Stem cells from an egg not fertilized

  • Thread starter Thread starter cazayoux
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A lot better…if it works as well as with a fertalized egg, I hope it replaces it.
 
There’s a couple of things I don’t understand about this. Doesn’t an egg only have half the chromosones of a regular cell? How could stem cells with only half the chromosones be useful? Furthermore, the whole goal of creating embryonic stem cells is to get those that are an exact genetic match of the person they hope to treat with these stem cells. An egg is not an exact genetic match to anyone, not even the woman who produced the egg.

I guess I just don’t understand the science behind this.

If science ever develops effective treatment with embryonic stem cells, we’ll have a whole Pandora’s box of ethical problems. Where will the human eggs come from? Will women be lining up to go through the onerous procedure to donate the millions of necessary eggs? I think not. My greatest fear is that scientists will turn to aborted baby girls for the eggs. :eek:
 
40.png
StJeanneDArc:
There’s a couple of things I don’t understand about this. Doesn’t an egg only have half the chromosones of a regular cell? How could stem cells with only half the chromosones be useful? Furthermore, the whole goal of creating embryonic stem cells is to get those that are an exact genetic match of the person they hope to treat with these stem cells. An egg is not an exact genetic match to anyone, not even the woman who produced the egg.

I guess I just don’t understand the science behind this.
Click to expand...
An egg cell has the same chromosomes as the rest of the female body which produced it but it only has one copy (haploid) instead of the two copies (diploid) that regular cells have.

If they were to be successful in getting it to divide and sustain its growth, the results could be very odd. Plants have what is called an alternation of generations in which one generation is diploid and the subsequent generation (which is not the result of sexual reproduction) is haploid. The haploid generation produces the gametes which unite (sexual reproduction) to create a new diploid generation.

I can’t even imagine what would be the result if they successfully grow a haploid human cell to maturity, whatever that means.
 
If it is an embryo, then it is an individual human organism. It is a life. It sounds like a cloned human, if anything. They use the enzyme of the sperm, to “spark” the life of the egg. The egg divides and acts like any other fertilized egg, just without the paternal chromosomes.
 
My understanding is that God creates a soul when the right genetic materials come toghether (whether through in vitro or the fun, old fashioned way!) If the right materials aren’t there, there can be no soul. I don’t see how all the right genetic materials can be there w/ no sperm. Have they totally removed the role of the man??? —KCT
 
I have major problems with this, anyway. Why on earth are these scientists so determined not to use adult stem cells, which are so much more promising?

Now they have gone off into another direction, while still using human eggs, and the “trigger” from sperm. What is wrong with them? Embryonic stem cells have only produced tumors. They have no idea what these cells will do, since they have only just discovered that they can make them divide, and they only have half of the chromosones.

No, it doesn’t sit well with me at all.
 
40.png
renee1258:
If it is an embryo, then it is an individual human organism. It is a life. It sounds like a cloned human, if anything. They use the enzyme of the sperm, to “spark” the life of the egg. The egg divides and acts like any other fertilized egg, just without the paternal chromosomes.
Click to expand...
It isn’t an embryo. It is an unfertilized egg cell that is stimulated to undergo mitosis. That’s what’s interesting about this report.
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
An egg cell has the same chromosomes as the rest of the female body which produced it but it only has one copy (haploid) instead of the two copies (diploid) that regular cells have.

If they were to be successful in getting it to divide and sustain its growth, the results could be very odd. Plants have what is called an alternation of generations in which one generation is diploid and the subsequent generation (which is not the result of sexual reproduction) is haploid. The haploid generation produces the gametes which unite (sexual reproduction) to create a new diploid generation.

I can’t even imagine what would be the result if they successfully grow a haploid human cell to maturity, whatever that means.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. It sounds as though by definition a haploid human cell, even though it may be dividing, is not a human being. We started from diploid cells, right? The haploid cells only fulfill the special purpose of being one half of the reproductive pair. I guess I still can’t imagine how this could be useful in the same way that a cloned embryonic stem cell could be.
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
An egg cell has the same chromosomes as the rest of the female body which produced it but it only has one copy (haploid) instead of the two copies (diploid) that regular cells have.

If they were to be successful in getting it to divide and sustain its growth, the results could be very odd. Plants have what is called an alternation of generations in which one generation is diploid and the subsequent generation (which is not the result of sexual reproduction) is haploid. The haploid generation produces the gametes which unite (sexual reproduction) to create a new diploid generation.

