×

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!

Scientists Have Re-Cloned Mice To the 25th Generation

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the time-to-locate-jango-fett dept.

Science 134

derekmead writes "Dolly's mere existence was profound. It was also unusually short, at just six years. But scientists in Japan announced yesterday they have succeeded in cloning mice using the same technique that created Dolly with more or less perfect results: The mice are healthy, they live just as long as regular mice, and they've been flawlessly cloned and recloned from the same source to the 25th generation. Researchers claim it's the first example of seamless, repeat cloning using the Dolly method—known as "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT)—in which the nucleus from an adult source animal is transferred to an egg with its nucleus removed. Until recently, the process was fraught with failures and mutations. But the team led by Teruhiko Wakayama, whose results were published today in the journal Cell Stem Cell, was able to create 581 clones from the same original mouse. Scientists, including Dolly's creator, have long felt the process was still too unstable—and too wasteful of precious eggs, given the failure rate—to be used on humans any time soon. But perhaps it's not so far off, after all."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

134 comments

Hard to believe (4, Funny)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#43119221)

The only thing greater than me, would be to have 12 clones of me. Hopefully they also have a compact clone model, so I can call him "mini-me."

Re:Hard to believe (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119251)

You're so wrong. There are certain women that should be cloned for people like me with no personality that have no ability to get girls on our own.

Re:Hard to believe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119361)

You do realize you'll have to wait quite a few years for your Eliza Dushku clone to grow up. At least, I hope you'd wait.

Re:Hard to believe (4, Funny)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#43119395)

Most slashdotters have been waiting 20+ years for a hot girl to be interested in us, what's another 20?

Re:Hard to believe (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119797)

Most slashdotters have been waiting 20+ years for a hot girl to be interested in us, what's another 20?

For me, it's 40 plus long years of digital pr0n and gummy input devices.

But you kids should see my ASCII collection. From six feet back and with squinted eyes, I mean.

CAPTCHA = "miseries", I kid you not.

You? Yeah, right... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119969)

You're into "hot girls" but still stick your dick in man pussies... whatever faggot.

Hey FAGGOT! DICKS ARE FOR CHICKS!

Re:You? Yeah, right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120315)

No that's 'Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks'.

You're welcome.

Re:You? Yeah, right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120969)

No no no. It's "dicks are for my friends".

Doesn't anyone listen to MSI anymore?

Re:Hard to believe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119941)

Nope!

Re:Hard to believe (1)

Relic of the Future (118669) | about a year ago | (#43119491)

A statement emblematic of so many issues, but I'll choose to respond with snark:

What makes you think a clone would ever go out with you?

Re:Hard to believe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119583)

I think he meant genetically engineered woman.

Genetic Eng: "Well, we did it. We engineered this woman to be turned on by men with no personality!"

Genentic Marketing Guy: "Oooo. Now can you make one to love guys who are unkempt, smells, lives in their parents basment and has no social skills?"

GE: "Yes."

GMG: "Great!" *gets on phone with legal* "Hey guys, contact Slashdot and see if we can license their name for our new 'Slashdot Girl'!"

Re:Hard to believe (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43119585)

A statement emblematic of so many issues, but I'll choose to respond with snark:

What makes you think a clone would ever go out with you?

Hasn't bad sci-fi taught you anything? Despite being genetically identical to humans, because they are, clones mysteriously exhibit a creepy lack of free will and/or near-identical personality to the original(despite a developmental history that includes no life experience other than 'grow to apparent age of ~20 years with alarming speed in tube full of medical fluid'), perfect for producing armies of robo-hitlers or servile sex kitten harems!

It's probably because they only get allocated one soul per genome or something, couldn't make any less sense than the answers usually provided....

Re:Hard to believe (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119809)

I assumed that usually had to do with clones not being treated like people and being raised in some very sheltered environment where they are brainwashed or whatever.

Of course, there's also the idea that increasing the proportion of [heterosexual] women in the population improves the odds for [heterosexual] men.

