Three-parent babies: Can this reproduction technique prevent genetic disorders?
Developed by scientists at Newcastle University, the technique uses nuclear DNA from the intended mother and father, along with healthy mitochondrial DNA from a donor egg. Approved under the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Regulations in 2015, the method has so far led to the birth of eight reportedly healthy children. The goal of mitochondrial donation is to prevent the transmission of serious genetic disorders caused by faulty mitochondria.
Mitochondria are parts of a cell that act like power stations, converting food into energy the cell can use. They are inherited exclusively from the mother through the egg cell, as mitochondria in the father's sperm are typically not passed on to the offspring.
Results from Newcastle University, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, show that 22 women received the treatment since 2017, resulting in eight births. The technology offers new hope to families at risk of passing on inherited mitochondrial disorders such as Leigh syndrome—a life-threatening condition that disrupts the body's ability to produce energy at the cellular level.
In mitochondrial donation, the nucleus from the mother's egg—which holds her nuclear DNA—is moved into a donor egg that has had its own nucleus removed. This creates an embryo that contains the mother's nuclear DNA and the donor's healthy mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).
This technique helps stop the transfer of the mother's faulty mitochondrial DNA to her child, significantly lowering the risk of the child developing a mitochondrial disease.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
3 days ago
- Mint
Mint Explainer: Can AI diagnose you better than a doctor?
Few sectors are witnessing AI's disruptive power as dramatically as healthcare. Trained on millions of historical patient records, advanced AI models are now matching—and in some cases surpassing—human expertise. With real-time analysis across medical histories, imaging, and genetic profiles, AI transforms clinical complexity into diagnostic clarity. AI spots patterns even seasoned physicians might overlook. Earlier this month, Microsoft unveiled a platform–Microsoft AI Diagnostic Orchestrator (MAI-DxO)—that can diagnose medical cases with an accuracy rate of up to 85.5%, far exceeding the 20% accuracy of experienced physicians under the same conditions. Mint explains the role and impact of AI in healthcare and diagnostics. Does Microsoft's MAI-DxO improve diagnostic accuracy? MAI-DxO leverages vast datasets, advanced probabilistic reasoning, and continuous learning from clinical cases to surpass human diagnostic accuracy. Unlike doctors who rely on experience and pattern recognition, MAI-DxO evaluates multiple variables simultaneously—lab results, symptoms, imaging—and predicts outcomes. MAI‑DxO was tested on 304 real-world clinical scenarios sourced from the New England Journal of Medicine. In these cases, MAI‑DxO achieved an accuracy rate of 85.5%, surpassing the average 20% success rate of 21 experienced physicians from the UK and the US. Instead of relying on a single model, MAI-DxO coordinates multiple large language models (LLMs) that interact like a team of doctors, reviewing, challenging, and refining each other's suggestions before settling on a final diagnosis. Microsoft has emphasised that the tool is not designed to replace doctors, but to work alongside them. What medical datasets does MAI-DxO use? MAI-DxO is trained on anonymised patient records, peer-reviewed literature, medical guidelines and global clinical datasets from hospitals and research institutions. Its database spans symptoms, biomarkers, comorbidities, and disease trajectories across demographics, allowing it to contextualize findings in real-world scenarios. So if a patient suddenly feels numbness on her left side, it could indicate stroke, nerve damage, heart problem or some other issue. Doctors will wait for test results (blood and scans) to diagnose the problem, while the AI platform will interpret it faster, helping the doctor make quicker decisions. MAI-DXO's strength lies in its ability to absorb medical nuance across specialties—mirroring the cumulative expertise of several doctors and researchers. Will AI replace doctors? AI will not replace but complement doctors and other health professionals. They need to navigate ambiguity and build trust with patients. Clinical roles will evolve with AI, giving medical staff the ability to automate routine tasks, identify diseases earlier, personalize treatment plans, and potentially prevent some diseases altogether. For consumers, they will provide better tools for self-management and shared decision-making. These will be particularly helpful in remote areas where there's a shortage of doctors. MAI-DxO operates on statistical inference rather than intuition. It learns to recognise patterns and contextual subtleties from data, simulating judgment. While human intuition draws on tacit knowledge—emotion, empathy, gut feel—AI taps structured data and outcome probabilities. Platforms like MAI-DxO can augment decision-making. These are especially useful when doctors second-guess themselves—making MAI-DxO an ally, not a rival. What risks do AI-driven diagnostics pose for patient care? Key risks include overreliance, bias from skewed training data, and lack of transparency in AI reasoning. If doctors defer judgment too easily, subtle clinical clues could be overlooked. Additionally, AI platforms recommendations may vary based on demographics or comorbidities not well represented in its training data, potentially exacerbating health disparities. For instance, if they are trained only on American