plus 'retrovirus' refers to the process by which the virus replicates. It's not 'retro' as we might use it normally. Info on the disease…

PDF link

Cloning for people? It's not safe for one thing. So that takes the question off the table.

Should this be done? Caution is warranted but like everything else we need to weigh the benefits with the risks. Anyone who's had cancer is familiar with that trade off. Anyway, if people are born thus I will treat them with respect as equals.

Likely that this will happen somewhere. Even if it's not allowed or restricted in our countries people will go somewhere else where it's not regulated or forbidden. There are lots of places like that. That's human nature…

Personal view – if we can safely eliminate terrible genetic diseases why would we not do so. Extraordinary efforts to treat infertility or barriers to becoming parents? I don't know. I don't want to judge the pain of other people.

I'd be more concerned by the unnecessary return of measles and the people who helped make it happen.

No kidding, TS. Anti-vaxxers are a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Two points, and I'm done.

1. The procedure is about as genetically engineering related as having a third person transfuse blood to a Rhesus positive baby in the womb. Which is done regularly.

2. The irony is the so-called "anachronistic, backwards-looking" House Of Lords proposed this be legalized last week, and the House of Commons ( Elected MPs ) voted on it this week, after months of mind-numbing debate before the Lords got handed it and approved it. Then again, several of those peers are experts in medicine and science, unlike the shower of lawyers and accountants that make up the Lower House.

As a famous researcher leadeer once said "We're done here."

As I understand the technology, it may be possible to use the biological-father's mitochondrial DNA.

It's easier to use a donated egg that doesn't have the mitochondrial issues, and plonk bio-mom's nucleus into it and then have bio-dad's sperm fertilize the egg normally.

But it appears to be possible to use the biological-father's mitochondrial DNA in place of the biological-mother's. Harder and riskier to do, because you'd need to make sure you got ALL of the damaged mitochondria out of the egg or you'd still have problems, but totally within the realm of the possible.

Some people just freak right the out whenever you mention "DNA". It's just as bad as "the R-word" (radiation)… *facepalm*

Not sure that taking all the damaged mitochondria from a cell would be possible.

To do it, you'd need to almost literally disassemble the cell.

Guess nucleus replacement is no easy task, but the alternative sounds at least an order of magnitude harder.

Pitchforks! get yer pitchforks! And don't forget your torches!
Ya can't have a monster-hunting mob without torches! Getcher torches right here!

Not sure that taking all the damaged mitochondria from a cell would be possible.

To do it, you'd need to almost literally disassemble the cell.

Guess nucleus replacement is no easy task, but the alternative sounds at least an order of magnitude harder.

Would depend on how good your microscope is, how easy it would be to see the mitochondria in the cell to be removed. If you can see all of the mitochondria, then you can remove them. And we have developed optical microscopes that can image individual molecules, well below the diffraction limit.

Assuming that a cell can survive for a few minutes without any mitochondria in it, of course.

Oh, and CC? Didn't you hear that they'd found 'Eve'? They did a mitochondrial DNA sequence and found that all the mitochondria in the human species came from one source. One woman. Some people have damaged mitochondria (like those in need of this procedure to be able to have kids survive past early childhood), but their undamaged mDNA shows a single female ancestor way, way back in history.

(Trying to imagine the court fight over 3-way child support payments…)

Can't be any more acrimonious than a 2-way fight, and I've seen a few in my time.

I recently saw on the news that a Lesbian couple divorced (or something like that) and the man that had provided a, biological sample, shall we say – was included in the child support since it was done outside of a licensed clinic. So these kinds of things are already happening. I have also heard of cases being brought on sperm donors (using a clinic) but all of those I have heard of have been dismissed – still a pain to have to get a lawyer, etc…