Re:Hard to believe (1)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#43120523)

I think the correct answer is that "clone" has come to mean "delayed-time identical twin" when it was previously intended more literally. In the Stepford Wives, for example, they were robots made to look just like the women they replaced (which DNA "clones" will not). Most pedants today will argue that it's silly to depict "clones" as the same in personality, since DNA doesn't fully determine personality. But I would argue that this just shows the word "clone" is being abused because DNA replication doesn't measure up to it, and we should hold out on using the word "clone" for a copy of me who is still me, like Multiplicity.

Re:Hard to believe (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#43120685)

It's probably because they only get allocated one soul per genome or something, couldn't make any less sense than the answers usually provided....

Hmm... that neatly explains the "evil twin" trope...

Why? Nearly 100% of /.'ers are homosexual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119873)

They'd rather have the goatse.cx guy or rob malda or hemos to stick their dicks in. They get excited over man pussy.

Re:Hard to believe (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43121345)

"You're so wrong. There are certain women that should be cloned for people like me with no personality that have no ability to get girls on our own." Are you talking about asexual nuns? You don't need cloning to find some of these.

Re:Hard to believe (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about a year ago | (#43119291)

They need to figure out how to configure the clones with mostly robotic parts so you don't have to feed them and can turn them off..

Re:Hard to believe (2)

jovius (974690) | about a year ago | (#43119793)

Yeah, now you would only need to replicate all of the growing up with the same parents + experiences and still you would end up with strange people just looking like you. Could make a nice bunch anyway.

Copyright (4, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43119223)

I know this is sorta trollish, I just thought it was interesting too
There's no copyright for DNA. Someone could take a skin-swab from you, and clone you, without your permission. If they did, would you feel your rights had been violated?

Re:Copyright (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | about a year ago | (#43119339)

I know this is sorta trollish, I just thought it was interesting too
There's no copyright for DNA. Someone could take a skin-swab from you, and clone you, without your permission. If they did, would you feel your rights had been violated?

No copyright (yet) but there is patent.

Someone could skin-swab you, clone you, patent the process with your DNA. I don't think they could sue you, but they could charge you for any unauthorized reproduction (children).

Re:Copyright (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | about a year ago | (#43119379)

No copyright (yet) but there is patent.

Someone could skin-swab you, clone you, patent the process with your DNA. I don't think they could sue you, but they could charge you for any unauthorized reproduction (children).

BTW, while I'm sure that scenario is unrealistic and display ignorance of patents and biology, given what we've seen from gene patents and folks like Monsanto, I'm sure we're not far off from the day when someone receives gene therapy and gets sued when patented genes are passed down to off-spring.

Re:Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119351)

Maybe not a copyright, but they can patent it:

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/02/26/canc-f26.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/us-myriad-patent-idUSBRE87F12K20120816

Re:Copyright (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43119565)

A clone is a different living orgamism. It is not you any more than an identical twin.

Keep your panties on, your rights are irrelevent to the existence of a clone.

People are more than genetic material alone. Your life experiences define you, your genetics only influence the rest.

All that's happened is you suddenly have a potential organ donor

Re:Copyright (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year ago | (#43119841)

Sounds like Parts: The Clonus Horror. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Copyright (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#43120337)

And "The Island" sounds a lot like Clonus, but that's a different story altogether.

Re:Copyright (1)

Peristaltic (650487) | about a year ago | (#43120591)

I remember a story from Niven's "Draco Tavern" where an explorer that returned from a civilization with advanced biotech was being paid royalties on his clones. The Glick civilization considered his cloned self to be a delicacy- no ethical problems because they grew the clones without brains. I can't see why the explorer was upset- everybody profited.

Re:Copyright (2)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year ago | (#43119569)

I know this is sorta trollish, I just thought it was interesting too There's no copyright for DNA. Someone could take a skin-swab from you, and clone you, without your permission. If they did, would you feel your rights had been violated?

As tens of thousands of geeks had the same thought at that very moment, "how do I get some Natalie Portman DNA?"

Re:Copyright (1)

LaggedOnUser (1856626) | about a year ago | (#43119725)

Which "me" are you referring to, original me or copy me? And what if they disagree? Both are mature competent adults, so whose opinion holds sway?

