Jump to content
The World News Media

World's first baby born from new procedure using DNA of three people


Guest Nicole

Recommended Posts

  • Guest

Experts welcome news of successful mitochondrial transfer but caution against operating in countries beyond regulations

2550.jpg

 Dr John Zhang with the world’s first baby born using DNA from three people. The baby is reported to be healthy. Photograph: New Hope Fertility Center

The world’s first baby to be born from a new procedure that combines the DNA of three people appears to be healthy, according to doctors in the US who oversaw the treatment.

The baby was born on 6 April after his Jordanian parents travelled to Mexico where they were cared for by US fertility specialists.

Doctors led by John Zhang, from the New Hope Fertility Center in New York, decided to attempt the controversial procedure of mitochondrial transfer in the hope that it would give the couple a healthy child.

While many experts welcomed news of the birth, some raised concerns that the doctors had left the US to perform the procedure beyond the reach of any regulatory framework and without publishing details of the treatment.

Speaking to the New Scientist, Zhang said he went to Mexico where “there are no rules” and insisted that doing so was right. “To save lives is the ethical thing to do,” he said.

Mitochondrial transfer was legalised in the UK in 2015 but so far no other country has introduced laws to permit the technique. The treatment is aimed at parents who have a high risk of passing on debilitating and even fatal genetic diseases to their children.

4256.jpg

 The mitochondrial transfer technique is aimed at those with a high risk of passing on debilitating diseases. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA

 

The boy’s mother carries genes for the fatal Leigh syndrome, which harms the developing nervous system. The faults affect the DNA in mitochondria, the tiny battery-like structures that provide cells with energy, and are passed down from mother to child.

Ten years after the couple married, the wife became pregnant but she lost the baby in the first of four miscarriages. The couple had a baby girl in 2005 who died at the age of six, and later, a second child who lived for only eight months. Tests on the wife showed that while she was healthy, about one-quarter of her mitochondria carried the genes for Leigh syndrome.

When the couple approached Zhang for help, he decided to try the mitochondrial transfer procedure. He took the nucleus from one of the woman’s eggs and inserted it into a healthy donor’s egg that had had its own nucleus removed. He then fertilised the egg with the husband’s sperm.

The US team created five embryos but only one developed normally. This was implanted into the mother and the baby was born nine months later.

The baby is not the first child to be born with DNA from three people. In the 1990s, fertility doctors tried to boost the quality of women’s eggs by injecting cytoplasm, the cellular material that contains mitochondria, from healthy donor eggs. The procedure led to several babies being born with DNA from the parents plus the healthy donor. Some of the children developed genetic disorders and the procedure was banned.

Speaking about the latest case, Dusko Ilic, a stem cell scientist at King’s College London, said: “Without much ado, it appears the first mitochondrial donation baby was born three months ago. This was an ice-breaker. The baby is reportedly healthy. Hopefully, this will tame the more zealous critics, accelerate the field, and we will witness soon the birth of the first mitochondrial donation baby in the UK.”

But some questions remained, he said. “By performing the treatment in Mexico, the team were not subject to the same stringent regulation as some other countries would insist on. We have no way of knowing how skilful or prepared they were, and this may have been a risky thing to do.

“On the other hand, we have what appears to be a healthy baby. Because it was successful, fewer questions will be raised, but it is important that we still ask them.

“Was this the first time ever they performed the technique or were there other attempts and they are reporting this one because it was successful?

“This and other important questions remain unanswered because this work has not been published and the rest of the scientific community has been unable to examine it in detail. It’s vital that that happens soon.”

Alison Murdoch, a fertility doctor at Newcastle University, said: “If this baby has been born as suggested then that would be great news. The translation of mitochondrial donation to a clinical procedure is not a race but a goal to be achieved with caution to ensure both safety and reproducibility.”

Details of the birth are due to be presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine meeting in Salt Lake City in October. 

Doug Turnbull, a neurology professor at Newcastle University who pioneered mitochondrial transfer in the UK, said the technique offered hope to mothers who carried mitochondrial DNA mutations.

