PDA

View Full Version : Change DNA structure to become GG?



KittyMuffin
12-04-2005, 11:23 PM
I was thinking about this over the week. What if I could somehow change my DNA structure to be XX, and have the cells start replicating themselves as normal? If I then slowly transform into a genetic female on a cellular level, perhaps then everything would reshape itself as normal. Skin, bone structure, features, etc. It would be like morphing into a woman from the inside out. Do you think this is possible? Ok probably not with today's technology, but still, I don't see it as being too far off.

If not, I could always wait until they get the aging problem of cloning striaghtened out. Then I could have my body cloned, gene changed to XX, and have it grow to my current age. It would be the body as if I were born a female. Then I could have my brain transplanted into it. I hope this doesn't sound too much like science fiction because I believe something like this could be possible in the next 100 years or so.

What do you think, girls?

Celeste GG
12-05-2005, 12:55 AM
Not all women have xx eg. Jamie Lee Curtis actress however they cannot have children.

and if you cloned yours self xx maybe that personality might grow up to be butch lesbian, female to male crossdresser??

I would change my DNA to be a little taller.

dawnmcdaniels
12-05-2005, 01:07 AM
oooooohhhh ..... very inteesting:rolleyes:

Vivian Best
12-05-2005, 09:33 AM
Who knows what will be possible in 100 years. 100 years ago who would have thought you could transplant the heart, go to the moon, clone a living organism, map the human genome, just today a partial face transplant, stem cell research and more.

I don't feel that cloning will ever get a XX from an XY, however, embryonic stem cell research that allows human parts to be grown just might get to that point. Just maybe research will get to the point where science could take some of your cells and grow cells that will tell your body to grow breasts or remove unwanted parts. Science Fiction now? Yes! The future? Maybe not!

Vivian:gog:

Maria D
12-05-2005, 12:09 PM
Cloning can and has got two Xs from an XY, you just copy the other. Trouble is, it leaves no redundency, a bit like the dangers of interbreeding.

I don't think being changed to XX would make any difference though. The sex chromosomes are in use mainly during development, and that's the bit that we need, but can't go back and redo. If I was changed to XX, nothing would happen, why would it?
Think of it like this. My body has a pattern in my DNA for my left thumb. Once grown, it stays grown. If you change my DNA to a different shape thumb, nothing will happen. If my thumb gets cut off, the DNA will not be used, my body will just take emergency action and heal over.
What the future holds, who knows. So called 'lower' organisms can regrow almost their entire bodies, so perhaps genetic alteration coupled with Starfish (™ me) technology would work.
Lets hope for the next generation of us, eh? :)

Take care
Maria
xxx

Tiffany Tuesday
12-05-2005, 12:36 PM
Hiya girls,

if you were desperate to change DNA structure that could make you DESPERATE DAN? :eek: :D

mwwwhaa mwhaaa ... ooh mind the lippy!

Christina Nicole
12-05-2005, 06:12 PM
I'll second what Maria wrote above. Changing one's DNA would work if you could go back to the moment of conception. Once the cells start replicating, it becomes a huge task that becomes harder at a geometric rate. Once differentiation begins, which for humans is only a day or so, it's far too late.

Cloning? I doubt it. Embronic stem cells? I doubt they'll make it work. They'll spend a fortune of "government" money on it because it is "free" and politically correct, but it probably won't work, there are too many variables to control. Note that the smart money, the money real people and business are investing is going into adult stem cells where the task is much simplier since the number of variable is far, far smaller. Herding 3 billion cats (the number of base pairs in the human genome) is far easier.

No one really knows what the future will bring. No one envisioned hand held computers (like a Palm) even 25 years ago. On the other hand, I'm still waiting to go and buy my flying car that I was supposed to have by the turn of the 21st century.

Warm regards,
Christina Nicole

Nyx
12-05-2005, 07:45 PM
See my other thread about sex change without surgery ;) (Aka becoming a GG):

http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7221

Julie
12-05-2005, 08:41 PM
If you cloned yourself the clone would be a duplicate of you but wouldn't be you. You'd still be in the same situation as you are now but now jealous that your clone has the body you want.

