Evidence suggests women's ovaries can grow new eggs | Hacker News Reader

Evidence suggests women's ovaries can grow new eggs

theguardian.com

What bothers me is, so many doctors and scientists saying "no" / "it doesn't happen", as opposed to "we don't know". They haven't observed it -- or, as often, been told/taught it by someone else. So, it doesn't happen -- it doesn't exist.

At this point, I feel outright lied to. I've made life decisions bases on such statements that proved to be patently false and not at all backed by real science.

And a lot more anecdote and "uninformed" practices of friends and others, that I initially avoided and regretted witnessing, based upon these "expert" opinions, has actually proven to be healthier and more productive.

"I've made life decisions bases on such statements that proved to be patently false and not at all backed by real science."

How would this knowledge impact a life decision? If your doctor told you "The ABVD I'm prescribing will make you infertile" and you decided to freeze your eggs, but later found out that ABVD didn't actually make you infertile, because of this phenomenon, well, sure, I could see that. But knowing the fact that ovaries are (possibly) capable of producing new eggs doesn't invalidate any of our current knowledge about how fertility declines with age, or the effectiveness of our current treatments for it.

Great, our ovaries might produce new eggs in addition to merely storing them, AND all of the statistics about infertility, difficulty conceiving, and chromosomal abnormalities still apply just as they did before we knew that! Even if our ovaries are producing new eggs right now while we're completely unaware of it, all of the statistics we have about fertility already take this into account, by virtue of the fact that... well, they were measured on women with ovaries.

Even if new fertility treatments are created out of this knowledge in the future, it's still many years out. First, this research has to be expanded, duplicated, and confirmed. Second, many many years of expensive clinical trials and research for the FDA need to be done. Third, there's a lot more that goes into fertility besides the eggs. And, while it's great that new research comes out, it's usually smart to hedge your bets and make life decisions that don't include the assumption that awesome new research is going to come out that will fix all your problems in the future.

Also, I wouldn't be so harsh to criticize the doctors who told this to you. Science is about evolving knowledge and discovering new things. Prior to this discovery, all the existing research suggested that women were born with all the eggs they would ever have. They cut open ovaries, counted eggs, looked at them under microscopes, studied how they matured, watched ovaries in vivo, and documented the organ as thoroughly as they could. Science! Now we have some more science that was just done, and it described a new feature of ovaries that we didn't know about before. Awesome!

This is like getting pissed of at Galileo because he lied about the number of planets in the solar system. I mean, sure, you could argue that Galileo should more accurately say "we only know about 6 planets, and there may be others out there" but, heck, there also could be some crazy cheat code out there to allow us to spontaneously regenerate limbs, or change our eye color on demand. You can't get made at doctors for saying: "No, your arm cannot be grown back" just because some crazy new research comes out five years later. We just don't know.

As unsatisfying as it can be sometimes, the best we can do is act on the knowledge that we know now, and simply adapt as we discover new things.

It continues to astound me how little we actually seem to know about anatomy, especially women's anatomy (hold the jokes, folks).

We can't know much about what we haven't bothered to seriously study for very long.

Yea, especially for common disorders like Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and Endometriosis. We don't know why they happen and our treatments are surprisingly meager considering how many women are affected in total.

Then there was that huge study that showed the birth control pill causes loss of sex drive and depression[0].

[0]https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr...

That study showed a "link" (i.e. correlation) between hormonal contraception and first diagnosis of depression or use of antidepressants. That's not the same as showing the pill causes depression! Even the study authors explicitly say that more study is needed before we can definitively say there is cause and effect.

It's difficult to truly prove, but many women have noticed this and complained about it. It is only now that they are finally actually looking in to the possibility.

I find it incredibly ironic that people take it as a given that women's hormones might affect moods (PMS, anyone?), but then brush off women's concerns that taking large doses of female hormones might --in fact!-- have an affect on mood.

To be clear, I'm not denying the possibility that hormonal birth control can cause depression or that many women experience problems while on it (I've heard similar complaints to what you're describing). What I'm commenting on is your misrepresentation of what the study is "proving".

I used the word "show" not "prove" for that reason. Point taken though: in the future, I will use "showed a link" or "found correlation".

I am really very careful not to use the word "proved" for the same concerns you have.

Not to keep arguing a dead point, but the word I cared about was "causes" not "show". The study shows pretty definitively ("proves") that a correlation exists. It does not show that hormonal birth control causes depression.