Re:Copyright (1)

bancho (621456) | about a year ago | (#43119885)

I think using DNA as evidence in court would become problematic. What if the clone was a psycho? Conversely, what if the clone were a sane upstanding person and the DNA donor were a serial killer?

Re:Copyright (1)

Zordak (123132) | about a year ago | (#43119951)

I think using DNA as evidence in court would become problematic. What if the clone was a psycho? Conversely, what if the clone were a sane upstanding person and the DNA donor were a serial killer?

What if your identical twin is a psyco serial killer and you're an upstanding citizen? It just means that the DNA comes from one of the two of you.

Re:Copyright (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43120011)

There is a copyright on DNA. Many of the HIV drugs out now are based on the gene sequencing of several African prostitutes that had natural immunity to the disease. Their DNA was sequenced and then copyrighted by the drug companies in question with no reimbursement to the prostitutes what-so-ever.

Re:Copyright (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43120225)

No.

Clones aren't you. They wouldn't belong to you, and they won't have the life experiences of you.

What happens in Vegas... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120723)

If someone took a skin swab without permission, I would feel violated - because of the swabbing, not because they 'stole' my DNA. If you are in public and you lose some DNA there, what control of that DNA do you have?

I can can think of far worse uses of my DNA than cloning me, like leaving it at a crime scene.

Re:Copyright (1)

sandertje (1748324) | about a year ago | (#43120963)

I'm afraid to say, but there are loads of gene patents out there. SO yes, half your body belongs to some kind of corporation or another, and hence so will your clones (with the added bonus that the cloning technique itself probably has been patented a million times over)

Re:Copyright (1)

Arthurio (1392181) | about a year ago | (#43121855)

Am I the only one who would be more than ok with this happening? I'd be fascinated. If I could see how that person grows up I could get so many answers to interesting questions. For example common things that are partly or completely attributed to genetics such as IQ, body weight, height etc. But also what kind of interests would that person develop, what kind of tastes, would there be any similarities in terms of personality. What could be wrong with a several decades younger clone living somewhere else if the clone is healthy. More than one clone could be problematic for the clones but not really for me. It doesn't take a clone to plant my DNA at a crime scene. Besides DNA can hardly be the only evidence in such case. And if the opposite happens, the clone turns out more successful than me then I guess I'll be a little jealous but probably too old to care.

Good for the mice. (1)

ButchDeLoria (2772751) | about a year ago | (#43119241)

Now to get it working in humans.

Re:Good for the mice. (1)

plover (150551) | about a year ago | (#43119317)

Now to get it working in humans.

Why? I don't know anyone who is so perfect they're worth making a clone of.

Re:Good for the mice. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119567)

> Why? I don't know anyone who is so perfect they're worth making a clone of.

Imagine 1000 clones, living in different environments. Monitored by scientists. What we could learn from that.

Or if we just want to have a duplicate of someone... How about Gauss? Tesla? Darwin? Newton? Or someone who is still alive and a bit like them.

Or how about me? I'm not perfect, but I know now what I'm good at. And I know what I wish I had learned earlier in my life to be even better. What if I could teach my clone to be a better person than I am?

I'm not saying that these are good ideas, but they are ideas.

Re:Good for the mice. (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year ago | (#43119857)

Or how about me? I'm not perfect, but I know now what I'm good at.

I'll say. The last thing we need are clones of Anonymous Coward.

Re:Good for the mice. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119649)

Adolf Hitler and his men would be a good start. They were the visionaries of their day and are still far ahead of their time and that even includes our time. They recognized the utility in removing undesirable forms of humanity and encouraging those that are highly desirable. Planet Earth needs men who will regulate the growth of useless third world parasites. For instance, the beauty of the flora and fauna of African is being destroyed by a rapidly reproducing and evolutionarily inferior form of human, the sub-saharan negro. Those with sense will know that what is happening is unsustainable and there must be a program implemented to halt this growth and remove it.

Re:Good for the mice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120649)

Well it's about time we met!

Re:Good for the mice. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year ago | (#43119589)

Clones are just as good as an identical twin. Only possible separated by age.

It is not like Sci-Fi where you have a body ready to load your consciousness in so you can live forever. It would be a Unique Human Being with just happens to have the same genetic code, but would be a different person.

Re:Good for the mice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119669)

not if you keep them sedated till you needed the parts....

Re:Good for the mice. (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#43120119)

Nah, just remove the forebrain while it's still an embryo, saves you a *fortune* in ongoing anesthetic costs, not to mention nutrient slurry. It's not like anybody is going to want their *brain* replaced, so really it's just a bunch of useless calorie-burning meat. Heck, catch it soon enough and there's not really even much of a brain to speak of yet - scoop out a few thousand cells at the critical junction and you've got a product that was never meaningfully "human" - after all the rest of our body is not so different from any other animal.

Yeah, we may have some serious ethical questions to answer at some point. Then again we're making some incredible advances in regenerative medicine, so we may dodge that particular moral quandry.

Re:Good for the mice. (1)

Millennium (2451) | about a year ago | (#43119909)

Widespread cloning would be really, really bad for the gene pool.

Re:Good for the mice. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120289)

No kidding. Just ask the Asgard.

Re:Good for the mice. (0)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43120351)

We have clones, why do we need a gene pool?

Re:Good for the mice. (1)

Millennium (2451) | about a year ago | (#43120695)

For the same reasons organisms do: on a biological level, genetic variation is a big part of how we can adapt to changing circumstances.

Re:Good for the mice. (1)

Dayze!Confused (717774) | about a year ago | (#43120903)

Because when bacteria and viruses keep getting better at killing us we need the random genetic mutations to help us survive. Look at banana colonies that have collapsed due to cloning of banana trees when a new disease came by and wiped out all the trees.

Precious eggs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119373)

"and too wasteful of precious eggs"

I knew it! The entire process is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious... eggs.

Re:Precious eggs... (1)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about a year ago | (#43120285)

Human eggs are precious. They cost $157,000,000,000,000 [twitter.com] (that's Trillion, with a Tee) an ounce!

Re:Precious eggs... (1)

Jappus (1177563) | about a year ago | (#43121229)

So, just like diamonds, that's artificial scarcity at full work here.

According to Wikipedia, a woman has something around 300.000 egg cells when she turns fertile. Let us assume 50.000 cells as the average for all women between 16 and 40. So how many human females do we have in that age range?

According to the US census [1], there were ~4.5 billion (short scale) humans on this planet between 16 and 64. To subtract the oldest 24 years, let us be pessimistic and assume an equal distribution; so we need to subtract one half (16 to 64 = 48 years; 16 to 40 = 24 years). We also subtract one half of that, as we only want women.
Therefore, we have roughly 1.125 billion human females of fertile and (in many countries) legal age.

So, (1.125 x 10^9) * (5 x 10^4) = 5.625 x 10^14 egg cells. 10^12 is a trillion (short scale); so we have somewhere around 562.5 trillion human egg cells on this planet earth.

According to [2] a single human egg cells weighs between 0.00177-0.0042 mg. Average of 0.001mg. That means the total mass of all human egg cells is: ~0.5 trillion milligrams. Since milli = 1/1000, that makes 0.5 billion grams. Since 1kg = 1000g, we have 0.5 million kg of human egg cells. That means a bit over half a megaton of human egg cells at this moment.

According to Google, that's 17 636 981 ounces of human egg cells.

Plus, if even 1 out of every 50.000 cloning attempts works (assuming you're only producing female clones), it's self-replenishing. :p

[1] - http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1353_age_distribution_by_country.html [allcountries.org]
[1] - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Weight_of_a_human_egg_cell [answers.com]

Darth Mouse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119391)

So are they going to clone a Darth Vader Mouse too or will they try Immaculate conception?

cloning/copying same differance (1)

smileymon (1076163) | about a year ago | (#43119397)

Well the Japs have always been very good at copying electronic tech. With Bio-tech, cloning is the new copying

Hooray - more ways to make more humans. (1)

Vegan Cyclist (1650427) | about a year ago | (#43119415)

Just what the planet needs.

Re:Hooray - more ways to make more humans. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43119513)

Just what the planet needs.

