Search This Blog

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Intersex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Participants at the third International Intersex Forum, Malta, in December 2013
 
Intersex people are born with any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies". Such variations may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female.

Intersex people were previously referred to as hermaphrodites, "congenital eunuchs", or congenitally "frigid". Such terms have fallen out of favor; in particular, the term "hermaphrodite" is considered to be misleading, stigmatizing, and scientifically specious. Medical description of intersex traits as disorders of sex development has been controversial since the label was introduced in 2006.

Intersex people face stigmatization and discrimination from birth or discovery of an intersex trait. This may include infanticide, abandonment and the stigmatization of families. Globally, some intersex infants and children, such as those with ambiguous outer genitalia, are surgically or hormonally altered to create more socially acceptable sex characteristics. However, this is considered controversial, with no firm evidence of good outcomes. Such treatments may involve sterilization. Adults, including elite female athletes, have also been subjects of such treatment. Increasingly these issues are considered human rights abuses, with statements from international and national human rights and ethics institutions. Intersex organizations have also issued statements about human rights violations, including the Malta declaration of the third International Intersex Forum.

In 2011, Christiane Völling became the first intersex person known to have successfully sued for damages in a case brought for non-consensual surgical intervention. In April 2015, Malta became the first country to outlaw non-consensual medical interventions to modify sex anatomy, including that of intersex people.

Some intersex persons may be assigned and raised as a girl or boy but then identify with another gender later in life, while most continue to identify with their assigned sex.

Definitions

Model Hanne Gaby Odiele photographed by Ed Kavishe for Fashionwirepress. In 2017 Odiele disclosed that she has the intersex trait androgen insensitivity syndrome
 
Intersex people are born with sex characteristics (including genitals, gonads and chromosome patterns) that do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies.
Intersex is an umbrella term used to describe a wide range of natural bodily variations. In some cases, intersex traits are visible at birth while in others, they are not apparent until puberty. Some chromosomal intersex variations may not be physically apparent at all.
In biological terms, sex may be determined by a number of factors present at birth, including:
  • the number and type of sex chromosomes;
  • the type of gonads—ovaries or testicles;
  • the sex hormones;
  • the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus in females); and
  • the external genitalia.
People whose characteristics are not either all typically male or all typically female at birth are intersex.

Some intersex traits are not always visible at birth; some babies may be born with ambiguous genitals, while others may have ambiguous internal organs (testes and ovaries). Others will not become aware that they are intersex unless they receive genetic testing, because it does not manifest in their phenotype.

History

Hermaphroditus in a wall painting from Herculaneum (first half of the 1st century AD)
 
Whether or not they were socially tolerated or accepted by any particular culture, the existence of intersex people was known to many ancient and pre-modern cultures. The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus wrote of "hermaphroditus" in the first century BCE that Hermaphroditus "is born with a physical body which is a combination of that of a man and that of a woman", and with supernatural properties.

Edward Coke, The First Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England (1st ed, 1628, title page)
 
In European societies, Roman law, post-classical canon law, and later common law, referred to a person's sex as male, female or hermaphrodite, with legal rights as male or female depending on the characteristics that appeared most dominant. The 12th-century Decretum Gratiani states that "Whether an hermaphrodite may witness a testament, depends on which sex prevails". The foundation of common law, the 17th Century Institutes of the Lawes of England described how a hermaphrodite could inherit "either as male or female, according to that kind of sexe which doth prevaile." Legal cases have been described in canon law and elsewhere over the centuries.

In some non-European societies, sex or gender systems with more than two categories may have allowed for other forms of inclusion of both intersex and transgender people. Such societies have been characterized as "primitive", while Morgan Holmes states that subsequent analysis has been simplistic or romanticized, failing to take account of the ways that subjects of all categories are treated.

During the Victorian era, medical authors introduced the terms "true hermaphrodite" for an individual who has both ovarian and testicular tissue, "male pseudo-hermaphrodite" for a person with testicular tissue, but either female or ambiguous sexual anatomy, and "female pseudo-hermaphrodite" for a person with ovarian tissue, but either male or ambiguous sexual anatomy. Some later shifts in terminology have reflected advances in genetics, while other shifts are suggested to be due to pejorative associations.

The term intersexuality was coined by Richard Goldschmidt in 1917. The first suggestion to replace the term 'hermaphrodite' with 'intersex' was made by Cawadias in the 1940s.

Since the rise of modern medical science, some intersex people with ambiguous external genitalia have had their genitalia surgically modified to resemble either female or male genitals. Surgeons pinpointed intersex babies as a "social emergency" when born. An 'optimal gender policy', initially developed by John Money, stated that early intervention helped avoid gender identity confusion, but this lacks evidence, and early interventions have adverse consequences for psychological and physical health. Since advances in surgery have made it possible for intersex conditions to be concealed, many people are not aware of how frequently intersex conditions arise in human beings or that they occur at all.

Dialogue between what were once antagonistic groups of activists and clinicians has led to only slight changes in medical policies and how intersex patients and their families are treated in some locations. In 2011, Christiane Völling became the first intersex person known to have successfully sued for damages in a case brought for non-consensual surgical intervention. In April 2015, Malta became the first country to outlaw non-consensual medical interventions to modify sex anatomy, including that of intersex people. Many civil society organizations and human rights institutions now call for an end to unnecessary "normalizing" interventions, including in the Malta declaration.

Human rights and legal issues

Intersex activists on a boat at Utrecht Canal Pride in the Netherlands on June 16, 2018

Human rights institutions are placing increasing scrutiny on harmful practices and issues of discrimination against intersex people. These issues have been addressed by a rapidly increasing number of international institutions including, in 2015, the Council of Europe, the United Nations Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the World Health Organization. These developments have been accompanied by International Intersex Forums and increased cooperation amongst civil society organizations. However, the implementation, codification, and enforcement of intersex human rights in national legal systems remains slow. 

Areas of concern include non-consensual medical interventions; stigma, discrimination and equal treatment; access to reparations and justice; access to information and support, and legal recognition.

Physical integrity and bodily autonomy

  Legal prohibition of non-consensual medical interventions
  Regulatory suspension of non-consensual medical interventions

Stigmatization and discrimination from birth may include infanticide, abandonment and the stigmatization of families. Mothers in east Africa may be accused of witchcraft, and the birth of an intersex child may be described as a curse. Abandonments and infanticides have been reported in Uganda, Kenya, south Asia, and China.

Infants, children and adolescents also experience "normalising" interventions on intersex persons that are medically unnecessary and the pathologisation of variations in sex characteristics. Medical interventions to modify the sex characteristics of intersex people, without the consent of the intersex person have taken place in all countries where the human rights of intersex people have been studied. These interventions have frequently been performed with the consent of the intersex person's parents, when the person is legally too young to consent. Such interventions have been criticized by the World Health Organization, other UN bodies such as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and an increasing number of regional and national institutions due to their adverse consequences, including trauma, impact on sexual function and sensation, and violation of rights to physical and mental integrity. In April 2015, Malta became the first country to outlaw surgical intervention without consent. In the same year, the Council of Europe became the first institution to state that intersex people have the right not to undergo sex affirmation interventions.

Anti-discrimination and equal treatment

  Explicit protection on grounds of sex characteristics
  Explicit protection on grounds of intersex status
  Explicit protection on grounds of intersex within attribute of sex


Inclusion in equal treatment and hate crime law. Because people born with intersex bodies are seen as different, intersex infants, children, adolescents and adults "are often stigmatized and subjected to multiple human rights violations", including discrimination in education, healthcare, employment, sport, and public services. Several countries have so far explicitly protected intersex people from discrimination, with landmarks including South Africa, Australia, and, most comprehensively, Malta.

Reparations and justice

Facilitating access to justice and reparations. Access to reparation appears limited, with a scarcity of legal cases, such as the 2011 case of Christiane Völling in Germany. A second case was adjudicated in Chile in 2012, involving a child and his parents. A further successful case in Germany, taken by Michaela Raab, was reported in 2015. In the United States, the "M.C." legal case, advanced by Interact Advocates for Intersex Youth with the Southern Poverty Law Centre is still before the courts.

Information and support

Access to information, medical records, peer and other counselling and support. With the rise of modern medical science in Western societies, a secrecy-based model was also adopted, in the belief that this was necessary to ensure "normal" physical and psychosocial development.

Legal recognition

The Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions states that legal recognition is firstly "about intersex people who have been issued a male or a female birth certificate being able to enjoy the same legal rights as other men and women." In some regions, obtaining any form of birth certification may be an issue. A Kenyan court case in 2014 established the right of an intersex boy, "Baby A", to a birth certificate.

Like all individuals, some intersex individuals may be raised as a certain sex (male or female) but then identify with another later in life, while most do not. Recognition of third sex or gender classifications occurs in several countries, however, it is controversial when it becomes assumed or coercive, as is the case with some German infants. Sociological research in Australia, a country with a third 'X' sex classification, shows that 19% of people born with atypical sex characteristics selected an "X" or "other" option, while 52% are women, 23% men, and 6% unsure.

Language

ILGA conference 2018, group photo to mark Intersex Awareness Day
 
U.S. intersex activist Pidgeon Pagonis

Research in the late 20th century led to a growing medical consensus that diverse intersex bodies are normal, but relatively rare, forms of human biology. Clinician and researcher Milton Diamond stresses the importance of care in the selection of language related to intersex people:
Foremost, we advocate use of the terms "typical", "usual", or "most frequent" where it is more common to use the term "normal." When possible avoid expressions like maldeveloped or undeveloped, errors of development, defective genitals, abnormal, or mistakes of nature. Emphasize that all of these conditions are biologically understandable while they are statistically uncommon.

The term "intersex"

Some people with intersex traits self-identify as intersex, and some do not. Australian sociological research published in 2016, found that 60% of respondents used the term "intersex" to self-describe their sex characteristics, including people identifying themselves as intersex, describing themselves as having an intersex variation or, in smaller numbers, having an intersex condition. A majority of 75% of survey respondents also self-described as male or female. Respondents also commonly used diagnostic labels and referred to their sex chromosomes, with word choices depending on audience. Research by the Lurie Children's Hospital, Chicago, and the AIS-DSD Support Group published in 2017 found that 80% of affected Support Group respondents "strongly liked, liked or felt neutral about intersex" as a term, while caregivers were less supportive. The hospital reported that "disorders of sex development" may negatively affect care.