Regardless, I appreciate that you're making an effort to be careful. I've just been seeing this particular study making the rounds on Facebook and I felt like I needed to point out what the study actually says.

Regardless of semantics, I'm glad you see it being shared on Facebook. I really hope it inspires women to stop taking their pills and go all Lysistrata until there is more research done and/or a better solution is invented. I mean, it's the same thing that was invented back in the 1960s. There's been very little progress.

I wish they could invent something semi permanent for men. Then we could cease having the current child support debates. Temporary vasectomy would be awesome for the world.

What astounds me is that the human brain doesn't even know it works (at least consciously). Your brain tells your body what to do, but your consciousness has no idea how.

<rant>

For me, that's what's so amazing about neural networks! If you could ask an individual neuron why their f(x) is the way it is, they probably would only be able to tell you that "that gets the result the brain wants". They're like individual computers, yet they can't work alone; only when put together does what they're doing make sense.

</rant>

I wonder why we don't have several conscious thoughts at once.

I sometimes feel I do, but then my sense of introspection goes bonkers.

Perhaps we do! How do you know that your autonomic nervous system isn't consciously regulating your breathing, digestion, and heartrate, blissfully unaware of the less important unconscious processes that acquire food and move about. (I wrote a science fiction story along these lines once, that was described by readers as "uh... interesting, I guess.")

Hell, I'd read it. Still kicking around a copy?

My theory is that we can have several conscious thoughts at once but most of us suppress this most of the time because without a clear "winner thought" that gets the attention and gets to decide what reality is and gets to control the body, you'd end up with what people with schitzophrenia or other psychoses have...

I'd also bet that the first "human-type & human-level" AI will be quire insane by human standards at least if we don't get this inner attention focusing part right from the first time. Considering that this insane AI will also get super-human pretty fast, I'm pretty scared of what it would do before it gets itself to some sort of inner equilibrium or "sanity"...

I like the term from the Halo series for that kind of AI: 'rampant' / 'rampancy'. It's sort of like having a terrible 2-year-old that happens to be inside of a virtual world, on the internet, thinking at super-human speed.

We should probably make that internet uplink mostly mirror-down libraries only.

While most of the time, ideas in my head are extremely cohesive, there are times when they are not. For one, while talking to myself, I refer to myself as a we. In other situations, primarily ones of brainstorming, I can definitely feel multiple "quadrants" of my brain initiating different ideas. The reason I feel they are different consciouses is because each idea is driven by different motivations. Some of these are good ideas, some are bad, some are moral, some are immoral. We mostly come to a consensus in fractions of a second, but sometimes its long and drawn out. Like any good team, we ensure everyone is heard and respected, we understand that there will be disagreements and we won't always get our way. Some of us never get our way. But overall we(I) seem to work well with all of the other versions of myself. Lol, at least for now. There are definitely parts of me which are very upset with the consensus to write this post.

I think you just don't hear a lot about it, and people don't acknowledge it much in themselves, because of the stigma/demonization of multiple personality disorders. For me, as long as I(we) can pass the Turing Test of Normality, I don't really mind that my brain works the way it does. If anything, I quite like the way it works.

That's interesting. I, don't "talk" or "think aloud" in my head myself. At all. Ideas just snap into focus at once immediately. Same goes for when I'm trying to figure out a puzzle or when programing.

At the moment I learn something new it just snaps into place at once and the knowledge is integrated on the spot.

Also English is a foreign language for me and the same goes for my native language. Whole concepts emerge as I'm trying to do or say something and then I have to put them into words(in either language).

Sometimes the process of talking is excruciatingly slow and interferes with my thoughts. I find that I can type a lot faster and that helps a little.

This is true for me, but only for domains I know very well. The less I understand the problem, the more I have to think in my head. But there is a mode that I make use of frequently when I want the best answer I can currently produce - I just have to quiet my mind, and the best available answer immediately bubbles to top of mind.

And why calming conscious thoughts (meditation) is beneficial too.

> I wonder why we don't have several conscious thoughts at once.

This is something that can happen via psychedelics or meditation. I don't know of any way to predictably induce it though.

I hypothesize that this is tied to our small working memory. Introspection suggests to me that working memory does not only hold small items of data, but is also where pointers into bigger networks must be anchored. When I'm thinking about a problem or project, my mind's eye saccades around the small features of the problem, but it still feels like those features are being swapped into working memory.