or European patient data, they might overlook or misinterpret common conditions among patients in South Asia, say tuberculosis (TB) or type 2 diabetes or complications caused by chewing tobacco. There's also the risk of false positives and patient anxiety. Most critically, AI tools must be accountable — patients need clarity on how diagnoses are made. The challenge lies in integrating AI without ignoring the human touch in care. What are the regulatory frameworks for AI deployment in hospitals? In India, every AI tool must be approved by the Delhi-based Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO)— equivalent to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Globally, regulatory bodies like the FDA (US), European Medicines Agency (EMA-Europe) are developing guidelines for AI in medicine. Back home, AI platforms need clearance as a software as a medical device (SaMD), requiring evidence of clinical safety, efficacy, and data privacy compliance. What is the role of AI in the future of medicine? Current developments position them as early warning systems, helping doctors rather than making final decisions. According to the World Economic Forum 4.5 billion people are currently without access to essential healthcare services and a health worker shortage of 11 million is expected by 2030. AI has the potential to help bridge that gap. AI can also assist paramedics in situations where a patient is being transferred via an ambulance. AI models trained on factors such as a patient's mobility, pulse and blood oxygen levels, chest pain, etc., can relay information to doctors, helping them make decisions faster. AI can detect early signs in an individual that are likely to result in diseases like Alzheimer's, heart disease, kidney disease, and so on. This could help doctors suggest preventive action. Can MAI-DxO evolve into a real-time medical assistant across specialties? At present, MAI-DxO is a demonstration of AI capability and research. With real-time access to patient records, labs, and imaging, MAI-DxO could become an assistant, offering diagnostic suggestions, tracking progress, and alerting doctors to anomalies as they emerge. Integrated into electronic health systems, it could support rounds, triage, and even remote consultations. Much like AI embedded medical devices (ultrasound devices, bedside X-ray machines) are now being used in some hospitals, including Max healthcare, to interpret scans and assist doctors. The key lies in continual updates, feedback loops and building trust.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
Poor Europeans live longer than rich Americans, study reveals stark contrast
It's a common perception that a wealthy person, with comfort, stability, and access to top-tier healthcare, is more likely to live a longer and healthier life. But a new study challenges this belief and reestablishes an old saying: money isn't everything, at least not when it comes to health and longevity. Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the study tracked nearly 74,000 individuals aged 50 to 85 across the US and 16 European countries from 2010 to 2022. Surprisingly, some of the poorest Europeans were found to outlive even the wealthiest Americans, revealing deep disparities tied to national healthcare systems and social structures. Europe vs. US: Wealth doesn't guarantee longevity Researchers divided Europe into three regions—northern and western, southern, and eastern—comparing survival rates to those in the United States. The US had the highest overall death rate at 6.5 per 1,000 people, while northern and western Europe had a much lower rate of 2.9. Even more telling, wealthy Americans had lower survival rates than everyone in northern and western Europe and were only on par with the poorest in those regions. This pattern persisted across multiple metrics. The poorest Americans died younger than their European counterparts, and the survival gap between America's rich and poor was the widest of any nation studied. According to researchers, factors like income inequality, limited access to healthcare, and weaker social support structures in the US help explain this disturbing trend. The role of welfare systems and social support Experts say Europe's stronger welfare policies likely play a major role in these outcomes. Countries like the Netherlands, France, and Germany provide broader access to healthcare, affordable housing, and public support for aging populations. Dr. Martin McKee, a professor of European public health, noted that robust social safety nets benefit not just the poor, but the middle class as well. Europe's universal healthcare systems, along with preventive care programs, income support, elder care, and housing assistance, create a protective framework that sustains public health across all socioeconomic groups. These policies don't only improve outcomes for those at the bottom—they raise the baseline for everyone. In contrast, the US approach—heavily reliant on employer-based insurance, private healthcare, and minimal government intervention—excludes millions and creates gaps even among those with stable incomes. The study controlled for major risk factors such as gender, education, smoking habits, and chronic illnesses, which strengthens its conclusion that national policy—not just personal behavior—plays a pivotal role in longevity. However, it did not account for the influence of racial disparities or the ultra-wealthy 1%, which researchers say could further widen the inequality picture. Still, the core message remains stark: a society's collective investment in healthcare and social support directly impacts how long and well its people live.
Hans India
20-07-2025
- 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)
