Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Reproductive Biology & Bio Instrumentation’ Category

Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

Infertility has been primarily treated as a female predicament but around one-half of infertility cases can be tracked to male factors. Clinically, male infertility is typically determined using measures of semen quality recommended by World Health Organization (WHO). A major limitation, however, is that standard semen analyses are relatively poor predictors of reproductive capacity and success. Despite major advances in understanding the molecular and cellular functions in sperm over the last several decades, semen analyses remain the primary method to assess male fecundity and fertility.

Chronological age is a significant determinant of human fecundity and fertility. The disease burden of infertility is likely to continue to rise as parental age at the time of conception has been steadily increasing. While the emphasis has been on the effects of advanced maternal age on adverse reproductive and offspring health, new evidence suggests that, irrespective of maternal age, higher male age contributes to longer time-to-conception, poor pregnancy outcomes and adverse health of the offspring in later life. The effect of chronological age on the genomic landscape of DNA methylation is profound and likely occurs through the accumulation of maintenance errors of DNA methylation over the lifespan, which have been originally described as epigenetic drift.

In recent years, the strong relation between age and DNA methylation profiles has enabled the development of statistical models to estimate biological age in most somatic tissue via different epigenetic ‘clock’ metrics, such as DNA methylation age and epigenetic age acceleration, which describe the degree to which predicted biological age deviates from chronological age. In turn, these epigenetic clock metrics have emerged as novel biomarkers of a host of phenotypes such as allergy and asthma in children, early menopause, increased incidence of cancer types and cardiovascular-related diseases, frailty and cognitive decline in adults. They also display good predictive ability for cancer, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.

Epigenetic clock metrics are powerful tools to better understand the aging process in somatic tissue as well as their associations with adverse disease outcomes and mortality. Only a few studies have constructed epigenetic clocks specific to male germ cells and only one study reported that smokers trended toward an increased epigenetic age compared to non-smokers. These results indicate that sperm epigenetic clocks hold promise as a novel biomarker for reproductive health and/or environmental exposures. However, the relation between sperm epigenetic clocks and reproductive outcomes has not been examined.

There is a critical need for new measures of male fecundity for assessing overall reproductive success among couples in the general population. Data shows that sperm epigenetic clocks may fulfill this need as a novel biomarker that predicts pregnancy success among couples not seeking fertility treatment. Such a summary measure of sperm biological age is of clinical importance as it allows couples in the general population to realize their probability of achieving pregnancy during natural intercourse, thereby informing and expediting potential infertility treatment decisions. With the ability to customize high throughput DNA methylation arrays and capture sequencing approaches, the integration of the epigenetic clocks as part of standard clinical care can enhance our understanding of idiopathic infertility and the paternal contribution to reproductive success and offspring health.

References:

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/advance-article/doi/10.1093/humrep/deac084/6583111?login=false

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33317634/

https://clinicalepigeneticsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13148-019-0656-7

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19319879/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31901222/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25928123/

Read Full Post »

Three Expert Opinions on “The alarming rise of complex genetic testing in human embryo selection”

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Based on this articles three expert opinions where formed by the following domain knowledge experts and are presented, below.

Expert Opinions on rise of complex genetic testing in human embryo selection

ttps://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00787-z

Domain Knowledge Experts:

Prof. Marc Feldman, Genetics, Stanford University

Dr. Shraga Rottem, MD, D.Sc., Fetal OB

Prof. Steven J. Williams, Biological Sciences, Temple University

 

First expert opinion by Prof. Marcus W. Feldman

The recent publication in Nature Medicine on genetic risk prediction in pre-implementation embryos(1) has already engendered heated discussion.(2,3) Kumar et al.(1) advocate the integration of polygenic risk scores (PRS) derived from pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT) with standard monogenic prediction. The paper focuses primarily on BRCA1 (and breast cancer) and APC (and colon cancer). Genetic tests for inherited disorders such as Tay-Sachs disease and breast cancers caused by BRCA1 and BRCA2 have been approved, but these are potentially devastating conditions with relatively simple inheritance; in most counseling situations the risks are straightforward to calculate.