Some intersex organizations reference "intersex people" and "intersex variations or traits" while others use more medicalized language such as "people with intersex conditions", or people "with intersex conditions or DSDs (differences of sex development)" and "children born with variations of sex anatomy". In May 2016, Interact Advocates for Intersex Youth published a statement recognizing "increasing general understanding and acceptance of the term 'intersex'".

Hermaphrodite

A hermaphrodite is an organism that has both male and female reproductive organs. Until the mid-20th century, "hermaphrodite" was used synonymously with "intersex". The distinctions "male pseudohermaphrodite", "female pseudohermaphrodite" and especially "true hermaphrodite" are terms no longer used, which reflected histology (microscopic appearance) of the gonads. Medical terminology has shifted not only due to concerns about language, but also a shift to understandings based on genetics

Currently, hermaphroditism is not to be confused with intersex, as the former refers only to a specific phenotypical presentation of sex organs and the latter to a more complex combination of phenotypical and genotypical presentation. Using hermaphrodite to refer to intersex individuals is considered to be stigmatizing and misleading. Hermaphrodite is used for animal and vegetal species in which the possession of both ovaries and testes is either serial or concurrent, and for living organisms without such gonads but present binary form of reproduction, which is part of the typical life history of those species; intersex has come to be used when this is not the case.

Disorders of sex development

"Disorders of sex development" (DSD) is a contested term, defined to include congenital conditions in which development of chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomical sex is atypical. Members of the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society and the European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology adopted this term in their "Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders". While it adopted the term, to open "many more doors", the now defunct Intersex Society of North America itself remarked that intersex is not a disorder. Other intersex people, activists, supporters, and academics have contested the adoption of the terminology and its implied status as a "disorder", seeing this as offensive to intersex individuals who do not feel that there is something wrong with them, regard the DSD consensus paper as reinforcing the normativity of early surgical interventions, and criticizing the treatment protocols associated with the new taxonomy.

Sociological research in Australia, published in 2016, found that 3% of respondents used the term "disorders of sex development" or "DSD" to define their sex characteristics, while 21% use the term when accessing medical services. In contrast, 60% used the term "intersex" in some form to self-describe their sex characteristics. U.S. research by the Lurie Children's Hospital, Chicago, and the AIS-DSD Support Group published in 2017 found that "disorders of sex development" terminology may negatively affect care, give offense, and result in lower attendance at medical clinics.

Alternatives to categorizing intersex conditions as "disorders" have been suggested, including "variations of sex development". Organisation Intersex International (OII) questions a disease/disability approach, argues for deferral of intervention unless medically necessary, when fully informed consent of the individual involved is possible, and self-determination of sex/gender orientation and identity. The UK Intersex Association is also highly critical of the label 'disorders' and points to the fact that there was minimal involvement of intersex representatives in the debate which led to the change in terminology. In May 2016, Interact Advocates for Intersex Youth also published a statement opposing pathologizing language to describe people born with intersex traits, recognizing "increasing general understanding and acceptance of the term "intersex"".

LGBT and LGBTI

Intersex can be contrasted with homosexuality or same-sex attraction. Numerous studies have shown higher rates of same sex attraction in intersex people, with a recent Australian study of people born with atypical sex characteristics finding that 52% of respondents were non-heterosexual, thus research on intersex subjects has been used to explore means of preventing homosexuality. However, current studies do not support a statistical correlation between genetic intersex traits and transsexual persons.

Intersex can therefore be contrasted with transgender, which describes the condition in which one's gender identity does not match one's assigned sex. Some people are both intersex and transgender. A 2012 clinical review paper found that between 8.5% and 20% of people with intersex variations experienced gender dysphoria. In an analysis of the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis to eliminate intersex traits, Behrmann and Ravitsky state: "Parental choice against intersex may ... conceal biases against same-sex attractedness and gender nonconformity."

The relationship of intersex to lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans, and queer communities is complex, but intersex people are often added to LGBT to create an LGBTI community. Emi Koyama describes how inclusion of intersex in LGBTI can fail to address intersex-specific human rights issues, including creating false impressions "that intersex people's rights are protected" by laws protecting LGBT people, and failing to acknowledge that many intersex people are not LGBT. Organisation Intersex International Australia states that some intersex individuals are same sex attracted, and some are heterosexual, but "LGBTI activism has fought for the rights of people who fall outside of expected binary sex and gender norms." Julius Kaggwa of SIPD Uganda has written that, while the gay community "offers us a place of relative safety, it is also oblivious to our specific needs". Mauro Cabral has written that transgender people and organizations "need to stop approaching intersex issues as if they were trans issues" including use of intersex as a means of explaining being transgender; "we can collaborate a lot with the intersex movement by making it clear how wrong that approach is".

In society

Kristi Bruce after shooting the documentary XXXY, 2000

Fiction and media

An intersex character is the narrator in Jeffrey Eugenides' Pulitzer Prize-winning novel Middlesex

Television works about intersex and films about intersex are scarce. The Spanish-language film XXY won the Critics' Week grand prize at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival and the ACID/CCAS Support Award. Faking It is notable for providing both the first intersex main character in a television show, and television's first intersex character played by an intersex actor.

Civil society institutions

Intersex peer support and advocacy organizations have existed since at least 1985, with the establishment of the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group Australia in 1985. The Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group (UK) established in 1988. The Intersex Society of North America (ISNA) may have been one of the first intersex civil society organizations to have been open to people regardless of diagnosis; it was active from 1993 to 2008.

Events

Intersex Awareness Day is an internationally observed civil awareness day designed to highlight the challenges faced by intersex people, occurring annually on 26 October. It marks the first public demonstration by intersex people, which took place in Boston on 26 October 1996, outside a venue where the American Academy of Pediatrics was holding its annual conference.

Intersex Day of Remembrance, also known as Intersex Solidarity Day, is an internationally observed civil awareness day designed to highlight issues faced by intersex people, occurring annually on 8 November. It marks the birthday of Herculine Barbin, a French intersex person whose memoirs were later published by Michel Foucault in Herculine Barbin: Being the Recently Discovered Memoirs of a Nineteenth-century French Hermaphrodite.

Flag

Intersex flag

The intersex flag was created by Intersex Human Rights Australia (formerly OII Australia) in July 2013 to create a flag "that is not derivative, but is yet firmly grounded in meaning". The organization aimed to create a symbol without gendered pink and blue colors. It describes yellow and purple as "hermaphrodite" colors. The circle is described as "unbroken and unornamented, symbolizing wholeness and completeness, and our potentialities. We are still fighting for bodily autonomy and genital integrity, and this symbolizes the right to be who and how we want to be."

Religion

In Hinduism, Sangam literature uses the word pedi to refer to people born with an intersex condition; it also refers to antharlinga hijras and various other hijras. Warne and Raza argue that an association between intersex and hijra people is mostly unfounded but provokes parental fear.

In Islam, scholars of Islamic jurisprudence have detailed discussions on the status and rights of intersex based on what mainly exhibits in their external sexual organs. Yet, modern Islamic jurisprudence scholars turn to medical screening to determine the dominance of their sex. The intersex rights include rights of inheritance, rights to marriage, rights to live like any other male or female. The rights are generally based on whether they are true hermaphrodites or pseudohermaphrodite. Scholars of Islamic jurisprudence generally consider their rights based on the majority of what appears from their external sexual organs.

In Judaism, the Talmud contains extensive discussion concerning the status of two intersex types in Jewish law; namely the androgynous, which exhibits both male and female external sexual organs, and the tumtum which exhibits neither. In the 1970s and 1980s, the treatment of intersex babies started to be discussed in Orthodox Jewish medical halacha by prominent rabbinic leaders, for example Eliezer Waldenberg and Moshe Feinstein.

Sport

Stanisława Walasiewicz (Stella Walsh) in 1933

Multiple athletes have been humiliated, excluded from competition or been forced to return medals following discovery of an intersex trait. Examples include Erik Schinegger, Foekje Dillema, Maria José Martínez-Patiño and Santhi Soundarajan. In contrast, Stanisława Walasiewicz (also known as Stella Walsh) was the subject of posthumous controversy.

The South African middle-distance runner Caster Semenya won gold at the World Championships in the women's 800 metres and won silver in the 2012 Summer Olympics. When Semenya won gold in the World Championships, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) requested sex verification tests. The results were not released, but Semenya was cleared to race with other women. Katrina Karkazis, Rebecca Jordan-Young, Georgiann Davis and Silvia Camporesi argued that new IAAF policies on "hyperandrogenism" in female athletes (applied for example to the case of Dutee Chand), established in response to the Semenya case, are "significantly flawed", arguing that the policy will not protect against breaches of privacy, will require athletes to undergo unnecessary treatment in order to compete, and will intensify "gender policing". They recommend that athletes be able to compete in accordance with their legal gender.

In April 2014, the BMJ reported that four elite women athletes with 5-ARD were subjected to sterilization and "partial clitoridectomies" in order to compete in sport. The authors noted that "partial clitoridectomy" was "not medically indicated, does not relate to real or perceived athletic "advantage". Intersex advocates regard this intervention as "a clearly coercive process". In 2016, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on health, Dainius Pūras, criticized "current and historic" sex verification policies, describing how "a number of athletes have undergone gonadectomy (removal of reproductive organs) and partial clitoridectomy (a form of female genital mutilation) in the absence of symptoms or health issues warranting those procedures."

Population figures

The standard treatment in cases of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and other intersex conditions was to lie to patients. This extract is from a book published in 1963.
 
