Are male eggs and female sperm on the horizon?

•

02 February 2008

•

From New Scientist Print Edition.Subscribeand get 4 free issues.

•

Peter Aldhoushttp://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg19726414.000-are-male-eggs-and-female-sperm-on-the-horizon.html

"FEMALE sperm", "male eggs" and "same-sex reproduction" - whether these terms fill youwith hope or disgust, a reproductive revolution is already in progress. In a handful of labsacross the world, biologists are trying to make genetically male cells develop into eggs, andfemale cells into sperm. If successful, their efforts might one day allow lesbian and gaycouples to have children that are genetically their own.Now Greg Aharonian, a patent analyst from San Francisco, is trying to patent thetechnologies that could make this possible. In part, Aharonian's goal is to stimulate debate.He argues that lesbians and gay men have a right to know about developments in biology thatcould allow same-sex reproduction. Aharonian also wants to undermine the argument thatmarriage should remain an exclusively heterosexual institution because its main purpose isprocreation. "I'm a troublemaker," he admits.In the US, where reproductive clinics are largely unregulated and religious conservatives areat war with gay rights campaigners over same-sex marriage, it should indeed causecontroversy. Same-sex reproduction is also an issue in the UK, where Parliament is debatingwhether in principle to allow IVF using sperm or eggs grown in the lab - although this wouldonly apply to sperm from male cells, and eggs from female cells(see "Gay couples left out").Aharonian has not shown that the techniques he describes will actually work - that is notnecessary to claim ownership of an invention. In his application, Aharonian discussesmethods including the use of artificial chromosomes and cellular "reprogramming" techniques.Still, biologists want to see hard experimental evidence. "He claims things that could bepossible, but it needs experiments," says Karim Nayernia, a stem cell biologist at NewcastleUniversity in the UK.Nayernia is working on lab techniques to make sperm from human stem cells. In April lastyear, he made headlines by takingbone marrow stem cellsfrom adult men and making themdevelop into spermatogonia - cells that can give rise to immature sperm through a processcalled meiosis. Since then, Nayernia claims to have repeated the feat for female bonemarrow, opening the door for the creation of female sperm.In so far unpublished work, Nayernia also claims to have made lab-grown malespermatogonia enter meiosis by culturing them with Sertoli cells - support cells from thetestes that nurture developing sperm. He has not yet succeeded in getting his female cells todo the same but remains optimistic. "I think, in principle, it will be scientifically possible,"

Nayernia says, although there will be additional challenges along the way(see "Men notessential?").Male eggs might not be so hard to make, though. A Brazilian team led by Irina Kerkis of theButantan Institute in Saõ Paulo claims to have made both sperm and eggs from cultures of male mouse embryonic stem cells (

Cloning and Stem Cells

,DOI: 10.1089/clo.2007.0031).The researchers have not yet shown that their male eggs can be fertilised to produce viableoffspring, but they are thinking about possibilities for same-sex human reproduction."We are starting experiments with human embryonic stem cells," says Kerkis. If these aresuccessful, then the next step will be to see if male eggs could be made from cells known as"induced pluripotent stem cells". These seem to behave just like embryonic stem cells, andcan be made from adult skin cellsusing a genetic reprogramming technique pioneered byShinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University in Japan (

New Scientist

, 24 November 2007, p 7).If all these experiments pan out, then the stage would be set for a gay man to donate skincells that could be used to make eggs, which could then be fertilised by his partner's spermand placed into the uterus of a surrogate mother. "I think it is possible," says Kerkis, "but Idon't know how people will look at this ethically."Safety is another worry, especially given concerns that Yamanaka's reprogramming techniquemight make cells prone to becoming cancerous. Safety fears are also likely to surroundfemale sperm, especially if they are created with the help of artificial chromosomes, asAharonian suggests. "This looks like a very extreme kind of biological manipulation," saysMarcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland, California.Even if the safety issues could be resolved, same-sex reproduction would remain politicallycontroversial. Religious conservative groups already oppose gay and lesbian adoption,claiming that children are best raised by a mother and a father. And while such groups haveused the link between marriage and procreation to argue that homosexuals should not beallowed to wed, techniques that allow gay and lesbian couples to have their own biologicalchildren are unlikely to shift their position."To the extent that there might be a right to reproduce, it would apply only to naturalreproduction," argues Peter Sprigg, vice-president for policy with the Family Research Councilin Washington DC, a leading religious conservative group.Miriam Yeung, until recently director of public policy and government relations with theLesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center in New York, predicts a mixedreaction among homosexuals: some may be concerned about safety, others put off by thelikely cost, while others are content to have children using donated eggs or sperm. "But theremay be some in the community who really want this," she says.Debra Mathews, a bioethicist at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore,Maryland, agrees. She is a member of the Hinxton Group, an international consortium onstem cell ethics, which in April is organising a meeting near Cambridge, UK, to discuss issuesraised by efforts to grow sperm and eggs in the lab - including the likely demand fromhomosexual couples. "People want children, and no one wants anyone else to tell them thatthey can't have them," Mathews observes.

From issue 2641 of New Scientist magazine, 02 February 2008, page 6-7