Medical breakthrough in UK! Babies born after IVF using DNA from three people
These babies carry nuclear DNA from their biological mother and father, and a small portion of mitochondrial DNA from a female donor. Early medical follow-ups show no signs of the disorders the treatment aims to prevent, offering hope to families with a history of such illnesses.
Mitochondria are tiny structures in cells that produce energy. When they don't work properly, they can lead to severe conditions affecting the brain, muscles, heart and other organs. MDT works by removing the faulty mitochondria in a woman's egg and replacing them with healthy ones from a donor. The mother's nuclear DNA, which makes up most of a person's genes, is kept intact.
As a result, the baby inherits DNA from three people: the mother, the father, and the donor woman. However, the donor's contribution is less than 1% of the child's total genetic material.
The UK became the first country to approve the use of mitochondrial donation in 2015. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) regulates the treatment, and the Newcastle Fertility Centre has led the procedure under strict guidelines.
Though some have raised ethical concerns about the idea of 'three-parent babies' and the limits of genetic intervention, many experts argue that the benefits of preventing devastating diseases outweigh these concerns.
So far, the babies born through MDT in the UK are healthy and show no signs of mitochondrial disease. Doctors say the early results are 'highly promising', though more long-term monitoring is needed. Families involved in the programme have called the treatment 'life-saving' and expressed deep gratitude.
Experts stress that MDT is not a cure for people already affected by mitochondrial conditions, but rather a way to prevent these illnesses in future generations.
While the UK leads in allowing and overseeing this treatment, other countries remain cautious. In the US, such procedures are permitted only as part of clinical trials.
Scientists around the world are closely watching the UK's results. Many believe that with careful regulation, MDT could become a routine option for families at risk, helping to stop certain genetic diseases before they begin.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
3 days ago
- News18
Gaza Aid Queues Turn Deadly Again As Over 60 Killed, Hours After Similar Incident
Last Updated: At least 67 Palestinians were killed in Gaza awaiting aid. Israeli military evacuation orders in central Gaza sparked fears among families of Israeli hostages. At least 67 Palestinians have been killed and several were injured while waiting for aid in Gaza, according to hospital officials, Sky News reported. The director of the Al-Shifa hospital said that the latest deaths occurred in Al-Sudaniya in Northern Gaza. Four hospitals in the area reported receiving multiple casualties, with Al-Shifa hospital alone reporting 45 fatalities. Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed while waiting for food and aid in recent weeks. As per Sky News, more than 30 were killed in the Teina area of the Gaza Strip on Saturday. This comes after the Israeli military issued evacuation orders on Sunday in areas of central Gaza packed with displaced Palestinians, where it hasn't operated so far in its war with Hamas. The military's evacuation order, potentially signalling an attack on Deir al-Balah neighbourhoods, has sparked anxiety among families of Israeli hostages who believe their loved ones may be held captive in the area. Palestinian health officials warned that hundreds may soon die due to the influx of patients with dizziness and exhaustion caused by severe food shortages and a near-total collapse of aid deliveries. 'We warn that hundreds of people whose bodies have wasted away are at risk of imminent death due to hunger," the health ministry, which Hamas controls, said, Reuters reported. The United Nations also said on Sunday that civilians were starving and needed an urgent influx of aid. The Israeli military dropped leaflets over several districts in southwest Deir al-Balah, ordering hundreds of thousands of displaced Gazans sheltering in the area to evacuate their homes and move further south. 'The (Israeli) Defence Forces continues to operate with great force to destroy the enemy's capabilities and terrorist infrastructure in the area," the military said, adding that it had not entered these districts during the current conflict. Israeli sources say the army's hesitation to operate in the area is due to suspicions that Hamas is holding hostages there, with at least 20 of the remaining 50 hostages believed to be alive. Families of the hostages are pressing the army for answers. 'Can anyone (promise) to us that this decision will not come at the cost of losing our loved ones?" the families said in a statement. Some Palestinians suggested the move on Deir al-Balah might be an attempt to put pressure on Hamas to make more concessions in long-running ceasefire negotiations. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hans India
3 days ago
- Hans India
Babies with three people's DNA hailed as breakthrough; but questions remain
