Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lab-Made Eggs Produce Healthy Mice

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the built-to-order dept.

Biotech 81

ananyo writes "Japanese researchers have coaxed mouse stem cells into becoming viable eggs that produce healthy offspring. Last year, the same team successfully used mouse stem cells to make functional sperm (other groups have produced sperm cells in vitro). The researchers used a cocktail of growth factors to transform stem cells into egg precursors. When they added these egg precursor cells to embryonic ovary tissue that did not contain sex cells, the mixture spontaneously formed ovary-like structures, which they then grafted onto natural ovaries in female mice. After four weeks, the stem-cell-derived cells had matured into oocytes. The team removed the oocytes from the ovaries, fertilized them and transplanted the embryos into foster mothers. The offspring that were produced grew up to be fertile themselves."

cancel ×

81 comments

And we move forward (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41558581)

Robotic spaceships that produce humans at their destination here we come!

Re:And we move forward (2)

ravenshrike (808508) | about 2 years ago | (#41558631)

We still need the artificial uterus. And the caretaker robots that can create healthy human minds.

Re:And we move forward (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41558659)

And the caretaker robots that can create healthy human minds.

We've already invented TV.

Re:And we move forward (1)

dmbasso (1052166) | about 2 years ago | (#41558923)

He said "healthy"...

Btw, the last episode of South Park was pretty good on the subject.

Re:And we move forward (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 2 years ago | (#41560741)

Oh sure, drop off colonists after raising them on "Jersey Shore" reruns and "Mythbusters" episodes...
self destruction in 3, 2, 1.
Seriously, who picks the "indoctrination and training" content? People not making the trip?

Jersey Shore meets Mythbusters...in space (1)

silverspell (1556765) | about 2 years ago | (#41561979)

Oh sure, drop off colonists after raising them on "Jersey Shore" reruns and "Mythbusters" episodes...

You'll have a generation of resourceful, but unproductive colonists who spend their time doing things like:

- testing the myth that duct tape can be used both as a substitute for heat shielding AND as a quick way to remove unwanted hairs;
- trying to make energy drinks out of hydrazine;
- using the interstellar medium as an in vivo paternity test to identify one's "baby daddy";
- and figuring out whether a tan from Gliese 581 will have the appropriate carrot-orange hue, or will be more towards the reddish, dwarfy end of the spectrum (as seen in a 22-year-old viral video beamed in from Earth, natch).

Re:And we move forward (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41562643)

TV and healthy minds don't belong in the same sentence.

Re:And we move forward (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41561059)

"And the caretaker robots that can create healthy human minds."

We'll send Jason with them with a couple of tons of Soma.

JP Hogan's Voyage From Yesteryear (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about 2 years ago | (#41565281)

http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=29&cmd=summary [jamesphogan.com]
"An Earth set well into the next century is going through one of its periodical crises politically, and it looks as if this time they might really press the button for the Big One. If it happens, the only chance for our species to survive would be by preserving a sliver of itself elsewhere, which in practical terms means another star, since nothing closer is readily habitable. There isn't time to organize a manned expedition of such scope from scratch. However, a robot exploratory vessel is under construction to make the first crossing to the Centauri system, and it with a crash program it would be possible to modify the designs to carry sets of human genetic data coded electronically. Additionally, a complement of incubator/nanny/tutor robots can be included, able to convert the electronic data back into chemistry and raise/educate the ensuing offspring while others prepare surface habitats and supporting infrastructure, when a habitable world is discovered. By the time we meet the "Chironians," their culture is into its fifth generation.
    In the meantime, Earth went through a dodgy period, but managed in the end to muddle through. The fun begins when a generation ship housing a population of thousands arrives to "reclaim" the colony on behalf of the repressive, authoritarian regime that emerged following the crisis period. The Mayflower II brings with it all the tried and tested apparatus for bringing a recalcitrant population to heel: authority, with its power structure and symbolism, to impress; commercial institutions with the promise of wealth and possessions, to tempt and ensnare; a religious presence, to awe and instill duty and obedience; and if all else fails, armed military force to compel. But what happens when these methods encounter a population that has never been conditioned to respond?"

Re:And we move forward (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41558663)

We still need Axlotl tanks in which to nurture the human larvae before they are ready to face harsh external conditions; but(mid to long term) it might well be overwhelmingly more efficient to ship a few blobs of tissue on ice and let the robots build some colonists when they've finished building a colony for them.

(Ooh, boy, though, is Colony Gen. 1 going to have some fucked up parent-issues or what?)