There are few firm estimates of the number of intersex people. The now-defunct Intersex Society of North America stated that:
If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births [0.07–0.05%]. But a lot more people than that are born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won't show up until later in life.
Blackless, Fausto-Sterling et al., said in two articles in 2000 that 1.7 percent of human births (1 in 60) might be intersex, including variations that may not become apparent until, for example, puberty, or until attempting to conceive. Their publications have been widely quoted, though aspects are now considered outdated, such as use of the now scientifically incorrect term hermaphrodite. Eric Vilain et al. highlighted in 2007 that the term disorders of sex development (DSD) had replaced "hermaphrodite" and improper medical terms based on it.

The figure of 1.7% is still maintained by Intersex Human Rights Australia "despite its flaws". "This estimate relates to any "individual who deviates from the Platonic ideal of physical dimorphism at the chromosomal, genital, gonadal, or hormonal levels" and thus it encapsulates the entire population of people who are stigmatized – or risk stigmatization – due to innate sex characteristics." 

Individuals with diagnoses of disorders of sex development (DSD) may or may not experience stigma and discrimination due to their sex characteristics, including sex "normalizing" interventions. Human rights institutions have called for the demedicalization of intersex traits, as far as possible.

The following summarizes some prevalence figures of intersex traits (a fuller 'List of conditions' is provided below, at the end of 'Medical classifications'): 

Intersex Trait (genotype) Prevalence
Not XX, XY, Klinefelter, or Turner one in 1,500–2,000 births (0.07–0.05%)
Klinefelter syndrome (47,XXY) one in 1,000 births (0.10%)
Turner syndrome (45,X) one in 2,710 births (0.04%)
Androgen insensitivity syndrome (46,XY) one in 13,000 births (0.008%)
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (46,XY) one in 130,000 births (0.0008%)
Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia (46,XY or 46,XX) one in 13,000 births (0.008%)
Late onset adrenal hyperplasia (46,XY or 46,XX) one in 50–1,000 births (2–0.1%)
Vaginal atresia (46,XX) one in 6,000 births (0.017%)
Ovotestes (45,X/46,XY mosaicism) one in 83,000 births (0.0012%)
Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause; 46,XY or 46,XX) one in 110,000 births (0.0009%)
Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, e.g., progestin administered to pregnant mother; 46,XY or 46,XX) No estimate
5-alpha-reductase deficiency (46,XY) No estimate
Mixed gonadal dysgenesis (45,X/46,XY mosaicism) No estimate
Müllerian agenesis (of vagina, i.e., MRKH Syndrome; 46,XX) 1 in 4,500–5,000 births (0.022–0.020%)
Complete gonadal dysgenesis (46,XY or 46,XX or 45,X/46,XY mosaicism) one in 150,000 births (0.00067%)

Population figures can vary due to genetic causes. In the Dominican Republic, 5-alpha-reductase deficiency is not uncommon in the town of Las Salinas resulting in social acceptance of the intersex trait. Men with the trait are called "güevedoces" (Spanish for "eggs at twelve"). 12 out of 13 families had one or more male family members that carried the gene. The overall incidence for the town was 1 in every 90 males were carriers, with other males either non-carriers or non-affected carriers.

Medical classifications

Signs

Ambiguous genitalia

Ambiguous genitalia may appear as a large clitoris or as a small penis. 

The Quigley scale is a method for describing genital development in AIS.
 
Because there is variation in all of the processes of the development of the sex organs, a child can be born with a sexual anatomy that is typically female or feminine in appearance with a larger-than-average clitoris (clitoral hypertrophy) or typically male or masculine in appearance with a smaller-than-average penis that is open along the underside. The appearance may be quite ambiguous, describable as female genitals with a very large clitoris and partially fused labia, or as male genitals with a very small penis, completely open along the midline ("hypospadic"), and empty scrotum. Fertility is variable.

Measurement systems

The orchidometer is a medical instrument to measure the volume of the testicles. It was developed by Swiss pediatric endocrinologist Andrea Prader. The Prader scale and Quigley scale are visual rating systems that measure genital appearance. These measurement systems were satirized in the Phall-O-Meter, created by the (now defunct) Intersex Society of North America.

Other signs

In order to help in classification, methods other than a genitalia inspection can be performed. For instance, a karyotype display of a tissue sample may determine which of the causes of intersex is prevalent in the case.

Causes

The common pathway of sexual differentiation, where a productive human female has an XX chromosome pair, and a productive male has an XY pair, is relevant to the development of intersex conditions. 

During fertilization, the sperm adds either an X (female) or a Y (male) chromosome to the X in the ovum. This determines the genetic sex of the embryo. During the first weeks of development, genetic male and female fetuses are "anatomically indistinguishable", with primitive gonads beginning to develop during approximately the sixth week of gestation. The gonads, in a "bipotential state", may develop into either testes (the male gonads) or ovaries (the female gonads), depending on the consequent events. Through the seventh week, genetically female and genetically male fetuses appear identical. 

At around eight weeks of gestation, the gonads of an XY embryo differentiate into functional testes, secreting testosterone. Ovarian differentiation, for XX embryos, does not occur until approximately week 12 of gestation. In normal female differentiation, the Müllerian duct system develops into the uterus, Fallopian tubes, and inner third of the vagina. In males, the Müllerian duct-inhibiting hormone MIH causes this duct system to regress. Next, androgens cause the development of the Wolffian duct system, which develops into the vas deferens, seminal vesicles, and ejaculatory ducts. By birth, the typical fetus has been completely "sexed" male or female, meaning that the genetic sex (XY-male or XX-female) corresponds with the phenotypical sex; that is to say, genetic sex corresponds with internal and external gonads, and external appearance of the genitals.

Conditions

There are a variety of opinions on what conditions or traits are and are not intersex, dependent on the definition of intersex that is used. Current human rights based definitions stress a broad diversity of sex characteristics that differ from expectations for male or female bodies. During 2015, the Council of Europe, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have called for a review of medical classifications on the basis that they presently impede enjoyment of the right to health; the Council of Europe expressed concern that "the gap between the expectations of human rights organizations of intersex people and the development of medical classifications has possibly widened over the past decade".

Medical interventions

Hong Kong intersex activist Small Luk

Rationales

Medical interventions take place to address physical health concerns and psychosocial risks. Both types of rationale are the subject of debate, particularly as the consequences of surgical (and many hormonal) interventions are lifelong and irreversible. Questions regarding physical health include accurately assessing risk levels, necessity, and timing. Psychosocial rationales are particularly susceptible to questions of necessity as they reflect social and cultural concerns. 

There remains no clinical consensus about an evidence base, surgical timing, necessity, type of surgical intervention, and degree of difference warranting intervention. Such surgeries are the subject of significant contention due to consequences that include trauma, impact on sexual function and sensation, and violation of rights to physical and mental integrity. This includes community activism, and multiple reports by international human rights and health institutions and national ethics bodies.

In the cases where gonads may pose a cancer risk, as in some cases of androgen insensitivity syndrome, concern has been expressed that treatment rationales and decision-making regarding cancer risk may encapsulate decisions around a desire for surgical normalization.

Types

  • Feminizing and masculinizing surgeries: Surgical procedures depend on diagnosis, and there is often concern as to whether surgery should be performed at all. Typically, surgery is performed shortly after birth. Defenders of the practice argue that it is necessary for individuals to be clearly identified as male or female in order for them to function socially and develop normally. Psychosocial reasons are often stated. This is criticised by many human rights institutions, and authors. Unlike other aesthetic surgical procedures performed on infants, such as corrective surgery for a cleft lip, genital surgery may lead to negative consequences for sexual functioning in later life, or feelings of freakishness and unacceptability.
  • Hormone treatment: There is widespread evidence of prenatal testing and hormone treatment to prevent or eliminate intersex traits, associated also with the problematization of sexual orientation and gender non-conformity.
  • Psychosocial support: All stakeholders support psychosocial support. A joint international statement by participants at the Third International Intersex Forum in 2013 sought, amongst other demands: "Recognition that medicalization and stigmatisation of intersex people result in significant trauma and mental health concerns. In view of ensuring the bodily integrity and well-being of intersex people, autonomous non-pathologising psycho-social and peer support be available to intersex people throughout their life (as self-required), as well as to parents and/or care providers."
  • Genetic selection and terminations: The ethics of preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select against intersex traits was the subject of 11 papers in the October 2013 issue of the American Journal of Bioethics.[169] There is widespread evidence of pregnancy terminations arising from prenatal testing, as well as prenatal hormone treatment to prevent intersex traits. Behrmann and Ravitsky find social concepts of sex, gender and sexual orientation to be "intertwined on many levels. Parental choice against intersex may thus conceal biases against same-sex attractedness and gender nonconformity."
  • Gender dysphoria: The DSM-5 included a change from using gender identity disorder to gender dysphoria. This revised code now specifically includes intersex people who do not identify with their sex assigned at birth and experience clinically significant distress or impairment, using the language of disorders of sex development. This move was criticised by intersex advocacy groups in Australia and New Zealand.
  • Medical photography and display: Photographs of intersex children's genitalia are circulated in medical communities for documentary purposes. Problems associated with medical photography of intersex children have been discussed due to experiences of humiliation and powerlessness by child subjects, along with their ethics, control and usage.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD or PIGD) is the genetic profiling of embryos prior to implantation (as a form of embryo profiling), and sometimes even of oocytes prior to fertilization. PGD is considered in a similar fashion to prenatal diagnosis. When used to screen for a specific genetic disease, its main advantage is that it avoids selective abortion, as the method makes it highly likely that the baby will be free of the disease under consideration. PGD thus is an adjunct to assisted reproductive technology, and requires in vitro fertilization (IVF) to obtain oocytes or embryos for evaluation. Embryos are generally obtained through blastomere or blastocyst biopsy. The latter technique has proved to be less deleterious for the embryo, therefore it is advisable to perform the biopsy around day 5 or 6 of development.
 
The world’s first PGD was performed by Handyside, Kontogianni and Winston at the Hammersmith Hospital in London. Female embryos were selectively transferred in five couples at risk of X-linked disease, resulting in two twins and one singleton pregnancy.

The term preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) refers to the set of techniques for testing whether embryos (obtained through IVF/ICSI) have abnormal chromosomes' number. In other words, it tests if embryo is aneuploid or not. PGS is also called aneuploidy screening. PGS was renamed preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy (PGD-A) by Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society (PGDIS) in 2016.