If you could change your DNA you still have to contend with bone structure that stops growing around 25 and doesn't 'ungrow' then 'regrow' because of changes in the body. What I've seen is when something in the human body grows or develops it stays that way. Think of the beard or the Adam's Apple or the voice or bone structure. All the estrogen in the world won't change any of those once they've developed. They are here to stay. But in FTM cases you see the beard grow and Adam's Apple develop and the voice deepen. There is even some skeletal development if HRT is started early enough. But if that person decides against transitioning none of those masculine developments will revert back to female. They are permanent.

It's a nice idea and I've thought about it countless times, especially after they mapped the human genome. But we haven't cracked the secret that will revert the growing process. That would be like finding the fountain of youth which will make you younger. Something tells me we will never see that discovery. Even if someone unlocked the secret do you think we'd ever see it? No way! The population of the Earth would explode and in a very short time we'd be starving to death and killing each other for food. And you know I'm not the only one who knows that.

eleventhdr
12-06-2005, 11:21 AM
I must be ahead of the curve or something. Those of us who read or used to read in the old Superman comic's knew of this like way back in the 1950's and 1960's etc et all It was going on in those comic's way back then Human cloning of full size human's this was no big deal to those writers. they could alter human's into wahtever they wanted to be and then there were alien races who could do that even also So to become a complete real gg was no big deal even if and when you ahd been born male It could be done. Heck in Edgar Rice Burroughs John Carter on Mars or Barsoom as it was called in the stories they did this also and that was even more some time ago and then there was the now famous Star Trek Eposoide 79 the very last of the original trek where Kirk was morphed into female by Janice Lester And if they Spock and bones had not discovered it he problay would have remained that way The fourth season might have seen Janice Lester as captain of the enterprise Oh well So why is real sceince so far behind being able to morph us real Humans like this I sure would welcome it if and when it finally does become reality Maybe with some kind of forms of Magic etc Hmmm!. Oh well Indeed!. Suzy!

Kate
12-06-2005, 01:27 PM
Altering your chromosomal makeup at that level would require some form of nanotechnolical manipulation probably, and if we possesed that technology then we would be able to reshape any part of ourselves so the concept becomes rather moot. ;)

As Julie says, such tech would probably allow us to be immortal, but I disagree that it will not be feasable within our lifetimes - provided that we can do some short-range life extension in the interim! The downside would be that if we developed such tech we would also have self-replicating machines capable of improving themselves which means we would have designed our own replacements!

Anyway, getting a bit off track here :p Even if you re-jigged your genetic make-up you would not reverse the effects of going through puberty with testosterone.

Kate.

Nyx
12-06-2005, 02:11 PM
Altering your chromosomal makeup at that level would require some form of nanotechnolical manipulation probably, and if we possesed that technology then we would be able to reshape any part of ourselves so the concept becomes rather moot. ;)

It can be done using retroviruses. You people should really read my thread ;)

Kate
12-06-2005, 06:03 PM
It can be done using retroviruses. You people should really read my thread ;)

Oh I'm well versed on retro-viruses, Nyx. :) They will not cut the mustard in this case though - to remove the Y chromasome entirely and then add in a new X chromasome (well a Barr body to be precise sine the extra X is in a semi-dormant state) is way beyond the scope of what a little retro-virus can do. At most we will be can use those to insert short DNA segments, but it is even doubtful as to whether the insertion location an be precisely controlled at this stage!

Anyway, thankfully almost all the aspects of genetic sex are effected via hormones, so that kind of manipulation probably wouldn't helpl much more than artificially putting the "correct" hormone mixture into your body and removing any sources of the wrong ones. Good thing really, otherwise we would all be rather stuffed!

Kate.