Re:And we move forward (3, Informative)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | about 2 years ago | (#41558909)

If you remember, the Axlotl tanks turned out to be in fact surrogate mothers (check wikipedia). So embedding them in other mice is on the same kind of level as Tleilaxu technology.

Re:And we move forward (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about 2 years ago | (#41559205)

Damn it man, most people stopped halfway through book 4. They don't reveal most of the cool shit until book 6.

Re:And we move forward (1)

niado (1650369) | about 2 years ago | (#41558969)

Hugh Howey (the Wool guy) has a novelette called Half Way Home [amazon.com] that follows this premise. It's a great read, highly recommended.

Re:And we move forward (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41559425)

If the robots can build a colony why waste time building human colonists?

Just have robotic colonists.

Re:And we move forward (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41559593)

Until they invent robotic congressmen pandering to robotic constituents, expect human spaceflight to continue to happen even in situations where machines would make more sense.

Re:And we move forward (1)

bryanbrunton (262081) | about 2 years ago | (#41562755)

Naturally, the robots would produce human colonists as sex slaves to serve their craven robotic needs.

Re:And we move forward (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 years ago | (#41565365)

you should keep quiet about those kinds of ideas, you don't want people to think you're a robosexual, now do you?

Mice? (2)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about 2 years ago | (#41559873)

It's just a shame they were expecting parrots to hatch....

Are they as nutritious as organic mice??? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41558585)

inquiring Pythons want to know.

Re:Are they as nutritious as organic mice??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41559973)

Probably, but you still need the GMO label on them.

Re:Are they as nutritious as organic mice??? (1)

drpimp (900837) | about 2 years ago | (#41560501)

Are the genes actually modified? Or are the stem cells inhibited to use already pre-coded information for developing into eggs. The details therein define a difference but I haven't looked at the research enough to actually determine if your statement has validity.

That's all fine and good but... (1, Funny)

multicoregeneral (2618207) | about 2 years ago | (#41558591)

Where are my cheese eating death machines?

Re:That's all fine and good but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41558647)

That's all fine and good but...
Where are my cheese eating death machines?

Silence, multicoregeneral, or I shall have to hurt you.

NARF!

I, for one, welcome our new rat overlords (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41558597)

I, for one, welcome our new rat overlords

Einstein Tesla Baby (3, Insightful)

badford (874035) | about 2 years ago | (#41558635)

Lab Notes: August 12, 2023

Einsla is becoming a remarkable young woman. She speaks 29 languages and has built 7 helper bots from spare parts found around the lab. She even re-engineered her iPhone 15 to send tweets telepathically. Who'd a thunk that stem cell eggs and sperm would be so friggin dope?

Lab ntes : Octobre 54, bleh

Einsla is all-powerful. I must obey. farble-blerp. please get out of my mind. [end of transcript]

Re:Einstein Tesla Baby (1)

multicoregeneral (2618207) | about 2 years ago | (#41558665)

Sounds like an Alice Cooper song.

Re:Einstein Tesla Baby (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41558835)

Just remind her what Einstein thought of spooky action at a distance, the behavior should subside.

Three blind mice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41558645)

Fucking mice! Where all the the fucking mice! Is nothing so natural as to fuck like mice anymore?

meanwhile another team of Japanese researchers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41558735)

is developing a robot cat specializing in nabbing and eating the stem cell mice.

Re:meanwhile another team of Japanese researchers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41558871)

is developing a robot cat specializing in nabbing and eating the stem cell mice.

Consider the amount of money some japanese cats earn... they probably buy politicians and fund secret research projects all the time!

Re:meanwhile another team of Japanese researchers (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about 2 years ago | (#41559181)

is developing a robot cat specializing in nabbing and eating the stem cell mice.

Sonya the cat (sometimes pronounced Sony).

Re:meanwhile another team of Japanese researchers (1)

JudgeFurious (455868) | about 2 years ago | (#41560867)

Incomplete information. The team is developing a robot cat that can be operated by a tiny genetically modified mouse pilot and that can transform into a small fighter plane or combine with 14 other robot cats to make a man-sized robot that looks from a distance like a robotic "Mario".

Anybody know the expected relevance? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41558821)

This result is certainly cool in itself, and will probably (eventually) find application in squicking the moralists when an egg produced from a gay man's stem cells is united with sperm synthesized from a transexual woman or something(and will those fireworks ever be worth watching...); but what percentage of the more prosaic fertility-clinic cases are ultimately caused by defective eggs?

I've heard of some cases where the mitochondrial DNA is defective, so the only way to produce a healthy child is by slapping 3rd-party mitochondria into the maternal egg cell before fertilization, and lots of cases where sperm defects end up requiring IVF, sometimes with donor sperm. Are there also a fairly large number of cases where defective eggs are the cause of infertility that just can't be addressed at present by anything other than using donor gametes?

Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? (2)

Joe Torres (939784) | about 2 years ago | (#41559229)

There have already been viable mice produced from the genetic information of two male mice: Generation of Viable Male and Female Mice from Two Fathers (link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043133/ [nih.gov] )

Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41559303)

Well, part of its actual application might be finally shutting up the misandrists* who cheerfully brag that men will eventually be useless when they can engineer artificial sperm, etc, etc. This serves as a neat little reminder that if that's truly the case, we don't need THEM, either.

*: Note, NOT feminists. There is a difference. Learn it.

Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41559651)

Well, part of its actual application might be finally shutting up the misandrists* who cheerfully brag that men will eventually be useless when they can engineer artificial sperm, etc, etc. This serves as a neat little reminder that if that's truly the case, we don't need THEM, either.

*: Note, NOT feminists. There is a difference. Learn it.

You'd still need some sort of artificial uterus apparatus to complete that project, otherwise you fall back to the life of brian "We're it going to gestate, in a box?" problem.

(More broadly, though, measuring 'utility' by gamete production is a pretty weird thing to do. "Utility" doesn't even have a cogent meaning unless you define it with respect to the goals of one or more agents. There's nothing in the known universe that is more 'useful' than a screensaver on an LCD unless you make the background assumption(as people generally do) that satisfying human interests is a form of utility. At that point, the only thing you have to do to be 'useful' is satisfy your on interest in existence. Where things get ugly, naturally, is deciding who counts as an 'agent' that gets to set goals...

Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41559551)

You are woefully ignorant.

Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41559685)

You are woefully ignorant.

Which is why I'm asking the question, in order to obtain data:

Of the X thousands of fertility clinic patients, what percentage would expect to see a better outcome thanks to this egg synthesis technique, if it were refined for human use?

Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? (2)

tbird81 (946205) | about 2 years ago | (#41565191)

Surely this means a woman without ovaries (e.g. removed because of cancer) could have her stem-cells harvested from blood (if this is possible), and use these stem cells to create ova. The ova can then be fertilised and inserted in a surrogate uterus.

Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? (2)

snadrus (930168) | about 2 years ago | (#41559797)

If I read it properly, it's now possible for Women to asexually reproduce with themselves, or any pair of genders.

Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41561187)

I suppose anyone could reproduce with their own self, supplying both the sperm and egg. Though, admittedly, that is a special case of two women or men being the parents of a child.

Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? (1)

godel_56 (1287256) | about 2 years ago | (#41562695)

I've heard of some cases where the mitochondrial DNA is defective, so the only way to produce a healthy child is by slapping 3rd-party mitochondria into the maternal egg cell before fertilization, and lots of cases where sperm defects end up requiring IVF, sometimes with donor sperm. Are there also a fairly large number of cases where defective eggs are the cause of infertility that just can't be addressed at present by anything other than using donor gametes?

What about the cases of premature menopause where the woman loses all her eggs at an young age, sometimes as early as 25? These families only option would to have a baby by donor egg, which means the child is not the mother's genetic offspring.

Being able to make new eggs would fix that.

I'll be impressed when scientists can... (1)

gameboyhippo (827141) | about 2 years ago | (#41558827)

I'll be impressed when scientists can make life from nonlife.

Re:I'll be impressed when scientists can... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41558865)

Haven't you seen Johnny Five?

Re:I'll be impressed when scientists can... (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 2 years ago | (#41560295)

If you've been following the news...you don't have long to wait. In fact, if you consider a virus alive, they did it years ago. But work progresses on synthysizing total cells. (Usually under the label of "trying to find the simplest possible cell.".)

I will admit, however, that "not long" is a bit vague. I give it 10-15 years. 20 wouldn't really surprise me. 5 would. So would 25...unless there are drastic cuts in biology funding world-wide.

Parenthood no longer needs to be consensual. (4, Interesting)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | about 2 years ago | (#41558847)

If you're not sure what practical application this research contributes to, consider this: We can now create genetic offspring of infertile people. More than that, we can now create genetic offspring of people without their knowledge or consent. All we need is a stem cell sample. Note recent research that enables skin cells to be turned into stem cells.

It shouldn't be long before companies are advertising services like 'Have George Clooney's baby' or 'Father Christina Hendricks' child'. That's just the tip of the iceberg. The first child with two daddies -- literally -- is just around the corner.

Re:Parenthood no longer needs to be consensual. (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#41559109)

literally -- is just around the corner.

Could you give me an address for this corner?

Re:Parenthood no longer needs to be consensual. (1)

gottabeme (590848) | about 2 years ago | (#41566969)

"The first child with two daddies -- literally".

Re:Parenthood no longer needs to be consensual. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#41588473)

Ah, see, I can see how people might not take the current version of having two male parents as literal, but adoption is a natural and common enough process that it didn't even occur to me to parse it that way. "Biologically" might have communicated the concept better. Still, thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding.

Re:Parenthood no longer needs to be consensual. (1)

drpimp (900837) | about 2 years ago | (#41560555)

Subsequently from that same corner you will still be able to obtain organically grown STDs from your local hooker.

Re:Parenthood no longer needs to be consensual. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41562031)

Isn't what they said when the cloned the sheep? We still don't have cloned people.

Re:Parenthood no longer needs to be consensual. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41563585)

Non-consentual parenthood is already possible for men - a male raped by a woman who falls pregnant can't force his rapist to have an abortion, and will in fact be forced to pay child support.

Worse.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41565931)

How about a company that grows its own workers?

Who's your daddy now?

New cloning technique. (2)

wiredog (43288) | about 2 years ago | (#41558899)

Make sperm and egg from the same source.. Surprised they didn't try that.

Re:New cloning technique. (4, Insightful)

blueg3 (192743) | about 2 years ago | (#41559177)

That doesn't result in a clone.

Re:New cloning technique. (0)

Dekker3D (989692) | about 2 years ago | (#41559213)

That wouldn't be a clone, I think. More like a brother or sister. The stem cell still has a full set of DNA, and both the sperm and egg cell would have their random half of said DNA.

Re:New cloning technique. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41559495)

It's actually way worse than cloning. It's much more like a super inbreeding. You're taking 1/2 the DNA and combining it with the same DNA. All of your homogenous dominant and recessive traits become the same, but with the same as any inbreeding, any recessive gene based disease you were a "carrier" for you automatically have a 25% of introducing full on into the offspring. There is an incredibly slight chance that you do end up with a clone if you pull the correctly matched half of each chromosome from each sperm and egg and join them.

Re:New cloning technique. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41559663)

In that case, for your 23 pairs of chromosomes, 1/2 of them would be essentially identical. E.g. your father's chromosome 18 duplicated twice, rather than one from your father and one from your mother. This would be really bad, as most chromosomes have defective genes (recessive traits), but when you get two from different sources they compensate for each other's defects. An identical pair wouldn't. The most likely (and best) outcome would be a non-viable offspring.

Creepy... (1)

mihai.todor85 (1663759) | about 2 years ago | (#41558907)

Let's see: stem cells -> eggs -> ovary tissue -> natural ovaries -> oocytes -> removed from ovaries -> fertilized -> transplanted into "foster mothers"... To me, that sounds like a combination between Frankenstein and Fantastic Voyage

Breeding like mice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41558977)

Because we all know, making sure the survival of mice, is of utmost paramount! Especially making sure that mice breed like... mice!

Cue the debate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41558979)

about whether people conceived this way have souls, in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Re:Cue the debate (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#41559113)

Good news: souls are fictional. No need for debate.

Re:Cue the debate (1)

gottabeme (590848) | about 2 years ago | (#41566975)

How do you know?

Re:Cue the debate (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#41584411)

A. Never measured yet treated as commonplace and affecting the world
B. Comes from a source that bares most of the genre defining hallmarks of folk-tales
C. At odds with the scientific explanation of consciousness.
D. Too good to be true, so it probably isn't, and someone can make money off you believing.

I'm sorry if you were expecting a logical proof of non-existence, but one doesn't generally prove fiction false. These set of 4 things are more than enough to dismiss any concept they all apply to.

Re:Cue the debate (1)

gottabeme (590848) | about 2 years ago | (#41625815)

A. Never measured yet treated as commonplace and affecting the world

This could be interpreted three ways: a) since it is treated as commonplace and affecting the world, it is probably real; or b) just because we can't measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist; or c) it doesn't exist. Option C boils down to, "The only things that exist are those which can be measured." There are two problems with that, however: 1) We know of many things which exist which we were once unable to detect, see, or measure; 2) It is not claimed that souls may be measured. Indeed, if the claim is that such a thing cannot be measured, then the argument that it is unmeasureable is irrelevant. If it is not claimed that its existence may be proven, then your claim that it cannot be proven is irrelevant.

B. Comes from a source that bares[sic] most of the genre defining hallmarks of folk-tales

This is a gross generalization, unsubstantiated to the point of being meaningless. I would call it "hand-waving." However, as far as Christianity goes, it's interesting that Christianity actually differs substantially from other "myths" to the point that some consider Christianity a genre unto itself, not even in the category of myth. Basically, myths postulate a reality in which ultimately all things are one with all things, while Christianity postulates a God who exists outside of our universe and our reality, yet who has interacted with it. The two are quite opposite, and it is a mistake to lump them together.