The PGD allows studying the DNA of eggs or embryos to select those that carry certain mutations for genetic diseases. It is useful when there are previous chromosomal or genetic disorders in the family and within the context of in vitro fertilization programs.

The procedures may also be called preimplantation genetic profiling to adapt to the fact that they are sometimes used on oocytes or embryos prior to implantation for other reasons than diagnosis or screening.

Procedures performed on sex cells before fertilization may instead be referred to as methods of oocyte selection or sperm selection, although the methods and aims partly overlap with PGD.

History

In 1968, Robert Edwards and Richard Gardner reported the successful identification of the sex of rabbit blastocysts. It was not until the 1980s that human IVF was fully developed, which coincided with the breakthrough of the highly sensitive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology. Handyside, Kontogianni and Winston's first successful tests happened in October 1989, with the first births in 1990 though the preliminary experiments had been published some years earlier. In these first cases, PCR was used for sex determination of patients carrying X-linked diseases.

The first clinical cases

Elena Kontogianni was studying for her PhD at the Hammersmith Hospital, on single-cell PCR for sexing, which she did by amplifying a repeated region of the Y chromosome. It was this approach that she used for the world's first PGD cases.

Female embryos were selectively transferred in five couples at risk of X-linked disease, resulting in two twins and one singleton pregnancy. Because the Y chromosome region Kontogianni was amplifying contained many repeats, it was more efficient than trying to amplify a unique region. A band on the PCR gel indicated that the embryo was male and the absence of a band indicated that the embryo was female. However, amplification failure or an anucleate blastomere also resulted in absence of a band on the PCR gel. To reduce the risk of misdiagnosis, Kontogianni went on to co-amplify sequences on the X and Y (Kontogianni et al., 1991). At that time nothing was known about allele dropout, cumulus cell contamination, or amplification failure from single cells. During the 1980s, human IVF embryos were exclusively transferred on day two of development as the culture medium used was incapable of reliably growing embryos past this stage. Since the biopsy was to be performed on day three, the first diagnoses were all performed in one day, with transfer of the embryos late on day three. A comparison of day two and day three transfers indicated that this would not adversely affect pregnancy rates. The worry of embryos arresting was so high that some transfers took place in the early hours of day four so that the embryos were removed from culture as soon as possible. There were many evenings at the Hammersmith when a transfer was performed at 1 a.m. on day four and researchers returned to the laboratory at 7 a.m. to start the next case. Winston helped deliver most of the first PGD babies.

PGD became increasingly popular during the 1990s when it was used to determine a handful of severe genetic disorders, such as sickle-cell anemia, Tay–Sachs disease, Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, and beta-thalassemia.

Society

As with all medical interventions associated with human reproduction, PGD raises strong, often conflicting opinions of social acceptability, particularly due to its eugenic implications. In some countries, such as Germany, PGD is permitted for only preventing stillbirths and genetic diseases, in other countries PGD is permitted in law but its operation is controlled by the state.

Indications and applications

PGD is used primarily for genetic disease prevention, by selecting only those embryos that do not have a known genetic disorder. PGD may also be used to increase chances of successful pregnancy, to match a sibling in HLA type in order to be a donor, to have less cancer predisposition, and for sex selection.

Monogenic disorders

PGD is available for a large number of monogenic disorders—that is, disorders due to a single gene only (autosomal recessive, autosomal dominant or X-linked)—or of chromosomal structural aberrations (such as a balanced translocation). PGD helps these couples identify embryos carrying a genetic disease or a chromosome abnormality, thus avoiding diseased offspring. The most frequently diagnosed autosomal recessive disorders are cystic fibrosis, Beta-thalassemia, sickle cell disease and spinal muscular atrophy type 1. The most common dominant diseases are myotonic dystrophy, Huntington's disease and Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease; and in the case of the X-linked diseases, most of the cycles are performed for fragile X syndrome, haemophilia A and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Though it is quite infrequent, some centers report PGD for mitochondrial disorders or two indications simultaneously. 

PGD is also now being performed in a disease called hereditary multiple exostoses (MHE/MO/HME). 

In addition, there are infertile couples who carry an inherited condition and who opt for PGD as it can be easily combined with their IVF treatment.

Pregnancy chances

Preimplantation genetic profiling (PGP) has been suggested as a method to determine embryo quality in in vitro fertilization, in order to select an embryo that appears to have the greatest chances for successful pregnancy. However, as the results of PGP rely on the assessment of a single cell, PGP has inherent limitations as the tested cell may not be representative of the embryo because of mosaicism. Furthermore, a study found that diagnoses of the biopsies from the same embryos at two separate laboratories matched up only 50% of the time.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of existing randomized controlled trials came to the result that there is no evidence of a beneficial effect of PGP as measured by live birth rate. On the contrary, for women of advanced maternal age, PGP significantly lowers the live birth rate. Technical drawbacks, such as the invasiveness of the biopsy, and chromosomal mosaicism are the major underlying factors for inefficacy of PGP. Normal live births of healthy offspring after transfers of embryos deemed aneuploid by PGP have been reported worldwide.

Alternative methods to determine embryo quality for prediction of pregnancy rates include microscopy as well as profiling of RNA and protein expression.

HLA matching

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) typing of embryos, so that the child's HLA matches a sick sibling, availing for cord-blood stem cell donation. The child is in this sense a "savior sibling" for the recipient child. HLA typing has meanwhile become an important PGD indication in those countries where the law permits it. The HLA matching can be combined with the diagnosis for monogenic diseases such as Fanconi anaemia or beta thalassemia in those cases where the ailing sibling is affected with this disease, or it may be exceptionally performed on its own for cases such as children with leukaemia. The main ethical argument against is the possible exploitation of the child, although some authors maintain that the Kantian imperative is not breached since the future donor child will not only be a donor but also a loved individual within the family.

Cancer predisposition

A more recent application of PGD is to diagnose late-onset diseases and (cancer) predisposition syndromes. Since affected individuals remain healthy until the onset of the disease, frequently in the fourth decade of life, there is debate on whether or not PGD is appropriate in these cases. Considerations include the high probability of developing the disorders and the potential for cures. For example, in predisposition syndromes, such as BRCA mutations which predispose the individual to breast cancer, the outcomes are unclear. Although PGD is often regarded as an early form of prenatal diagnosis, the nature of the requests for PGD often differs from those of prenatal diagnosis requests made when the mother is already pregnant. Some of the widely accepted indications for PGD would not be acceptable for prenatal diagnosis.

Sex discernment

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis provides a method of prenatal sex discernment even before implantation, and may therefore be termed preimplantation sex discernment. Potential applications of preimplantation sex discernment include:
  • A complement to specific gene testing for monogenic disorders, which can be very useful for genetic diseases whose presentation is linked to the sex, such as, for example, X-linked diseases.
  • Ability to prepare for any sex-dependent aspects of parenting.
  • Sex selection. A 2006 survey found that 42 per cent of clinics that offer PGD have provided it for sex selection for non-medical reasons. Nearly half of these clinics perform it only for "family balancing", which is where a couple with two or more children of one sex desire a child of the other, but half do not restrict sex selection to family balancing. In India, this practice has been used to select only male embryos although this practice is illegal.[24] Opinions on whether sex selection for non-medical reasons is ethically acceptable differ widely, as exemplified by the fact that the ESHRE Task Force could not formulate a uniform recommendation.
In the case of families at risk for X-linked diseases, patients are provided with a single PGD assay of gender identification. Gender selection offers a solution to individuals with X-linked diseases who are in the process of getting pregnant. The selection of a female embryo offspring is used in order to prevent the transmission of X-linked Mendelian recessive diseases. Such X-linked Mendelian diseases include Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), and hemophilia A and B, which are rarely seen in females because the offspring is unlikely to inherit two copies of the recessive allele. Since two copies of the mutant X allele are required for the disease to be passed on to the female offspring, females will at worst be carriers for the disease but may not necessarily have a dominant gene for the disease. Males on the other hand only require one copy of the mutant X allele for the disease to occur in one's phenotype and therefore, the male offspring of a carrier mother has a 50% chance of having the disease. Reasons may include the rarity of the condition or because affected males are reproductively disadvantaged. Therefore, medical uses of PGD for selection of a female offspring to prevent the transmission of X-linked Mendelian recessive disorders are often applied. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis applied for gender selection can be used for non-Mendelian disorders that are significantly more prevalent in one sex. Three assessments are made prior to the initiation of the PGD process for the prevention of these inherited disorders. In order to validate the use of PGD, gender selection is based on the seriousness of the inherited condition, the risk ratio in either sex, or the options for disease treatment.

Minor disabilities

A 2006 survey reveals that PGD has occasionally been used to select an embryo for the presence of a particular disease or disability, such as deafness, in order that the child would share that characteristic with the parents.

Technical aspects

PGD is a form of genetic diagnosis performed prior to implantation. This implies that the patient’s oocytes should be fertilized in vitro and the embryos kept in culture until the diagnosis is established. It is also necessary to perform a biopsy on these embryos in order to obtain material on which to perform the diagnosis. The diagnosis itself can be carried out using several techniques, depending on the nature of the studied condition. Generally, PCR-based methods are used for monogenic disorders and FISH for chromosomal abnormalities and for sexing those cases in which no PCR protocol is available for an X-linked disease. These techniques need to be adapted to be performed on blastomeres and need to be thoroughly tested on single-cell models prior to clinical use. Finally, after embryo replacement, surplus good quality unaffected embryos can be cryopreserved, to be thawed and transferred back in a next cycle.

