Eggs from men

[Bob Jenkins]

Would anyone care to comment on the following article


In Laboratory, Ordinary Cells Are Turned Into Eggs


By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 2, 2003; Page A01


Scientists in Pennsylvania yesterday said they had turned ordinary mouse embryo cells into egg cells in laboratory dishes -- an advance that opens the door to creating "designer" eggs from scratch and, if repeated with human cells, could blur the biological line between fathers and mothers.

The work undermines the standard model of parenthood because the scientists made egg cells not only from female cells, but also from male cells, indicating that even males have the biological capacity to make eggs.

If the science holds true in humans as in mice -- and several scientists said they suspect it will -- then a gay male couple might, before long, be able to produce children through sexual reproduction, with one man contributing sperm and the other fresh eggs bearing his own genes.

That scenario raises difficult questions, including whether the second man would be recognized as the child's biological mother.

"It's absolutely remarkable," said Lee Silver, a Princeton molecular biologist who specializes in reproductive ethics. "This breaks down all the classic barriers in terms of sexual reproduction, with none of the problems of cloning."

Cloning produces offspring from just one parent, raising genetic and ethical problems that are not raised by the laboratory cultivation of eggs and sperm -- although the new work, in which embryonic stem cells spontaneously transformed themselves into eggs, raises issues of its own.

"Some of the applications will be seen as straightforward boons to humankind, such as for women who can't make healthy eggs the usual way," said Thomas Murray, president of the Hastings Center, a bioethics think tank in Garrison, N.Y. "But as with just about any medical development, there will be other uses that will give people hiccups, if not fits."

Human applications aside, the ability to mass-produce egg cells in a lab could make it much easier to engineer traits into animals, and help conservationists rebuild populations of endangered species.

The work also offers researchers an unprecedented opportunity to watch how mammalian egg cells mature -- something that usually happens in the privacy of an ovary -- and to learn about "meiosis," the mysterious process by which an egg or sperm spits out half of its genes so it can mate with its counterpart of the opposite sex.

"The mind boggles with potential wild applications of this stuff," said John Eppig, a mouse geneticist at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine.

If the mouse work does translate into an ability to create batches of human eggs, the most immediate effect might be on Capitol Hill. The Senate is debating whether to restrict the creation of cloned human embryos as a source of medically promising stem cells.

Until now, one argument for banning the creation of cloned embryos has been that it would require a huge supply of human eggs to make all the embryos and therapeutic cells that patients might need. That market demand could lead to an "egg-donor underclass" of poor women who might submit to repeated, health-compromising egg donation procedures as a way of making money.

But if scientists can grow lots of human eggs in the laboratory, experts said, that market would not appear. "Commodification and safety issues would be avoided," said Judy Norsigian, executive director of the Boston Women's Health Book Collective, who has been a leader in the movement against what is known as therapeutic cloning because of the risks it might pose to poor women.

Norsigian and others said they remain wary of the new technology because of its potential to facilitate the genetic engineering of people. Scientists have already learned how to add and subtract specific genes in stem cells. Those genetic changes would appear in eggs grown from such cells, offering an easy means of making heritable changes in a family line and possibly giving rise to a new age of eugenics.

The prospect of wholesale production of human eggs from embryo cells also raises alarms for religious conservatives and others who are opposed to all research involving embryos.

"It sounds like this could be another big step towards opening what President Bush has called 'human embryo farms,' " said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

The new work builds on more than 20 years of research on mouse embryonic stem cells -- primordial cells found inside mouse embryos that, in laboratory dishes, can develop into almost every kind of mouse cell or tissue. (Human embryonic stem cells, which have the same potential, were discovered much more recently, in 1998.) Until now, the only cells that scientists could not grow from embryonic stem cells were sperm and eggs.

Hans Schoeler and Karin Huebner of the University of Pennsylvania's School of Veterinary Medicine in Kennett Square, along with colleagues in France and Philadelphia, overcame that barrier by gradually selecting from a mixed population of stem cells the ones that bore certain genetic hallmarks that suggested a potential to become eggs, then isolating those in laboratory dishes.

After a while, perhaps because the number of like-minded cells reached a "critical mass," the stem cells in those dishes started to morph into two kinds of cells. Some became follicular cells -- the kind of cells found in ovaries that help young egg cells mature -- and others became young egg cells.

