Science Women unable to have children have are given new hope after scientists create an artificial ovary - Troons furious that it's not for them

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ficial-ovary-giving-hope-infertile-women.html

Women unable to have children have are given new hope after scientists create an artificial ovary
  • A synthetic organ made out of the woman's own tissue could be transplanted
  • The infertile woman could then go on to produce eggs naturally herself
  • Technique is being developed to help women and girls who face chemotherapy
Women unable to have children have been given new hope – after scientists created an artificial ovary.

A synthetic organ – made out of the woman's own tissue – could be transplanted into a female left infertile due to medical treatment. She could then go on to produce eggs naturally.

The breakthrough technique is being developed to help women and girls who face chemotherapy for cancer treatment.

Chemotherapy drugs can render a woman infertile as they can destroy ovaries.

Young girls who have not undergone puberty can be rendered sterile before their ovaries can even produce eggs.

One approach to prevent this is to freeze ovarian tissue – which produces eggs – ahead of chemo treatment and replace it afterwards.

But cancer patients risk being re-exposed to cancerous cells harboured in the removed ovarian tissue.

The new technique prevents this by stripping out all of the patients' potentially cancerous cells from the ovarian tissue, leaving just a 'scaffold' – a framework of protein which no longer contains any cells, removing the chance cancer could be lurking.

The framework provides an environment for the patient's ovarian early-stage follicles – which can go on to generate hundreds of eggs – to grow.

It can then be grafted into the patient's body and go on to allow a woman to produce eggs naturally each month.

The experiments will be unveiled today by Dr Susanne Pors from the Rigshospitalet Laboratory of Reproductive Biology in Copenhagen at the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) conference in Barcelona.

Dr Pors said the artificial ovary technique allowed human eggs to develop 'in a tissue bed which is free of malignancies' in the laboratory.

She added: 'This is the first time that isolated human follicles have survived in a decellularised human scaffold, and, as a proof-of-concept, it could offer a new strategy in fertility preservation without risk of malignant cell re-occurrence.'

In further experiments on mice, she said they found that the ovarian cells were 'successfully repopulating'.

Successful trials in humans are expected to be carried out within five years. Dr Pors said the risk of recurring malignancy from frozen tissue was 'real', especially for patients with leukaemia and ovarian cancers, although the risk from other cancers is much lower.

Dr Stuart Lavery, of Imperial College, and spokesman for the British Fertility Society said the technique had 'dramatic potential'.

And Dr Gillian Lockwood, director of Midland Fertility Services, said the treatment could also prevent cancer patients facing premature menopause because their ovarian cells had been destroyed by chemotherapy.

  • UK couples are spending up to £60,000 to have babies through surrogate mothers in the UK, the conference heard. But Natalie Smith, a trustee of the non-profit organisation Surrogacy UK, told ESHRE that the average payment was between £10,000 and £15,000.
 
'Kay don't get me wrong, this is really amazing news, but I want to try to make some sense of this very quick because it's saying that these synthetic ovaries can produce egg follicles.

From what I understand (and please correct me on any misunderstandings I may have), egg follicles are formed while the embryo/fetus is still in the womb, and unlike sperm cells which upon the start of puberty are continuously produced until the male dies, however many follicles the female developed in the womb is the amount she can have, she cannot make anymore. The follicles aren't fully matured until puberty, however, and they also do age with the woman, thus why fertility drops as the woman gets older--the ticking biological clock. And this is just for those who are fertile.

So developing ovaries for the infertile who desire children is definitely a godsend, but this is my question: Does this mean there'd be an unlimited amount of eggs? Will they be shut down in time for menopause, or could this guarantee pregnancy past child-bearing years?
 
I didn’t see anything about troons in the article. Do we really need to call them out when they’re not actually doing anything? Can’t we just be happy for these crazy people who for some reason actually want to dedicate eight-to-ten years of their lives to ruining the public dining experiences of their communities with their screaming little gremlins?
 
I didn’t see anything about troons in the article. Do we really need to call them out when they’re not actually doing anything? Can’t we just be happy for these crazy people who for some reason actually want to dedicate eight-to-ten years of their lives to ruining the public dining experiences of their communities with their screaming little gremlins?
Logically, the human body will reject tissue that doesn't biologically belong to itself. Troons are a long way off from possessing anything that will make them remotely female.
 
'Kay don't get me wrong, this is really amazing news, but I want to try to make some sense of this very quick because it's saying that these synthetic ovaries can produce egg follicles.

From what I understand (and please correct me on any misunderstandings I may have), egg follicles are formed while the embryo/fetus is still in the womb, and unlike sperm cells which upon the start of puberty are continuously produced until the male dies, however many follicles the female developed in the womb is the amount she can have, she cannot make anymore. The follicles aren't fully matured until puberty, however, and they also do age with the woman, thus why fertility drops as the woman gets older--the ticking biological clock. And this is just for those who are fertile.

So developing ovaries for the infertile who desire children is definitely a godsend, but this is my question: Does this mean there'd be an unlimited amount of eggs? Will they be shut down in time for menopause, or could this guarantee pregnancy past child-bearing years?

