Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: What percentage of ivf implantations have PGD first?

  1. #1

    What percentage of ivf implantations have PGD first?

    Recent news is that stem cell lines could be produced from single cells from 8-to-10cell blastocysts. This has become controversial. But the same withdrawal of a single cell from the pre-embryo stage is done for 'Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis' to screen for genetic diseases. It is an expensive variation of IVF so is not routinely done. My question--how often is it done? And by extension--why no controversy?
    Last edited by cassandra; 12-04-2007 at 04:19 PM.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by cassandra
    Recent news is that stem cell lines could be produced from single cells from 8-to-10cell blastocysts. This has become controversial. But the same withdrawal of a single cell from the pre-embryo stage is done for 'Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis' to screen for genetic diseases. It is an expensive variation of IVF so is not routinely done. My question--how often is it done? And by extension--why no controversy?
    Cassandra,

    Pre-implantation genetics is actually a very old technique that was developed in the 1980's (Source). The first successful birth of a child that had a cell removed for PGD was born in 1989. By May 2001, over 3000 PGD clinical cycles have been reported to be done.

    From the viewpoint of using removal of a single cell from fertilized ova to create embryonic stem cell lines for research or therapy, I don't think that this has been a reasonable alternative for most people who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research for several reasons.
    1. Many people (particularly Catholics) consider in vitro fertilization (IVF) and pre-implantation diagnosis of genetic diseases to be immoral because the diagnosis could lead to the decision to kill the embryo. To some, this would be equivalent to an abortion in the case of a genetic disease.
    2. While proof of concept of growing an embryonic stem cell line was reported by Advanced Cell Technology, the study itself raised a ruckus because the scientist who used single cells from the blastocyst to grow the stem cell lines actually discarded the rest of the cells. Thus, while they reported proof of concept, the proof resulted in the deaths of the blastocysts used for the study.
    3. The procedure is labor-intensive, inefficient, and unnecessary. It takes a great deal of work to create an embryonic stem cell line. Probably less than 5% of the attempts resulted in growth of an embryonic stem cell line. Finally, there are plenty of blastocysts that are being thrown away. Why go to all this trouble when the hundreds of thousands of blastocysts are being thrown away from in vitro fertilization clinics?


    It is likely the the pre-implantation genetics will be widely used except when there is a high risk of a serious genetic disease. It is quite expensive and the consequences for the blastocyst is not clear. While it may be possible to remove a cell from the 8-cell stage, it is not clear that this poses no risk or consequences to the further development of the blastocyst. It takes tremendous skill to remove a single cell from the dividing fertilized egg. If the blastocyst were damaged, it may simply not develop further.

    Who would the embryonic stem cell line benefit? It would of course match the blastocyst if it develops further into a fetus and is born. However, it would not be an isogenic match for other individuals. Cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) has been touted as the method of creating isogenic stem cell lines that could be used to treat people. It is unlikely that removal of single cells from fertilized ova will be widely used to create embryonic stem cell lines.

    The recent finding that it may be possible to reprogram skin cells to become pluripotent stem cells, i.e. the so-called induced pluripotent cells (iPC), have made it even more unlikely that blastocysts or SCNT will be used by many laboratories as a means of producing embryonic stem cell lines. This development actually was predicted by many of us in the field. For example, even in 2001, I had predicted that scientists would be able to make any cell into pluripotent stem cells. After all, a stem cell is just a cell expressing certain genes.

    However, it is not yet time to abandon embryonic stem cell research. There is so much that we don't yet understand about these cells. Although we have made significant advances in understanding what signals are necessary and sufficient to induce pluripotency, we really don't know the role of the thousands of genes tha are expressed by embryonic stem cells as they replicate themselves or produce other cells.

    The obstructive policy of the Bush Administration is particularly distasteful and unnecessary at the present time because they are continuing to force U.S. scientists funded by NIH to study only the 22 cell lines that were isolated before August 2001. At the present, over 600 embryonic stem cell lines have been derived around the world, many of them without having to use mouse feeder cells or fetal bovine serum. Yet, U.S. scientists who are funded by NIH cannot bring these cells into their laboratories to study.

    Unfortunately, opposition to embryonic stem cell research have resulted in significant reductions of all stem cell research. For example, New Jersey's effort to pass a stem cell research bond was seriously opposed by the Right-to-Life group and the Catholic Church, even though they knew that the research was not just about embryonic stem cell research. Many people think that embryonic stem cell research have something to do with abortions, killing of embryos, and pre-implantation genetics. This is simply not true.

    Wise.
    Last edited by Wise Young; 12-05-2007 at 05:16 PM.

