7 ms·

Does this mean when they grow up, their own offspring will also have this defect and require a correction? And, if so, does this mean it is now introducing this

Does this mean when they grow up, their own offspring will also have this defect and require a correction? And, if so, does this mean it is now introducing this defective gene into our gene pool? I know this is an issue with caesarean section. It is becoming more prevalent because those who require it are surviving, making it more likely to happen in their offspring.

mondaygreens 1y ago
How can they pass it on when they don't have the defect any more?
- raldi 1y ago
  The DNA was only edited in the liver. But by the time this baby grows up and starts a family, we'll probably be able to fix that, too.
  - aucisson_masque 1y ago
    That's a bold claim. The baby is 9 month old, there are many things that can still go wrong with this experimental treatment. Hopefully not, but even then no one can say what progress will make science in the next 25 years. Back in the 50's people thought we would be driving in flying car in 2000.
    - raldi 1y ago
      Four years ago highly-upvoted /r/SanFrancisco comments said self-driving taxis were decades away: https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/nbjsij/real_robotaxi_service_gets_a_step_closer_in_san/gy0noso/?context=3 https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/nbjsij/real_r...
      - aucisson_masque 1y ago
        12 upvotes... You can't compare that to gene-editing treatments, that's two completely different level. Self driving car were always almost feasible, 20 years ago top gear made cars you could drive with controller like kids do with toy cars. We already had camera and computer, it was just a matter of raw CPU performance and software development..
        bdangubic 1y ago
        we have all the CPU performance we need and all software development we need and self-driving cars are driving around in roughly 0.00785% of world’s cities :)
- nahsra 1y ago
  Gene editing is still pretty crude in terms of delivery. Just because you can hit some germ-line cells in the liver, for example, doesn’t imply you’ll have good penetration into the reproductive organs. We can’t zap people and change all their DNA at once, unless we can intervene at the point it’s just a few cells.
- poilcn 1y ago
  It only affects some cells, not the whole body.
- pishpash 1y ago
  If by "they" you mean their gametes, those were not edited. Only a component of their corporal shell was modified.
foreigner 1y ago
We get half of our genes from each of our parents. So unless this person has the extremely unlikely misfortune of partnering with someone else with the same rare mutation, their offspring would only have a 50/50 chance of inheriting their copy of this gene. There are also medical procedures (PGD) to bring that chance to virtually 0%.
- Sammi 1y ago
  Also parents who are both carriers have a 25% chance of making a sick child, a 25% chance of making a non carrier and non sick child, and a 25%+25% chance of making non sick yet carrier child. So they already have a 50% chance of making children who'll survive and yet be carriers of the disease. I guess this will increase this to 75%. But you have to evaluate this in connection with the rapid increases in genetic treatment options, which decreases the issues.
- something098 1y ago
  We don't get 50/50 of distinct genes from our parents - it is more like 30/70 and can be even 10/90. The whole DNA ratio in this equation is irrelevant, as we all have 99% of the same DNA. Also, in real world, one parent will consistently give more of their distinct genes than other parent and most likely that consistent gene part will have that single mutation that they would hope to avoid, but contain best genes that the parent can offer. Children from multiple partners could be a solution as it is a different math... >>>There are also medical procedures (PGD) to bring that chance to virtually 0%. For that one gene only. DNA is a math of sum of genes and from what I have read humans are not better than nature(which is not perfect, but very basic) at selecting best specimens of eggs and sperm, but yes - whatever they have picked - PGD might be able to root out that one single mutation, and introduce variety of other mutations or miss good genes from other combinations. So, it all depends...
rkangel 1y ago
> know this is an issue with caesarean section. It is becoming more prevalent because those who require it are surviving You state this as a fact and I've heard it as a strong hypothesis, but I wasn't aware of much evidence to confirm it?
- palisade 1y ago
  "The cesarean delivery rate increased from 5% in 1970 to 31.9% in 2016. This sharp increase can be attributed to various factors, including changes in maternal age, medical advancements allowing more complicated pregnancies to proceed, and evolving obstetric practices. In 2022, the United States recorded more than 3.66 million births, most of which resulted from spontaneous or induced labor. Labor dystocia remains the most common indication for primary cesarean delivery. Globally, cesarean delivery rates continue to rise, and reducing unnecessary cesarean procedures remains a priority in the United States, where 32.2% of all births in 2022 were cesarean deliveries." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546707/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546707/ "If this trend continues, by 2030 the highest rates are likely to be in Eastern Asia (63%), Latin America and the Caribbean (54%), Western Asia (50%), Northern Africa (48%) Southern Europe (47%) and Australia and New Zealand (45%), the research suggests." https://www.who.int/news/item/16-06-2021-caesarean-section-rates-continue-to-rise-amid-growing-inequalities-in-access#:~:text=If%20this%20trend%20continues%2C%20by,Western%20Asia%20(50%25)%2C%20Northern https://www.who.int/news/item/16-06-2021-caesarean-section-r... Note: Coincidentally, WHO's article I've linked is lamenting that Sub-saharan Africa only had 5% cesarean due to less availability of the procedure. It is their perspective that the increase in percentages is a good thing and indicates progress, instead of being concerning. And, they find Sub-saharan Africa's low numbers concerning, instead. Side Note: I also found lots of interesting articles which I haven't posted here, about epigenetic side effects caused by caesarean deliveries like leukemia, illnesses and other genetic issues. But, that seems out of scope for your question. You can make a quick search and find these, though. "A female-to-female familial predisposition to caesarean section was observed. It could be caused by biologic inheritance, primarily working through maternal alleles and/or environmental factors. The results imply that both mechanisms could be important." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18540028/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18540028/ "Large-scale epidemiological studies indeed evidence that women born by C-section are more likely to deliver by Caesarean than women born vaginally, owing primarily to genetic rather than social factors." https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712203114 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712203114
make3 1y ago
they could CRISPR his relevant reproductive cells, this general topic is an important subject of discussion
- something098 1y ago
  Ah, yes - few million of them. Simple task for sure, if the liver is functioning as testes.
  - jodrellblank 1y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34925145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34925145
    - something098 1y ago
      This is something I have never seen for decades - a troll that posts links to his own quotes... We met again.
Tade0 1y ago
Research is inconclusive regarding what exactly causes this increase. We know that infants are generally larger than 50 years ago and one of the factors which trigger birth is the inability of the mother's metabolism to support further growth of the fetus. That, combined with the fact that all over the world availability of nutrition is much better than half a century ago points to this being the culprit.

