Science

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 13° London Hi 16°C / Lo 8°C

Fertility breakthrough

Scientists create test-tube sperm

Breakthrough offers hope of finding cure for male infertility

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor

Dr Karim Nayernia, Newcastle University Professor of Stem Cell Biology

PA

Dr Karim Nayernia, Newcastle University Professor of Stem Cell Biology

Scientists have created human sperm in the laboratory for the first time. The extraordinary development, which until a few years ago belonged in the realms of science fiction, raises hopes that infertile men may one day be able to father their own biological children.

The sperm were created in a test tube, from stem cells derived from a five-day-old male embryo. The advance raises ethical questions over the safety of the procedure and the threat it poses to the future role of men. It was also challenged by experts who claimed the sperm-like cells produced in the experiment were not genuine sperm.

If the finding is confirmed, a single male embryo could, in theory, yield a stem-cell line which when stored could provide an unlimited supply of sperm. Once the stem-cell line was established, there would be no further reproductive need for men. In a briefing on the research, the scientists at Newcastle University and the NorthEast England Stem Cell Institute, led by Professor Karim Nayernia, raise the question of whether their discovery means "the end of men".

They point out that the stem cells from which the sperm were made could only be derived from a male embryo – one containing a Y (male) chromosome – so at least one male would be required.

"However, researchers believe that the issue does need to be debated and legislated for," they said. "As work progresses and results improve at Newcastle and elsewhere it may, in theory, be possible to develop sperm from embryonic stem cell lines which have been stored."

Professor Nayernia said:"In theory it would be possible [to dispense with men], but only if you want to produce a population all the same size and shape [because they have the same male genetic origin]. Personally I cannot see human reproduction as purely a biological process. It has human, emotional, psychological, social and ethical aspects, too. We are doing this research to help infertile men, not to replace a reproductive procedure."

The breakthrough was achieved using stem cells derived from a human embryo which were first developed into germ line stem cells – with half the number of chromosomes – and then prompted to produce sperm which were "fully mature and functional", despite being made in a petri dish rather than the testes of a sexually mature man. The results are reported in the journal Stem Cells and Development.

In a parallel but incomplete experiment, the same group of researchers are creating stem cells out of skin cells from which they have produced sperm, with the same genetic make-up as the skin cells from which they are derived.This would allow infertile men to produce their own biological children, using only their skin cells. Professor Nayernia said the results of this research were "promising" and added: "We hope in a few months to publish that work as well."

However, efforts to produce sperm from female stem cells failed. It had been thought the technique might allow lesbian couples to have their own biological children but the researchers say the genes on the Y (male) chromosome are essential to sperm maturation.

Three years ago, Professor Nayernia led scientists at the University of Gottingen in Germany who became the first to produce viable sperm from mouse embryonic stem cells which were used to produce seven live offspring. However, the baby mice died shortly after birth.

The latest discovery is a further step on the way to finding a cure for male infertility. Under current legislation, researchers are banned from using sperm (or eggs) produced in the laboratory – known as in-vitro derived (IVD) sperm – to treat patients. But it is permitted for research purposes.

"Sperm production takes 15 years in a human and there are thousands of factors that could affect it," said Professor Nayernia. "We can investigate these factors in the laboratory in a matter of months with this technique."

Experts yesterday challenged the Newcastle researchers' claims to have created genuine sperm.

Dr Allan Pacey, senior lecturer in andrology at the University of Sheffield, said: "As a sperm biologist of 20 years' experience, I am unconvinced from the data presented in this paper that the cells produced ... can be accurately called 'Spermatozoa'."

Azim Surani, a professor of physiology and reproduction at the University of Cambridge, said: "These sperm-like cells made in a dish from embryonic stem cells are a long way from being authentic sperm cells." Professor Robin Lovell Badge, from the National Institute for Medical Research, echoed the academic criticisms, but said: "Despite these drawbacks, it may be that the authors have made some progress in obtaining sperm from human embryonic stem cells in vitro.

"This will be very important for research and ultimately, although definitely not yet, for fertility treatments."

Professor Nayernia said his research was submitted as "proof of principle" which needed confirmation by further studies. "Our intention was to open up new avenues of research," he said. "It seems unreasonable to criticise our work on the basis that we have not done more."