The limitation on the amount and quality of DNA available from early embryo biopsies has made it difficult to produce genomic profiles of embryos in the IVF situation. Kumar et al. genotyped more than one-hundred embryos at hundreds of thousands of nucleotide sites and combined these genotype data with whole genome sequences of the prospective parents to produce reconstructed embryo genomes. These genomes were compared with those of ten born siblings and polygenic risk scores (PRS) were calculated for twelve conditions related to diseases. The PRS were claimed to be 97–99 percent accurate.

The primary market for this procedure would be couples seeking IVF, and Kumar and his colleagues, most of whom are employees of biotech companies, show that it is feasible to calculate a PRS for an embryo. The authors do present several caveats for the use of their procedure for PGT. For example, if a couple has a family history of a disease, they “may unintentionally prioritize” a mutant embryo for PGT-based only on PRS. They also acknowledge that results from research cohorts may not generalize to sibling embryos in IVF, which could limit the clinical utility of their approach. Kumar et al. also acknowledge the “portability” problem, namely PRSs have limited predictive accuracy in people with non-European ancestry(2,3) or of different ages or socioeconomic status.(4,5) They also mention the issue of unequal access to IVF technology in general.(2)

It is also important, However, to stress the limited predictive utility of PRS for common traits, not only diseases. There is increasing use of PRS among social scientists for characteristics such as years of education, which have heritabilities in the 10–15 percent range. Such studies, and potentially this one by Kumar et al., can lead to reduced emphasis on environmental and social associations with diseases or other traits. For omnigenic traits, such as height or body mass index (BMI), that have hundreds or thousands of associated nucleotide polymorphisms, and high heritability, the public might receive the mistaken impression that PGT or other genomic interventions can allow parents to choose their offspring’s phenotype.

For example, a recent study(6) of BMI in 881 subjects from Quebec found that PRS could explain only between 1.2 percent and 7.5 percent of the variance in BMI of these participants. Even when PRSs are statistically significant, their predictive value is too weak to be applied. The use of polygenic risk scores to select embryos, abbreviated ESPS for embryo selection based on polygenic scores, has been criticized before.(7) One of the important points raised by Turley et al.(7) concerns the environmental context of the children of IVG customers, which may be quite different from that of the sample of people from which the PRS was calculated. Because of gene-environment interactions, the predictive power of PRS for any complex trait is limited. As pointed out by Turley et al. (p. 79), “the predictive power of a polygenic score is maximized when the person is from the same environment as the research participants from whom the polygenic scores were derived. But this will never be the case in ESPS.”

PGT and ESPS raise ethical issues beyond IVG that more generally concern designer babies.(7,8) PRSs have been calculated for non-disease related traits such as educational attainment, income, or IQ, and it is conceivable that some prospective parents might regard these as important enough for intervention. There are also traits related to social constructs of race including skin pigmentation or facial features, and parental choice based on these phenotypes could enhance racial prejudices.

 

References

 

  1. Kumar, A., K. Im, M. Banjevic, P.C. Ng, T. Tunstall, G. Garcia, L. Galhardo, J. Sun,O.N. Schaedel, B. Levy, D. Hongo, D. Kijacic, M. Kiehl, N.D. Tran, P.C. Klatsky, and M. Rabinowitz. 2022. Whole-genome risk prediction of common diseases in human preimplantation embryos. Nature Medicine 28: 514–516. doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-01735-0.
  2. Johnston, J., and L.J. Matthews. 2022. Polygenic embryo testing: understated ethics, unclear utility. Nature Medicine 28: 445–451. doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-01743-0.
  3. Nature editorial. 2022. The alarming rise of complex genetic testing in human embryo testing. Nature 603: 549–550. doi: 10.1038/d41586-022-00787-z.
  4. Rosenberg, N., M. Edge, J. Pritchard, and M. Feldman. 2019. Interpreting polygenic scores, polygenic adaptation, and human phenotypic differences. Evol. Med. Public Health 2019: 26–34. doi: 10.1093/emph/eoy036.
  5. Duncan, L.E., H. Shen, B. Gelaye, J. Meijsen, K.J. Ressler, M.W. Feldman, R.E. Peterson, and B.W. Domingue. 2019. Analysis of polygenic score usage and performance in diverse human populations. Nat. Comm. 10: 3328. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11112-0.
  6. De Toro-Martin, J.E., F. Guenard, C. Bouchard, A. Tremblay, L. Perusse, and M.-C. Vohl. 2019. The challenge of stratifying obesity: attempts in the Quebec family study. Front. Genet. 10:994. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00994.
  7. Turley, P., M.N. Meyer, N. Wang, D. Cesarini, E. Hammonds, A.R. Martin, B.M. Neale, H.L. Rehm, L. Wilkins-Haug, D.J. Benjamin, S. Hyman, D. Laibson, and P.M. Visscher. 2021. Problems with using polygenic scores to select embryos. N. Engl. J. Med 385(1): 78–86.
  8. Forzano, F., O. Antonova, A. Clarke, G. de Wert, S. Hentze, Y. Jamshidi, Y. Moreau, M. Perola, I. Prokopenko, A. Read, A. Reymond, V. Stefansdottir, C. van El, and M. Genuardi. 2021. The use of polygenic risk scores in pre-implantation genetic testing: an unproven, unethical practice. European Journal of Human Genetics. doi: 10.1038/s41431-021-01000-x.