“There have been extensive discussions in the UK to ensure that families with mitochondrial disease get the best possible advice about their reproductive options and that any new IVF-based technique is appropriately regulated and funded. This abstract gives very little information about the technique used, the follow up of the child or the ethical approval process.”

This article was amended on 27 September 2016 to remove the names of some of the parties involved, because information changed about whether permission to name had been given.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/sep/27/worlds-first-baby-born-using-dna-from-three-parents

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 1.2k
  • Replies 1
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Very interesting !

Posted Images

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • One issue with historian Flavius Josephus is that he suggests that the Royal Captain of the (Guard) can also be regarded as General Nebuzaradan. A confusion arises from Josephus' account of the captives mentioned in Jeremiah, as he claims that they were taken from Egypt instead of Babylon. Since Nebuchadnezzar was occupied in Rilah, he directed his generals to lay siege to Jerusalem. This could potentially account for the numerous dispatches that Nebuchadnezzar would have sent to the west, but the considerable distance to Borsippa still poses a challenge. As a result, the Babylonians managed to gain control of regions such as Aram (Syria), Ammon, and Moab. The only territories that remained were the coastal cities, where the Egyptians held sway. King Josiah decided to form an alliance with Babylon instead of being under Egyptian rule. So, that part of the territory was covered until King Josiah was defeated.  It's interesting how they started back then in 4129, but still end up with the same conclusion with Zedekiah's Defeat 3522 607 B.C. 3419 607 B.C. even though their AM is different.  
    • In the era of the Bible Students within the Watchtower, there were numerous beginnings. It is essential to bear in mind that each congregation functioned autonomously, granting the Elders the freedom to assert their own assertions and interpretations. Most people embraced the principles that Pastor Russell was trying to convey. You could argue that what you are experiencing now, they also experienced back then. The key difference is that unity was interpreted differently. Back then it had value where today there is none. To address your inquiry, while I cannot recall the exact details, it is believed to have been either 4129 or 4126. Some groups, however, adopted Ussher's 4004. It is worth mentioning that they have now discarded it and revised it to either 3954 or 3958, although I personally find little interest in this matter. I believe I encountered this information in the book titled "The Time is at Hand," though it may also be referenced in their convention report. Regardless, this is part of their compelling study series 3. Please take a moment to review and confirm the date. I am currently focused on Riblah. The Bible Students who firmly believe that Israel is the prophetic sign of Armageddon have made noteworthy adjustments to their chronology. They have included significant dates such as 1947/8 and 1967/8, as well as more recent dates. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that, according to their calculations, 2024 holds immense importance. The ongoing tension of Iran targeting Israel directly from its own territory amplifies the gravity of the situation. If their trajectory continues, the subsequent captivating event will occur in 2029, rather than as previously speculated, in 2034 by some.
    • Would it be too much to ask what was the bible students starting point of creation?
    • @JW Insider Your summary is irrelevant, as I do not make any assertions regarding BC/AD other than their usage by scholars and in history, as you yourself have also acknowledged on numerous occasions, thus rendering your point invalid and evasive. The Watchtower leverages external viewpoints, including secular evidence, to substantiate the accuracy of their chronological interpretations. There are numerous approaches to dating events. Personally, I explore various alternative methods that lead to the same conclusion as the Watchtower. However, the most captivating approach is to utilize secular chronology to arrive at the same outcome. By relying solely on secular chronology, the pattern still aligns, albeit with a distinct interpretation of the available data. Nevertheless, the ultimate result remains unchanged. This is why when you get upset, when you are proven wrong, you, Tom, and those with the authority to ban take action, because you like others cannot handle the truth. In this case, your infamous tablet VAT 4956 has become useless in this situation. I do agree with you on one thing: you are not an expert, just like COJ. However, I must admit that this foolish individual was not the first to debate the chronology with the Watchtower and abandon it based on personal beliefs. He simply happened to be the most recent one that's on record.
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.3k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.