Display options
Cite
Ishii T, Hibino Y. Mitochondrial manipulation in fertility clinics: Regulation and responsibility. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2018;5:93-109doi: 10.1016/j.rbms.2018.01.002.
Ishii, T., & Hibino, Y. (2018). Mitochondrial manipulation in fertility clinics: Regulation and responsibility. Reproductive biomedicine & society online, 593-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2018.01.002
Ishii, Tetsuya, and Hibino, Yuri. "Mitochondrial manipulation in fertility clinics: Regulation and responsibility." Reproductive biomedicine & society online vol. 5 (2018): 93-109. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2018.01.002
Ishii T, Hibino Y. Mitochondrial manipulation in fertility clinics: Regulation and responsibility. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2018 Feb 28;5:93-109. doi: 10.1016/j.rbms.2018.01.002. eCollection 2018 Apr. PMID: 30094357; PMCID: PMC6076383.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2018 Feb 28;5:93-109. doi: 10.1016/j.rbms.2018.01.002. eCollection 2018 Apr.

Mitochondrial manipulation in fertility clinics: Regulation and responsibility.

Reproductive biomedicine & society online

Tetsuya Ishii, Yuri Hibino

Affiliations

  1. Hokkaido University, Office of Health and Safety, Sapporo, Japan.
  2. Kanazawa University, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa, Japan.

PMID: 30094357 PMCID: PMC6076383 DOI: 10.1016/j.rbms.2018.01.002

Abstract

The clinical uses of cytoplasmic transfer and pronuclear transfer for infertility treatment have raised concerns, leading to restrictive regulatory responses in both the USA and China. In 2015, the UK legalized nuclear transfer from oocytes and zygotes to prevent the onset of serious mitochondrial disease in the children of affected mothers. A research team in the USA then performed egg nuclear transfer, with subsequent embryo transfer in Mexico, to prevent mitochondrial disease. A live birth resulted, but the cross-border activity attracted attention from regulatory authorities. In order to respond appropriately to the likelihood of the wider use of such mitochondrial manipulation techniques (MMT), the present study first surveyed countries where MMT have been clinically implemented or where such experimental procedures are advertised on the internet. Sixteen countries were selected for an analysis of the legal position regarding germline genetic modification and egg donation. It was found that regulation of the clinical use of MMT could be broken down into three categories: (i) largely prohibited (USA and China), (ii) not regulated (Northern Cyprus and Ukraine), and (iii) insufficiently regulated (the remaining 12 countries, including Mexico). The reasons for no or insufficient regulation included no intention to oversee experimental procedures, no consideration of the manipulation in eggs, unclear technical terms and ambiguous medical purposes. To protect future children, this study underscores the pressing need for regulatory frameworks with policies that cover MMT. Wider implications regarding the responsible implementation of procedures in experimental reproductive medicine are discussed.

Keywords: infertility treatment; mitochondria; mitochondrial disease; mitochondrial replacement; regulation; responsibility

References

  1. Hastings Cent Rep. 2016 Jul;46(4):38-47 - PubMed
  2. Am J Bioeth. 2011 Mar;11(3):20-8 - PubMed
  3. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017 Apr;34(4):333-336 - PubMed
  4. Nature. 1981 Apr 9;290(5806):457-65 - PubMed
  5. Bioethics. 2017 Jun;31(5):368-374 - PubMed
  6. Di Yi Jun Yi Da Xue Xue Bao. 2003 Jul;23(7):743, 747 - PubMed
  7. Hum Reprod. 2001 Apr;16(4):730-6 - PubMed
  8. Clin Genet. 2017 Feb;91(2):199-207 - PubMed
  9. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017 May;34(5):480-485 - PubMed
  10. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017 Apr;34(4):361-368 - PubMed
  11. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013 Jun;26(6):531-4 - PubMed
  12. JAMA. 2017 Feb 14;317(6):574-575 - PubMed
  13. Di Yi Jun Yi Da Xue Xue Bao. 2003 Sep;23(9):990-1 - PubMed
  14. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014 Nov 24;12:111 - PubMed
  15. Reprod Biomed Online. 2001;3(1):47-48 - PubMed
  16. Hum Reprod. 2001 Mar;16(3):513-6 - PubMed
  17. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014 Dec;29(6):662-4 - PubMed
  18. Cell Stem Cell. 2017 Jan 5;20(1):112-119 - PubMed
  19. Science. 2015 Apr 10;348(6231):178-80 - PubMed
  20. Trends Mol Med. 2015 Aug;21(8):473-81 - PubMed
  21. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014 Aug;29(2):150-5 - PubMed
  22. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 Oct;33(4):529-533 - PubMed
  23. Hum Reprod. 1997 Sep;12(9):2076-80 - PubMed
  24. Nature. 2016 Jun 08;534(7607):383-6 - PubMed
  25. Reprod Sci. 2015 Dec;22(12):1612-7 - PubMed
  26. J Law Biosci. 2016 Nov 22;3(3):726-735 - PubMed
  27. Brief Funct Genomics. 2017 Jan;16(1):46-56 - PubMed
  28. Science. 2016 Aug 5;353(6299):545-6 - PubMed
  29. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017 May;34(5):563-571 - PubMed
  30. N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 22;366(12):1132-41 - PubMed
  31. Trends Genet. 2016 Jul;32(7):385-390 - PubMed
  32. Hum Reprod Update. 2001 Jul-Aug;7(4):428-35 - PubMed
  33. Bioethics. 2015 Nov;29(9):631-8 - PubMed
  34. Nature. 2016 Dec 8;540(7632):270-275 - PubMed
  35. Fertil Steril. 1999 Mar;71(3):575-7 - PubMed
  36. J Law Biosci. 2017 Oct 13;4(3):623-629 - PubMed
  37. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 Dec;33(6):737-744 - PubMed
  38. Lancet. 1997 Jul 19;350(9072):186-7 - PubMed
  39. EMBO Rep. 2015 May;16(5):541-4 - PubMed
  40. Hum Mutat. 2009 Feb;30(2):E386-94 - PubMed
  41. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 Jun;32(6):551-5 - PubMed
  42. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2016 Mar;34(1):37-51 - PubMed
  43. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 Mar;32(3):263-70 - PubMed
  44. Cell Stem Cell. 2016 Jun 2;18(6):749-54 - PubMed
  45. J Law Biosci. 2017 Mar 23;4(1):50-69 - PubMed
  46. Med Health Care Philos. 2017 Dec;20(4):503-511 - PubMed
  47. Science. 2013 Sep 20;341(6152):1345-6 - PubMed
  48. Mol Hum Reprod. 1998 Mar;4(3):269-80 - PubMed
  49. Hum Reprod. 2001 Jul;16(7):1469-72 - PubMed
  50. Fertil Steril. 1999 Oct;72(4):702-6 - PubMed
  51. Fertil Steril. 2010 Feb;93(2):455-66 - PubMed
  52. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2016 May 20;2:39-46 - PubMed

Publication Types