科學新突破 男同志將能有親生子女誕生


hercules6681 wrote:
可是別人的見解您聽不進去,
只是一直轉貼文章,
您對這些又了解多少?
一下說挺同;一下說愛好科學。

這位大大,您沒看到此樓有好幾個人在說是個假新聞偽科學嗎?
做為開版主,我再增添個新知說明不為過吧!

挺同不能同時同時做個科學愛好者 ???
我的人生沒有您那麼狹隘 !!
我就是想分享給科學愛好者,不管他是挺還是反同.


鐵鎚人 wrote:
找到相關技術的說明...(恕刪)

所以說引用這些資料一定要看源頭,這技術明明還沒成熟卻說得像已經可以用一樣

Saitou and Hayashi have found that the offspring generated by their technique usually seem to be healthy and fertile, but the PGCs themselves are often not completely 'normal'. For example, the second-generation PGCs often produce eggs that are fragile, misshapen and sometimes dislodged from the complex of cells that supports them1. When fertilized, the eggs often divide into cells with three sets of chromosomes rather than the normal two, and the rate at which the artificial PGCs successfully produce offspring is only one-third of the rate for normal in vitro fertilization (IVF). Yi Zhang, who studies epigenetics at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, and who has been using Saitou's method, has also found that in vitro PGCs do not erase their previous epigenetic programming as well as naturally occurring PGCs. “We have to be aware that these are PGC-like cells and not PGCs,” he says.

In addition, two major technical challenges remain. The first is working out how to make the PGCs convert to mature sperm and eggs without transplanting them back into testes or ovaries; Hayashi is trying to decipher the signals that ovaries and testes give to the PGCs that tell them to become eggs or sperm, which he could then add to artificial PGCs in culture to lead them through these stages.


http://www.nature.com/news/stem-cells-egg-engineers-1.13582

thron wrote:
所以說引用這些資料一...(恕刪)</blockquot
有疑惑可到那位生殖醫生專家的臉書交流切磋.
沒有人說不能扮演兩種角色?

可是做學問的態度是追求真理,
當預設立場去看資料的時候,
最有可能的結果是扭曲數據來配合結果。
這幾年因數據問題落馬的日韓陸台學者可多的是。

你說你只是科學愛好者想分享,
那我錯了,你還是繼續剪貼資料好了,
大概要等個10幾20年這技術才有可能應用到人身上。
感謝您的持續分享!

鐵鎚人 wrote:
這位大大,您沒看到此...(恕刪)
鐵鎚人 wrote:
有疑惑可到那位生殖醫生專家的臉書交流切磋


拿生殖醫生專家來擋啊?

那個根本就只是有技術的生意人。

宣傳文案沒比電台賣藥的高明多少。
不懂怎麼會有人奉為圭臬?
我本來想問開版大,
那專家怎麼把自己搞像控八控控?
沒想到您就先提了!

claude0630 wrote:
拿生殖醫生專家來擋啊...(恕刪)

claude0630 wrote:
拿生殖醫生專家來擋啊?
那個根本就只是有技術的生意人。
宣傳文案沒比電台賣藥的高明多少。
不懂怎麼會有人奉為圭臬?

那這篇不同地方刊登的報導行嗎?
https://www.thenewslens.com/article/10782
鐵鎚人 wrote:
...(恕刪)

要疑惑啥,我給的算是中文譯文的源頭了(nature journal的資料整理,想看原文麻煩自己手動reference).生科相關科系的看到我紅字畫線的部分該懂得就懂了.

thron wrote:
實驗室裡的東西還輪不到搞臨床的來指教,謝謝.

這位搞臨床的的確沒甚麼,
只不過連續六年榮登世界名醫錄.
而且那個世界名醫錄一定是騙人的.
http://blog.udn.com/a7260678/31624051
鐵鎚人 wrote:
這位搞臨床的的確沒...(恕刪)

醫生接觸的是病人或檢體,或是接近實用的東西,這玩意連in vivo(這部份還在做)都沒有,哪來的信心?他的醫術可能很高明,但對於這方面他有詳加查證嗎,還是fb文章轉轉?我已經指出文章作者提出目前的問題了,你拿他的經歷有啥用?

對了,我修改了原文.畢竟那只是門戶之見而已,有很厲害能兩棲的,不過我見的少.網路上流點口德對自己比較好.
文章分享
評分
評分
複製連結
請輸入您要前往的頁數(1 ~ 7)

今日熱門文章 網友點擊推薦!