Obtaining embryos

Currently, all PGD embryos are obtained by assisted reproductive technology, although the use of natural cycles and in vivo fertilization followed by uterine lavage was attempted in the past and is now largely abandoned. In order to obtain a large group of oocytes, the patients undergo controlled ovarian stimulation (COH). COH is carried out either in an agonist protocol, using gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues for pituitary desensitisation, combined with human menopausal gonadotrophins (hMG) or recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), or an antagonist protocol using recombinant FSH combined with a GnRH antagonist according to clinical assessment of the patient’s profile (age, body mass index (BMI), endocrine parameters). hCG is administered when at least three follicles of more than 17 mm mean diameter are seen at transvaginal ultrasound scan. Transvaginal ultrasound-guided oocyte retrieval is scheduled 36 hours after hCG administration. Luteal phase supplementation consists of daily intravaginal administration of 600 µg of natural micronized progesterone. 

Oocytes are carefully denudated from the cumulus cells, as these cells can be a source of contamination during the PGD if PCR-based technology is used. In the majority of the reported cycles, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is used instead of IVF. The main reasons are to prevent contamination with residual sperm adhered to the zona pellucida and to avoid unexpected fertilization failure. The ICSI procedure is carried out on mature metaphase-II oocytes and fertilization is assessed 16–18 hours after. The embryo development is further evaluated every day prior to biopsy and until transfer to the woman’s uterus. During the cleavage stage, embryo evaluation is performed daily on the basis of the number, size, cell-shape and fragmentation rate of the blastomeres. On day 4, embryos were scored in function of their degree of compaction and blastocysts were evaluated according to the quality of the throphectoderm and inner cell mass, and their degree of expansion.

Biopsy procedures

As PGD can be performed on cells from different developmental stages, the biopsy procedures vary accordingly. Theoretically, the biopsy can be performed at all preimplantation stages, but only three have been suggested: on unfertilised and fertilised oocytes (for polar bodies, PBs), on day three cleavage-stage embryos (for blastomeres) and on blastocysts (for trophectoderm cells).

The biopsy procedure always involves two steps: the opening of the zona pellucida and the removal of the cell(s). There are different approaches to both steps, including mechanical, chemical, and physical (Tyrode's acidic solution) and laser technology for the breaching of the zona pellucida, extrusion or aspiration for the removal of PBs and blastomeres, and herniation of the trophectoderm cells.

Polar body biopsy

A polar body biospy is the sampling of a polar body, which is a small haploid cell that is formed concomitantly as an egg cell during oogenesis, but which generally does not have the ability to be fertilized. Compared to a blastocyst biopsy, a polar body biopsy can potentially be of lower costs, less harmful side-effects, and more sensitive in detecting abnormalities. The main advantage of the use of polar bodies in PGD is that they are not necessary for successful fertilisation or normal embryonic development, thus ensuring no deleterious effect for the embryo. One of the disadvantages of PB biopsy is that it only provides information about the maternal contribution to the embryo, which is why cases of maternally inherited autosomal dominant and X-linked disorders that are exclusively maternally transmitted can be diagnosed, and autosomal recessive disorders can only partially be diagnosed. Another drawback is the increased risk of diagnostic error, for instance due to the degradation of the genetic material or events of recombination that lead to heterozygous first polar bodies.

Cleavage-stage biopsy (blastomere biopsy)

Cleavage-stage biopsy is generally performed the morning of day three post-fertilization, when normally developing embryos reach the eight-cell stage. The biopsy is usually performed on embryos with less than 50% of anucleated fragments and at an 8-cell or later stage of development. A hole is made in the zona pellucida and one or two blastomeres containing a nucleus are gently aspirated or extruded through the opening. The main advantage of cleavage-stage biopsy over PB analysis is that the genetic input of both parents can be studied. On the other hand, cleavage-stage embryos are found to have a high rate of chromosomal mosaicism, putting into question whether the results obtained on one or two blastomeres will be representative for the rest of the embryo. It is for this reason that some programs utilize a combination of PB biopsy and blastomere biopsy. Furthermore, cleavage-stage biopsy, as in the case of PB biopsy, yields a very limited amount of tissue for diagnosis, necessitating the development of single-cell PCR and FISH techniques. Although theoretically PB biopsy and blastocyst biopsy are less harmful than cleavage-stage biopsy, this is still the prevalent method. It is used in approximately 94% of the PGD cycles reported to the ESHRE PGD Consortium. The main reasons are that it allows for a safer and more complete diagnosis than PB biopsy and still leaves enough time to finish the diagnosis before the embryos must be replaced in the patient's uterus, unlike blastocyst biopsy. Of all cleavage-stages, it is generally agreed that the optimal moment for biopsy is at the eight-cell stage. It is diagnostically safer than the PB biopsy and, unlike blastocyst biopsy, it allows for the diagnosis of the embryos before day 5. In this stage, the cells are still totipotent and the embryos are not yet compacting. Although it has been shown that up to a quarter of a human embryo can be removed without disrupting its development, it still remains to be studied whether the biopsy of one or two cells correlates with the ability of the embryo to further develop, implant and grow into a full term pregnancy. 

Not all methods of opening the zona pellucida have the same success rate because the well-being of the embryo and/or blastomere may be impacted by the procedure used for the biopsy. Zona drilling with acid Tyrode's solution (ZD) was looked at in comparison to partial zona dissection (PZD) to determine which technique would lead to more successful pregnancies and have less of an effect on the embryo and/or blastomere. ZD uses a digestive enzyme like pronase which makes it a chemical drilling method. The chemicals used in ZD may have a damaging effect on the embryo. PZD uses a glass microneedle to cut the zona pellucida which makes it a mechanical dissection method that typically needs skilled hands to perform the procedure. In a study that included 71 couples, ZD was performed in 26 cycles from 19 couples and PZD was performed in 59 cycles from 52 couples. In the single cell analysis, there was a success rate of 87.5% in the PZD group and 85.4% in the ZD group. The maternal age, number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, and other variables did not differ between the ZD and PZD groups. It was found that PZD led to a significantly higher rate of pregnancy (40.7% vs 15.4%), ongoing pregnancy (35.6% vs 11.5%), and implantation (18.1% vs 5.7%) than ZD. This suggests that using the mechanical method of PZD in blastomere biopsies for preimplantation genetic diagnosis may be more proficient than using the chemical method of ZD. The success of PZD over ZD could be attributed to the chemical agent in ZD having a harmful effect on the embryo and/or blastomere. Currently, zona drilling using a laser is the predominant method of opening the zona pellucida. Using a laser is an easier technique than using mechanical or chemical means. However, laser drilling could be harmful to the embryo and it is very expensive for in vitro fertilization laboratories to use especially when PGD is not a prevalent process as of modern times. PZD could be a viable alternative to these issues.

Blastocyst biopsy

In an attempt to overcome the difficulties related to single-cell techniques, it has been suggested to biopsy embryos at the blastocyst stage, providing a larger amount of starting material for diagnosis. It has been shown that if more than two cells are present in the same sample tube, the main technical problems of single-cell PCR or FISH would virtually disappear. On the other hand, as in the case of cleavage-stage biopsy, the chromosomal differences between the inner cell mass and the trophectoderm (TE) can reduce the accuracy of diagnosis, although this mosaicism has been reported to be lower than in cleavage-stage embryos.

TE biopsy has been shown to be successful in animal models such as rabbits, mice and primates. These studies show that the removal of some TE cells is not detrimental to the further in vivo development of the embryo. 

Human blastocyst-stage biopsy for PGD is performed by making a hole in the ZP on day three of in vitro culture. This allows the developing TE to protrude after blastulation, facilitating the biopsy. On day five post-fertilization, approximately five cells are excised from the TE using a glass needle or laser energy, leaving the embryo largely intact and without loss of inner cell mass. After diagnosis, the embryos can be replaced during the same cycle, or cryopreserved and transferred in a subsequent cycle. 

There are two drawbacks to this approach, due to the stage at which it is performed. First, only approximately half of the preimplantation embryos reach the blastocyst stage. This can restrict the number of blastocysts available for biopsy, limiting in some cases the success of the PGD. Mc Arthur and coworkers report that 21% of the started PGD cycles had no embryo suitable for TE biopsy. This figure is approximately four times higher than the average presented by the ESHRE PGD consortium data, where PB and cleavage-stage biopsy are the predominant reported methods. On the other hand, delaying the biopsy to this late stage of development limits the time to perform the genetic diagnosis, making it difficult to redo a second round of PCR or to rehybridize FISH probes before the embryos should be transferred back to the patient.

Cumulus cell sampling

Sampling of cumulus cells can be performed in addition to a sampling of polar bodies or cells from the embryo. Because of the molecular interactions between cumulus cells and the oocyte, gene expression profiling of cumulus cells can be performed to estimate oocyte quality and the efficiency of an ovarian hyperstimulation protocol, and may indirectly predict aneuploidy, embryo development and pregnancy outcomes.

Genetic analysis techniques

Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) are the two commonly used, first-generation technologies in PGD. PCR is generally used to diagnose monogenic disorders and FISH is used for the detection of chromosomal abnormalities (for instance, aneuploidy screening or chromosomal translocations). Over the past few years, various advancements in PGD testing have allowed for an improvement in the comprehensiveness and accuracy of results available depending on the technology used. Recently a method was developed allowing to fix metaphase plates from single blastomeres. This technique in conjunction with FISH, m-FISH can produce more reliable results, since analysis is done on whole metaphase plates.

In addition to FISH and PCR, single cell genome sequencing is being tested as a method of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. This characterizes the complete DNA sequence of the genome of the embryo.

FISH

FISH is the most commonly applied method to determine the chromosomal constitution of an embryo. In contrast to karyotyping, it can be used on interphase chromosomes, so that it can be used on PBs, blastomeres and TE samples. The cells are fixated on glass microscope slides and hybridised with DNA probes. Each of these probes are specific for part of a chromosome, and are labelled with a fluorochrome. 

Dual FISH was considered to be an efficient technique for determination of the sex of human preimplantation embryos and the additional ability to detect abnormal chromosome copy numbers, which is not possible via the polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

Currently, a large panel of probes are available for different segments of all chromosomes, but the limited number of different fluorochromes confines the number of signals that can be analysed simultaneously. 