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 raised concerns about effectiveness and potential side-effects. The announcement that this technology has led to the birth of eight apparently healthy children therefore marks a major scientific achievement for the UK, which has been widely praised by numerous scientists and patient support groups. However, these results should not detract from some important questions they also raise. Tenyears after the UK became the first country to legalise mitochondrial donation, the first results from the use of these high-profile reproductive technologies – designed to prevent passing on genetic disorders – have finally been published. So far, eight children have been born, all reportedly healthy, thanks to the long-term efforts of scientists and doctors in Newcastle, England. Should this be a cause for excitement, disappointment or concern? Perhaps, I would suggest, it could be a bit of all three. The New England Journal of Medicine has published two papers on a groundbreaking fertility treatment that could prevent devastating inherited diseases. The technique, called mitochondrial donation, was used to help 22 women who carry faulty genes that would otherwise pass serious genetic disorders – such as Leigh syndrome – to their children. These disorders affect the body's ability to produce energy at the cellular level and can cause severe disability or death in babies. The technique, developed by the Newcastle team, involves creating an embryo using DNA from three people: nuclear DNA from the intended mother and father, and healthy mitochondrial DNA from a donor egg. During the parliamentary debates leading up to The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations in 2015, there were concerns about the effectiveness of the procedure and its potential side-effects. The announcement that this technology has led to the birth of eight apparently healthy children therefore marks a major scientific achievement for the UK, which has been widely praised by numerous scientists and patient support groups. However, these results should not detract from some important questions they also raise. First, why has it taken so long for any updates on the application of this technology, including its outcomes and its limitations, to be made public? Especially given the significant public financial investment made into its development. In a country positioning itself as a leader in the governance and practice of reproductive and genomic medicine, transparency should be a central principle. Transparency not only supports the progress of other research teams but also keeps the public and patients well informed. Second, what is the significance of these results? While eight babies were born using this technology, this figure contrasts starkly with the predicted number of 150 babies per year likely to be born using the technique. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the UK regulator in this area, has approved 32 applications since 2017 when the Newcastle team obtained its licence, but the technique was used with only 22 of them, resulting in eight babies. Does this constitute sufficiently robust data to prove the effectiveness of the technology and was it worth the considerable efforts and investments over almost two decades of campaigning, debate and research? As I wrote when this law was passed, officials should have been more realistic about how many people this treatment could help. By overestimating the number of patients who might benefit, they risked giving false hope to families who wouldn't be eligible for the procedure. The safety question: Is it safe enough? In two of the eight cases, the babies showed higher levels of maternal mitochondrial DNA, meaning the risk of developing a mitochondrial disorder cannot be ruled out. This potential for a 'reversal' – where the faulty mitochondria reassert themselves – was also highlighted in a recent study conducted in Greece involving patients who used the technique to treat infertility problems. As a result, the technology is no longer framed by the Newcastle team to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disorders, but rather to reduce the risk. But is the risk reduction enough to justify offering the technique to more patients? And what will the risk of reassertion mean for the children born through it and their parents, who may live with the continuing uncertainty that the condition could emerge later in life? As some experts have suggested, it may be worth testing this technology on women who have fertility problems but don't carry mitochondrial diseases. This would help doctors better understand the risks of the faulty mitochondria coming back, before using the technique only on women who could pass these serious genetic conditions to their children. This leads to a fourth question. What has been the patient experience with this technology? It would be valuable to know how many people applied for mitochondrial donation, why some were not approved, and, among those 32 approved cases, why only 22 proceeded with treatment. It also raises important questions about how patients who were either unable to access the technology, or for whom it was ultimately unsuccessful feel, particularly after investing significant time, effort and hope in the process. How do they come to terms with not having the healthy biological child they had been offered? This is not to say we shouldn't celebrate these births and what they represent for the UK in terms of scientific achievement. The birth of eight healthy children represents a genuine scientific breakthrough that families affected by mitochondrial diseases have waited decades to see. However, some important questions remain unanswered, and more evidence is needed, and it should be communicated in a timely manner to make conclusions about the long-term use of the technology. Breakthroughs come with responsibilities. If the UK wants to maintain its position as a leader in reproductive medicine, it must be more transparent about both the successes and limitations of this technology. The families still waiting to have the procedure – and those who may never receive it – deserve nothing less than complete honesty about what this treatment can and cannot deliver. (The writer is associated with De Montfort University)
NDTV
5 days ago
- NDTV
Babies Born With 3 People DNA Hailed As Breakthrough, But Doubts Remain