 

 

Second expert opinion by Dr. Shraga Rottem, MD, D.Sc., Fetal OB

PENDING

Third expert opinion by Prof. Steven J. Williams, Biological Sciences, Temple University

There has been much opinion, either as commentary in literature, meeting proceedings, or communiques from professional societies warning that this type of “high-impact” genetic information should not be given directly to the consumer as consumers will not fully understand the information presented to them, be unable to make proper risk-based decisions, results could cause panic and inappropriate action such as prophylactic oophorectomy or unwarranted risk-reduction mastectomy, or false reassurance in case of negative result and reduced future cancer screening measures taken by the consumer.  However, there have been few studies to investigate these concerns. 

The article by Kumar The alarming rise of complex genetic testing in human embryo selection

discusses the common trend of DTC (direct to consumer) and other genetic consutancy groups to offer disease risk assesment based on genetic predispostion genetic information in preimplantation embryos upon in vitro fertilization.  Although this editorial discusses some caveats and potential ethical issues the opinion of this reviewer feels a certain number of key issues points have not been addressed (which will be discussed below) including:

  1. the underlying risk of disclosure of all parties involved in decision making based on genetic testing including other family members
  2. complicating ethical issues not addressed through proper guideline establishment and regulation as seen in countries that allow such advances to go without proper review board
  3. a lack of discussion of the health disparities which may result of this type of genetic information or “selection” where groups of people would be shut out of such services due to socioeconomic status

Although the editorial highlights the issue that most genome wide association studies, on which most of the genetic counseling is based upon is from cohorts of European descent (and misses a large cohort which is Asian or African descent), there is little attention given to the issue that most panels of these agreed upon risk associated variants have not been validated in larger GWAS studies or that these panels only focus on the most common variants. An example of this would be BRCA1/2 and assumed future breast cancer risk.

In the related article The uncertain science of preimplantation and prenatal genetic testing

Gleicher al state

PGS and PGT-A
diagnoses have been built on biologically
incorrect assumptions and on unvalidated
guidelines dating back to 2016. These
guidelines, which remain influential to this
day, were published without a description
of methods, without peer review, with no
author identification, and without any
references1
. The guidelines changed the
binary diagnosis of euploid and aneuploid
to normal, mosaic and aneuploid.

 

In fact most family risk assesment programs are more effective upon counseling of young women, not at the embryonic stage where genetic risk factors may not be evident or resulting from epigenetic changes or accumulated somatic mutation.

  1.  Lack of communication to all related and involved parties

     Many times it is women, who having undergone these testings, have problems in communicating these risk findings to their children and family members, resulting in familial strains.

For instance, some women who discover they have the BRCA gene mutation, which puts them at higher risk for breast cancer, choose to tell their children about it before the children are old enough to understand the significance or deal with it, a new study found.

“Parents with the BRCA mutation are discussing their genetic test results with their offspring often many years before the offspring would need to do anything,” said study author Dr. Angela Bradbury, director of the Fox Chase Cancer Center’s Family Risk Assessment Program, in Philadelphia.

According to Bradbury, more than half of parents she surveyed told their children about genetic test results. Some parents reported that their children didn’t seem to understand the significance of the information, and some had initial negative reactions to the news.

“A lot of genetic information is being shared within families and there hasn’t been a lot of guidance from health-care professionals,” Bradbury said. “While this genetic risk may be shared accurately, there is risk of inaccurate sharing.”

In the study, Bradbury’s team interviewed 42 women who had the BRCA mutation. The researchers found that 55 percent of parents discussed the finding and the risk of breast cancer with at least one of their children who was under 25.

Also, most of the women didn’t avail themselves of the services of a doctor or genetic counselor in helping to tell their children, Bradbury’s group found.

The identification of familial risk factors can have very stressful impacts on the affected and their family however an IVF selection might even augment that familial stress.  More research is needed on the psychological impact of such testing and a patient’s choice.

2. Lack of health disparity considerations in IVF selection research or guidelines

     Another major concern, which has been highlighted in multiple articles on this site, is the growing health disparities between those who can obtain access to quality health care and those who are left out in the void of the medical system, either for economic or sociological reasons.  This has been very apparent in the cancer treatment and personalized medicine world (for example the disparities of health care access for cancer treatment in the southern poorer rural parts of the US versus metropolitan areas and the gaping disparities seen between rich and poor countries in Africa).   These health disparities have been also apparant in the genetic testing market, and although the DTC market meant to make genetic  testing more affordable, interestingly these disparities still exist in this niche market.

3. Lack of proper establishment of Institutional Review Board oversight in countries allowing this technique have been problematic with regard to addressing bioethical concerns

The third concern is, of course, a bioethical concern on the use of advanced genetic technologies in the human and clinical setting.  It has come to many people’s attention at the speed at which countries that do not seem to have strong bioethical review boards readily allow this type of research to be carried out without regulatory oversight or consequence. A prime example of this included the shunned Chinese research carried out to produce cloned humans, which was rapidly condemmed in the biomedical world however this research was conducted nonetheless.  This lack of attention is addressed in Kumar’s article yet little guidance is given as to best practices to establish review boards overseeing such work and or research.

SOURCE

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00787-z

Read Full Post »

Covid-19 and its implications on pregnancy

Reporter and Curator: Mr. Srinjoy Chakraborty (Junior Research Felllow) and Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has emerged as a serious global health issue with high transmission rates affecting millions of people worldwide. The SARS-CoV-2 is known to damage cells in the respiratory system, thus causing viral pneumonia. The novel SARS-CoV-2 is a close relative to the previously identified severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome-coronavirus (MERS-CoV) which affected several people in 2002 and 2012, respectively. Ever since the outbreak of covid-19, several reports have poured in about the impact of Covid-19 on pregnancy. A few studies have highlighted the impact of the viral infection in pregnant women and how they are more susceptible to the infection because of the various physiological changes of the cardiopulmonary and immune systems during pregnancy. It is known that SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV diseases have influenced the fatality rate among pregnant women. However, there are limited studies on the impact of the novel corona virus on the course and outcome of pregnancy.

Figure: commonly observed clinical symptoms of COVID-19 in the general population: Fever and cough, along with dyspnoea, diarrhoea, and malaise are the most commonly observed symptoms in pregnant women, which is similar to that observed in the normal population.

The WHO and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) have proposed detailed guidelines for treating pregnant women; these guidelines must be strictly followed by the pregnant individual and their families. According to the guidelines issued by the ICMR, the risk of pregnant women contracting the virus to that of the general population. However, the immune system and the body’s response to a viral infection is altered during pregnancy. This may result in the manifestation of more severe symptoms. The ICMR guidelines also state that the reported cases of COVID-19 pneumonia in pregnancy are milder and with good recovery. However, by observing the trends of the other coronavirus infection (SARS, MERS), the risks to the mother appear to increase in particular during the last trimester of pregnancy. Cases of preterm birth in women with COVID-19 have been mentioned in a few case report, but it is unclear whether the preterm birth was always iatrogenic, or whether some were spontaneous. Pregnant women with heart disease are at highest risk of acquiring the infection, which is similar to that observed in the normal population. Most importantly, the ICMR guidelines highlights the impact of the coronavirus epidemic on the mental health of pregnant women. It mentions that the since the pandemic has begun, there has been an increase in the risk of perinatal anxiety and depression, as well as domestic violence. It is critically important that support for women and families is strengthened as far as possible; that women are asked about mental health at every contact.