The type and number of probes that are used on a sample depends on the indication. For sex determination (used for instance when a PCR protocol for a given X-linked disorder is not available), probes for the X and Y chromosomes are applied along with probes for one or more of the autosomes as an internal FISH control. More probes can be added to check for aneuploidies, particularly those that could give rise to a viable pregnancy (such as a trisomy 21). The use of probes for chromosomes X, Y, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21 and 22 has the potential of detecting 70% of the aneuploidies found in spontaneous abortions.

In order to be able to analyze more chromosomes on the same sample, up to three consecutive rounds of FISH can be carried out. In the case of chromosome rearrangements, specific combinations of probes have to be chosen that flank the region of interest. The FISH technique is considered to have an error rate between 5 and 10%. 

The main problem of the use of FISH to study the chromosomal constitution of embryos is the elevated mosaicism rate observed at the human preimplantation stage. A meta-analysis of more than 800 embryos came to the result that approximately 75% of preimplantation embryos are mosaic, of which approximately 60% are diploid–aneuploid mosaic and approximately 15% aneuploid mosaic. Li and co-workers found that 40% of the embryos diagnosed as aneuploid on day 3 turned out to have a euploid inner cell mass at day 6. Staessen and collaborators found that 17.5% of the embryos diagnosed as abnormal during PGS, and subjected to post-PGD reanalysis, were found to also contain normal cells, and 8.4% were found grossly normal. As a consequence, it has been questioned whether the one or two cells studied from an embryo are actually representative of the complete embryo, and whether viable embryos are not being discarded due to the limitations of the technique.

PCR

Kary Mullis conceived PCR in 1985 as an in vitro simplified reproduction of the in vivo process of DNA replication. Taking advantage of the chemical properties of DNA and the availability of thermostable DNA polymerases, PCR allows for the enrichment of a DNA sample for a certain sequence. PCR provides the possibility to obtain a large quantity of copies of a particular stretch of the genome, making further analysis possible. It is a highly sensitive and specific technology, which makes it suitable for all kinds of genetic diagnosis, including PGD. Currently, many different variations exist on the PCR itself, as well as on the different methods for the posterior analysis of the PCR products. 

When using PCR in PGD, one is faced with a problem that is inexistent in routine genetic analysis: the minute amounts of available genomic DNA. As PGD is performed on single cells, PCR has to be adapted and pushed to its physical limits, and use the minimum amount of template possible: which is one strand. This implies a long process of fine-tuning of the PCR conditions and a susceptibility to all the problems of conventional PCR, but several degrees intensified. The high number of needed PCR cycles and the limited amount of template makes single-cell PCR very sensitive to contamination. Another problem specific to single-cell PCR is the allele drop out (ADO) phenomenon. It consists of the random non-amplification of one of the alleles present in a heterozygous sample. ADO seriously compromises the reliability of PGD as a heterozygous embryo could be diagnosed as affected or unaffected depending on which allele would fail to amplify. This is particularly concerning in PGD for autosomal dominant disorders, where ADO of the affected allele could lead to the transfer of an affected embryo. 

Several PCR-based assays have been developed for various diseases like the triplet repeat genes associated with myotonic dystrophy and fragile X in single human somatic cells, gametes and embryos.

Establishing a diagnosis

The establishment of a diagnosis in PGD is not always straightforward. The criteria used for choosing the embryos to be replaced after FISH or PCR results are not equal in all centres. In the case of FISH, in some centres only embryos are replaced that are found to be chromosomally normal (that is, showing two signals for the gonosomes and the analysed autosomes) after the analysis of one or two blastomeres, and when two blastomeres are analysed, the results should be concordant. Other centres argue that embryos diagnosed as monosomic could be transferred, because the false monosomy (i.e. loss of one FISH signal in a normal dipoloid cell) is the most frequently occurring misdiagnosis. In these cases, there is no risk for an aneuploid pregnancy, and normal diploid embryos are not lost for transfer because of a FISH error. Moreover, it has been shown that embryos diagnosed as monosomic on day 3 (except for chromosomes X and 21), never develop to blastocyst, which correlates with the fact that these monosomies are never observed in ongoing pregnancies.

Diagnosis and misdiagnosis in PGD using PCR have been mathematically modelled in the work of Navidi and Arnheim and of Lewis and collaborators. The most important conclusion of these publications is that for the efficient and accurate diagnosis of an embryo, two genotypes are required. This can be based on a linked marker and disease genotypes from a single cell or on marker/disease genotypes of two cells. An interesting aspect explored in these papers is the detailed study of all possible combinations of alleles that may appear in the PCR results for a particular embryo. The authors indicate that some of the genotypes that can be obtained during diagnosis may not be concordant with the expected pattern of linked marker genotypes, but are still providing sufficient confidence about the unaffected genotype of the embryo. Although these models are reassuring, they are based on a theoretical model, and generally the diagnosis is established on a more conservative basis, aiming to avoid the possibility of misdiagnosis. When unexpected alleles appear during the analysis of a cell, depending on the genotype observed, it is considered that either an abnormal cell has been analysed or that contamination has occurred, and that no diagnosis can be established. A case in which the abnormality of the analysed cell can be clearly identified is when, using a multiplex PCR for linked markers, only the alleles of one of the parents are found in the sample. In this case, the cell can be considered as carrying a monosomy for the chromosome on which the markers are located, or, possibly, as haploid. The appearance of a single allele that indicates an affected genotype is considered sufficient to diagnose the embryo as affected, and embryos that have been diagnosed with a complete unaffected genotype are preferred for replacement. Although this policy may lead to a lower number of unaffected embryos suitable for transfer, it is considered preferable to the possibility of a misdiagnosis.

Preimplantation genetic haplotyping

Preimplantation genetic haplotyping (PGH) is a PGD technique wherein a haplotype of genetic markers that have statistical associations to a target disease are identified rather than the mutation causing the disease.

Once a panel of associated genetic markers have been established for a particular disease it can be used for all carriers of that disease. In contrast, since even a monogenic disease can be caused by many different mutations within the affected gene, conventional PGD methods based on finding a specific mutation would require mutation-specific tests. Thus, PGH widens the availability of PGD to cases where mutation-specific tests are unavailable.

PGH also has an advantage over FISH in that FISH is not usually able to make the differentiation between embryos that possess the balanced form of a chromosomal translocation and those carrying the homologous normal chromosomes. This inability can be seriously harmful to the diagnosis made. PGH can make the distinction that FISH often cannot. PGH does this by using polymorphic markers that are better suited at recognizing translocations. These polymorphic markers are able to distinguish between embryos that carried normal, balanced, and unbalanced translocations. FISH also requires more cell fixation for analysis whereas PGH requires only transfer of cells into polymerase chain reaction tubes. The cell transfer is a simpler method and leaves less room for analysis failure.

Embryo transfer and cryopreservation of surplus embryos

Embryo transfer is usually performed on day three or day five post-fertilization, the timing depending on the techniques used for PGD and the standard procedures of the IVF centre where it is performed.
With the introduction in Europe of the single-embryo transfer policy, which aims at the reduction of the incidence of multiple pregnancies after ART, usually one embryo or early blastocyst is replaced in the uterus. Serum hCG is determined at day 12. If a pregnancy is established, an ultrasound examination at 7 weeks is performed to confirm the presence of a fetal heartbeat. Couples are generally advised to undergo PND because of the, albeit low, risk of misdiagnosis.

It is not unusual that after the PGD, there are more embryos suitable for transferring back to the woman than necessary. For the couples undergoing PGD, those embryos are very valuable, as the couple's current cycle may not lead to an ongoing pregnancy. Embryo cryopreservation and later thawing and replacement can give them a second chance to pregnancy without having to redo the cumbersome and expensive ART and PGD procedures.

Side effects to embryo

PGD/PGS is an invasive procedure that requires a serious consideration, according to Michael Tucker, Ph.D., Scientific Director and Chief Embryologist at Georgia Reproductive Specialists in Atlanta. One of the risks of PGD includes damage to the embryo during the biopsy procedure (which in turn destroys the embryo as a whole), according to Serena H. Chen, M.D., a New Jersey reproductive endocrinologist with IRMS Reproductive Medicine at Saint Barnabas. Another risk is cryopreservation where the embryo is stored in a frozen state and thawed later for the procedure. About 20% of the thawed embryos do not survive. There has been a study indicating a biopsied embryo has a less rate of surviving cryopreservation. Another study suggests that PGS with cleavage-stage biopsy results in a significantly lower live birth rate for women of advanced maternal age. Also, another study recommends the caution and a long term follow-up as PGD/PGS increases the perinatal death rate in multiple pregnancies.

In a mouse model study, PGD has been attributed to various long term risks including a weight gain and memory decline; a proteomic analysis of adult mouse brains showed significant differences between the biopsied and the control groups, of which many are closely associated with neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimers and Down syndrome.

Ethical issues

PGD has raised ethical issues, although this approach could reduce reliance on fetal deselection during pregnancy. The technique can be used for prenatal sex discernment of the embryo, and thus potentially can be used to select embryos of one sex in preference of the other in the context of "family balancing". It may be possible to make other "social selection" choices in the future that introduce socio-economic concerns. Only unaffected embryos are implanted in a woman’s uterus; those that are affected are either discarded or donated to science.

PGD has the potential to screen for genetic issues unrelated to medical necessity, such as intelligence and beauty, and against negative traits such as disabilities. The medical community has regarded this as a counterintuitive and controversial suggestion. The prospect of a "designer baby" is closely related to the PGD technique, creating a fear that increasing frequency of genetic screening will move toward a modern eugenics movement. On the other hand, a principle of procreative beneficence is proposed, which is a putative moral obligation of parents in a position to select their children to favor those expected to have the best life. An argument in favor of this principle is that traits (such as empathy, memory, etc.) are "all-purpose means" in the sense of being of instrumental value in realizing whatever life plans the child may come to have.

Disabilities

In 2006, three percent of PGD clinics in the US reported having selected an embryo for the presence of a disability. Couples involved were accused of purposely harming a child. This practice is notable in dwarfism, where parents intentionally create a child who is a dwarf. In the selection of a saviour sibling to provide a matching bone marrow transplant for an already existing affected child, there are issues including the commodification and welfare of the donor child.