Leicester: Ten years after the UK became the first country to legalise mitochondrial donation, the first results from the use of these high-profile reproductive technologies - designed to prevent passing on genetic disorders - have finally been published. So far, eight children have been born, all reportedly healthy, thanks to the long-term efforts of scientists and doctors in Newcastle, England. Should this be a cause for excitement, disappointment or concern? Perhaps, I would suggest, it could be a bit of all three. The New England Journal of Medicine has published two papers on a groundbreaking fertility treatment that could prevent devastating inherited diseases. The technique, called mitochondrial donation, was used to help 22 women who carry faulty genes that would otherwise pass serious genetic disorders - such as Leigh syndrome - to their children. These disorders affect the body's ability to produce energy at the cellular level and can cause severe disability or death in babies. The technique, developed by the Newcastle team, involves creating an embryo using DNA from three people: nuclear DNA from the intended mother and father, and healthy mitochondrial DNA from a donor egg. During the parliamentary debates leading up to The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations in 2015, there were concerns about the effectiveness of the procedure and its potential side-effects. The announcement that this technology has led to the birth of eight apparently healthy children therefore marks a major scientific achievement for the UK, which has been widely praised by numerous scientists and patient support groups. However, these results should not detract from some important questions they also raise. First, why has it taken so long for any updates on the application of this technology, including its outcomes and its limitations, to be made public? Especially given the significant public financial investment made into its development. In a country positioning itself as a leader in the governance and practice of reproductive and genomic medicine, transparency should be a central principle. Transparency not only supports the progress of other research teams but also keeps the public and patients well informed. Second, what is the significance of these results? While eight babies were born using this technology, this figure contrasts starkly with the predicted number of 150 babies per year likely to be born using the technique. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the UK regulator in this area, has approved 32 applications since 2017 when the Newcastle team obtained its licence, but the technique was used with only 22 of them, resulting in eight babies. Does this constitute sufficiently robust data to prove the effectiveness of the technology and was it worth the considerable efforts and investments over almost two decades of campaigning, debate and research? As I wrote when this law was passed, officials should have been more realistic about how many people this treatment could actually help. By overestimating the number of patients who might benefit, they risked giving false hope to families who wouldn't be eligible for the procedure. The safety question Third, is it safe enough? In two of the eight cases, the babies showed higher levels of maternal mitochondrial DNA, meaning the risk of developing a mitochondrial disorder cannot be ruled out. This potential for a "reversal" - where the faulty mitochondria reassert themselves - was also highlighted in a recent study conducted in Greece involving patients who used the technique to treat infertility problems. As a result, the technology is no longer framed by the Newcastle team as a way to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disorders, but rather to reduce the risk. But is the risk reduction enough to justify offering the technique to more patients? And what will the risk of reassertion mean for the children born through it and their parents, who may live with the continuing uncertainty that the condition could emerge later in life? As some experts have suggested, it may be worth testing this technology on women who have fertility problems but don't carry mitochondrial diseases. This would help doctors better understand the risks of the faulty mitochondria coming back, before using the technique only on women who could pass these serious genetic conditions to their children. This leads to a fourth question. What has been the patient experience with this technology? It would be valuable to know how many people applied for mitochondrial donation, why some were not approved, and, among those 32 approved cases, why only 22 proceeded with treatment. It also raises important questions about how patients who were either unable to access the technology, or for whom it was ultimately unsuccessful feel, particularly after investing significant time, effort and hope in the process. How do they come to terms with not having the healthy biological child they had been offered? This is not to say we shouldn't celebrate these births and what they represent for the UK in terms of scientific achievement. The birth of eight healthy children represents a genuine scientific breakthrough that families affected by mitochondrial diseases have waited decades to see. However, some important questions remain unanswered, and more evidence is needed and it should be communicated in a timely manner to make conclusions about the long-term use of the technology. Breakthroughs come with responsibilities. If the UK wants to maintain its position as a leader in reproductive medicine, it must be more transparent about both the successes and limitations of this technology. The families still waiting to have the procedure - and those who may never receive it - deserve nothing less than complete honesty about what this treatment can and cannot deliver. (Disclaimer Statement: Cathy Herbrand receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.)