With the available literature available on the impact of SARS and MERS on reproductive outcome, it has been mentioned that SARS infection did increase the risk of miscarriage, preterm birth and, intrauterine foetal growth restriction. However, the same has not been demonstrated in early reports from COVID-19 infection in pregnancy. According to a study that included 8200 participants conducted by the centre for disease control and prevention, pregnant women may be at a higher risk of acquiring severe infection and need for ICU admissions as compared to their non-pregnant counterparts. However, a detailed and thorough study involving a larger proportion of the population is needed today.

References:

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210614/COVID-19-in-pregnancy-could-be-less-severe-than-previously-thought-A-Danish-case-study.aspx

https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jog.14696

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00525-y

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14767058.2020.1759541

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/special-populations/pregnancy-data-on-covid-19/what-cdc-is-doing.html

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/why-is-covid-19-killing-so-many-pregnant-women-in-india/articleshow/82902194.cms?from=mdr

https://content.iospress.com/download/international-journal-of-risk-and-safety-in-medicine/jrs200060?id=international-journal-of-risk-and-safety-in-medicine%2Fjrs200060

Read Full Post »

Embryogenesis in Mechanical Womb

Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

A highly effective platforms for the ex utero culture of post-implantation mouse embryos have been developed in the present study by scientists of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. The study was published in the journal Nature. They have grown more than 1,000 embryos in this way. This study enables the appropriate development of embryos from before gastrulation (embryonic day (E) 5.5) until the hindlimb formation stage (E11). Late gastrulating embryos (E7.5) are grown in three-dimensional rotating bottles, whereas extended culture from pre-gastrulation stages (E5.5 or E6.5) requires a combination of static and rotating bottle culture platforms.

At Day 11 of development more than halfway through a mouse pregnancy the researchers compared them to those developing in the uteruses of living mice and were found to be identical. Histological, molecular and single-cell RNA sequencing analyses confirm that the ex utero cultured embryos recapitulate in utero development precisely. The mouse embryos looked perfectly normal. All their organs developed as expected, along with their limbs and circulatory and nervous systems. Their tiny hearts were beating at a normal 170 beats per minute. But, the lab-grown embryos becomes too large to survive without a blood supply. They had a placenta and a yolk sack, but the nutrient solution that fed them through diffusion was no longer sufficient. So, a suitable mechanism for blood supply is required to be developed.

Till date the only way to study the development of tissues and organs is to turn to species like worms, frogs and flies that do not need a uterus, or to remove embryos from the uteruses of experimental animals at varying times, providing glimpses of development more like in snapshots than in live videos. This research will help scientists understand how mammals develop and how gene mutations, nutrients and environmental conditions may affect the fetus. This will allow researchers to mechanistically interrogate post-implantation morphogenesis and artificial embryogenesis in mammals. In the future it may be possible to develop a human embryo from fertilization to birth entirely outside the uterus. But the work may one day raise profound questions about whether other animals, even humans, should or could be cultured outside a living womb.

References:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03416-3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867414000750?via%3Dihub

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1978.tb00993.x

https://www.nature.com/articles/199297a0

https://rep.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/rep/35/1/jrf_35_1_018.xml

Read Full Post »

Important but Unseen Human Embryo Developmental Stages Mimicked in Lab

 

Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

Scientists have created embryo-like structures that mimic a crucial yet not much known stage of human development. The structures, created from stem cells and called gastruloids, are the first to form a 3D assembly that lays out how the body will take shape. The gastruloids developed rudimentary components of a heart and nervous system, but lacked the components to form a brain and other cell types that would make them capable of becoming a viable fetus.

Human embryos take a momentous leap in their third week, when the largely homogeneous ball of cells starts to differentiate and develop specific characteristics of the body parts they will become, a process known as gastrulation. During this process, the embryo elongates and lays down a body plan with a head and tail, often called the head-to-tail axis. But scientists have never seen this process live in action. That is partly because many countries have regulations that stop embryos from being grown in the laboratory for research beyond 14 days.