C. At odds with the scientific explanation of consciousness.

What? There is no scientific explanation of consciousness--not yet, anyway. It would be very big news if there ever were. This is more hand-waving on your part--or just plain lying.

D. Too good to be true, so it probably isn't, and someone can make money off you believing.

More hand-waving. "Too good to be true" is simply a cliche--it proves nothing and is meaningless. As for money, money can be made from both truths and lies, so this is also meaningless in and of itself.

I'm sorry if you were expecting a logical proof of non-existence, but one doesn't generally prove fiction false.

Logically you can neither prove nor disprove it. The most skeptical statement you can logically make is, "I don't know."

These set of 4 things are more than enough to dismiss any concept they all apply to.

I have deconstructed your four criteria and shown that they do not logically invalidate belief in the existence of the human soul.

Not cloning (2)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 2 years ago | (#41559111)

The practical application of this procedure is probably some way off. If perfected for humans, it could become the ultimate fertility treatment. So long as you have a body, you can have a baby. Surrogate mothers probably needed though.

As of now, it's interesting research that won't interest vain but rich pet owners. You aren't producing a time-shifted twin of the older organism. But if the egg/sperm cells produced are healthy, you might well produce an artifical hermaphrodite where the father and mother are the same.

Maybe in the future gay and lesbian couples can become the full biological parents of their own children without resort to a third-party donor or surrogate.

Re:Not cloning (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41561225)

So what you're saying is we are one step closer to the human race not needing males?

Re:Not cloning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41563939)

Or females.

Re:Not cloning (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 years ago | (#41565407)

eh, they need a uterus to grow.

when they can make a uterus and replicate the hormone cascade of pregancy in a man, then things will get weird.....

Heard this one before. (1)

poison1701 (106770) | about 2 years ago | (#41559231)

Sounds sort of like jurassic park.

Child Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41559929)

So if someone steals some skin cells turns them into an egg or sperm which is used to create a child. Is that kid mine? Am I legally responsible? Should I even care?

Re:Child Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41561043)

"So if someone steals some skin cells turns them into an egg or sperm which is used to create a child. Is that kid mine? Am I legally responsible? Should I even care?"

How did you think that slashdot readers reproduce?

Mice hatched from eggs (5, Funny)

wiwa (905999) | about 2 years ago | (#41560161)

My first thought on reading the headline was that they made mice that hatched from eggs. The actual discovery is much less impressive.

Re:Mice hatched from eggs (1)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 2 years ago | (#41565415)

I thought that was quail egg I was eating......

Coverup (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#41560529)

Turns out, their math and verbal skills are total shit.

Cloning!? (1)

dittbub (2425592) | about 2 years ago | (#41562027)

Are these the same Japanese scientists who are trying to clone a mammoth? Because this research seems rather pertinent towards that goal.

Re:Cloning!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41565379)

This might be better than cloning. A recent mammoth corpse [io9.com] might be able to create genuine fertilized mammoth eggs, which would only require a womb.

Recipe for a true clone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41562153)

(1) stem cells -> sperm

(2) stem cells -> egg precursors

(3) egg precursors + embryonic ovary tissue -> ovary-like structure

(4) ovary-like structure + graft onto natural ovaries in female mouse + waiting -> oocytes

(5) remove the resulting oocytes from mouse + fertilize with sperm -> embryo

OK, those are the steps taken in the Japanese experiment, without modification. And now the insertion of a new step, to create the clone:

(6) replace the DNA in the embryo with the DNA of the mouse to be cloned!

And then return to the final step in the Japanese experiment:

(7) Put embryo in to foster mother mouse

Voila! Clone.

Obviously it would be really neat to obviate the need for a female mouse in step (4).

And, of course, the holy grail is to eliminate the need for the foster mother mouse in step (7), by simulating a complete uterus, with blood supply (oxygenated, CO2 removal, nutrients), appropriate hormone signals at the proper times, and digestive bacteria, and any other temporal sequence of biological signals are needed.

(LOL! Captcha word: "pipeline")

Re:Recipe for a true clone... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 years ago | (#41565419)

no, the holy grail will be to first synthesize the DNA for parentless humans made-to-order. replicants.

Why Mice? (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | about 2 years ago | (#41563099)

Why do they always do these type of experiments with vermin? What's so good about increasing the pest population?

If they used pigs, then they would be rewarded with bacon on success!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...