DNA transfer prevent human mitochondrial disease
We can prevent the transmission of mitochondrial DNA diseases from the mother to child, but it means that child will have DNA from three parents. Will we embrace this technology, or more importantly will the generation likely to use this technology embrace it.
Published in Nature this week, researchers have successfully transplanted the genetic material from the nucleus of a fertilised human egg into another fertilised egg, without carrying over mitochondria, the energy-producing structures of the cell that are found in the cytoplasm of the cell – the soupy stuff that all the cellular structures float around in.
Prevention better than cure?
Mitochondria have their own DNA, even if it is only a tiny amount relative to that in the nucleus. This technique, should it be perfected enough to reach a clinical application, might help prevent babies from inheriting diseases caused by mutations in the DNA of mitochondria. Mutations in mitochondrial DNA are linked to diseases causing neurological, muscle and heart problems, as well as deafness and type 2 diabetes. It is estimated that about one in 250 people carry a potentially disease-causing mitochondrial mutation, and the options for treatment are limited.
The problem is that the process requires the destruction of the embryo that loses its nuclear material. Doubtless this will cause concern among some. The same thing was done with monkeys in 2009, but they successfully transferred the nuclear material from unfertilised eggs. I am unsure if this can be done with humans, but it would certainly get around this particular issue
Not our future
Yesterday I ran a workshop on human enhancement for some South Australian science teachers. We discussed the ethical issues and acceptability or not of potential technologies that can assist in eliminating or preventing human diseases. They involved manipulating the human genome at the embryo stage. That is, making permanent changes that can be passed on to the next generation. A few thought some of the applications an abomination, but none exactly embraced the technology. The question arose that we are sitting here making judgements about what is acceptable for our society based on values that will likely be different to those that will actually be using such technology, should society, of course, decide that this is OK.
So although we need to have this discussion now to help guide the research objectives that in turn possibly prevent societal backlash and a flurry of reactive legislation thrown together to appease the unruly crowds (yes I am generalising a bit), are we making choices about stuff for a generation that may disagree with us?
Through the looking glass
It is a brave new world and we have only just opened the door to have a peek beyond the threshold. Some people tell me they the world is moving too fast and they want to get off; others say it they can’t make it go fast enough. Either way, it is fascinating stuff and the water cooler discussions can only get more interesting, at least around my water cooler.
More info
The Australian Science Media Centre has posted a report on this research with quotes from relevant experts.
Reference
Craven, L., et al. Nature advanced online publication, doi: 10.1038/nature08958 (2010).