Over the past years, several research groups have cultured embryonic stem-cell structures that model when cells start to differentiate. The latest model developed at the University of Cambridge, UK and their collaborators in the Netherlands, Showed for the first time what happens when the blueprint for the body’s development is laid out, around 18–21 days after conception. Genetic analysis showed that the cells formed were those that would eventually go on to form muscles in the trunk, vertebrae, heart and other organs.

If everything is done properly, the cells develop into 3D structures on their own — and then spontaneously mimic the gastrulation process. Although they display certain key features of a 21-day-old embryo, the gastruloids reach that stage after just 72 hours and survive for maximum 4 days before collapsing. Scientists will probably use the model to make structures that are even more realistic representations of early development.

The model could help scientists to understand the role of genetics and environmental factors in different disorders. The artificial structures make it possible to avoid ethical concerns about doing research on human embryos. But as the structures become more advanced and life-like, there may be ethical restrictions.

SOURCE

David Cyranoski

References for Original Study

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01757-z?utm_source=Nature+Briefing

 

Other References:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32528178/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22804578/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24973948/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27419872/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28179190/

Read Full Post »

Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

In-vitro fertilisation (IVF) is now regarded as a huge clinical success which has benefitted an estimated 16 million parents, at the time the development not only sparked moral outrage but led to political and legislative constraints. Patients undergoing IVF may be presented with numerous assisted reproductive treatments purportedly increasing the chances of pregnancy. Such commercialised “IVF add-ons” often come at high costs without clinical evidence of validity. Additionally, long-term studies of children born through IVF have historically been scarce and inconsistent in their data collection. This has meant that potential genetic predispositions, such as increased body fat composition and blood pressure, as well as congenital abnormalities long associated with IVF births, lack proof of causality.

 

With Preimplantation genetic testing mutated embryos are automatically discarded, whereas CRISPR could correct mutations to increase the number of viable embryos for implantation. Moreover, in instances where all embryos in a given cycle are destined to develop with severe or lethal mutations, CRISPR could bring success for otherwise doomed IVF treatments. Genetic screening programs offered to couples in hot-spot areas of carrier frequency of monogenic disorders have had huge success in alleviating regional disease burdens. Carried out since the 1970s these programs have altered the course of natural evolution, but few would dispute their benefits in preventing heritable disease transmission.

 

Mutations are as inevitable as death and taxes. Whilst age is considered one of the largest factors in de-novo mutation generation, it appears that these are inherited primarily from the paternal line. Thus, the paternal age of conception predominantly determines the mutation frequency inherited by children. Whereas advanced maternal age is not associated with mutagenic allele frequency but chromosomal abnormalities. The risk of aneuploidy rises steadily in mothers over the age of 26. Although embryos are screened for aneuploidy prior to implantation, with so many other factors simultaneously being screened the probability of having enough embryos remaining to allow for 50% rate of blastocyte development in-vitro are often fairly low.

 

Despite IVF being used routinely for over 40 years now, it’s not abundantly clear if, or how often, IVF may introduce genomic alternations or off-target affects in embryos. Likewise, scientists and clinicians are often unable to scrutinise changes produced through natural cellular processes including recombination and aging. So, it may be OK to do controlled experiments on using CRISPR to try and prevent multi-generational suffering. But, there has to be a long term investigation on the side effects of germline genome editing. Science has advanced a lot but still there are lot of things that are yet to be described or discovered by science. Trying to reduce human suffering should not give rise to new bigger sufferings and care must be taken not to create a Frankenstein.

 

References:

 

http://www.frontlinegenomics.com/news/29321/opinion-piece-morally-is-germline-genome-editing-all-that-different-to-ivf/

 

Read Full Post »

Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

When a baby is born through its mother’s birth canal, it is bathed in a soup of microbes. Those born by caesarean section (C-section) miss out on this bacterial baptism. The differences in microbe exposure at birth and later health could be caused by other factors, such as whether a mother takes antibiotics during her surgery, and whether a baby is breastfed or has a genetic predisposition to obesity. So, the researchers are sharply split on whether or not this missing of bacterial exposure increases the risk of chronic health problems such as obesity and asthma.