By relying on the result of one cell from the multi-cell embryo, PGD operates under the assumption that this cell is representative of the remainder of the embryo. This may not be the case as the incidence of mosaicism is often relatively high. On occasion, PGD may result in a false negative result leading to the acceptance of an abnormal embryo, or in a false positive result leading to the deselection of a normal embryo.

Another problematic case is the cases of desired non-disclosure of PGD results for some genetic disorders that may not yet be apparent in a parent, such as Huntington disease. It is applied when patients do not wish to know their carrier status but want to ensure that they have offspring free of the disease. This procedure can place practitioners in questionable ethical situations, e.g. when no healthy, unaffected embryos are available for transfer and a mock transfer has to be carried out so that the patient does not suspect that he/she is a carrier. The ESHRE ethics task force currently recommends using exclusion testing instead. Exclusion testing is based on a linkage analysis with polymorphic markers, in which the parental and grandparental origin of the chromosomes can be established. This way, only embryos are replaced that do not contain the chromosome derived from the affected grandparent, avoiding the need to detect the mutation itself.

Intersex traits

PGD allows discrimination against those with intersex traits. Georgiann Davis argues that such discrimination fails to recognize that many people with intersex traits led full and happy lives. Morgan Carpenter highlights the appearance of several intersex variations in a list by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority of "serious" "genetic conditions" that may be de-selected in the UK, including 5 alpha reductase deficiency and androgen insensitivity syndrome, traits evident in elite women athletes and "the world's first openly intersex mayor". Organization Intersex International Australia has called for the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council to prohibit such interventions, noting a "close entanglement of intersex status, gender identity and sexual orientation in social understandings of sex and gender norms, and in medical and medical sociology literature".

In 2015, the Council of Europe published an Issue Paper on Human rights and intersex people, remarking:
Intersex people’s right to life can be violated in discriminatory “sex selection” and “preimplantation genetic diagnosis, other forms of testing, and selection for particular characteristics”. Such de-selection or selective abortions are incompatible with ethics and human rights standards due to the discrimination perpetrated against intersex people on the basis of their sex characteristics.

Religious objections

Some religious organizations disapprove of this procedure. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, takes the position that it involves the destruction of human life. and besides that, opposes the necessary in vitro fertilization of eggs as contrary to Aristotelian principles of nature. The Jewish Orthodox religion believes the repair of genetics is okay, but it does not support making a child which is genetically fashioned.

Psychological factor

A meta-analysis that was performed indicates research studies conducted in PGD underscore future research. This is due to positive attitudinal survey results, postpartum follow-up studies demonstrating no significant differences between those who had used PGD and those who conceived naturally, and ethnographic studies which confirmed that those with a previous history of negative experiences found PGD as a relief. Firstly, in the attitudinal survey, women with a history of infertility, pregnancy termination, and repeated miscarriages reported having a more positive attitude towards preimplantation genetic diagnosis. They were more accepting towards pursuing PGD. Secondly, likewise to the first attitudinal study, an ethnographic study conducted in 2004 found similar results. Couples with a history of multiple miscarriages, infertility, and an ill child, felt that preimplantation genetic diagnosis was a viable option. They also felt more relief; "those using the technology were actually motivated to not repeat pregnancy loss". In summary, although some of these studies are limited due to their retrospective nature and limited samples, the study's results indicate an overall satisfaction of participants for the use of PGD. However, the authors of the studies do indicate that these studies emphasize the need for future research such as creating a prospective design with a valid psychological scale necessary to assess the levels of stress and mood during embryonic transfer and implantation.

Policy and legality

Canada

Prior to implementing the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHR) in 2004, PGD was unregulated in Canada. The Act banned sex selection for non-medical purposes.

Due to 2012's national budget cuts, the AHR was removed. The regulation of assisted reproduction was then delegated to each province. This delegation provides provinces with a lot of leeway to do as they please. As a result, provinces like Quebec, Alberta and Manitoba have put almost the full costs of IVF on the public healthcare bill. Dr. Santiago Munne, developer of the first PGD test for Down's syndrome and founder of Reprogenetics, saw these provincial decisions as an opportunity for his company to grow and open more Reprogenetics labs around Canada. He dismissed all controversies regarding catalogue babies and states that he had no problem with perfect babies.

Ontario, however, has no concrete regulations regarding PGD. Since 2011, the Ministry of Children and Youth Services in Ontario advocates for the development government-funded 'safe fertility' education, embryo monitoring and assisted reproduction services for all Ontarians. This government report shows that Ontario not only has indefinite regulations regarding assisted reproduction services like IVF and PGD, but also does not fund any of these services. The reproductive clinics that exist are all private and located only in Brampton, Markham, Mississauga, Scarborough, Toronto, London and Ottawa. In contrast, provinces such as Alberta and Quebec not only have more clinics, but have also detailed laws regarding assisted reproduction and government funding for these practices.

Germany

Before 2010, the usage of PGD was in a legal grey area. In 2010, the Federal Court of Justice of Germany ruled that PGD can be used in exceptional cases. On 7 July 2011, the Bundestag passed a law that allows PGD in certain cases. The procedure may only be used when there is a strong likelihood that parents will pass on a genetic disease, or when there is a high genetic chance of a stillbirth or miscarriage. On 1 February 2013, the Bundesrat approved a rule regulating how PGD can be used in practice.

Hungary

In Hungary, PGD is allowed in case of severe hereditary diseases (when genetic risk is above 10%). The preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy (PGS/PGD-A) is an accepted method as well. It is currently recommended in case of multiple miscarriages, and/or several failed IVF treatments, and/or when the mother is older than 35 years. Despite being an approved method, PGD-A is available at only one Fertility Clinic in Hungary.

India

In India, Ministry of Family Health and Welfare, regulates the concept under – "The Pre-Conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994". The Act was further been revised after 1994 and necessary amendment were made are updated timely on the official website of the Indian Government dedicated for the cause.

Mexico

As of 2006, clinics in Mexico legally provided PGD services.

South Africa

In South Africa, where the right to reproductive freedom is a constitutionally protected right, it has been proposed that the state can only limit PGD to the degree that parental choice can harm the prospective child or to the degree that parental choice will reinforce societal prejudice.

Ukraine

The preimplantation genetic diagnosis is allowed in Ukraine and from November 1, 2013 is regulated by the order of the Ministry of health of Ukraine "On approval of the application of assisted reproductive technologies in Ukraine" from 09.09.2013 № 787. 

United Kingdom

In the UK, assisted reproductive technologies are regulated under the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act (HFE) of 2008. However, the HFE Act does not address issues surrounding PGD. Thus, the HFE Authority (HFEA) was created in 2003 to act as a national regulatory agency which issues licenses and monitors clinics providing PGD. The HFEA only permits the use of PGD where the clinic concerned has a licence from the HFEA and sets out the rules for this licensing in its Code of Practice. Each clinic, and each medical condition, requires a separate application where the HFEA check the suitability of the genetic test proposed and the staff skills and facilities of the clinic. Only then can PGD be used for a patient.

The HFEA strictly prohibits sex selection for social or cultural reasons, but allows it to avoid sex-linked disorders. They state that PGD is not acceptable for, "social or psychological characteristics, normal physical variations, or any other conditions which are not associated with disability or a serious medical condition." It is however accessible to couples or individuals with a known family history of serious genetic diseases. Nevertheless, the HFEA regards intersex variations as a "serious genetic disease", such as 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, a trait associated with some elite women athletes. Intersex advocates argue that such decisions are based on social norms of sex gender, and cultural reasons.

United States

No uniform system for regulation of assisted reproductive technologies, including genetic testing, exists in the United States. The practice and regulation of PGD most often falls under state laws or professional guidelines as the federal government does not have direct jurisdiction over the practice of medicine. To date, no state has implemented laws directly pertaining to PGD, therefore leaving researchers and clinicians to abide to guidelines set by the professional associations. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that all clinics providing IVF must report pregnancy success rates annually to the federal government, but reporting of PGD use and outcomes is not required. Professional organizations, such as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), have provided limited guidance on the ethical uses of PGD. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) states that, "PGD should be regarded as an established technique with specific and expanding applications for standard clinical practice." They also state, "While the use of PGD for the purpose of preventing sex-linked diseases is ethical, the use of PGD solely for sex selection is discouraged."

References in popular culture

  • PGD features prominently in the 1997 film Gattaca. The movie is set in a near-future world where PGD/IVF is the most common form of reproduction. In the movie parents routinely use PGD to select desirable traits for their children such as height, eye color and freedom from even the smallest of genetic predispositions to disease. The ethical consequences of PGD are explored through the story of the main character who faces discrimination because he was conceived without such methods.
  • PGD is mentioned in the 2004 novel My Sister's Keeper by the characters as the main character, Anna Fitzgerald, was created through PGD to be a genetic match for her APL positive sister Kate so that she could donate bone marrow at her birth to help Kate fight the APL. It is also mentioned in the book that her parents received criticism for the act.

Information on clinic websites

In a study of 135 IVF clinics, 88% had websites, 70% mentioned PGD and 27% of the latter were university- or hospital-based and 63% were private clinics. Sites mentioning PGD also mentioned uses and benefits of PGD far more than the associated risks. Of the sites mentioning PGD, 76% described testing for single-gene diseases, but only 35% mentioned risks of missing target diagnoses, and only 18% mentioned risks for loss of the embryo. 14% described PGD as new or controversial. Private clinics were more likely than other programs to list certain PGD risks like for example diagnostic error, or note that PGD was new or controversial, reference sources of PGD information, provide accuracy rates of genetic testing of embryos, and offer gender selection for social reasons.

Human germline engineering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human germline engineering is the process by which the genome of an individual is edited in such a way that the change is heritable. This is achieved through genetic alterations within the germinal cells, or the reproductive cells, such as the oocyte and spermatogonium. Human germline engineering should not be confused with gene therapy. Gene therapy consists of altering somatic cells, which are all cells in the body that are not involved in reproduction. While gene therapy does change the genome of the targeted cells, these cells are not within the germline, so the alterations are not heritable and cannot be passed on to the next generation.

