

UK government backs three-person IVF - amirmc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23079276

======
jdmitch
The embryo repair technique (1st of the 2 diagrammes) seems to cross a
different line than the egg repair technique, in that it doesn't involve
fertilising both eggs. I would think some people might object to destroying
the two fertilised eggs (which could eventually each become viable lives in
theory) to create one new egg.

------
tootie
If the problem is her mitochondria, can't they just use dad's?

~~~
Djehngo
To the best of my knowledge mitochondria are inherited exclusively from the
mother.

I imagine this is because when the egg is fertalised the mitochondria in the
sperm are discarded leaving only the maternal ones.

If you are asking why they don't extract the mitochondria from one of the
fathers cells, extract the mitochondria from the egg and then implant the
paternal mitochondria: I assume because that would be a lot more difficult and
likely to damage/destroy the cells in question.

I am not a biologist so if any of this is wrong please someone correct me.

~~~
andyjohnson0
_"...why they don't extract the mitochondria from one of the fathers
cells..."_

I am not a biologist either, but...

As far as I know, the difficulty lies in removing the faulty mitochondria
while keeping the health nucleus in-place and undamaged. Its easier to remove
the nucleus from the egg.

Mitochondria removal has been done with fertilised monkey eggs and
_unfertilised_ human aggs [1][2]. The monkey eggs were implanted and produced
apparently healthy animals. I guess the ethical problem with trying this with
human embryos is the risk of unforseen effects.

[1] [http://www.nature.com/news/dna-swap-technology-almost-
ready-...](http://www.nature.com/news/dna-swap-technology-almost-ready-for-
fertility-clinic-1.11651)

[2]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19710649](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19710649)

