MHCs, cell reprogramming

[georgeskohler]

Does the set of MHC alleles an individual possesses significantly affect one's ability to combat certain diseases?

 

Is it feasible to transplant cells (maybe reprogrammed cells...) into an individual before the recipient's immune system has developed (pre-thymic education, etc.) and in that way introduce different MHC alleles or other traits which might be beneficial without the risk of them being rejected by the immune system?

 

Also, I think there have been studies indicating that MHC allelic diversity might influence mate choice. Specifically, one might choose for a mate someone with MHC alleles different from their own. What do others think?

[science101]

I think that there are worst possibilities that the rejection by the immunity system. what if this treatment was to do harm. Being able to perdict the outcomes of the experiment is key. what could go wrong? I think that in general the outcome is worse than the help it gives.

 

Just something to think about:-)

[greenprogrammin]

If you are trying to maintain genetic diversity you would want to promote breeding projects.

 

How about a website where you:

1. send a sample of DNA.

2. are introduced to others based on genetic factors.

 

You could cure disease by breeding out various genetic diseases.

Recieve a free genetic profile with the a membership of 2 years or more!

 

I think we should call it DNA-DATE.com

[georgeskohler]

maybe what you are saying is not so far-fetched...I mean people do get genetic counseling about possible disease risk for offspring should a couple decide to have kids, right? But can you "breed out" diseases? Also, there are genetic factors that likely contribute to disease that interact in ways we don't understand/cannot predict, but maybe it will work I don't know.

[Genecks]

You could try to breed out diseases, but in general, unless both mates are homozygous, then it would be difficult to make sure a child is homozygous for that trait. Also, the complexity of the genome could cause certain problems if various individuals were always homozygous. I've been told there are downsides to doing this. Maybe someone wants to counter me?

 

Since humans are (often) the dominant species, I don't see what they can't attempt to become more eugenic.

 

I must say, however, that since we don't know every property of every gene in the human genome, problems could occur. Thus, I'm thinking that the human society continues to allow natural selection and varied mate choice as a form of evolution (non-random mating). Until more is known about the human genome, eugenic thinking might not be the best thinking.

 

However, there is that possibility that some people rather avoid a serious plague or doomsday's epidemic, so I could see people deciding to mate for various immunological alleles if it allows the offspring to survive, which would increase the parents' Darwinian fitness. Also, for what genes we do know about, there is that opportunity for people to say, "Well, the person looks, acts, and shows to be normal and/or above normal in terms of body and mind; I think I will mate with this person so that offspring have better survivability."

 

And as we learn more abouts AIDs, HIV, and immunity to varied viruses? I could see mothers and fathers wanting to mate with persons (or create test tube babies) if the child will survive to be free of the virus when born.

 

Sometimes you don't need to conduct experiments on people: The people want to use the technology and see if it works for them, despite what harm it could do.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Genecks