 

Researchers found that babies delivered surgically harboured different collections of bacteria than did those born vaginally. C-section babies, which comprise more than 30% of births in the United States, are also more prone to obesity and immune diseases such as diabetes. Experiments show that mice born by C-section are more prone to obesity and have impaired immune systems. There are fewer factors that could account for these differences in the rodents, which can be studied in controlled conditions, than in people.

 

A wave of clinical trials now under way could help to settle the question — and feed into the debate over whether seeding babies born by C-section with their mother’s vaginal bacteria is beneficial or potentially harmful. Several groups of researchers will be swabbing hundreds of C-section babies with their mother’s microbes, while comparing them to a control group. Each team plans to monitor its study participants over several years in the hope of learning more about how the collection of microbes in their bodies might influence weight, allergy risk and other factors.

 

But some scientists say that the trials could expose C-section babies to infection, or encourage mothers to try do-it-yourself swabbing, without much evidence that there is a benefit or risk. Moreover, there is no evidence that differing exposure to vaginal microbes at birth can help explain variation in people’s health over time. Presently the whole concept is in very much a state of uncertainty.

 

Researchers in near future will compare swabbed C-section babies with a placebo group and with infants delivered vaginally. They confirmed that their protocols will not increase the risk of infection for C-section babies. Scientists will also rigorously screen mothers participating in these trials for microbes such as HIV and group B streptococcus — a common vaginal bacterium that causes respiratory problems in newborns.

 

References:

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02348-3?utm_source=Nature+Briefing

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31431742

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20566857

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25452656

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22939691

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24030708

 

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2017/02/22/babys-microbiome-changing-due-to-caesarean-birth-and-formula-feeding/

Read Full Post »

Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

Leigh syndrome is one of the hundreds of so-called mitochondrial diseases, which are caused by defects in the mitochondria that produce 90 percent of the body’s energy. These disorders are rare; about 1,000 to 4,000 babies in the United States are born with one every year. But they are devastating and can result in grave impairment of nearly any bodily system. They are largely untreatable, uniformly incurable and very difficult to screen.

 

Leigh syndrome is a terrible disease. It emerges shortly after birth and claims one major organ after another. Movement becomes difficult, and then impossible. A tracheotomy and feeding tube are often necessary by toddlerhood, and as the disease progresses, lungs frequently have to be suctioned manually. Most children with the condition die by the age of 5 or 6.

 

Scientists have devised a procedure called mitochondrial replacement therapy (M.R.T.) that involves transplanting the nucleus of an affected egg (mitochondrial diseases are passed down from the mother’s side) into an unaffected one whose nucleus has been removed. The procedure is sometimes called “three-parent in vitro fertilization”. Mitochondria contain a minuscule amount of DNA, any resulting embryo would have mitochondrial DNA from the donor egg and nuclear DNA from each of its parents.

 

After decades of careful study in cell and animal research M.R.T. is now finally being tested in human clinical trials by doctors in Britain (no births confirmed yet officially). In the United States, however, this procedure is effectively illegal. M.R.T. does not involve altering any genetic code. Defective mitochondria are swapped out for healthy ones.

 

Mitochondrial DNA governs only a handful of basic cellular functions. It is separate from nuclear DNA, which helps determine individual traits like physical appearance, intelligence and personality. That means M.R.T. cannot be used to produce the genetically enhanced “designer babies” and thus should be allowed in humans. But, there is no way to know how safe or effective M.R.T. is until doctors and scientists test it in humans.

 

References:

 

 

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/10/07/the-three-parent-technique-to-avoid-mitochondrial-disease-in-embryo/

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

Research about marijuana and fertility is limited but some previous studies suggested that it might harm semen quality. Smoking of any type is also known to be a risk factor for male infertility. So, men who have smoked cannabis are expected to have worse measures of fertility but the data from a recent study suggested the opposite. The finding contradicts all conventional knowledge on how weed affects sperm. This may be because previous research typically focused on men with drug abuse history but this present study simply asked men if they had smoked more than two joints in their life.