I have three possible theories for this:

1. Evolution saw no need for it; knowing how our eye's classify light signals into objects and figure out depth etc are not important to survival. What is important is knowing exactly if you are looking at a predator as soon as possible.

2. Too much data for consciousness to handle; There is something like 1 million connections between each eye and the brain alone. Then there is all the parallel processing that must take place to match what we are seeing to the right memory. This process reduces the all the incoming signals to a single variable such as 'car', 'red' etc which can then be passed to our simpler, serial experience of reality.

3. A bit more 'out there': The physical dimension we inhabit is the result of the intersection between two planes, time and space, that seem to stretch to infinity in both directions (no beginning and no end). You could also say this for your own thoughts; do you truly know when a thought begins, or when it ends (no longer part of the brain)? We seem to exist in the middle of these planes, and perhaps that is all that is possible for the conscious experience (meaning, being part of the process of 'seeing' is just not possible).

4. Consciousness wasn't supposed to happen as living organisms do not need it to survive and reproduce. But since humans are so successful: "It's a feature, not a bug!"

What does "supposed to happen" mean in the context of evolution?

I believe what was meant was "not selected for".

However, this could well be argued at length: human consciousness has clearly played a big role in humans becoming the dominant species in the planet.

My personal belief is that evolution moved from the slowly iterating biological cycle to a much more rapid external augmentation cycle.

We moved to evolving tools that augment our other natural capabilities when it became faster and more effective to focus on making better tools than better humans.

To do such would require a subset of the brain to contain more information than the whole, which is clearly impossible.

Indeed, Godel's Theorem proves the futility of this.

Examples of recently discovered human anatomy:

Structural and functional features of central nervous system lymphatic vessels. (2015)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

A newly discovered muscle: The tensor of the vastus intermedius. (2016)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26732825

There's probably more not yet scientifically described.

Somehow reminds me of the anesthesia mystery too. It just works (tm).

Forget internal organs, it amazes me that scholarship in the 15th century was completely ignorant the clitoris. From Wikipedia

> Gabriele Falloppio (discoverer of the fallopian tube), who claimed that he was the first to discover the clitoris. In 1561, Falloppio stated, "Modern anatomists have entirely neglected it ... and do not say a word about it ... and if others have spoken of it, know that they have taken it from me or my students"

Buried the lead - "...or that egg follicles split into two or more parts due to damage from the treatment. The results should be seen as a curiosity rather than a discovery until replicated and investigated further, Albertini said."

This seems to be one of many studies done that keep hinting that ovaries may continue to produce eggs. That's pretty awesome news especially for young women who have had to undergo treatments that may have killed off eggs early on. I also wonder how long they continue to be made. For instance if someone had a genetic disease that was somehow overcome with, say, genetic modification in some future time would her future eggs also carry the updated genetics?

> If someone had a genetic disease that was somehow overcome with, say, genetic modification in some future time would her future eggs also carry the updated genetics?

The answer is almost certainly yes, if the cells used to create the gametes had their DNA modified.

The really interesting question is whether the epigenetic code changes in these cells. The discovery of epigenetics had huge implications in human development. If women are born with all of the eggs they will ever have, that would mean children are affected by the decisions made by their grandmother. If grandma lived through a famine, her grandchild might be predisposed to obesity due to epigenetic factors, regardless of what mom does.

What do you mean by "epigenetic code"? Epigenetic means not encoded in DNA. Heritability is hotly debated (and anything positive in that area tends to be overstated in the media).

Wiki has a few links on contested terms and taking caution vs enthusiasm of eg Chopra. There have also been several stories like this http://epgntxeinstein.tumblr.com/post/127416455028/over-inte... over the last months.

I realize epigenetic traits are not encoded in DNA. It's perfectly acceptable to use the term code to refer to an epigenetic "configuration". I didn't point out this fact because I figured the people reading Hacker News probably know that things can be encoded without using DNA, and I felt the distinction was needlessly pedantic.

I recognize the limited scope of epigenetics, however epigenetics do play a significant role in gene expression. To say otherwise would be foolish.

I know heritability of epigenetic traits is limited. I didn't claim epigenetic traits are being passed down between generations. If women are born with all of their eggs, the DNA in her eggs would DIRECTLY be affected by the environment of her mother. There is strong scientific evidence epigenetic traits are reliably inherited by each of the daughter cells during mitosis. Thus it is fully plausible the epigenetic code of a child could be affected by their grandmother.