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which regulates research, has estimated that it will be at least five or 10 years before eggs of sperm could be produced which could potentially be used in treatment.

Before laboratory-produced sperm could be used to make babies for couples who are infertile, the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act would have to be changed.

Sperm: The facts

* It takes 10 weeks to make a sperm in the testes.

* Once produced they are stored for about a fortnight.

* If they are not ejaculated they are broken down and reabsorbed.

* A healthy male can produce 70 to 150 million sperm a day.

* A teaspoon can hold 200 to 500 million sperm.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

HA!
[info]micheleisfree wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 12:01 am (UTC)
Now women don't need men for anything!
Re: HA!
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 07:37 am (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble - we are close to the end-of-days. All the signs prophecised for it's start are valid now, so don't dump your man straight away because there won't be enough time to implement your global domination plan :-)
UHOH
[info]johnnlvg wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 01:04 am (UTC)
i cannot wait to read about the sun demographics take on it, feeling redundant are we?
mwahahaha
Are u seeking your......
[info]happybabe1987 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 01:43 am (UTC)
**********************************************
OH! NICE!
I know a more interesting site ^^^^^^Cougar Circle . c o m^^^^^It is where single women and men come together for the mutual online dating experience.and it is for free. I lilke the site!
Are u seeking your......
[info]happybabe1987 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 01:55 am (UTC)
**********************************************
OH! NICE!
I know a more interesting site ^^^^^^Cougar Circle . c o m^^^^^It is where single women and men come together for the mutual online dating experience.and it is for free. I lilke the site!
Sperm
[info]unclebeave1977 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 02:41 am (UTC)
Doesn't this new " creation " of sperm thru stem cells seem wonderful? How amazing we as mankind are to accomplish such things to help a man have his own offspring who otherwise could not so do naturally. Where did you get the idea Dr? What pattern or blueprint did you follow? What design is the premise for facillitating your design? How logical is it to presume that a gigantic explosion took place in your laboratory and when the dust all settled, your little pollywogs were ready for the fertilization of a human egg? Obviously it's ludicrous. In logical terms that most can understand it is " Mind over Matter" and nothing less. You have made headlines in your field and deservingly so for an astonishing achievement, but what is even greater is the fact that men will say that there is no God, believe in a Big Bang theory and maintain that we as human beings were not formed from matter and that an intelligent mind created us too. No disrespect Dr., but you are a copycat and someone with much more intelligence than all Drs put together made it all first.
Re: Sperm
[info]adampooler wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:39 am (UTC)
What a load of twaddle. There is absolutely no evidence of intelligent design, and an enormous and ever-growing mass of evidence against it.

Surprisingly, the rest of your post makes even less sense, which is quite an achievement actually.
Re: Sperm
[info]wer_wind_blows wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 11:08 am (UTC)
Not even the digital code contained within the DNA molecule? The code that contains the information required to form life? Information of the like that, in every other sphere of existence, is always the product of a mind?

DNA represents something that isn't itself. Life.
A snowflake represents only a snowflake. A rock represents a rock.

DNA needs to be encoded and decoded. It contains a message. This message carries a purpose and purpose is an intention. Intention is an act of volition and volition is a mental faculty. Therefore, DNA is the product of an intelligent mind. It contains a designer for life which infers a designer.

That's one evidence. Can you still say that there is absolutely no evidence of intelligent design? Can you quote what "ever-growing mass of evidence" goes against it? Because there is NO evolutionary consensus that can explain this phenomenon. If you can, you deserve the Nobel Prize ;)
Re: Sperm
[info]adampooler wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 01:11 pm (UTC)
If you know about 'spheres of existence' other than life on Earth, then I would suggest it is you who is surely deserving of the Nobel Prize- if only you would share your findings.

That DNA carries information is not refuted- that it is the product of a mind is simply your assertion, without the least shred of evidence to back this up. The fact that something contains a message is no way infers either intention or purpose. I could take a huge bag of plastic letters and throw them onto the floor at random, and here and there I would have spelled out words: and presto! message without intention.
Re: Sperm
[info]wer_wind_blows wrote:
Friday, 10 July 2009 at 06:45 am (UTC)
If it is true for life on Earth and if you believe there is life anywhere else, why do you suppose this would not also be the case? If it were not, life would not be possible. It's simple logic.