The eggs appeared to mature normally, the researchers reported yesterday in the online edition of the journal Science. In fact, many spontaneously developed into early embryos in their dishes, something that cultured mouse eggs often do. That offers evidence that the eggs are relatively healthy. But Schoeler said his team is now trying to fertilize the eggs with mouse sperm to see if they give rise to healthy mature embryos -- the gold standard of egg normalcy.

Perhaps most astonishing, said Eppig of the Jackson Laboratory, the lab-reared egg and follicle cells apparently engaged in the complicated cross-talk required for normal development. Follicle cells surrounded each egg in a gentle embrace as they would in an ovary, for example, and even produced female hormones, which the eggs need to mature.

"I am flabbergasted that these darn things are making estrogen," Eppig said. "Imagine what's going to happen when you can do the same thing and make sperm."

The genetic program for making sperm is believed to be more complicated than for making eggs, but sperm farming may not be farfetched, Schoeler said. Success could raise interesting questions about the biological relevance of males.

If sperm can be made from stem cells, for example, then lesbians could make babies by sexual reproduction. Unlike gay men, they would not have to turn to the other sex to gestate those babies.

"It will take a nanosecond for people in same-sex relationships to figure out the potential implications of this research for them," said Murray, of the Hastings Center. "People can just fill in the blanks."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Warcraft3]

I really think its too early to draw any solid conclusions based on this article. All of the possible "implications" are merely speculations which may or may not come to fruition. As always, time will tell.



Russ

[Bob Jenkins]

For those of you who desire a more techinal treatment, I offer the following:


Source:
University Of Pennsylvania
Date:
2003-05-02


Scientists Produce Mouse Eggs From Embryonic Stem Cells, Demonstrating Totipotency Even In Vitro
PHILADELPHIA -- Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have created the first mammalian gametes grown in vitro directly from embryonic stem cells. The work, in which mouse stem cells placed in Petri dishes -- without any special growth or transcription factors -- grew into oocytes and then into embryos, will be reported this week on the web site of the journal Science.

The results demonstrate that even outside the body embryonic stem cells remain totipotent, or capable of generating any of the body's tissues, said lead researcher Hans R. Schöler of Penn's School of Veterinary Medicine.

"Most scientists have thought it impossible to grow gametes from stem cells outside the body, since earlier efforts have yielded only somatic cells," said Schöler, professor of reproduction medicine and director of Penn's Center for Animal Transgenesis and Germ Cell Research. "We found that not only can mouse embryonic stem cells produce oocytes, but that these oocytes can then enter meiosis, recruit adjacent cells to form structures similar to the follicles that surround and nurture natural mouse eggs, and develop into embryos."

Schöler said oocyte development in vitro may offer a new way for embryonic stem cells to be produced artificially, sidestepping the ethical concerns articulated by President Bush and others. Implanting a regular nucleus from any of the body's cells into such an oocyte would yield a totipotent stem cell.

The findings may force legal revisions in nations such as Germany whose lawmakers, assuming that stem cells' potency outside the body was limited, have passed legislation banning research with totipotent stem cells.

The Penn scientists pulled off this feat using a gene called Oct4 as a genetic marker. After the stem cells were plated in a regular Petri dish -- densely but without special feeder cells or growth factors -- the scientists used fluorescent markers linked to Oct4 and other telltale genes to assay oocyte development. After 12 days in culture, the cells organized into colonies of variable size. Shortly thereafter, individual cells detached from these colonies.

"These germ cells then accumulated a coating of cells similar to the follicles surrounding mammalian eggs," Schöler said. "Starting on day 26, oocyte-like cells were released into the culture -- similar to ovulation -- and by day 43, embryo-like structures arose through parthenogenesis, or spontaneous reproduction without sperm."

In the experiment described this week in Science, both male- and female-derived stem cells developed into female gametes. Schöler and colleagues now plan to test whether oocytes developed in vitro can be fertilized.

"We would like to use these oocytes as a basis for therapeutic cloning, and hope that our results can be replicated with human embryonic stem cells," Schöler said.

Schöler was joined in the research by Karin Hübner, James Kehler, Rolland Reinbold, Rabindranath de la Fuente and Michele Boiani of Penn's School of Veterinary Medicine; Lane K. Christenson, Jennifer Wood and Jerome Strauss III from Penn's School of Medicine; and Guy Fuhrmann of the Centre de Neurochimie in France. The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Marion Dilley and David George Jones Funds, the Commonwealth and General Assembly of Pennsylvania and the Association pour la Recherche sur la Cancer.

