Using precision editing to study human embryo development shows master gene

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/first-use-of-precision-editing-to-study-human-embryo-development-reveals-role-of-master-gene

by gmays • 21 days ago

67 31 21 days ago

cam.ac.uk

ape4• 17 days ago

I wonder what the regulations are for this sort of work

bpodgursky• 17 days ago

In the US it's legal-sorta but the NIH can't fund it and the FDA is not allowed to approve treatments based on it. So someone could do it in a research setting but there's not a pathway to market in the US (in practice people will do the first ones in a friendly legal climate like Peru).

bonsai_spool• 17 days ago

In the US it's legal-sorta but the NIH can't fund it and the FDA is not allowed to approve treatments based on it

What references are you following? Haven't heard this before.

kens• 17 days ago

The short answer is the "14-day" rule, which doesn't allow development of the embryo beyond 14 days. The article gives specifics under the heading "Ethical and legal compliance"

MichaelZuo• 17 days ago

Does anyone know why such a fundamental gene would have such different behaviours between mammals?

In previous mouse studies, loss of NANOG disrupted both the epiblast and the yolk sac - a tissue that supports the developing embryo. In this human embryo study, loss of NANOG primarily affected the epiblast, the future body-forming line of cells.

smalltorch4• 17 days ago

I think it's more of the fact that they were conceived which will bother most.

A sperm on its own was never going to be a person. A egg on its own was never going to be a person.

A embryo... we cause the sparks to fly here and it's disturbing to think we can poke at the genes when we really have no idea what we are doing. Was a soul created here? Lot of people think yes. So lots of people naturally care about that taking place. Just to poke and prod 1 of billions of base pairs to see what happens does not seem like a good idea or..even a practical way to learn anything.

I would bargain there are a lot more pairs you could mess with that would have the same effect and would prevent the embryo from developing further.

I lean that we most likely are creating souls (however that works...) the moment of conception and we probably should be fooling around with doing this stuff. This article reminded me of this video I saw 10 years ago that shows there is a moment in time where sparks literally fly and it's pretty amazing to see.

https://vimeo.com/163864531

efnx• 17 days ago

So do all sexually reproducing species’ conception create souls? Or is it just a blessed few? What about asexually reproducing species?

smalltorch4• 17 days ago

So do all sexually reproducing species’ conception create souls?

No, what is your opinion?

Or is it just a blessed few?

Specifically humans.

What about asexually reproducing species?

They have life that's for sure but I think it's very different than humans.

whatever13• 17 days ago

Embryos have to reset after conception to delete all of the faulty dna inherited from the parents. Babies don’t get born with wrinkles for example. They start clean slate without (most) epigenetic damage that both sperm and egg had.

So the embryo a 10 days after conception is not the same thing as at conception. Did God kill it?

fc417fc8024• 17 days ago

Do you have more information or citations related to epigenetic damage in the sperm and egg?

A lot of age related dysfunction is systemic as opposed to genetic. Even for the stuff that's (epi)genetic in nature it's important to bear in mind that each cell has its own independent copy.

FuckButtons• 17 days ago

I will never understand this mindset. What exactly do you think primary scientific research is if not collecting data on questions to which you do not know the answer? How are you supposed to get data to said questions without observing the actual events? I suppose you’re sanguine with the idea of letting future generations of children be born with potentially preventable genetic disorders based on your squeamishness?

smalltorch4• 17 days ago

Lots of breakthroughs in medicine happen without editing genes? And why do you think Im opposed to the scientific method based on this view point that maybe experimenting on human embryos is not a great way to learn stuff?

For example, what happens when we get to the point where we need to use the scientific method to test if the gene editing was successful and didn't cause negative outcomes for the child's entire existence perhaps? Will they need to live their whole life for us to confirm the cure worked?

Refreeze5224• 16 days ago

I lean that we most likely are creating souls (however that works...)

You might want to flesh this part out a bit more before criticizing scientists tweaking some cell clumps.

j16sdiz• 17 days ago

Base editing can precisely change a single nucleotide base pair...

Absolutely not. It _cut_ the DNA at three nine precision (not that great given the number of base pairs we have); and things sitch together at much higher error rate.

It is a great technology, but it is not as great as many claim

Using precision editing to study human embryo development shows master gene

Related Stories