Baby is healed with first personalized gene-editing treatment

Does this mean when they grow up, their own offspring will also have this defect and require a correction? And, if so, does this mean it is now introducing this defective gene into our gene pool?

I know this is an issue with caesarean section. It is becoming more prevalent because those who require it are surviving, making it more likely to happen in their offspring.

How can they pass it on when they don't have the defect any more?

The DNA was only edited in the liver. But by the time this baby grows up and starts a family, we'll probably be able to fix that, too.

Gene editing is still pretty crude in terms of delivery.

Just because you can hit some germ-line cells in the liver, for example, doesn’t imply you’ll have good penetration into the reproductive organs.

We can’t zap people and change all their DNA at once, unless we can intervene at the point it’s just a few cells.

It only affects some cells, not the whole body.

If by "they" you mean their gametes, those were not edited. Only a component of their corporal shell was modified.

We get half of our genes from each of our parents. So unless this person has the extremely unlikely misfortune of partnering with someone else with the same rare mutation, their offspring would only have a 50/50 chance of inheriting their copy of this gene. There are also medical procedures (PGD) to bring that chance to virtually 0%.

Also parents who are both carriers have a 25% chance of making a sick child, a 25% chance of making a non carrier and non sick child, and a 25%+25% chance of making non sick yet carrier child. So they already have a 50% chance of making children who'll survive and yet be carriers of the disease. I guess this will increase this to 75%. But you have to evaluate this in connection with the rapid increases in genetic treatment options, which decreases the issues.

> know this is an issue with caesarean section. It is becoming more prevalent because those who require it are surviving

You state this as a fact and I've heard it as a strong hypothesis, but I wasn't aware of much evidence to confirm it?

That's a bold claim. The baby is 9 month old, there are many things that can still go wrong with this experimental treatment.

Hopefully not, but even then no one can say what progress will make science in the next 25 years.

Back in the 50's people thought we would be driving in flying car in 2000.

they could CRISPR his relevant reproductive cells, this general topic is an important subject of discussion

We don't get 50/50 of distinct genes from our parents - it is more like 30/70 and can be even 10/90. The whole DNA ratio in this equation is irrelevant, as we all have 99% of the same DNA. Also, in real world, one parent will consistently give more of their distinct genes than other parent and most likely that consistent gene part will have that single mutation that they would hope to avoid, but contain best genes that the parent can offer. Children from multiple partners could be a solution as it is a different math...

>>>There are also medical procedures (PGD) to bring that chance to virtually 0%. For that one gene only. DNA is a math of sum of genes and from what I have read humans are not better than nature(which is not perfect, but very basic) at selecting best specimens of eggs and sperm, but yes - whatever they have picked - PGD might be able to root out that one single mutation, and introduce variety of other mutations or miss good genes from other combinations. So, it all depends...

Ah, yes - few million of them. Simple task for sure, if the liver is functioning as testes.

"The cesarean delivery rate increased from 5% in 1970 to 31.9% in 2016. This sharp increase can be attributed to various factors, including changes in maternal age, medical advancements allowing more complicated pregnancies to proceed, and evolving obstetric practices. In 2022, the United States recorded more than 3.66 million births, most of which resulted from spontaneous or induced labor. Labor dystocia remains the most common indication for primary cesarean delivery. Globally, cesarean delivery rates continue to rise, and reducing unnecessary cesarean procedures remains a priority in the United States, where 32.2% of all births in 2022 were cesarean deliveries."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546707/

"If this trend continues, by 2030 the highest rates are likely to be in Eastern Asia (63%), Latin America and the Caribbean (54%), Western Asia (50%), Northern Africa (48%) Southern Europe (47%) and Australia and New Zealand (45%), the research suggests."

https://www.who.int/news/item/16-06-2021-caesarean-section-r...

Note: Coincidentally, WHO's article I've linked is lamenting that Sub-saharan Africa only had 5% cesarean due to less availability of the procedure. It is their perspective that the increase in percentages is a good thing and indicates progress, instead of being concerning. And, they find Sub-saharan Africa's low numbers concerning, instead.

Side Note: I also found lots of interesting articles which I haven't posted here, about epigenetic side effects caused by caesarean deliveries like leukemia, illnesses and other genetic issues. But, that seems out of scope for your question. You can make a quick search and find these, though.

"A female-to-female familial predisposition to caesarean section was observed. It could be caused by biologic inheritance, primarily working through maternal alleles and/or environmental factors. The results imply that both mechanisms could be important."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18540028/

"Large-scale epidemiological studies indeed evidence that women born by C-section are more likely to deliver by Caesarean than women born vaginally, owing primarily to genetic rather than social factors."

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712203114

Interesting - thank you!