[gladiatrix]

Yesterday @ 03:21 PM post located here
Bob Jenkins:

Would anyone care to comment on the following article


In Laboratory, Ordinary Cells Are Turned Into Eggs


By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 2, 2003; Page A01


Scientists in Pennsylvania yesterday said they had turned ordinary mouse embryo cells into egg cells in laboratory dishes -- an advance that opens the door to creating "designer" eggs from scratch and, if repeated with human cells, could blur the biological line between fathers and mothers.

The notion that one could get "eggs from men" is not a surprise when one remembers that the male body plan is really just an alteration of the female body plan. This in and of itself is a disproof that Adam/Eve ever existed. Here are my reasons for making such a claim................


Adam and Eve? : The Inheritance of Sex or Why Men Have Nipples ( Proves Adam and Eve NEVER existed!)

The Bible claims that God created Adam first and that Eve is just a "knock-off", inferior male (a rib, women as some sort of "inferior" male was a common theme of many creation stories). The creation of Adam "first" and Eve created from a minor part of the male has been the foundation of the Abrahamic patriachial system that has used this "scenario" for centuries to justify discrimination against women (the "weaker" vessels). But does science support this "male first" and women as just "inferior men" (made from a part)? The answer is NO on both counts.

Background Information
All humans have 46 chromosomes or 23 pairs (known as a karyotype)
More info on Chromosomes

These pairs are divided into 2 groups. Group 1 comprises 22 of the 23 pairs and are called autosomes. Each pair contains a chromosome inherited from the father and mother. Each pair of chromosomes contains genes coding for the same things and what this means is that one gets 2 copies of the same information for each characteristic (each gene or set of genes coding for a particular characteristic has a "back-up" copy). The average chromosome contains ~3000 genes that designate function, development or growth.

The last pair are called the sex chromosomes because they contain the majority of the genes that determine sex. This pair is unique because unlike the other chromosomes, there are two different types of chromosomes known as the X-chromosome and the Y-chromosome. The X chromosome is a very large chromosome that contains genes essential to life in addition to playing a role in sexual detemination. The presence of two X-chromosomes results in a female, whereas an X and a Y chromosome produce a male. The Y-chromosome is are very interesting chromosome and will described in more detail.

The Y is the smallest chromosome and it's presence is required for male sexual differentiation (the presence of a X and a Y-chromosome produce males). The Y contains only 20 genes that are involved in 3 functions:[list][*]1) 9 of the gene match genes on the X (otherwise the Y would be lost during meiosis because it couldn't "pair" with X)[*]2) 11 genes are involved with the following:

• -----a) Male fertility--defects here produce low sperm counts
  -----b) "Male-determining" function (the mapping of the testis-determining factor or the "male-determining genes" to the SRY region took scientists more than 50 years to accomplish and are highly conserved. The function of SRY genes is to arrest the formation of embryonic tissue (Mullerian) into ovaries and halt the degeneration of the Wolffian ducts and turn them into testes that produce testosterone, needed to masculinize the fetus.

Because the rest of its DNA doesn't code for anything and readily acquires mutations, the Y has been referred to as a "genetic junkyard" . This is not as pejorative as it sounds because the variablity of the Y chromosome has proved tremendously valuable in tracing patrilinear lineages that have yielded some surprising results:

Y and Mighty (migration, populations)

Use of Y-Chromosome Variation to Study Populations and Migration


The GENETICS of Sex Determination

It is the inheritance of sex that is important to this discussion so the autosomes will be ignored for the moment.Let's look at this process in more detail. It is the variations from the "normal" conditions that are the most informative:

Combinations of Sex Chromosomes and Genetic Abnormalities Affecting Embryonic Sexual Development

• 1) XX----- Normal female
• 2) XY------Normal male
• 3) XO-----Abnormal female with Turner's syndrome ovaries nonfunctional and must be treated with female hormones to achieve and maintain sexual maturity.
• 4) XXY----Abnormal male with Kleinfelter's syndrome has small genitalia and other signs of feminization.
• 5) OY----This is a LETHAL combination because an X chromosome harbors genes essential to life. These vital genes have no counterparts on the Y. No flawed male from this combo, akin to the Turner's female in 3).
• 6) The "XX" male was is really a Klinefelter male. The SRY region from the Y was "translocated" (a piece of the Y recombined with the X) onto one of the Xs during meiosis of the father's sperm.
• 7) Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS)--This is the case where the genotype of the person is XY and should develop as a male. But there is a defect in another gene that prevents the testosterone from being "absorbed" by fetal cells so the fetus continues developing along the original programming with is to become a female. When the baby is born, it appears to be female. Because the tissue still responds to estrogen, the infant matures as a female. The problem is that there are no female organs to produce the amount of estrogen needed for full development so this condition is usually not detected to around the age of 16 because the "girl" fails to menstruate.

