07 June 2007

Sticky note: place embryo here

This is cool.
(warning: pg ment a few times)

I wish I knew the date of this article. They mention "January 17" but is it this year*? Anyhoo, the article is about a team of scientists who are looking into what causes an embryo to implant in the uterus (I'm not googling that stuff. Nu-uh, not me. Got nooooo reason. No reason whatsoever...). It seems to me that if they are able to isolate the cause, and replicate the molecular changes that occur to cause implantation, maybe someday, REs will be able to replicate that process in the human body.

Clinics will be able to dramatically increase the odds of an embryo sticking, which may also have the side benefit of clinics and patients being more comfortable transferring only one embryo. This would reduce the risk of multiples, and it might even mean for most people, a vast reduction in the amount of stims women need to take, because, in theory, you wouldn't need as many eggs.
The researchers found convincing evidence that a molecular sticking process stops the embryo's journey along the uterine wall and starts attaching it to the wall -- the first stage of implantation. Failure of the embryo to implant causes about three-fourths of lost pregnancies.
When you consider the current method, it's like taking a whole bunch of tennis balls and throwing them at a velcro wall off in the distance, and hoping that some of them - any of them - stick. But, if any do stick, ideally it will be only one, but maximum two. Not very scientific. And not very easy on the patients who have made huge bets on the game, but have no control over the players.

What a difference this research could potentially make in the lives of infertiles.

*updated to note the date of the article, thanks to the nerds on the 'net brilliant researchers** who pose as readers! The article was published in Science, 17 January 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5605, pp. 355 - 356.

**NOTE: kids ment here.



At 7/6/07 9:26 p.m., Blogger megan said...

i have to apologize in advance, but it's the geek librarian in me. i can't help it. here's a citation to the original article in case you were interested in tracking it down:
Science 17 January 2003:
Vol. 299. no. 5605, pp. 355 - 356

At 7/6/07 9:31 p.m., Blogger miriam said...

Megan beat me to it! I was just about to say, January 17, 2003. (Google rules. You just have to figure out what to ask for, and there it is.)

Maybe this link is helpful?:


At 8/6/07 7:13 a.m., Blogger Bea said...

The holy grail. We would all love to see progress on this front.


At 8/6/07 10:06 p.m., Blogger miriam said...

umm, progjen, you can't link to my totally lame and mostly neglected blog without a warning of some sort, (like Warning: Miriam is a very fertile person) or I'll feel that I can't ever post about my very entertaining and overwhelming munchkins.

At 8/6/07 10:30 p.m., Blogger projgen said...

good call, Miriam, thank you for the reminder! And again, thank you for being so sensitive to this!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home