> Another Note: Also, ironically WHO's article I've linked is lamenting that Sub-saharan Africa only had 5% cesarean due to less availability of the procedure. It is their perspective that the increase in percentages is a good thing and indicates progress, instead of being concerning. And, they find Sub-saharan Africa's low numbers concerning, instead.

Pretty sure their perspective is that "saving the lives of mothers and babies" indicates progress.

> While a caesarean section can be an essential and lifesaving surgery, it can put women and babies at unnecessary risk of short- and long-term health problems if performed when there is not medical need.

> Rather than recommending specific target rates, WHO underscores the importance of focusing on each woman’s unique needs in pregnancy and childbirth.

> WHO recommends some non-clinical actions that can reduce medically unnecessary use of caesarean sections, within the overall context of high quality and respectful care:

Yes, that's what they're indicating. And, it is saving lives. I myself was cesarean section, as was my mother. I wouldn't be here without it.

That's the potential conundrum, if it turns out to be vastly increasing the need to save those lives than in the past due to a evolutionary pressure on the gene pool. If the WHO is right and we're going to start seeing 50 - 63% increases by 2030, what's in store for the human race if this rate of expansion keeps up?

Will we reach a time when no one can be naturally born and almost our entire race has to be conceived in external gestation devices or cease to exist? And, when we reach that point will we look with concern towards Africa and wonder at how sad it is they're still conceived naturally.

Edit: I don't have the answers. I'm not sure what we should do to course correct or if we need to. But, it is definitely something that should be looked into before it is too late, if it isn't already. And, that is why I brought it up in the context of this breakthrough, to ask if we've considered similar consequences. And, if we have a way to mitigate them if that turns out to be the case.

Are c-sections replacing 'natural' births, or are they simply becoming more common because we have the expertise? There is a difference

> Edit Edit: I can't reply to your comment below I think we've hit the leaf end of this post. But, to reply to your question are c-sections replacing natural births or are they just becoming more common? The research I've cited has indicated this is a genetic transfer among female-to-female births of a need for more cesareans.

To reply after a certain number of child comments, you have to open the comment by clicking the timestamp thing

I'm also afraid I don't understand your response. Can you elaborate?

The research I've cited has indicated this is a genetic transfer among female-to-female births of a need for more cesareans.

"A female-to-female familial predisposition to caesarean section was observed. It could be caused by biologic inheritance, primarily working through maternal alleles and/or environmental factors. The results imply that both mechanisms could be important."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18540028/

"Large-scale epidemiological studies indeed evidence that women born by C-section are more likely to deliver by Caesarean than women born vaginally, owing primarily to genetic rather than social factors."

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1712203114

Thanks, I replied to your other comment.

> "Large-scale epidemiological studies indeed evidence that women born by C-section are more likely to deliver by Caesarean than women born vaginally, owing primarily to genetic rather than social factors."

Interesting. That makes sense. I wonder if the type of research being pursued in TFA might be helpful.

In any case, I also have to wonder whether it's necessarily a bad thing. I quoted 'natural' births earlier because... what is natural? The amount of medical knowledge and technology that go into births doesn't seem very "natural" to me, and this has advanced through the ages to where we are now - where we, rightfully so, look sadly on areas where lack of such technology and knowledge result in more preventable deaths of babies, even if their methods are more "natural"

Of course, to be honest, I'm not very familiar with the pros and cons of c-sections vs natural births - particularly when the question is whether to have a child. I suppose that, given the choice between a c-section and the alternatives, most women will opt for a c-section, and as you point out, that means their daughters likely will have to as well

So what might the solution even look like, apart from exploring the aforementioned gene-editing technology - or other technology - to prevent the genetic factor of c-sections? I would hope that "don't offer c-sections" is not a serious option. "Stop having kids" is one I'd personally suggest, but that's obviously not a sane global solution either.

It's an interesting problem I'd be curious to hear more about - as I said, I'm not very familiar with this.

Four years ago highly-upvoted /r/SanFrancisco comments said self-driving taxis were decades away: https://old.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/nbjsij/real_r...

Research is inconclusive regarding what exactly causes this increase.

We know that infants are generally larger than 50 years ago and one of the factors which trigger birth is the inability of the mother's metabolism to support further growth of the fetus.

That, combined with the fact that all over the world availability of nutrition is much better than half a century ago points to this being the culprit.

12 upvotes...

You can't compare that to gene-editing treatments, that's two completely different level.

Self driving car were always almost feasible, 20 years ago top gear made cars you could drive with controller like kids do with toy cars. We already had camera and computer, it was just a matter of raw CPU performance and software development..

we have all the CPU performance we need and all software development we need and self-driving cars are driving around in roughly 0.00785% of world’s cities :)

This is something I have never seen for decades - a troll that posts links to his own quotes...

We met again.