The Turner's syndrome and CAIS demonstrate that the basic body print is FEMALE, not male. Males are really "modified" females. It also takes fewer gene to have a complete male (remember that the Y-chromosome alone can't produce a male without the X and has very few genes). Consider the following time line in embryonic development of internal genitalia which arise from Mullerian ducts(female) or Wolffian ducts(male). [list][*]1) At 8 to 10 weeks, embryo has neutral gonads with two duct systems (Mullerian and Wolffian) joined at the lower end. [*]2)At the 13th week, gonads differentiate in response to germ cell invasion.

• -----a)If XX, no hormones released; Mullerian ducts develop into oviducts (Fallopian tubes), uterus, and upper portion of vagina; Wolffian ducts disappear without stimulation from testosterone. NOTE:The development of a female fetus DOES NOT require estrogen, but proceeds of its own accord (the "default" programming is female)
  -----b)If XY, gonads produce Mullerian duct inhibitor (MDI) which causes Mullerian duct to disappear; gonads produce testosterone which causes Wolffian ducts to develop into sperm collecting apparatus - epididymis, sperm duct (vas deferens), and seminal vesicle; conversion of testosterone to dyhydrotestosterone (DHT) causes development of prostate gland.

From
Sexual Development in Humans

Note that the Mullerian ducts develop without any kind of hormonal stimulation and will continue to develop, whereas the Wolffian ducts (male) degenerate unless "rescued" from oblivion by the SRY genes on the Y. This is done by the factor MDI which first shuts down development of the Mullerian ducts. It is possible to interfere with the MDI and the Mullerian ducts will continue to develop. This is evidence on a molecular and biochemical level that the "female" body print is the "first" choice, not the second ("Eve" gives rise to "Adam" ) .

Oh, but what about the nipples, you might asks???.......
Men still have nipples because it is part of the "female" program. Some mens' breasts will produce milk, just as a woman's will, though most won't produce the amount that the average lactating female can---->

Read about the "Milkmen" here:

Why Men Have Nipples


Also consider that the oldest steroid hormone is not testosterone but estrogen! Think about it...................
Estrogen Is Evolution's Most Ancient Steroid Hormone

The bottom-line is that it isn't Adam's Rib, but Eve's Rib and what is "Eve's Rib"----you guessed it!! Testosterone. Genesis fails as a book of science again (the above facts alone negate the Adam/Eve story from the start.

Further references (difficult to easy)
1: Goodfellow PN, Lovell-Badge R. SRY and sex determination in mammals .Annu Rev Genet. 1993;27:71-92. Review.

2: Berta P, Hawkins JR, Sinclair AH, Taylor A, Griffiths BL, Goodfellow PN, Fellous M. Genetic evidence equating SRY and the testis-determining factor. Nature. 1990 Nov 29;348(6300):448-50.

3: Sinclair A. Related Articles, Eleven years of sexual discovery. Genome Biol. 2001;2(7):REPORTS4017.

4: Whither the Y?

5: Why the Y?



Editorial comment on the socio/political purpose for the construction of the Adam/Eve scenario (aside from the obvious attempt to come up with a story explaining life on earth):

One reason the Adam/Eve story was invented was to give men a "justification" for discriminating against women (the "gender-grab", i. e., "God is a man, man created first" is nothing more than a blatant "power-grab"). I can see why such a thing is so beguiling. An accident of birth, i. e., being born male, automatically grants one power over 54% of the earth's population (female), without having to demonstrate any ability or talent for the role of leader. Furthermore, females, so he is told, were created for no other purpose than to serve him, again without him having to give any reason why he is entitled to such "service". No science involved in this Genesis story. Its real purpose is "justification" for a patriarchal power structure, by appealing to a conveniently invisible, inaccessible "Authority" (God), who can't be "called on the carpet" to explain himself.