mondaygreens 1y ago

How can they pass it on when they don't have the defect any more?

raldi 1y ago
The DNA was only edited in the liver. But by the time this baby grows up and starts a family, we'll probably be able to fix that, too.
- aucisson_masque 1y ago
  That's a bold claim. The baby is 9 month old, there are many things that can still go wrong with this experimental treatment. Hopefully not, but even then no one can say what progress will make science in the next 25 years. Back in the 50's people thought we would be driving in flying car in 2000.
  - raldi 1y ago
    Four years ago highly-upvoted /r/SanFrancisco comments said self-driving taxis were decades away: https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/nbjsij/real_robotaxi_service_gets_a_step_closer_in_san/gy0noso/?context=3 https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/nbjsij/real_r...
    - aucisson_masque 1y ago
      12 upvotes... You can't compare that to gene-editing treatments, that's two completely different level. Self driving car were always almost feasible, 20 years ago top gear made cars you could drive with controller like kids do with toy cars. We already had camera and computer, it was just a matter of raw CPU performance and software development..
      - bdangubic 1y ago
        we have all the CPU performance we need and all software development we need and self-driving cars are driving around in roughly 0.00785% of world’s cities :)
nahsra 1y ago
Gene editing is still pretty crude in terms of delivery. Just because you can hit some germ-line cells in the liver, for example, doesn’t imply you’ll have good penetration into the reproductive organs. We can’t zap people and change all their DNA at once, unless we can intervene at the point it’s just a few cells.
poilcn 1y ago
It only affects some cells, not the whole body.
pishpash 1y ago
If by "they" you mean their gametes, those were not edited. Only a component of their corporal shell was modified.

foreigner 1y ago

We get half of our genes from each of our parents. So unless this person has the extremely unlikely misfortune of partnering with someone else with the same rare mutation, their offspring would only have a 50/50 chance of inheriting their copy of this gene. There are also medical procedures (PGD) to bring that chance to virtually 0%.

Sammi 1y ago
Also parents who are both carriers have a 25% chance of making a sick child, a 25% chance of making a non carrier and non sick child, and a 25%+25% chance of making non sick yet carrier child. So they already have a 50% chance of making children who'll survive and yet be carriers of the disease. I guess this will increase this to 75%. But you have to evaluate this in connection with the rapid increases in genetic treatment options, which decreases the issues.
something098 1y ago
We don't get 50/50 of distinct genes from our parents - it is more like 30/70 and can be even 10/90. The whole DNA ratio in this equation is irrelevant, as we all have 99% of the same DNA. Also, in real world, one parent will consistently give more of their distinct genes than other parent and most likely that consistent gene part will have that single mutation that they would hope to avoid, but contain best genes that the parent can offer. Children from multiple partners could be a solution as it is a different math... >>>There are also medical procedures (PGD) to bring that chance to virtually 0%. For that one gene only. DNA is a math of sum of genes and from what I have read humans are not better than nature(which is not perfect, but very basic) at selecting best specimens of eggs and sperm, but yes - whatever they have picked - PGD might be able to root out that one single mutation, and introduce variety of other mutations or miss good genes from other combinations. So, it all depends...

rkangel 1y ago

> know this is an issue with caesarean section. It is becoming more prevalent because those who require it are surviving You state this as a fact and I've heard it as a strong hypothesis, but I wasn't aware of much evidence to confirm it?

palisade 1y ago
"The cesarean delivery rate increased from 5% in 1970 to 31.9% in 2016. This sharp increase can be attributed to various factors, including changes in maternal age, medical advancements allowing more complicated pregnancies to proceed, and evolving obstetric practices. In 2022, the United States recorded more than 3.66 million births, most of which resulted from spontaneous or induced labor. Labor dystocia remains the most common indication for primary cesarean delivery. Globally, cesarean delivery rates continue to rise, and reducing unnecessary cesarean procedures remains a priority in the United States, where 32.2% of all births in 2022 were cesarean deliveries." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546707/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546707/ "If this trend continues, by 2030 the highest rates are likely to be in Eastern Asia (63%), Latin America and the Caribbean (54%), Western Asia (50%), Northern Africa (48%) Southern Europe (47%) and Australia and New Zealand (45%), the research suggests." https://www.who.int/news/item/16-06-2021-caesarean-section-rates-continue-to-rise-amid-growing-inequalities-in-access#:~:text=If%20this%20trend%20continues%2C%20by,Western%20Asia%20(50%25)%2C%20Northern https://www.who.int/news/item/16-06-2021-caesarean-section-r... Note: Coincidentally, WHO's article I've linked is lamenting that Sub-saharan Africa only had 5% cesarean due to less availability of the procedure. It is their perspective that the increase in percentages is a good thing and indicates progress, instead of being concerning. And, they find Sub-saharan Africa's low numbers concerning, instead. Side Note: I also found lots of interesting articles which I haven't posted here, about epigenetic side effects caused by caesarean deliveries like leukemia, illnesses and other genetic issues. But, that seems out of scope for your question. You can make a quick search and find these, though. "A female-to-female familial predisposition to caesarean section was observed. It could be caused by biologic inheritance, primarily working through maternal alleles and/or environmental factors. The results imply that both mechanisms could be important." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18540028/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18540028/ "Large-scale epidemiological studies indeed evidence that women born by C-section are more likely to deliver by Caesarean than women born vaginally, owing primarily to genetic rather than social factors." https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712203114 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712203114

make3 1y ago

they could CRISPR his relevant reproductive cells, this general topic is an important subject of discussion

something098 1y ago
Ah, yes - few million of them. Simple task for sure, if the liver is functioning as testes.
- jodrellblank 1y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34925145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34925145
  - something098 1y ago
    This is something I have never seen for decades - a troll that posts links to his own quotes... We met again.

Tade0 1y ago

Research is inconclusive regarding what exactly causes this increase. We know that infants are generally larger than 50 years ago and one of the factors which trigger birth is the inability of the mother's metabolism to support further growth of the fetus. That, combined with the fact that all over the world availability of nutrition is much better than half a century ago points to this being the culprit.