Nyx
12-06-2005, 07:04 PM
Oh I'm well versed on retro-viruses, Nyx. :) They will not cut the mustard in this case though - to remove the Y chromasome entirely and then add in a new X chromasome

It doesn't have to be removed. It could be possible to either "convert" the Y into an X, either completely, or simply functionally (so that it expresses the genes specific to females and none of those specific to males).


it is even doubtful as to whether the insertion location an be precisely controlled at this stage!

I think it's not doubtful. Usually, when making genetic modifications, its very possible to insert DNA sequences almost anywhere. I'm quite sure the AIDS retrovirus doesn't insert a DNA sequence at a random location.


Anyway, thankfully almost all the aspects of genetic sex are effected via hormones, so that kind of manipulation probably wouldn't helpl much more than artificially putting the "correct" hormone mixture into your body and removing any sources of the wrong ones. Good thing really, otherwise we would all be rather stuffed!

It probably wouldn't be effective at all. None of the male characteristics you have would go away, and your testicles would continue producing testosterone. Most likely, the only changes it could make is change what directly depends on the proteins your cells produce. For example, if we could modify the DNA in all of your cells, it should be possible to change your hair/eye/skin color.

But like I said, you should read my thread ;)

The solution I have the most faith in is actually using stem cells to provocate the generation of "the missing parts". This has been shown to work in lab rats. They have actually cut off the legs of lab rats which had been injected with modified embryonic cells (containing another rat's DNA)... And the wounded rats regrew the lost limbs. They have also tested this on internal organs.

Maria D
12-06-2005, 07:21 PM
Pedantic point, but don't all viruses insert their DNA quite happily into cell nuclei?
The only difference with a retrovirus is that it contains RNA instead of DNA, and uses reversetranscriptase to convert its code to DNA to be inserted. Or have I forgotten something?

All a bit moot for me, since it'll arrive too late, whatever the new technology. Damn lol.

Maria
xxx

Kate
12-06-2005, 07:31 PM
It doesn't have to be removed. It could be possible to either "convert" the Y into an X, either completely, or simply functionally (so that it expresses the genes specific to females and none of those specific to males).

There are very major differences between the two chromosomes - the Y has only around 50 million base pairs compared to the X's 150 million for example! I guess in the case of FTM it is easier since the extra X chromasome (the Barr body) is mostly redundant if I recall my A-level biology correctly, but even then sticking a massive chromosome molecule into the nucleus of every cell in the human body is no mean feat! Let us not forget that most viri don't have big payloads - HIV for examle only inserts around 9,000 base pairs.


I think it's not doubtful. Usually, when making genetic modifications, its very possible to insert DNA sequences almost anywhere. I'm quite sure the AIDS retrovirus doesn't insert a DNA sequence at a random location.

It really isn't that simple, Nyx. Most retroviruses are pretty random in terms on insertion - all they need to do is get their chunk into a bit of non-junk DNA - which is why such treatments carry a high cancer risk, and is also why viral infections are often the trigger for a cancer since the insertion can knock-out inhibitor genes.


The solution I have the most faith in is actually using stem cells to provocate the generation of "the missing parts". This has been shown to work in lab rats. They have actually cut off the legs of lab rats which had been injected with modified embryonic cells (containing another rat's DNA)... And the wounded rats regrew the lost limbs. They have also tested this on internal organs.

I would agree that stem cells are probably the best hope for the one problem that continues to afflict transsexuals; ie. infertility in the new sex. Also, clearly defined organs might be good targets but trying to get the plumbing and other bits to grow seems rather far-fetched. There has been much promised by stem cells but not much progress so far, although it looks like a stem-cell treatment to regrow lost teeth will be available within a couple of years which is pretty cool!

My personal favorite solution is this; make a clone-zygote and genetically modify just that one cell to be your desired sex - perhaps by "borrowing" a suitable sex-chromasome from a sibling and removing the unwanted one. Grow said clone in sensory isolation so that the brain doesn't develop, and once it has matured enough simply *cough* do a brain transplant (OK, OK, so there might be some slight technical obsticles there ;)), and hey-presto you have yourself a youthful lovely new body. Gender-fix and fountain of youth all in one! :p

Kate.