Given how expensive the process is likely to be, I'm not terribly concerned.

Now, given how expensive the process is likely to be, I'm also not wildly interested, outside of some very niche applications and the value as pure science...

Meh. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119557)

Call me evil, but I'm less interested in full blown cloning than I am creating a sack of meat and replacement organs.

Lose a kidney? I fear no rejection for I am fear incarnate! Also because cloned organs.

Re:Hooray - more ways to make more humans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119745)

I know that you are being sarcastic but we should clone those who are exceptional as far as intelligence goes. We need more humans who possess above average European/Oriental intelligence in order to achieve quicker scientific progress. I do agree with the gist of your comment though when it comes to evolutionary inferior forms of human existence such as sub-saharan Africans, Arabs, and Hispanics.

As a Darwinist I feel it best to let lesser evolved forms of human existence die out. We should not be sending food or medicine to places like Haiti for example. In fact, we should use our military technology to preserve the natural habitat that still remains their by wiping out the African presence that exists there. They have ravaged the island through deforestation and over-reproduction and it is the duty of the thinking man to remedy it.

As a man who is capable of independent thought I don't need propaganda to interpret what I see with my own eyes. I care not if the content of this message may offend you but realize that what I speak is the truth.

Re:Hooray - more ways to make more humans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119975)

Just what the planet needs.

Why don't you lead by example?

Summary seems to imply Dolly's cloning was flawed (4, Informative)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year ago | (#43119493)

But from the Wikipedia entry the summary itself links to:

A post-mortem examination showed she had a form of lung cancer called Jaagsiekte,[15] which is a fairly common disease of sheep and is caused by the retrovirus JSRV.[16] Roslin scientists stated that they did not think there was a connection with Dolly being a clone, and that other sheep in the same flock had died of the same disease.[14] Such lung diseases are a particular danger for sheep kept indoors, and Dolly had to sleep inside for security reasons.

Re:Summary seems to imply Dolly's cloning was flaw (2)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | about a year ago | (#43121003)

Dolly had to sleep inside for security reasons.

Why? Were they afraid she was going to steal things from the other sheep? Was there a history of anti-social behavior in her family history (as shown here [youtube.com] )?

Re:Summary seems to imply Dolly's cloning was flaw (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | about a year ago | (#43121489)

I don't think they meant security from people or the other sheep, but predatory dogs. Kind of ironic that trying to protect her probably killed her.

Frak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119503)

"Frak Dolly and frak all its clones, frak all these Mickey Mouse wanna-be's"

"Human" testing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43119555)

I am personally a big fan of moving beyond rodents and using sub-saharan africans instead in medical and genetic testing. African negroes are a lesser evolved form of human but are obviously much closer to us genetically than a mouse is. They are essentially obsolete savages of evolution and I don't see any reason we should not be using this resource for constructive purposes.

I know some here will take great offense to this post but they are those who deny fact and have no interest in the progression of science. I would wager to bet the moment that they develop some life threatening malady though that they will quickly change their way of thinking.

"Failure Rate" is the issue (3, Insightful)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year ago | (#43119687)

Large numbers of defective fetuses is what keeps human cloning from being a reality. Cloning also has the issue global warming has, the name is misleading. Instead of clone they should be called a genetic twin. Most assume the clone will look like you and have all the same characteristics. I'm sure some even think they'd have the same memories. A clone can be taller or shorter and It may look almost exactly the same but even identical twin have slight differences so family and friends can pick them out. The only hope of human cloning having a future is to get away from this carbon copy idea and explain to people how they will be unique and not a perfect copy.

Re:"Failure Rate" is the issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120145)

Cloning also has the issue global warming has, the name is misleading. Instead of clone they should be called a genetic twin. Most assume the clone will look like you and have all the same characteristics. I'm sure some even think they'd have the same memories. A clone can be taller or shorter and It may look almost exactly the same but even identical twin have slight differences so family and friends can pick them out. The only hope of human cloning having a future is to get away from this carbon copy idea and explain to people how they will be unique and not a perfect copy.

Once cloning becomes common these misconceptions will fade away. But even if they didn't it's certainly not the only future for cloning; rich people will get clones regardless of what the masses want.