A random assemblage of words is not a message ;) it is only a message if it has syntax, semantics, pragmatics and achieved purpose which fulfills the criteria of information.

Why would these words say anything? Why would they have that particular meaning? That meaning isn't the product of the words (which are really just shapes, they aren't actually what they represent), the meaning is the product of the mind. Matter is a carrier of information but not the information in and of itself.

All information that we are aware of in every context is the product of a mind. It can ALWAYS without exception be traced back to an intelligent source. That you say there is not a shred of evidence is laughable, because every time you say anything, every word you type, reasserts this truth. If you can produce one counter-example, you will have refuted this point.

You may also want to check the meaning of the word "message":

"a communication that is written or spoken or signaled"
"content | what a communication that is about something is about"

Something that transmits or receives communication in every case is either an intelligence or has been created by an intelligence.
Re: Sperm
[info]adampooler wrote:
Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 09:13 pm (UTC)
Only if by 'simple logic' you actually mean 'spurious non-sequitur'. What you seem to be suggesting is that what is true on Earth must also hold for life everywhere else. Since you have no idea of how life might arise anywhere else, this is not actually logical at all- far from it.

I'm aware of what a message is, but do not see how it applies, at least in the sense you're proposing, to DNA. DNA holds information- true enough- but this doesn't, in itself, imply a purposeful message; after all each of us contains a huge amount of information in our genes which is used for nothing at all (noncoding DNA). Hardly a characteristic of a purposeful message- rather more like my example of random letters above.

Re: Sperm
[info]brazierdv wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 01:05 pm (UTC)
"Intelligent Design" is not inconsistent with science. It runs into trouble when it talks about "creation science" and tries to distort science to explain the Adam & Eve myth. Even the Vatican (run by people who actually believe in God) support that evolution is "God's way of doing things".
Re: Sperm
[info]wer_wind_blows wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 08:33 am (UTC)
The Vatican can hardly be relied on as the sole authority on biblical issues when they dismiss the very foundation of their faith. Frankly, if there was no Adam & Eve, there was no Fall. If there was no Fall, there was no original sin. If there was no original sin, there was no need for Jesus to die. If there was no need for Jesus to die, the Vatican is pointless.

Afterall, how can you claim to have faith in God and then basically say that He was lying when He said how He did things? (afterall, He would have been there right?).

That said, if ID is not inconsistent with science, neither is creation. Afterall, the intelligent designer would be the creator of life. The only problem people have is the identity of the creator.
Re: Sperm
[info]brazierdv wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 10:30 am (UTC)

Presumably all Christians believe in a creator, an "intelligent designer", if you will. Some take the biblical story of creation literally; others see it as allegory.
Re: Sperm
[info]wer_wind_blows wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 12:35 pm (UTC)
Jesus took it literally, therefore if they profess to believe in Him yet say it is allegory, they are calling Him a liar and they are in grave error. In that respect, their faith would be irrational.

It doesn't make sense to say that God was the Creator and therefore the designer of the universe and then say He didn't actually do any of the creating.
Responsible parenting!
[info]sjkillman wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 04:19 am (UTC)
Let's not forget that you don't need to be fertile to have sex, but you do need to be responsible to have children. They deserve loving parents and a secure environment, not just to be the result of a scientific advance.
Forget about its gender - it could be neither male nor female
[info]mackname wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 04:25 am (UTC)

Who konws, by this rate that science progresses (if true!?), the possibility of creating a species without a gender would be most likely outcome.

Indeed, it is no longer a question of being men or women but an entirely different "entity" altogether from us; Homo sapiens.

Why?!
[info]fourpie wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 04:47 am (UTC)
Why do we need the means to have more people born? We are excellent at producing people already. We need to learn how to encourage reduction of births to no more than 2 per couple, not find ever more ways of creating people. IVF of any sort should not be free on the NHS.
test-tube sperm
[info]smokedsausage wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 05:38 am (UTC)
Finally, this is the breakthrough in male liberation us lads have been waiting for! To be freed of any role in the reproductive process is to be freed from any resposibility for bringing up the resulting offspring. Just think of the time available to watch football, play with train sets, go fishing or do absolutely nothing while the womenfolk indulge their oft trumpeted biological need to waste their lives bringing up children. No need to marry, chaps, eternal adolesence is finally (officially) here. The pubs are already polishing the pint glasses in anticipation.