I can’t even imagine what would be the result if they successfully grow a haploid human cell to maturity, whatever that means.
Click to expand...
An egg cell has half the diploid # of chromosomes but does NOT have the exact same genetic makeup as the female who produced it because the genome undergoes recombination during oogenesis. In mouse at least an egg cell artificially stimulated to develop often duplicates its own genome so that it is now diploid, but with two maternal genomes. These “gynogenetic” embryos do not develop very far, but when introduced into a normal embryo they can develop to produce a limited number of tissues in a relatively normal mouse. In theory one could perform somatic cell nuclear transfer (“cloning”) and then stimulate the egg artificially to develop to the blast stage and then create a gynogenetic ES cell line. But who knows whether these cells would develop properly in a human or if they could produce only a limited # of cell types
 
hmmm - still sounds like a rotten egg to me. I’ll wait for the Pope and follow his lead.
 
I wonder why we refuse to let God be in charge of creation…

““The team from Wales College of Medicine at Cardiff University say this could provide a more ethically acceptable way of creating ‘embryonic’ stem cells. The ‘embryos’ do not contain any paternal chromosomes, so could not develop into a baby.””

I guess that depends on what the meaning of "baby is.

""The researchers called the enzyme “the spark of life”. “”

Alright everybody. repeat after me “We’re in charge of creation…We’re in charge of creation.!!!”

“There are a number of potential benefits, including the possibility of generating embryonic stem cells without the need to use embryos that were originally created for a couple’s IVF treatment.”

My question now is what do they consider an embryo to be??

Sorry if I sound a bit leary, but this embryo business seems to keep changing the defiinition of words as soon as I figure out what they mean.

These follks may be well intended, but…

"“The researchers called the enzyme “the spark of life””

'"“But he added: “The fact that they have found a biological trigger to prompt the egg to divide is fabulous.””

I thinksome refer to this jokingly as a “Virgin birth.” I don’t.

“”“You would have to assume the couple had an infertility problem to do with the sperm lacking this substance.”
He added that any eggs treated this way would also have to be closely monitored to ensure they were fertilised, and developed, properly""

Sounds like they wanna make babies again…

““Josephine Quintavalle of the group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, expressed concern over the Cardiff team’s research. She said: “I’d be happier if it was beyond all reasonable doubt that [these embryos] could not become a human life.”””

OOOOOPSSSS a human life.

Humbled and grateful
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
It isn’t an embryo. It is an unfertilized egg cell that is stimulated to undergo mitosis. That’s what’s interesting about this report.
Click to expand...
To what point of “human” development? If a cell can go throught mitosis, then it is an organism. What kind of organism is it, if it isn’t human?
 
Clear to me… how about you…?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

i vote we wait for Rome… :twocents:
 
40.png
renee1258:
To what point of “human” development? If a cell can go throught mitosis, then it is an organism. What kind of organism is it, if it isn’t human?
Click to expand...
That IS the question!! Is something that is genetically human but incapable of completing development a human being? :confused: :confused:
 
space ghost:
Clear to me… how about you…?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

i vote we wait for Rome… :twocents:
Click to expand...
Oooooooooo…the hematopoietic cell lineage…cool!🙂
 
40.png
Jadesfire20:
An egg cell has half the diploid # of chromosomes but does NOT have the exact same genetic makeup as the female who produced it because the genome undergoes recombination during oogenesis. In mouse at least an egg cell artificially stimulated to develop often duplicates its own genome so that it is now diploid, but with two maternal genomes. These “gynogenetic” embryos do not develop very far, but when introduced into a normal embryo they can develop to produce a limited number of tissues in a relatively normal mouse. In theory one could perform somatic cell nuclear transfer (“cloning”) and then stimulate the egg artificially to develop to the blast stage and then create a gynogenetic ES cell line. But who knows whether these cells would develop properly in a human or if they could produce only a limited # of cell types
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. I was pleased to discover that in my ignorance I managed to be correct. . . I didn’t say it was genetically identical, only that it had the same chromosomes (in terms of number and the general function of each chromosome.) At least I think that’s correct. . . don’t specific chromosomes have specific functions, such that many disorders can be traced to a flaw in a particular chromosome, i.e., down syndrome?
 
40.png
renee1258:
To what point of “human” development? If a cell can go throught mitosis, then it is an organism. What kind of organism is it, if it isn’t human?
Click to expand...
Well, that can be expanded: if you get a cancer biopsy, they do a cell culture. Are the cells which are then grown (undergoing mitosis) a separate human life? Or is some part of “you” trapped in a laboratory somewhere?

Or, what if my arm is hacked off. Is it a separate human life lying there on the floor before the cells eventually die?

What about transplants? My mom donated one of her kidneys to her sister. The kidney tissue is genetically that of my mom, but it is in my aunt’s body. What is its state?

I propose that we cannot ascribe the description human being to an organism simply because it has human DNA.
 
40.png
Jadesfire20:
That IS the question!! Is something that is genetically human but incapable of completing development a human being? :confused: :confused:
Click to expand...
The question is also: What constitutes a human being? Why are you and I human beings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top