OT; wouldn¹t this basically be cloning?

[Guest guest]

OT; wouldn¹t this basically be cloning?

----

Males Not Needed; Mouse Born from Unfertilized Egg

Wed Apr 21, 2004 02:06 PM ET

MORE

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - For the first time, Japanese researchers have

created a viable mouse via " virgin birth, " or parthenogenesis -- that is,

the offspring was derived solely from female genetic material contained in

the mother's egg, without any contribution from a male animal.

The researchers note in their article in the science journal Nature that

parthenogenesis is seen in insects and reptiles, but it does not occur in

mammals. In the lab, mammalian embryos generated when an animal's egg is

persuaded to start dividing as if it had been fertilized have always died

after just a few days of gestation.

The barrier seems to be the necessity for a process called imprinting. This

ensures that one of the two copies of every gene found in a cell - usually

one each from the father and mother -- is turned off. If this doesn't

happen, the embryo stops developing.

By making sure that certain genes were deleted, Dr. Tomohiro Kono, the Tokyo

University of Agriculture, and colleagues were able to produce a mouse from

a reconstructed egg that contained two sets of maternal genetic material.

The mouse pup (female, of course) grew to adulthood and was able to

reproduce.

These results show that, normally, parthenogenesis is prevented because the

paternal genes control imprinting, the team concludes. This ensures that

" the paternal contribution is obligatory for the descendant " -- at least

until science intervenes.

Nature April 222004;428:860-864.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

[Guest guest]

Not exactly, Cloning is an exct copy of ONE set of genes/DNA where

this used 2 different sets of DNA from 2 different hosts (in this

case both female) like what would happen with a mummy and a daddy,

but in this case it was 2 mummy's, so the offspring was a mixture of

the 2 mummy's and not an exact copy of one.

Just thought I would answer.

Sharon

> OT; wouldn¹t this basically be cloning?

> ----

>

>

>

>

> Males Not Needed; Mouse Born from Unfertilized Egg

> Wed Apr 21, 2004 02:06 PM ET

> MORE

>

> NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - For the first time, Japanese

researchers have

> created a viable mouse via " virgin birth, " or parthenogenesis --

that is,

> the offspring was derived solely from female genetic material

contained in

> the mother's egg, without any contribution from a male animal.

>

> The researchers note in their article in the science journal Nature

that

> parthenogenesis is seen in insects and reptiles, but it does not

occur in

> mammals. In the lab, mammalian embryos generated when an animal's

egg is

> persuaded to start dividing as if it had been fertilized have

always died

> after just a few days of gestation.

>

> The barrier seems to be the necessity for a process called

imprinting. This

> ensures that one of the two copies of every gene found in a cell -

usually

> one each from the father and mother -- is turned off. If this

doesn't

> happen, the embryo stops developing.

>

> By making sure that certain genes were deleted, Dr. Tomohiro Kono,

the Tokyo

> University of Agriculture, and colleagues were able to produce a

mouse from

> a reconstructed egg that contained two sets of maternal genetic

material.

>

> The mouse pup (female, of course) grew to adulthood and was able to

> reproduce.

>

> These results show that, normally, parthenogenesis is prevented

because the

> paternal genes control imprinting, the team concludes. This ensures

that

> " the paternal contribution is obligatory for the descendant " -- at

least

> until science intervenes.

>

> Nature April 222004;428:860-864.

> © Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

[Guest guest]

Not exactly, Cloning is an exct copy of ONE set of genes/DNA where

this used 2 different sets of DNA from 2 different hosts (in this

case both female) like what would happen with a mummy and a daddy,

but in this case it was 2 mummy's, so the offspring was a mixture of

the 2 mummy's and not an exact copy of one.

Just thought I would answer.

Sharon

> OT; wouldn¹t this basically be cloning?

> ----

>

>

>

>

> Males Not Needed; Mouse Born from Unfertilized Egg

> Wed Apr 21, 2004 02:06 PM ET

> MORE

>

> NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - For the first time, Japanese

researchers have

> created a viable mouse via " virgin birth, " or parthenogenesis --

that is,

> the offspring was derived solely from female genetic material

contained in

> the mother's egg, without any contribution from a male animal.

>

> The researchers note in their article in the science journal Nature

that

> parthenogenesis is seen in insects and reptiles, but it does not

occur in

> mammals. In the lab, mammalian embryos generated when an animal's

egg is

> persuaded to start dividing as if it had been fertilized have

always died

> after just a few days of gestation.

>

> The barrier seems to be the necessity for a process called

imprinting. This

> ensures that one of the two copies of every gene found in a cell -

usually

> one each from the father and mother -- is turned off. If this

doesn't

> happen, the embryo stops developing.

>

> By making sure that certain genes were deleted, Dr. Tomohiro Kono,

the Tokyo

> University of Agriculture, and colleagues were able to produce a

mouse from

> a reconstructed egg that contained two sets of maternal genetic

material.

>

> The mouse pup (female, of course) grew to adulthood and was able to

> reproduce.

>

> These results show that, normally, parthenogenesis is prevented

because the

> paternal genes control imprinting, the team concludes. This ensures

that

> " the paternal contribution is obligatory for the descendant " -- at

least

> until science intervenes.

>

> Nature April 222004;428:860-864.

> © Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

[Guest guest]

Sharon; thanks for the explanation. That does make a lot more sense.

[Aren't frogs (toads? Tadpoles? Fish?) one of those animals that could

change sexes depending on the state of the environment; and this is

arranging it in a mammal?]

On 4/22/04 8:26 PM, " ceda " ceda > wrote:

> in this case it was 2 mummy's, so the offspring was a mixture of

> the 2 mummy's and not an exact copy of one.

> Just thought I would answer.

[Guest guest]

Sharon; thanks for the explanation. That does make a lot more sense.

[Aren't frogs (toads? Tadpoles? Fish?) one of those animals that could

change sexes depending on the state of the environment; and this is

arranging it in a mammal?]

On 4/22/04 8:26 PM, " ceda " ceda > wrote:

> in this case it was 2 mummy's, so the offspring was a mixture of

> the 2 mummy's and not an exact copy of one.

> Just thought I would answer.

[Guest guest]

Sharon; thanks for the explanation. That does make a lot more sense.

[Aren't frogs (toads? Tadpoles? Fish?) one of those animals that could

change sexes depending on the state of the environment; and this is

arranging it in a mammal?]

On 4/22/04 8:26 PM, " ceda " ceda > wrote:

> in this case it was 2 mummy's, so the offspring was a mixture of

> the 2 mummy's and not an exact copy of one.

> Just thought I would answer.

[Guest guest]

YES snails and worms and things are Asexual, ie both sexes or can

choose there sex. And then you can also have Hermaphradites (sp?)

that are born both sexes at the same time , there are hermapheradite

people too.

But this is also different from what they did, bascially from wha tI

gather they took a female mouse egg and the further female DNA from a

second mouse switched off some of the genes and then implanted it

into the egg to make it start growing, so that there was NO sperm

involved, this is why they had to switch off some of the genes

because as we all know 2 feamles can't make a baby and eggs and sperm

are different and it seems from what I read that the make up of sperm

is different inthat it has some genes switched off that allow the egg

to begin to devide and to continue to devide to make a baby.

Hope this helps.

Sharon

>

> > in this case it was 2 mummy's, so the offspring was a mixture of

> > the 2 mummy's and not an exact copy of one.

> > Just thought I would answer.