Kate
12-06-2005, 07:34 PM
Pedantic point, but don't all viruses insert their DNA quite happily into cell nuclei?
The only difference with a retrovirus is that it contains RNA instead of DNA, and uses reversetranscriptase to convert its code to DNA to be inserted. Or have I forgotten something?

The key difference with retroviri is that they actually insert their reverse-transcripted DNA into the host's DNA and it becomes a germ-line modification. In other words, when the cell multiplies it remains part of that cell's DNA.

That also happens to an extent with normal RNA viruses that just squirt their genetic material into the nucleus, but it is retroviruses are potentially more useful in terms of clinical applications, but also more dangerous due to the cancer risks and the fact that you are modifying your genome (and your kids would potentially have those changes too).

Kate.

Nyx
12-06-2005, 09:16 PM
There are very major differences between the two chromosomes - the Y has only around 50 million base pairs compared to the X's 150 million for example! I guess in the case of FTM it is easier since the extra X chromasome (the Barr body) is mostly redundant if I recall my A-level biology correctly

It is entirely redundant. They code all of the same genes. The problem is that some particular genes need to be expressed by both chromosomest to produce enough of a specific type of protein for the system to function normally. Those are the genes that would need to be added to "convert" the Y chromosome.


It really isn't that simple, Nyx. Most retroviruses are pretty random in terms on insertion - all they need to do is get their chunk into a bit of non-junk DNA - which is why such treatments carry a high cancer risk, and is also why viral infections are often the trigger for a cancer since the insertion can knock-out inhibitor genes.

I know alot of people tend to fit HIV in the "cancer" category, but that's not what it is. I am fairly sure HIV is not random in its insertion since its effects are always very similar (disabling the human immune system in the same way, for example). However, if it was random, it would be possible to make it non-random by engineering a retrovirus that contains RNA specifically targeted to produce enzymes that will target the insertion site.


trying to get the plumbing and other bits to grow seems rather far-fetched. There has been much promised by stem cells but not much progress so far, although it looks like a stem-cell treatment to regrow lost teeth will be available within a couple of years which is pretty cool!

In one of my threads I mention an article where they talk about success of regenerative treatments to regrow limbs and damaged organs (even the heart) in mice. Growing the "plumbing" is not that far-fetched. Sexual hormones are what guides the process when the fetus is in the mother's womb. In theory, if a man was put under HRT, administered female regenerative stem cells which use a modified version of his DNA, and his genitalia removed, female sexual organs might simply grow naturally at the location where they should be (stem cells "know" where to grow organs because of clearly defined location marker on existing cells). If something is "missing", stem cells will naturally grow it.


My personal favorite solution is this; make a clone-zygote and genetically modify just that one cell to be your desired sex - perhaps by "borrowing" a suitable sex-chromasome from a sibling and removing the unwanted one. Grow said clone in sensory isolation so that the brain doesn't develop, and once it has matured enough simply *cough* do a brain transplant (OK, OK, so there might be some slight technical obsticles there ;)), and hey-presto you have yourself a youthful lovely new body. Gender-fix and fountain of youth all in one! :p

I have a friend who's father is a neurosurgeon. Trust me, the brain is such a fragile organ, and there are so many million neural fibers to be reconnected, this is never going to happen. Not in 5000 years. It will most likely always be easier to regrow a whole new body part by part while protecting the subject's life than transplant a person's brain. Just our optical nerves alone have about a million fibers each.

As for taking an X-chromosome from a sibling, it's not necessary. You could actually take one of your own from another cell. Provided you have no genetic defects in your existing X-chromosome, it will work fine.

Kate
12-07-2005, 04:35 AM
I know alot of people tend to fit HIV in the "cancer" category, but that's not what it is. I am fairly sure HIV is not random in its insertion since its effects are always very similar (disabling the human immune system in the same way, for example). However, if it was random, it would be possible to make it non-random by engineering a retrovirus that contains RNA specifically targeted to produce enzymes that will target the insertion site.

