lunes, 13 de junio de 2016

MercatorNet: Good news on three-parent embryos … or maybe not

MercatorNet: Good news on three-parent embryos … or maybe not

Good news on three-parent embryos … or maybe not

It appears that recent research from the UK has been over-hyped.
Philippa Taylor | Jun 13 2016 | comment 

According to media reports, it is now safe to produce three-parent embryos! We are well on the way to providing new treatments for women who have inheritable mitochondrial disorders! We just need the HFEA to issue the first licence to a clinic and soon healthy children will be born, free of disease.

Ok, perhaps that last sentence was slightly over-hyped, but only by the word “soon”, and no more so than the news has been hyped by the scientists and media.

New research from Newcastle University just published in the journal Nature has generated headlines that the creation of three parent embryos is now both safe and effective. The researchers are full of optimism that they have overcome “significant technical and biological challenges” and it will lead to a”normal pregnancy”.

The researchers say that it is now time for the HFEA to decide whether to issue a licence to a clinic, to allow couples affected by mitochondrial disease to use the new technique, pronuclear transfer, to try to have healthy children (albeit no mention of the fact that it is appropriate for only a tiny handful of women).

The media have certainly picked up on the optimistic press release headlines.

To assess whether such optimism is truly justified, we need to read some of the detail and understand the science a bit better. This reveals something rather less optimistic.

Some of the mutated mitochondrial DNA had carried over into the embryos. But only a tiny amount, the researchers emphasise. Less than 2 percent for most of the embryos. Only 4 percent for one embryo. Nevertheless lead scientist Mary Herbert admits in their press release that it: raises the possibility that faulty mitochondrial DNA may persist in some cases. However, the research team is optimistic that the new technique will be effective in reducing the risk of disease in children of affected women.”

How important is this “carry over” of some faulty mitochondria?

This is where it gets a bit more interesting.

Just three weeks ago, the same journal, Nature, published an article on some other three parent embryo research but with a rather different headline and take: “Three-person embryos may fail to vanquish mutant mitochondria”.

Researchers at The New York Stem Cell Foundation Research Institute discovered that in some trials, the “carry-over” of unhealthy mitochondria could dominate the healthy mitochondria, they warned it may increase over time, and thus potentially actually cause one of the diseases the therapy was intended to cure! Which would therefore nullify the technique’s effect.

Unsurprisingly, this problem, the lead researcher says: “would defeat the purpose of doing mitochondrial replacement.”

“If even a small number of mutant mitochondria are retained after the transfer — a common occurrence — they can outcompete healthy mitochondria in a child’s cells and potentially cause the disease the therapy was designed to avoid, experiments suggest.”
So what did Mary Herbert, lead researcher in today’s headlines, make of this other, earlier research?

Interestingly, she is quoted in the older Nature article as saying: “Levels of mutant mitochondria can fluctuate wildly in stem cells. They are peculiar cells, and they seem to be a law unto themselves.”

Herbert's own research has been promoted by Professor Turnbull, a director at the Wellcome Trust, who says: “The key message is that we have found no evidence that the technique is unsafe.”

It is always enlightening to observe how researchers “sell” their findings to the public. The Newcastle scientists are masters at this, and at playing down the risks and problems. Their abstract says that carry over of abnormal mitochondria “was reduced to <2% in the majority (79%) of PNT blastocysts”.

That sounds good, but actually it means that carryover of mutated mitochondria was more than 2 percent in nearly a quarter of the blastocysts, and in the one blastocyst that had 4 percent carryover, the abnormal mitochondria continued to proliferate (get worse!) in the new stem cell line. It also means that all the blastocysts may well have had between 0 and 2 percent carry-over, and some more.

These percentages may seem small, but read it in the light of the earlier Nature article, where levels of carried-over mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) jumped from 1.3 percent to 53.2 percent, only to later plummet down to 1 percent. In another set of experiments, the low levels of carried-over mtDNA consistently outcompeted (dominated) the donor mtDNA.

So Herbert is quite right to have said they are a “law unto themselves”. It therefore makes it incredibly hard (if not impossible) to predict what will happen beyond her few-days-old embryos.

In which case, to go beyond “just” doing research on embryos and instead getting a licence to develop actual “treatments” would lead to experimentation with the genetic make-up of living babies and the modification of their germline, which would impact future generations in ways we do not know and cannot predict.

Leaving aside the ethical issues (for now – another blog is brewing) I guess it depends which particular Nature article you want to refer to, (this one or this one), to decide whether you think this technique is safe to use, and whether the hype is justified.

Philippa Taylor is Head of Public Policy at the Christian Medical Fellowship in London. She has an MA in Bioethics from St Mary’s University College and a background in policy work on bioethics and family issues. This article has been republished with permission from the CMF blog


A day after the slaughter of 50 people and the wounding of 50 others at a gay bar in Orlando, it is impossible to say nothing at all about it. But there is little the editors of this publication can say, or even ought to say at this stage beyond condemning the shooting as a terrible crime. Already political adversaries are slapping competing labels -- “gay hate crime” vs “Islamic terrorism” -- on the attack. Can’t it be both?

In any case, we prefer to wait for all the facts, and in the meantime pray for the victims and their loved ones. 

Carolyn Moynihan
Deputy Editor,

Keeping sex for marriage helps marriages last the distance
Carolyn Moynihan | FAMILY EDGE | 13 June 2016
A new study confirms that virgin brides have the lowest divorce rates.
Good news on three-parent embryos … or maybe not
Philippa Taylor | FEATURES | 13 June 2016
It appears that recent research from the UK has been over-hyped.
Fr Cyril Axelrod, witness to hope for the deaf and blind
Chiara Bertoglio | ABOVE | 13 June 2016
Jubilee of Mercy for the sick and disabled highlights a unique vocation.
Will Belgium grant euthanasia for unwanted sexual attraction?
Michael Cook | CAREFUL! | 11 June 2016
A 39-year-old man has requested euthanasia because he fears that he may be a paedophile
Hungary: the latest policy in the fight against depopulation
Marcus Roberts | DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY | 11 June 2016
Lots of money for parents (if they build a new house).
MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street, North Strathfied NSW 2137, Australia

Designed by elleston
New Media Foundation | Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605 
MercatorNet: Good news on three-parent embryos … or maybe not

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario