I thought that blastocysts at the 16 cell stage can replace any stem cell that is taken away. So, couldn't scientists just take one stem cell and let the rest grow to form a baby? Or, is there something wrong with my information?
2006-09-05 12:57:37 · 7 answers · asked by barry1009 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Some company has been working on this.
You may want to look into the goings on at
Advanced Cell Technology
2006-09-05 13:00:35 · answer #1 · answered by dam 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The practice of removing a cell from the blastocyst is already done a lot at in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. Not to make embryonic stem cells but to test whether the embryo carries any genetic mutations that the parents do not want to pass to their child.
Very recently scientist have shown that in theory these cells can be used to make embryonic stem cells (see link below). But the efficiency is extremely low, it works about 1% of the time. Also, there appears to be some risk to the embryo, although scientist do not all agree on this.
A possible risk seems reasonable to bear if you're trying to decide which of your embryos may carry a debilitating condition such as Huntington's desease, but not if you put 100 healthy embryos at risk to make one embryonic stem cell line. So scientists have to improve the technique a lot.
Right now it seems more reasonable to me to take an entire blastocyst that will not be implanted than one cell from a blastocyst that will.
2006-09-09 07:24:22 · answer #2 · answered by hESC 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a good question. One I have asked myself.
Developmenta Biology:
You have to break through the zona pelucida/ trophoblast to gain access to the inner cell mass/epiblast that contains the stem cells.
Even at this very early state (4 days post conception) the embryo is not just a "ball" of cells, it is an orderly determinate structure. From the moment the sperm penetrates the ova, chemical reactions take place that lay out the "map" of the future organism (human infant).
Its amazing, WHERE the sperm enters the ova determins where your head or your butt will be, crazy huh? Anyhow = not just a ball of cells you can gank any which one from.
By the time the cells are usefull for "Stem" cells, they are already getting "ready" (in place) to be used for something in the baby.
Besides, would you want your wife, sister, mother, or daughter to go through a whole pregnancy with a "damaged" embryo even if it was possible? With all the risks to the baby, and your loved one. No, most people would choose a "fresh" one. You know that.
There is promising work being done in "turning back the clock" on cells that are "defined" as muscle or bone cells, and turning them back "into" stem cells. They have succeeded in turning them back 1 or 2 generations into cells that give birth to EITHER muscle or bone, but not further than that.
In my opinion this is where the furture of research lies. Embryonic stem cell research is just a dirty short cut.
2006-09-05 13:16:40 · answer #3 · answered by Crystal Violet 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
From what I gather, the controversy is not so much over allowing the remaining viable cells to continue on, so much as it is concern that the cells taken will be used to clone the individual embryo from which they were taken (or to form a different individual via DNA manipulation).
2006-09-05 13:01:25 · answer #4 · answered by ? 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think we have the technology yet to extract a single cell from the blastula without destroying the embryo. It'd be an excellent idea.
2006-09-05 13:17:39 · answer #5 · answered by Charles T. Spencer III 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
WERE @ THE FORE FRONT OF THIS RESEARCH TRIALS HAVE BEEN SUCESSFUL MUCH WORK HAS TO BE DONE MIRACLES ARE WAITING
2006-09-05 13:04:16 · answer #6 · answered by Penney S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lets just FCKIN USE THEM already!!!!
2006-09-05 12:59:06 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