Telomeres (3)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | about a year ago | (#43119693)

What's with telomeres? That's all I have. And I expect this comment to disappear underneath a delugh of "Let's clone Natalie Portman" posts, but seriously, is this thing on? What's with telomeres and DNA end funtions and all this other shit we've been reading about here and all l the rest of the sites? Why is this viable and how does it relate to us?

Re:Telomeres (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#43120235)

Telomeres can be regenerated with a telemorase enzyme, something our bodies can produce, but normally don't. I'd imagine that either the embryonic state naturally activates the regeneration (seems plausible, there's some serious cell division going on after all), or that at some point it's stimulated artificially.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere#Lengthening

Re:Telomeres (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120561)

Telomeres are the reason you aren't a walking blob of cancer.

Apologies to cancer patients who are, in fact, a walking blob of cancer.

Re:Telomeres (1)

tokencode (1952944) | about a year ago | (#43120791)

Telomeres are the caps on the end of DNA sequences, similar to the plastic on the tip of a shoelace. It holds the DNA strand together and signals the end of the DNA. Over time the telomeres shorten and eventually the DNA unravels. It is thought that the shorten of the telomeres may play a roll in aging / cell death cycle.

Apparently, Dolly was not a good example... (1)

denzacar (181829) | about a year ago | (#43121799)

...of how telomeres work during cloning.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/288/5466/586.summary [sciencemag.org]

Science 28 April 2000:
Vol. 288 no. 5466 pp. 586-587
DOI: 10.1126/science.288.5466.586

        News of the Week

CELL BIOLOGY
In Contrast to Dolly, Cloning Resets Telomere Clock in Cattle

        Gretchen Vogel

When researchers took a close look at the cells of Dolly, the cloned sheep, they found that her telomeres, the caps on the ends of the chromosomes, were shorter than normal. Because telomere length decreases with age, this was an indication that Dolly might age unusually quickly. But on page 665, a physician and his colleagues report that cells from calves that they cloned have telomeres that are longer than normal. According to the researchers, the findings suggest that tissues produced by cloning might last at least as long as the original cells--and perhaps longer.

Are you pondering what I'm pondering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120177)

"I think so, Brain, but me and Pippi Longstocking... I mean, what would the children look like?"

So ? Disney been doing it for years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120341)

Just take care not to call any of your mice Micky... You might survive cellular degradation but trademarks and patents are a whole different beast all together.

Rabbit eggs (1)

RicardoKAlmeida (2790435) | about a year ago | (#43120441)

The problem with human cloning is women produce too few eggs - just one a month. There's one thing that isn't cloned from the original cell: mitochondria. The clone gets them from the egg, not from the original donor. So, why not use rabbit eggs? After a few cell divisions, all proteins would have been replaced by human proteins anyway. All but those in the mitochondria. I wonder what would happen to the organism? We can try it first with monkeys and rabbits to see whether it works or not. I had this idea soon after dolly, but felt I should keep my mouth shut. It seems the Chinese tried something like that some years later, but I don't know the results. Anyone here knows?

Re:Rabbit eggs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43120769)

I wonder what would happen to the organism?

Sudden increase in worldwide demand of carrots?

captcha: prepare

Memory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43121445)

The true test to this in the future is memory. The true drive behind human cloning is immortalization. Propagation and defects etc. will always play second fiddle to this, no matter how idealistic the scientists are.

So the true test is taking a rat and getting a baseline for memory recall (a maze etc.), cloning the rat, then when at age attempting to recreate the memmory recall of that originating rat, in the clone.

That will be the "end all be all" test for how much research and funding actually is committed to coning. Disease irradiation, fixing genetics, these will all be second in benefit. We are an egotistical species and immortality has always been the holy grail of our imaginations.

Re:Memory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43121479)

Also for the guy above this post. If we take DNA samples early enough, telomores will never pose a significant issue, for cloning lifspan persay. But it will pose a lage threat to those who want to clone themselves at a certain point in their lives. If we do not sind a way to add telomores to our DNA, then we will never overcome cell degradation, cancer, and natural death.

Load More 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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...