If what you know about epigenetics comes from Wikipedia, you are probably about as informed as "the media". As a formally trained lab biologist, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that biology is one of the worst scientific fields to learn about from Wikipedia, especially when it comes to discoveries in young fields like epigentics.

They are encoded in DNA. They are patterns in the physical structure of DNA beyond the raw A,T,G,C etc. Please be accurate in HN comments, and don't oversimplify for 'clarity' or 'readability,' especially for a topic as complex as the heritability of epigenetic traits.

Additionally, Wikipedia [0] is a quite satisfactory source for information on epigenetics. Your casual dismissal of it suggests that you don't even know the basics of the topic, and shouldn't be mocking 'Joe Average' or the media for what you perceive to be their ignorance.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Is this a smurf account? Why is this your first comment on a two day old account?

My dismissal of the article was calculated, rather than casual. I read the Wikipedia page before commenting. That article, like many articles on Wikipedia, provides a great overview of the topic. However, it isn't a substitute for an actual education in the field. I stand by my claim that being able to read Wikipedia puts you on about the same level as the average media correspondent.

I'd appreciate if you didn't insult me. You and the other comment I replied to are clearly over-estimating your knowledge, especially regarding terminology. Nowhere did I simplify anything for clarity or readability. I deliberately chose not to use jargon for readability, however my comment would have been clear and unambiguous to another biologist.

Both of your comments were based on a pedantic reading of my comment that a trained biologist never would have made. Yes, the parts that make the epigenome are coded in DNA. However, the epigenome is not part of the genome. If I say "epigentic code" I'm specifically referring to the part of gene expression controlled by the epigenome. I'm not referring to the bits that end up making the epigenome (such as histones, etc) that end up making the parts of the epigenome. You each chose an incorrect interpretation in each case, when the alternative was perfectly obvious and correct.

I refuse to offer a reasonable response to an ad-hominem attack.

I don't think it was necessary to imply ignorance of other people. Your loosely-worded comment hinted at misunderstanding, and was potentially misleading for people who do not know much about the subject.

Wikipedia correctly points out that some of the terminology and the extent of heritability is contentious. It has references in proper journals to read further about such debate if people wish to. Linking to that as a starting point does not imply this being the extent of someone's knowledge, especially when they offer other sources.

If you are perturbed that your own knowledge has been underestimated, maybe try to assume the best of others?

To be fair, I was rather explicit in my claim of ignorance. You were the one who implied that I was ignorant. I carefully chose my words to avoid jargon, but my comment was completely unambiguous. I did not state that the epigenetic code was being inherited at any point. I'm rather certain of this, because I do not believe the epigenome is inhereted.

Regardless, my use of the term "epigenetic code" is consistent with the definition on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_code

You are being deliberately impolite in almost every comment in this thread, whilst also aggressively demanding respect from others.

I didn't understand what you meant, which is why I asked for clarification. Not being familiar with that term/usage made it look possible that you were yourself misunderstanding. It turns out that's not the case. I don't think my comments were incorrect or rude, so please try to keep the discussion civil.

Humans are the genetic disease that limits egg production. Other mammals don't have this "feature", so it is likely it is a suppressed gene that could be re-expressed. Although to your question about if it can be done in someone already living, that would be interesting indeed, but a different technique than re-expressing a gene, more like a workaround.

>The findings were presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology annual conference in July and are described in a journal paper that is in review.

WTF why is the Guardian reporting on this now? It would make more sense to report on the conference presentation, or to wait for the publication to be in general circulation. But reporting during the paper review is not timely, and if it doesn't pass peer-review you're going to be stuck with your pants down.

> would raise the prospect of new treatments to allow older women to conceive

This is a bit of ethical problem. Pregnancy at older age brings many risks to mother and child.

Yet, women who give birth later, live longer.

http://time.com/2922235/mothers-birth-pregnancy-aging/

From your article: "The natural ability to have a child at an older age likely indicates that a woman’s reproductive system is aging slowly, and therefore so is the rest of her body."

Sperm from older men also has higher risk of producing kids with genetic defects[0]

[0]http://genetics.thetech.org/older-dads’-kids-higher-risk-gen...

Interesting, I hope they do in-depth study. I wonder how they'd deal with this issue from that article.

"But what is also obvious is that it can be very difficult to untangle mom and dad’s contributions because they tend to track together in age. Older dads tend to have children with older moms."

It's a pretty big confounding variable.

... as well as benefits. There's no absolutes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com