Hoorah for the good Doctor. Must go now, the missus want me to take the kids to school. Coming, dearest.....
Negative Utopia
[info]humble_sparrow wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 06:40 am (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

"In this society, natural reproduction has been done away with and children are decanted and raised in Hatcheries and Conditioning Centres."

Just thought you might like to know where this might lead :-)
Bad for the soap industry though
[info]ealonder wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 07:29 am (UTC)
Wow this is great , real sperm in bottles much more realistic thatn the liquid soap now used as fake cum , bad news for the soap companies though.
But seriously folks , is this a worthwhile use of research resources , aren't they're enough humans , and how many unwanted kids looking for good parents ? What is this obsession with pregnancy? Is it some kind of God fetish.
the purpose of men
[info]ramon2 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 07:34 am (UTC)
I read four languages (English, French, German and Dutch)... only in the English language culture is there the bizarre belief that men's only purpose is as a sperm factory, and that cloning or the above described procedure renders them redundant. It's rather sexist/demeaning/dehumanizing to state that men have no other inherent purpose/function than procreation... what if the same was stated about women? Last I checked women like to hang out with men, enjoy their company because they're different, enjoy having sex with men, men are good at building bridges, airplanes, washing machines, making music, etc... Women can also do these things, bit excel perhaps more in other things... In any case, what is it about the English culture that's so full of hatred towards men????
End to men..
[info]smarttog wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 07:50 am (UTC)
Who will start all the wars, ruin economies and generally cheese of all those women.haha!!!

Reproduction, by sexual activity is about love and emotion. An inserted sperm in a laboratory will never take the place of that.

It is a great breakthrought for infertile men though, as there can be nothing worse than not being able to father children...
!
[info]wastedbreakfast wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:20 am (UTC)
A teaspoon could hold 500 million sperm! Eeeeew!!, I wonder how many would fit in a sandwich then?
GET REAL!
[info]ameliemaryann wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 10:31 am (UTC)
The last thing an over-populated world needs - test tube sperm!
Sperm
[info]brazierdv wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 10:33 am (UTC)

Ultimately, for those women who don't want to use sexual intercourse (with all its emotionalism and uncertainties) designer sperm will become available where you can chose the child's characteristics. (Madam, would you like one who looks like David Beckham or Gordon Brown!?)

More seriously, this has huge policy issues to be thought through.
Evil elitism
[info]lamouche wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 10:57 am (UTC)
The is an example of an evil form of elitism at its worst. It is unimaginably mind-boggling to think that when we are faced with a multitude of problems that threaten our very survival, the survival of the planet itself, and the quality of life for millions, precious resources are being syphoned to eletist projects like these that may actually make our precarious position worse in the longrun. There is definately a desperate need for change in the way people think. Laws should be passed to make such projects illegal, and incentives should be given to those that develop projects that benefit us all, or that enhance the quality of life for the most needy.
Link | Reply | Thread
[info]wilephant wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 10:59 am (UTC)
Is anyone else disturbed that we are now using sperm to create a male embryo, which we then use to create sperm, to then create another male embryo? What was wrong with the first one? Further, any future testing to determine whether this artificial sperm is anything close to normal sperm, will require the creation of more embryos, as well as those embryos' destruction. And this isn't even anywhere close to curing infertility: we should be spending our money on other methods which are much more promising with a lower ethical cost. I have no doubt, unfortunately, the scientific imperative that pushing farther is an inherent good will continue this line of work as far as it can go.
Missing the point
[info]whatknowswho wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 11:36 am (UTC)
I have to say well done, setting off on a project with a set goal in mind, whatever it may be, and acheiving results (however early) must make you feel very good about yourself.
My question may be considered harsh by those who can't, but I feel it is more than valid anyway.

"Isn't there a reason why some people can't produce offspring?"

Those of a scientific nature must say to themselves, "We are here, after however many thousands of years, as a result of natural selection - survival of the fittest".
Those with religious tendencies would surely say, "We shouldn't mess with God's plan".
Similarly those believing simply in mother nature would say, "There are forces of nature, parts of which we may know something about, that can't be controlled, mainly because if one little aspect out of thousands, has escaped our notice / knowledge, the result will not be the same as if we hadn't interfered in the first place".
There are otherwise people who can't explain what they believe in, but know instinctively when they stumble on a truth. I can't put down a quote for these people, but I don't beleive they would say, "This makes perfect sense, we should all be doing it!".
Then there is the vast minority of those who can't father/mother their own offspring naturally. It is only the emotional factor in their minds, and only from the moment they discover that they can't, that separates them from belonging to one of the groups above. Is this a large enough proportion of the human race or a good enough reason to be meddling in this sort of thing?
"Isn't there a reason why some people can't produce offspring?"
[info]famulla wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 02:03 pm (UTC)
Sperm: The facts
* It takes 10 weeks to make a sperm in the testes.
* Once produced they are stored for about a fortnight.
* If they are not ejaculated they are broken down and reabsorbed.
* A healthy male can produce 70 to 150 million sperm a day.
* A teaspoon can hold 200 to 500 million sperm.
And the cost of the freezers vaccines test tubes that keep on breaking I say this is a great work but but but DO WE HAVE THE PERMISSION OF THE POP
Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday condemned the ?grave deviations and failures? of capitalism exposed by the financial crisis and issued a strong call for a ?true world political authority? to oversee a return to ethics in the global economy. Then they grow we have no homes not pessimist but I have no house so I do envy the new ones taking my dogs and the sperms
Are we challenging GOD HAVE you seen the other half here it is. When one wants and abortion., a small syringe is pushed into the embryo and the formed sperms are sucked breaking the bones, ribs , intestines all to make these pass from the ¼ tube see this you will vomit I wish I had the www but wait I will get this watch out for this column.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Wow
[info]confused_world1 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 04:24 pm (UTC)
So we have taken an embryo and purposely inhibited its growth, in order to use it to create sperm that could ultimately help to form an embryo. Makes a lot of sense!
TABRIK!
[info]sanaz_f727 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 06:12 pm (UTC)
Hamin Alan shoma ro toy T.V didam va fahmidam Irani hastid,
Tabrik Arz mikonam baraye movafaghyateton,
Shoma BaEse Eftekhar Iranian hastid,
Enshalla hamishe sar-boland-o hamchonan piroz bashid,

janette khajeh (khajehj@coventry.ac.uk)
sperm
[info]pythinia wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 10:52 pm (UTC)
Scientists love rushing into print with provocative announcements before they're barely out of the starting blocks - just to inform us the holloi polloi how smart they are.
Re: sperm
[info]arcane_af wrote:
Friday, 10 July 2009 at 08:00 am (UTC)
So do newspapers, apparently!
Brave but scary new world
[info]arcane_af wrote:
Friday, 10 July 2009 at 08:09 am (UTC)
Perhaps one day we will create a species better than us, which seems illogical, but we have built machines stronger and faster than us, and computers that can out-think us, at least in terms of raw processing power (if without the complex subtleties and multi-neural connections that make us human.) If such a species talked about Intelligent Design I would actually listen to them lol.

I grew up reading and watching SF about all this kind of thing, now it seems we ARE living in the future, not with jet-packs on our backs and flying cars, but progress such as this latest dabbling with our own species. It is hugely awe-inspiring, but also quite frightening too.
The paper is retracted.
[info]ethicist1 wrote:
Saturday, 1 August 2009 at 10:21 pm (UTC)
There are reports from Nature news that the paper published by Dr. Nayernia et al. has been retracted for plagarizing the first two paragraphs and there is no response from the authors. Wonder what is happening?
laptop battery
[info]lapbatterytop wrote:
Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 02:43 am (UTC)

 Laptop Battery Laptop Battery Laptop Batteries Laptop Batteries discount laptop battery discount laptop battery notebook battery notebook battery computer battery computer battery replacement laptop battery replacement laptop battery notebook batteries notebook batteries  



Most popular