That really is some question. Supposing this is true, does it also mean that eggs are more likely to retain their quality over time? Would having children past 35 not carry the same risks as it would for people with natural ovaries. I'm skeptical of just one article, but if what it is claiming is true this would be a reproductive breakthrough with far more reach than just treating infertile women.
 
'.

So developing ovaries for the infertile who desire children is definitely a godsend, but this is my question: Does this mean there'd be an unlimited amount of eggs? Will they be shut down in time for menopause, or could this guarantee pregnancy past child-bearing years?

I'd assume the eggs made through this process would have to be harvested and the woman would have to go through IVF using the egg/eggs. I don't know enough details about this to say for sure but I'm pretty sure the egg quality would somewhat reflect whatever age the the woman was when the tissue was taken.

There wouldn't be an unlimited amount of eggs as the follicles made would age inside the woman. I'm not even sure how many follicles would develop considering this isn't a typical ovary, it's likely it would be far less comparatively. We'd have to know the numbers but yeah, menopause would occur, just can't say when without knowing that.

As for allowing pregnancy past usual child-bearing years, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. I don't think many doctors would find it ethical to induce a pregnancy in an elderly woman though. I have heard of cases of it occuring with your normal egg donor/IVF but 99% of doctors wouldn't risk that.

Would having children past 35 not carry the same risks as it would for people with natural ovaries

Yeah, some of the risks are due to egg quality. Since this would probably occur through IVF the eggs would likely be screened for abnormalities regardless before implantation, definitely rids some of the risk. The general effect of pregnancy in someone older is an issue too though...
 
Last edited:
I didn’t see anything about troons in the article. Do we really need to call them out when they’re not actually doing anything? Can’t we just be happy for these crazy people who for some reason actually want to dedicate eight-to-ten years of their lives to ruining the public dining experiences of their communities with their screaming little gremlins?

Remember that troons only read titles of science articles and, under their definitions, that title does apply to them.
 
I remember reading a while back that the whole 'women are born with all of their eggs' was found out to be bullshit and they do actually develop new egg cells over time. That would make this more feasible.

It's a heavily debated topic. It's within the realm of possibilities, but there are other explanations for why the ovaries maybe appeared to produce new eggs. Honestly, there are still a lot of unknowns but I hear more skeptics of the "new eggs" theory than believers.

It's really up in the air still.
 
Finally me and my 83 year old gf can settle down together!

It's never too late to be geriatric parents.:feels:

I didn’t see anything about troons in the article. Do we really need to call them out when they’re not actually doing anything? Can’t we just be happy for these crazy people who for some reason actually want to dedicate eight-to-ten years of their lives to ruining the public dining experiences of their communities with their screaming little gremlins?

It's a pre-emptive attack. Troons will REEEE about this not being for them as soon as it gains any sort of mainstream use. They already want uterus transplants despite the male body not being fit for pregnancy and that they have no way to get the baby out other than surgery. Imagine going into labor during a situation where you cannot get to a hospital and your doctor created blind alley being of no use. At least a real woman has the right equipment for natural birth.

This is good news for infertile women. But I don't see it being a possibility for troons. Some quack needing attention will definitely try to be the first to implant a uterus and/or ovaries into a troon. Hopefully it won't work out or he'll be prohibited from doing that sort of surgery. Then again, look at informed consent. I'd say that it's breaking the Hippocratic Oath to do dick chops, boob removals and give hormones to anyone who comes waltzing in saying "I'm trans and I understand this medical dribble you just gave me or whatevs. Where's my vagoo?"
 
Scientists are also researching how to make it possible that 2 women have a child together by using bone marrow to create sperm.

:feels:
Would that mean lesbian couples would only ever have daughters?
That's interesting.

So between egg cells derived from skin cells allowing two men to have a child, and sperm cells derived from bone marrow allowing two women to have a child, are we nearing the Great Schism that leads to the high tech New Lesbos and Himeros, the old fashioned Heterocracy, and the thrilling lives of bisexual double-agents?
 
It's never too late to be geriatric parents.:feels:



It's a pre-emptive attack. Troons will REEEE about this not being for them as soon as it gains any sort of mainstream use. They already want uterus transplants despite the male body not being fit for pregnancy and that they have no way to get the baby out other than surgery. Imagine going into labor during a situation where you cannot get to a hospital and your doctor created blind alley being of no use. At least a real woman has the right equipment for natural birth.

This is good news for infertile women. But I don't see it being a possibility for troons. Some quack needing attention will definitely try to be the first to implant a uterus and/or ovaries into a troon. Hopefully it won't work out or he'll be prohibited from doing that sort of surgery. Then again, look at informed consent. I'd say that it's breaking the Hippocratic Oath to do dick chops, boob removals and give hormones to anyone who comes waltzing in saying "I'm trans and I understand this medical dribble you just gave me or whatevs. Where's my vagoo?"
Correct. The male and female pelvis structures are distinctly different.

Let me see if I can post this correctly...

 
Back