The creation of genetically modified humans may have been performed in the mid-1990s, in which a 1997 study published in The Lancet claimed, “the first case of human germ-line genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children.”.

The first attempt to edit the human germline was reported in 2015, when a group of Chinese scientists used the gene editing technique CRISPR/Cas9 to edit single-celled, non-viable embryos to see the effectiveness of this technique. This attempt was rather unsuccessful; only a small fraction of the embryos successfully spliced the new genetic material and many of the embryos contained a large amount of random mutations. The non-viable embryos that were used contained an extra set of chromosomes, which may have been problematic. In 2016, another similar study was performed in China which also used non-viable embryos with extra sets of chromosomes. This study showed very similar results to the first; there were successful integrations of the desired gene, yet the majority of the attempts failed, or produced undesirable mutations.

The most recent, and arguably most successful, experiment in August 2017 attempted the correction of the heterozygous MYBPC3 mutation associated with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy in human embryos with precise CRISPR–Cas9 targeting. 52% of human embryos were successfully edited to retain only the wild type normal copy of MYBPC3 gene, the rest of the embryos were mosaic, where some cells in the zygote contained the normal gene copy and some contained the mutation.

In November 2018, researcher Jiankui He claimed that he had created the first human genetically edited babies, known by their pseudonyms, Lulu (Chinese: 露露) and Nana (Chinese: 娜娜).

Human genetic modification is the direct manipulation of the genome using molecular engineering. The two different types of gene modification is "somatic gene modification" and "germline genetic modification." Somatic gene modification adds, cuts, or changes the genes in cells of a living person. Germline gene modification changes the genes in sperm, eggs, and embryos. These modifications would appear in every cell of the human body. Germline modification is yet to be done to a human.


CRISPR/cas9

Human germline engineering is modifying the genes in the human sex cells that can be passed on to the future generations. This process is done by a complicated but an accurate technique that contains an enzyme complex called CRISPR/Cas9 “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats”, this enzyme can be found in many bacteria immune system, in which they use it to fight off any harmful infections.

CRISPR is a repeated, short sequence of RNA that match with the genetic sequence that the scientists are aiming to modify or engineer. CRISPR works in rhythm with Cas9, an enzyme that splices the DNA. First, the CRISPR/Cas9 complex searches through the cell's DNA until it finds and binds to a sequence that matches the CRISPR, then, the Cas9 splices the DNA. After that, the scientist inserts a piece of DNA before the cell starts repairing the spliced part, said John Reidhaar-Olson, a biochemist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. The main purpose of human germline engineering is to enable the scientists to discover the unknown functions of the genes by eliminating specific DNA fragments and observing the consequences in the targeted cell. Also, scientists use CRISPR technology to fix the gene mutations and to treat or eliminate some diseases that can be passed on to the offsprings.

CRISPR/cas9 is a genome editing tool that allows scientists to edit the genome by adding or removing sections of DNA. It contains an enzyme and RNA, the enzyme acting like scissors to alter the DNA while the RNA acts as a guide for those enzymes. This system is currently the fastest and cheapest way to genetically engineer on the market today and it's uses are endless. The RNA in the CRISPR/cas9 allows researchers to target specific sequences in the genome making it possible for them to alter one sequence and not the others surrounding them. This is a new technology for scientists in the genomic altering field.

Although the CRISPR/cas9 cannot yet be used in humans, it allows scientists to target genes more effectively in diploid cells of mammals in order to one day be used in human research. Clinical trials are being conducted on somatic cells, but CRISPR could make it possible to modify the DNA of spermatogonial stem cells. This could eliminate certain diseases in human, or at least significantly decrease a disease's frequency until it eventually disappears over generations. Cancer survivors theoretically would be able to have their genes modified by the CRISPR/cas9 so that certain diseases or mutations will not be passed down to their offspring. This could possibly eliminate cancer predispositions in humans. Researchers hope that they can use the system in the future to treat currently incurable diseases by altering the genome altogether.

Conceivable uses

The Berlin Patient has a genetic mutation in the CCR5 gene (which codes for a protein on the surface of white blood cells, targeted by the HIV virus) that deactivates the expression of CCR5, conferring innate resistance to HIV. HIV/AIDS carries a large disease burden and is incurable (see Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS). One proposal is to genetically modify human embryos to give the CCR5 Δ32 allele to people.

There are many prospective uses such as curing genetic diseases and disorders. If perfected, somatic gene editing can promise helping people who are sick. In the first study published regarding human germline engineering, the researchers attempted to edit the HBB gene which codes for the human β-globin protein. Mutations in the HBB gene result in the disorder β-thalassaemia, which can be fatal. Perfect editing of the genome in patients who have these HBB mutations would result in copies of the gene which do not possess any mutations, effectively curing the disease. The importance of editing the germline would be to pass on this normal copy of the HBB genes to future generations. 

Another possible use of human germline engineering would be eugenic modifications to humans which would result in what are known as "designer babies". The concept of a "designer baby" is that its entire genetic composition could be selected for. In an extreme case, people would be able to effectively create the offspring that they want, with a genotype of their choosing. Not only does human germline engineering allow for the selection of specific traits, but it also allows for enhancement of these traits. Using human germline editing for selection and enhancement is currently very heavily scrutinized, and the main driving force behind the movement of trying to ban human germline engineering.

The ability to germline engineer human genetic codes would be the beginning of eradicating incurable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, sickle-cell anemia and multiple forms of cancer that we cannot stop nor cure today. Scientists having the technology to not only eradicate those existing diseases but to prevent them altogether in fetuses would bring a whole new generation of medical technology. There are numerous disease that humans and other mammals obtain that are fatal because scientists have not found a methodized ways to treat them. With germline engineering, doctors and scientists would have the ability to prevent known and future diseases from becoming an epidemic.

State of research

The topic of human germline engineering is a widely debated topic. It is formally outlawed in more than 40 countries. Currently, 15 of 22 Western European nations have outlawed human germline engineering. Human germline modification has for many years has been heavily off limits. There is no current legislation in the United States that explicitly prohibits germline engineering, however, the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2016 banned the use of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) funds to engage in research regarding human germline modifications. In recent years, as new founding is known as "gene editing" or "genome editing" has promoted speculation about their use in human embryos. In 2014, it has been said about researchers in the US and China working on human embryos. In April 2015, a research team published an experiment in which they used CRISPR to edit a gene that is associated with blood disease in non-living human embryos. All these experiments were highly unsuccessful, but gene editing tools are used in labs.

Scientists using the CRISPR/cas9 system to modify genetic materials have run into issues when it comes to mammalian alterations due to the complex diploid cells. Studies have been done in microorganisms regarding loss of function genetic screening and some studies using mice as a subject. RNA processes differ between bacteria and mammalian cells and scientists have had difficulties coding for mRNA's translated data without the interference of RNA. Studies have been done using the cas9 nuclease that uses a single guide RNA to allow for larger knockout regions in mice which was successful. Altering the genetic sequence of mammals has also been widely debated thus creating a difficult FDA regulation standard for these studies.

Ethical and moral debates

As it stands, there is much controversy surrounding human germline engineering. Editing the genes of human embryos is very different, and raises great social and ethical concerns. The scientific community, and global community, are quite divided regarding whether or not human germline engineering should be practiced or not. It is currently banned in many of the leading, developed countries, and highly regulated in the others due to ethical issues. The large debate lies in the possibility of eugenics if human germline engineering were to be practiced clinically. This topic is hotly debated because the side opposing human germline modification believes that it will be used to create humans with "perfect", or "desirable" traits. Those in favor of human germline modification see it as a potential medical tool, or a medical cure for certain diseases that lie within the genetic code. There is a debate as to if this is morally acceptable as well. Such debate ranges from the ethical obligation to use safe and efficient technology to prevent disease to seeing actual benefit in genetic disabilities. While typically there is a clash between religion and science, the topic of human germline engineering has shown some unity between the two fields. Several religious positions have been published with regards to human germline engineering. According to them, many see germline modification as being more moral than the alternative, which would be either discarding of the embryo, or birth of a diseased human. The main conditions when it comes to whether or not it is morally and ethically acceptable lie within the intent of the modification, and the conditions in which the engineering is done. 

The process of modifying the human genome has raised ethical questions. One of the issues is “off target effects”, large genomes may contain identical or homologous DNA sequences, and the enzyme complex CRISPR/Cas9 may unintentionally cleave these DNA sequences causing mutations that may lead to cell death.

Another very interesting point on the debate of whether or not it is ethical and moral to engineer the human germline is a perspective of looking at past technologies and how they have evolved. Dr. Gregory Stock discusses the use of several diagnostic tests used to monitor current pregnancies and several diagnostic tests that can be done to determine the health of embryos. Such tests include amniocentesis, ultrasounds, and other preimplantation genetic diagnostic tests. These tests are quite common, and reliable, as we talk about them today; however, in the past when they were first introduced, they too were scrutinized.

One of the main arguments against human germline engineering lies in the ethical feeling that it will dehumanize children. At an extreme, parents may be able to completely design their own child, and there is a fear that this will transform children into objects, rather than human beings. There is also a large opposition as people state that by engineering the human germline, there is an attempt at "playing God", and there is a strong opposition to this. One final, and very possible issue that causes a strong opposition of this technology is one that lies within the scientific community itself. Inevitably, this technology would be used for enhancements to the genome, which would likely cause many more to use these same enhancements. By doing this, the genetic diversity of the human race and the human gene pool as we know it would slowly and surely diminish. Despite the controversy surrounding the topic of human germline engineering, it is slowly and very carefully making its way into many labs around the world. These experiments are highly regulated, and they do not include the use of viable human embryos, which allows scientists to refine the techniques, without posing a threat to any real human beings.

Genetically modified humans

The creation of genetically modified humans may have been performed in the mid-1990s, in which a 1997 study published in The Lancet claimed, “the first case of human germ-line genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children.”. In November 2018, researcher Jiankui He claimed that he had created the first human genetically edited babies, known by their pseudonyms, Lulu (Chinese: 露露) and Nana (Chinese: 娜娜).

Entropy (information theory)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) In info...