I was not saying HIV is a cancer!! It is just a rather nasty retrovirus. The reason it harms the immune system is that it targets T-cells via the way its coat-proteins bind to certain things only present on T-cells, and it subverts the activities of the T-cells thus disrupting their function - the effects are not due to the knock-outs caused by an insertion.

You're quite right though that a lot of research is going into controlling the insertion point, but the integrase enzyme (the one that does the job) is not very target-able sadly. You can do cunning stuff with anti-sense DNA though and that is probably the best route, so there is hope for treating small base error problems. Such things would never be able to help altering/replacing entire chromosomes though - they are just too big!


In one of my threads I mention an article where they talk about success of regenerative treatments to regrow limbs and damaged organs (even the heart) in mice. Growing the "plumbing" is not that far-fetched. Sexual hormones are what guides the process when the fetus is in the mother's womb. In theory, if a man was put under HRT, administered female regenerative stem cells which use a modified version of his DNA, and his genitalia removed, female sexual organs might simply grow naturally at the location where they should be (stem cells "know" where to grow organs because of clearly defined location marker on existing cells). If something is "missing", stem cells will naturally grow it.

The problem I'm getting at is developmental - convincing a womb to grow is one thing, but to get it to attatch in the right ways inside an adult body is not really feasable. Take the gut for example, that develops from the way a foetus starts out as a tube - you could never artificially grow one without growing a whole new baby! What perhaps could be done is for the sex organs to be grown in-vitro and then transplanted in. That also raises the question of transplants once the rejection problems are a bit more sorted. Imagine that - getting FTM and MTF TS's together and trading bits! :)


I have a friend who's father is a neurosurgeon. Trust me, the brain is such a fragile organ, and there are so many million neural fibers to be reconnected, this is never going to happen. Not in 5000 years. It will most likely always be easier to regrow a whole new body part by part while protecting the subject's life than transplant a person's brain. Just our optical nerves alone have about a million fibers each.

Hehe, yes I was being facetous - you're quite right that brain-transplants are, frankly, silly! ;) I wrote a paper on life extension strategies during the fourth year of my Masters in Biomedical science and touched on that area. It will be a lot easier to redesign/replace the brain with something a bit more maintainable - like silicon!

Kate.

Maria D
12-07-2005, 06:00 PM
I remember reading recently about a plan to use stem cells to bridge broken spinal cords. As said above, they 'know' what to do, if you'll forgive the phrase, and it's been done in rats. Apparently it even worked too. It's only a vastly more complex leap to apply that to brain transplants.

BTW, the Russian athlete debacle years ago set me thinking. Rather than change the Y into an X, or replace with another X (father's would be best wouldn't it? I know Ys are very similar across the population but I'm not sure about Xs), why not just disable the functional genes on the Y?

BTW, my PC crashes far more than my brain, so I won't be trusting myself to Intel just yet! Care to speculate what you'd have to drink to get drunk with a pentium head? ;)

Take care
Maria
xxx

Nyx
12-07-2005, 09:02 PM
The problem I'm getting at is developmental - convincing a womb to grow is one thing, but to get it to attatch in the right ways inside an adult body is not really feasable. Take the gut for example, that develops from the way a foetus starts out as a tube - you could never artificially grow one without growing a whole new baby!

Well the experimental evidence seems to show that it might actually be possible to regrow entire damaged parts of it in vivo. It does start "as a tube", but most likely, the markers that were originally there to indicate the cell placement are still there, and it could still be possible for stem cells to use them to know how to place themselves.

You should really read this article. It talks about lizard-like regeneration in mice:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16417002%255E30417,00.html


What perhaps could be done is for the sex organs to be grown in-vitro and then transplanted in. That also raises the question of transplants once the rejection problems are a bit more sorted. Imagine that - getting FTM and MTF TS's together and trading bits!