 

Analysis of 1,143 semen samples from 662 men collected between 2000 and 2017 at the Fertility Clinic at Massachusetts General Hospital showed that those who had smoked weed at some point in their life had a mean sperm concentration of 62.7 million sperm per milliliter (mL) of ejaculate, while men who avoided marijuana entirely had mean concentrations of 45.4 million/mL. Added to this only 5% of weed smokers had sperm concentrations below the 15 million/mL threshold the World Health Organization has set for a “normal” sperm count, versus 12% of men who never smoked marijuana.

 

The study has some imperfections such as the participants are not necessarily representative of the general population. They were predominantly college educated men with a mean age of 36, and were all seeking treatment at a fertility center. Further research is needed to support the findings. Two possibilities are put forward by the researchers as the reason behind such data. The first is that low levels of marijuana could have a positive effect on the endocannabinoid system, the neurotransmitters in the nervous system that bind to cannabinoid receptors, and are known to regulate fertility. The second is that may be weed-smokers are just bigger risk takers and men with higher testosterone levels and thus have better sperm count.

 

But, there’s certainly no medical recommendation to smoke weed as a fertility treatment but this study, at least, suggests that a little marijuana doesn’t hurt and might benefit sperm production in some way. But, the researchers specified that their finding does not necessarily mean that smoking cannabis increases the chances of fatherhood.

 

References:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30726923

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-02-06/cannabis-smoking-associated-with-higher-sperm-count-study-finds?__twitter_impression=true

 

https://qz.com/1543564/smoking-weed-linked-to-higher-sperm-count-in-a-harvard-study/

 

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/world/2019/02/06/cannabis-smoking-associated-with-higher-sperm-count-study-finds/

 

http://time.com/5520421/smoking-marijuana-sperm-fertility/

 

https://www.health.com/infertility/marijuana-sperm-count

Read Full Post »

Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

Hepatitis B virus can cause serious, long-term health problems, such as liver disease and cancer, and can spread from mother-to-child during delivery. According to the latest estimates from the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 257 million people in 2015 were living with the virus. Countries in Asia have a high burden of hepatitis B. There is no cure, and antiviral drugs used to treat the infection usually need to be taken for life.

 

To prevent infection, WHO recommends that all newborns receive their first dose of hepatitis B vaccine within 24 hours of delivery. Infants born to hepatitis B-infected mothers are also given protective antibodies called hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG). However, mother-to-child transmission can still occur in women with high levels of virus in their blood, as well as those with mutated versions of the virus.

 

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), an antiviral drug commonly prescribed to treat hepatitis B infection, does not significantly reduce mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus when taken during pregnancy and after delivery, according to a phase III clinical trial in Thailand funded by the National Institutes of Health. The study tested TDF therapy in addition to the standard preventative regimen — administration of hepatitis B vaccine and protective antibodies at birth — to explore the drug’s potential effects on mother-to-child transmission rates. The results appear in the New England Journal of Medicine.

 

The present study was conducted at 17 hospitals of the Ministry of Public Health in Thailand. It screened more than 2,500 women for eligibility and enrolled 331 pregnant women with hepatitis B. The women received placebo (163) or TDF (168) at intervals from 28 weeks of pregnancy to two months after delivery. All infants received standard hepatitis B preventatives given in Thailand, which include HBIG at birth and five doses of the hepatitis B vaccine by age 6 months (which differs from the three doses given in the United States). A total of 294 infants (147 in each group) were followed through age 6 months.

 

Three infants in the placebo group had hepatitis B infection at age 6 months, compared to zero infants in the TDF treatment group. Given the unexpectedly low transmission rate in the placebo group, the researchers concluded that the addition of TDF to current recommendations did not significantly reduce mother-to-child transmission of the virus.

 

According to the study, the clinical trial had enough participants to detect statistical differences if the transmission rate in the placebo group reached at least 12 percent, a rate observed in previous studies. Though the reasons are unknown, the researchers speculate that the lower transmission rate seen in the study may relate to the number of doses of hepatitis B vaccine given to infants in Thailand, lower rates of amniocentesis and Cesarean section deliveries in this study, or the lower prevalence of mutated viruses that result in higher vaccine efficacy in Thailand compared to other countries.

 

References:

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/antiviral-drug-not-beneficial-reducing-mother-child-transmission-hepatitis-b-when-added-existing-preventatives

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29514030

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29514035

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25240752

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28188612

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: