Human parthenogenesis?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Buckaroo Banzai, May 15, 2004.

  1. Veritas Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    Would a child developed parthenogenetically have to be female

    Just a little confused here. If the parthenogenetic child is derived solely from the mother's DNA, and the mother's DNA is a composite of her biological mother and father, would not the odds of producing a male be equal to the odds of producing a female?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184

    People have so-called sex-chromosomes. Males have an X-chromosome and an Y-chromosome, while women have two X-chromosomes.
    Each sperm cell gets just one of those, so either an X-chromosome or an Y-chromosome.
    Each egg cell gets one of the X-chromosomes.
    When the egg gets fertilized by a sperm cell containing a Y-chromosome, the result will be a male (XY).
    When it gets fertilized by a sperm cell containing an X-chromosome, the result will be a female (XX).

    I hope this helps.
    Here's a short article about the subject: http://biology.about.com/od/basicgenetics/p/chromosgender.htm

    Edit: So to answer you question: no. Females only have X-chromosomes so there is no chance of ever producing a male by parthenogenesis.

    Welcome to SciForums, by the way

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,720
    I haven’t read all the posts in detail, so sorry if I’m repeating what’s already been said.

    There is sometimes confusion when it comes to parthenogenesis in mammals. Parthenogenesis in mammals, including humans, can occur by natural or artificial means. However, mammalian parthenogenetic ova/embryos are not viable and do not develop beyond an early embryonic stage. This is because of a strict reliance on imprinting in mammalian embryos. ie. embryonic development requires the input of both maternal and paternal genes.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. rimibchatterjee Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    I'm a writer based in India currently doing research for my fourth novel, which is set five hundred years in the future. I have a question regarding human parthenogenesis. I'd like to know if it is technically possible to turn off imprinting, merge the haploid genomes of two eggs and produce a viable embryo for implantation in a womb that could be carried to term and produce a healthy (female) human being. In other words, is it possible to develop a technology that facilitates diploid parthenogenesis using a donated egg in lieu of sperm, provided DNA methylation and imprinting can be turned off, or adapted? What I'm trying to get at is, is there any gamestopper feature of the normal fertilization process that rules out such a possibility?
    Hope I'm clear

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,554
    I didn't read the responses in this thread since they seemed at glance to be rather uninformative... but are you talking about a molar pregnancy..? If so, that isn't a baby. It's just a tumor. You're not going to deliver a child out of that.
     
  9. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,720

    A publication in 2001 described the fertilisation of mouse oocytes with female somatic cells. It required a great deal of artificial laboratory assistance and manipulation but they did manage to create blastocysts from such “female-female mating” experiments. This is pretty much along the lines of what you are imagining.

    Fertilization of mouse oocytes using somatic cells as male germ cells
    http://www.rbmojournal.com/article/S1472-6483(10)62037-8/abstract

    However, they didn’t implant the blastocysts so it was unknown whether these early embryos were capable of developing into a full-term pregnancy. Even if the blastocysts could have implanted there’s still the problem of overcoming the need for male imprinting for embryonic development. I don’t know if there have been any further advances since then; I used to be in the developmental biology field back then but have since moved into another field and I’m out of the loop with respect to these sorts of issues.

    But, given another 500 years I would say the answer to your question is yes! I can see a high probability of us having the technology to create new babies via an artificial female-female sexual reproduction without the need for any male genetic input.
     
  10. rimibchatterjee Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    Thanks HR, that is extremely helpful. I guess I shall have to invent a technology to deal with imprinting, which as far as I've been able to determine is thought to occur by selective methylation of certain DNA strands, thus knocking em out of action. I don't need to bore my readers with the details, but I do need to get it straight in my head so I don't say something conspicuously foolish and get jumped on by scientists

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    Human Parthenogenesis

    Issac Roman was disappointed. A messenger for the Roman emperor, he had arrived that morning after an ardeous journey bearing a news that he believed might get him a mention in the royal records. He met with the scribe who called on the royal historian, who had just finished a catalogue illustrating the digestive irregularities of the emperor. He brought news he claimed was confired by the local healer woman - a female called Mary had bore a child dispite being [she claimed] a virgin. The scribe and the historian both found this news rather unremarkable and decided not to mention it in the records. And so it happened with hundrens of messengers to many local chiefs too. And 30 years later when that child, now all grown up, was reported to have become an accomplished illusionist and was reported to be forming a quickly growing 'new religion' cult. Yet again, this failed to impress historians, biographers and record keepers anywhere. Little did they know this was to become, well, you know where I am going with this and I have already taken a fairly large detour from my intended subject matter. So mods, pls break off this section into the comparitive religion section if it distracts too much from the discussion at hand.

    Now then, unlikely as it is, if something like this actually happened, the only possible way for it to occur would be parthenogenesis. Of course, Jesus would not be a male for there is no male dna to code for the design of a beard or penis or balls,etc but then the child of God cant be a female, can it - might give the women the will to leave the kitchen! Ohhhhhh... alternative history sexism, LOLZ. But if there is ever a virgin birth, how would it occur in a human? Lizards do it, one species, to my knowledge, is even entirely female. CAN partenogenesis occur in Humans? Is it reported in any mammals at all? What about in primates? IS any research being done in this matter? Seing how much money is put in creation museams, you would think someone might actually research this, no?
     

Share This Page