StoopTroup
5/25/2007, 12:49 PM
Here's a little blog to brighten up your day...
Who Needs Males, Anyway? (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2007/05/24/who-needs-males-anyway.aspx)
A certain famous virgin birth 2,000-some years ago notwithstanding, parthenogenesis in mammals is not in the cards. Mammalian genes don’t just merge in a fertilized egg and carry on. Instead, at least 100 genes in both sperm and eggs are turned off. But it’s never the same gene; if dad’s is a dud, mom’s takes up the slack, and vice versa. But obviously that doesn’t portend well for parthenogenesis. If you merge the DNA in two eggs, you’ll still have too many deactivated genes to produce a viable offspring. Some truly bizarre laboratory manipulations have gotten around this—scientists in Japan managed to disable to genetic “off” switches in a mouse egg, so all of the maternal genes were working, producing mice without a father in 2004. But don’t expect the technique to come to a fertility clinic near you anytime soon.
Who Needs Males, Anyway? (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2007/05/24/who-needs-males-anyway.aspx)
A certain famous virgin birth 2,000-some years ago notwithstanding, parthenogenesis in mammals is not in the cards. Mammalian genes don’t just merge in a fertilized egg and carry on. Instead, at least 100 genes in both sperm and eggs are turned off. But it’s never the same gene; if dad’s is a dud, mom’s takes up the slack, and vice versa. But obviously that doesn’t portend well for parthenogenesis. If you merge the DNA in two eggs, you’ll still have too many deactivated genes to produce a viable offspring. Some truly bizarre laboratory manipulations have gotten around this—scientists in Japan managed to disable to genetic “off” switches in a mouse egg, so all of the maternal genes were working, producing mice without a father in 2004. But don’t expect the technique to come to a fertility clinic near you anytime soon.