Well, if they are grown in-vitro from cloned DNA, there is no question of rejection at all. This strikes as the whole point of growing organs in-vitro, actually... But hmm, I believe I have already heard of an MTF getting ovaries implanted before (they were from a dead woman donor I believe).


Hehe, yes I was being facetous - you're quite right that brain-transplants are, frankly, silly! I wrote a paper on life extension strategies during the fourth year of my Masters in Biomedical science and touched on that area. It will be a lot easier to redesign/replace the brain with something a bit more maintainable - like silicon!

Well, I'm not actually a biologist but a computer scientist (with a little bit of biology knowledge). I would actually place more faith in biotechology for life extension than computer technologies, however. Not that I don't think a sentient consciousness can be simulated in a computer. It should actually become computationally possible within a few decades. The problem I see is actually somehow translating the content's of one's brain into a computer. We don't have technology nearly powerful enough to do that. We don't even know for certain in which way memories are encoded in the human brain or the exact functioning of the internal wiring. Furthermore, if you could copy your memory in a computer, a computerized copy of your mind could live on, but you would die.

Bridget
01-12-2006, 03:11 AM
The problem is that even if you did alter your genetic sex chromosones to XX as opposed to XY, you wouldn't slowly transform into a female. Human development, when you are a fetus is when the body tools itself for the most part to be male or female. This is when the body decides to turn the intermediate genitalia into penis and testicles, or a clitoris, vagina and ovaries, and tools the glands of the bodies to produce the right hormones. Then at puberty, the second half of development kicks in, and the maturation completes. If you changed your chromosomes, your body would have the tools to be female, but might not know what to do. You would have to surgically implant much of the endocrine system and perhaps rewire parts of the brain. It might be possible, to create headjacks, ala cyberpunk, and hack the brain to be female possibly, by installing a program that inhibits male function and replaces it with female function in the brain...but that's a ways off.

pricilla21 GG
01-20-2006, 02:29 PM
What an amazing post and there are truly some brilliant minds working in the replies! It would be nice to see the day when a man was able to truly think like a woman! maybe we wouldnt get such a bad deal! The whole root of the problem lies in which sperm fertilizes the egg! Blame the parents, especially your dads! luv pricx

Gilded Graper
01-22-2006, 03:25 PM
Men (XY) are born as women if they have Androgen Insensitivities Syndrome.
Their bodies have defective androgen receptors.

"The inability for testosterone to bind to its receptor makes the external appearance of these individuals to be fully female. They do not have penis. They do have what appears to be a normal vagina and they look [like a] normal female at birth." - http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/biology/units/gender/experts/vilain.html

At leaste one GENE (SRY gene) within a chromo determines sex organs.

This or these genes makes the body become physicaly male or female.
Thus, there are XX (female chromo) people with male bodies who have a penis and 2 testicles.

EDIT: SRY is considered pro-male gene and DAX1 anti-male gene

IMHO It won't be long before Dr's will 'fix' any TG or InterSex fetus.

Maria D
01-22-2006, 07:22 PM
Rather than 'fix' a conceived foetus, it'd be far easier and more likely that an egg and sperm would be genetically modified first to correct any 'mistakes', before allowing fertilisation to occur.
To a society that sees intersex in the same way as cystic fibrosis, Huntingdon's disease or polydactylism, yes, it's likely parents-to-be would request that their children didn't have it, if they could.
I am only TS, not intersex, but if in the future I had children, and they asked me if I'd want it screened for and removed, yes, I would, because I'd want the best for my child. Horrible? Or the right thing to do? I don't know, I only know I wish I'd been born 'normal'. To much pain... is life, and I wouldn't wish that on a child if I could avoid it.

Maria

Bridget
01-23-2006, 12:28 AM
Of course, allowing parents to alter their children prior to conception opens a whole other ethical can of worms.

Kimberley
02-13-2006, 03:57 PM
Hate to be a party pooper but there is probably some neoconservative researcher working on this right now so s/he can "cure" us all and make the world a better place.

I hope they die trying until the world is really ready to accept us.

Just my opinion.

Hugs to all.