  3. #3
    Banned adi chicago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    near dracula castle
    Posts
    9,508
    very well said sir....
    Many people think that embryonic stem cell research have something to do with abortions, killing of embryos, and pre-implantation genetics. This is simply not true.
    • Dum spiro, spero.
      • Translation: "As long as I breathe, I hope."

  4. #4
    Do the democrats want govt tax money be used to buy aborted fetus' from women willing to get abortions for money?

    That could happen if you federally fund EMBRYONIC stem cell research. In addition,
    Update on stem cell therapy for diabetes.?

  5. #5
    oops why no reply.

  6. #6
    Super Moderator Sue Pendleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    11,007
    Quote Originally Posted by cassandra
    Do the democrats want govt tax money be used to buy aborted fetus' from women willing to get abortions for money?

    That could happen if you federally fund EMBRYONIC stem cell research. In addition,
    Update on stem cell therapy for diabetes.?
    The embryonic cells would come from IVF banks of unused, fertilized embryos that are a) donated by couples who have given up or been successful and have embryos left in the freezer, b) donated by those who for whatever reason do not want others implanted with their genetic material and c) donated by those whose embryos have been frozen long enough (normally cited as 5 years) that implantation and a healthy infant would eventually occur is highly questionable. Under no bill or suggested language for a bill supported by CAMR or most proponants of hESC research and therapies is anyone paid for or their genetic material used without full disclosure and informed consent given.

    Fetal stem cells from tissue from an abortion is a totally different category from embryonic stem cells from blastocysts.

    Several very conservative REPUBLICANS agree that federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research and any therapies derived from it are in the best interest of the American people. Like Senator Orin Hatch, R., Utah and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson (who is also a staunch Roman Catholic against abortion. There is a difference). I'm sure you can find others if you care to look at the last vote by the senate on this issue.

    And as a woman I find the idea that you think women would get pregnant solely to abort for money offensive.
    Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "I will try again tomorrow."

    Disclaimer: Answers, suggestions, and/or comments do not constitute medical advice expressed or implied and are based solely on my experiences as a SCI patient. Please consult your attending physician for medical advise and treatment. In the event of a medical emergency please call 911.

  7. #7
    Super Moderator Sue Pendleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    11,007
    Want to add a link to the conditions treated with cord blood and where? If cord blood is so good at curing ALL (leukemia that normally effects children and teens) why are there still people dying from it? A sibling's bone marrow is about effective if the match is good as anything cord blood has done so far.

    Hmmmmm?
    Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "I will try again tomorrow."

    Disclaimer: Answers, suggestions, and/or comments do not constitute medical advice expressed or implied and are based solely on my experiences as a SCI patient. Please consult your attending physician for medical advise and treatment. In the event of a medical emergency please call 911.

  8. #8
    Cassandra-Who told you that embryonic stem cell research requires aborted fetuses? It's a common misconception, so I just wondered. It isn't true, you know. For instance, my daughter-in-law's minister told their congregation this very thing.

    Most people that have in-vitro fertilization at fertility clinic have excess blastocysts. They are never implanted in the womb, they are thrown away in the trash if the couple doesn't use them.

    Trash or research? What do you think?

    There has been no move by the government to close the fertility clinics.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by cassandra
    Recent news is that stem cell lines could be produced from single cells from 8-to-10cell blastocysts. This has become controversial. But the same withdrawal of a single cell from the pre-embryo stage is done for 'Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis' to screen for genetic diseases. It is an expensive variation of IVF so is not routinely done. My question--how often is it done? And by extension--why no controversy?
    Maybe Hotel Controversy has no more vacancies.
    It's kinda sad we would even think that women would get pregnant and have an abortion JUST to get paid.
    Life isn't about getting thru the storm but learning to dance in the rain.

  10. #10
    Banned adi chicago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    near dracula castle
    Posts
    9,508
    i am not a doctor or scientist ,but i think that to avoid rejections the best way is to use your own cells.clone me and kill me to cure me....maybe i am wrong ...i dont know....
    • Dum spiro, spero.
      • Translation: "As long as I breathe, I hope."

Similar Threads

  1. Trends in In Vitro Fertilizations (IVF) in the United States
    By Wise Young in forum Science, Medicine, & Technology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-09-2007, 08:59 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-05-2007, 03:42 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-19-2003, 09:13 PM
  4. Doctors Warn of Possible New Risk for IVF Babies
    By antiquity in forum Health & Science News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-24-2003, 10:58 AM
  5. cure poll
    By DA in forum Cure
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 05-16-2002, 07:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •