Sperm donor's genetic mutation linked to cancer in 10 conceived children
Sperm from a single donor in Europe has reportedly been used to conceive at least 67 pregnancies, although the donor carried a rare cancer-causing mutation.
The donor's mutation has been linked to cancer diagnoses in 10 of these children, according to a report by The Guardian.
The case was brought to light after two families separately contacted their fertility clinics after their children's cancer diagnoses were linked to a rare genetic variant called TP53.
Prostate Cancer Risk Increases By 45% Among Men Who Share One Troubling Behavior
A mutation in the TP53 gene causes Li-Fraumeni syndrome, which increases the risk of developing cancer. Cleveland Clinic states that this disorder comes with a 90% chance of developing some type of cancer by age 60, and a 50% chance by the age of 40.
The European Sperm Bank, the sperm supplier, confirmed that this variant was present in some of the donor's sperm.
Read On The Fox News App
The Guardian reported that the rare variant was "not known to be linked to cancer at the time of donation in 2008."
The genetic variant reportedly would not have been detectable through standard screening, and the donor is said to currently be in good health.
Dr Edwige Kasper, a biologist at Rouen University Hospital in France, presented this case at the European Society of Human Genetics' annual conference in Milan last week, commenting on the need for a European limit on the number of births or families for a single donor.
"We can't do whole-genome sequencing for all sperm donors – I'm not arguing for that," she told The Guardian. "But this is the abnormal dissemination of genetic disease. Not every man has 75 children across Europe."
4 Troubling Cancer Trends You Must Know About In 2025
Kasper analyzed the mutation in her lab, concluding that it was most likely cancer-causing and that children born from this donor should "receive genetic counseling."
The research-turned-investigation tracked down 67 children from 46 families in eight European countries. The children were tested, with the variant detected in 23 of them.
The 10 who had been diagnosed with cancer reportedly included cases of leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
In a statement sent to Fox News Digital, the European Sperm Bank stated that donor-assisted reproduction "generally remains a significantly safer alternative" than reproduction without genetic screening.
The bank added that sperm donors undergo a "comprehensive health screening," which includes an in-depth medical examination, a review of the donor's family medical history and "extensive" testing for genetic and infectious diseases.
"However, it's not possible to rule out all risks — and, in this particular case, the identified mutation is one that could not have been detected by the screening methods we use in accordance with regulations and would require specialized genetic testing," the group noted.
Julie Paulli Budtz, VP. of corporate communications at the European Sperm Bank, expressed to Fox News Digital that they are "deeply affected by this case."
Click Here To Sign Up For Our Health Newsletter
"The donor has been thoroughly tested even beyond the required standards, but preventative genetic screening is reaching its limits here," she said.
"Every human being has about 20,000 genes, and it is scientifically simply not possible to detect disease-causing mutations in a person's gene pool if you don't know what you are looking for."
Budtz noted that the European Sperm Bank welcomes "continued dialogue" regarding setting an "internationally binding family limit," which they have advocated for "on several occasions, also at EU level."
"This is also why, in addition to complying with national pregnancy limits, we have proactively implemented our own international limit of 75 families per donor," she added.
In the U.S., there is no official legal limit on how many sperm donations one man can make.
However, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) recommends that donors are limited to 25 live births within each population area of 800,000 people.
"Institutions, clinics and sperm banks should maintain sufficient records to allow a limit to be set for the number of pregnancies for which a given donor is responsible," the ASRM states on its website.
California Cryobank, which has claimed to have the largest selection of sperm and egg donations in the country, states on its website that it closely monitors donors to limit the total number of family units to 20 to 30 worldwide.
"Limiting donor vials is an important part of the process," the bank noted.
The U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) requires that all sperm donors undergo a physical exam, complete a questionnaire, provide their medical history, and undergo screenings for infectious diseases at an FDA-approved lab.
In addition, the ASRM suggests that donors undergo psychological and genetic screening, and also recommends infectious-disease testing of the recipient and the recipient's sexually intimate partners, per its website.
For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health
"Legal consultation and laws may vary by state," the organization notes.
At California Cryobank, donors must be tested for infectious diseases, undergo genetic screening, get a psychological assessment and criminal background check, and receive screening for the Zika virus, according to the bank's website.Original article source: Sperm donor's genetic mutation linked to cancer in 10 conceived children
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Labour policy ‘actively working against job creation', says Currys boss
The boss of one of Britain's biggest electricals retailers has criticised government policy for 'actively working against job creation' amid a raft of tax increases and looming worker rights reforms. Writing in The Telegraph, Alex Baldock, the chief executive of Currys, said Labour risked making it 'harder, riskier and more expensive to hire people' as Angela Rayner prepares to implement the Employment Rights Bill, which is making its way through the House of Lords. Mr Baldock said the retailer had already faced a 13pc overnight increase in the cost of employing part-time workers from Rachel Reeves's £25bn National Insurance raid, while its property tax bill also rose. He said Currys was now facing 'new and counter-productive red tape in the shape of employment law changes'. Mr Baldock added: 'Smart people know that changing your mind in the face of compelling evidence is a sign of strength, not weakness. 'It's not too late for the Government to change its mind on employment law changes that would lead to less employment.' It comes amid growing warnings from bosses that the Government risks derailing its growth ambitions by piling higher taxes and more red tape on businesses. In a recent poll by the Institute of Directors, a quarter of business leaders said the Employment Rights Bill made it likely that they would make redundancies. Under the planned reforms, workers will be entitled to contracts with a minimum number of weekly hours baked in, giving them the same number of hours as they have worked in the recent past. However, retail and hospitality chiefs have called for a rethink of the plans amid concerns that the changes risk stopping them from hiring extra people during crucial trading periods such as Christmas. Bosses have said they cannot afford to offer everyone more shifts all year round when stores are quieter. Mr Baldock said businesses including Currys were 'ready to play our part in getting Britain back to work', adding: 'Enlist us in this cause, don't hammer us.' In a House of Lords debate in April, Lord Wolfson, the boss of Next, said the employment rights reforms risked making it 'almost impossible for businesses to offer additional voluntary hours to workers' because they could then end up overstaffed at some times of the year. Lord Wolfson said: 'There is a world of difference between tackling potentially abusive zero-hours contracts and eliminating the flexibility that legitimate part-time contracts provide to those who need and want them.' The Government did not immediately respond to requests for comment. However, a spokesman previously said: 'We've consulted extensively with business on our proposals, and we will continue to work closely with employers to ensure new laws work for them while putting money back into the pockets of working people.' By Alex Baldock, the chief executive of Currys The Government talks a lot about growth and jobs, with plenty of warm words and encouragement for growth drivers such as high-tech manufacturing, life sciences and the creative industries. Next week, no doubt, these will be at the heart of theGovernment's new industrial strategy. And more power to such exciting sectors, where the UK enjoys a real competitive edge. Yet the engine room of the British economy lies elsewhere. The likes of retail, leisure and hospitality may be less glamorous. But they employ 6m people – nearly a quarter of the private sector workforce – bringing prosperity and prospects to everycorner of the country. They're no less innovative, either. Retailer productivity is growing at twice the national rate, as we deploy AI and other technology to improve customer service and empower colleagues. And boosting Britain's moribund productivity, as every economist will tell you, is essential for growth. Nor are these retail and hospitality jobs just any jobs. They're great introductions (or re-introductions) to work. Once we've given colleagues this leg up, and as they gain in confidence and experience, we often find they progress rapidly, taking on more hours, moving into management or moving on to other work with our good wishes. My first job as a spotty teenager was in a high street retailer (Waterstones in Newbury, as it happens), and I'm far from alone. Flexible and entry-level as they often are, retail jobs help people break into the world of work. They help those coming back after having children or caring for their elders – and, crucially, to those seeking a way off benefits. It's crucial because of the UK's biggest domestic challenge today: the human and economic crisis of worklessness. The UK now has almost 1m 16-24 year olds not in employment, education or training, out of fully 3m people not in work because of physical or mental ill health. This is much more than pre-pandemic, and much higher than in other countries. These 3m are exactly the people the Government wants to help off welfare and into work. This is the only way to reduce Britain's ballooning benefits bill, and so avoid further adding to an already punishing and growth-sapping tax burden. It's the only way to help millions of people find the fulfilment (and mental health benefits) of work. Research shows that the vast majority of them want to work – they just need the right opportunities and the right support. 'Everyone who can work, should work', says the prime minister. Where better for them to work than retail and hospitality? If not there, where? It's not hard to connect the dots here. The country needs more growth and millions of new jobs. Retail and hospitality are where these are to be found. So, as well as lavishing goodies on the sexy growth industries, surely Government must be looking to help such big, high-employing, high-productivity sectors as retail and hospitality? If only. In fact, government policy is actively working against job creation. Promised business rates 'relief' actually increased many bills. Punitive increases in National Insurance disproportionately hit employers who have many part-time workers. For example, the cost to Currys of employing such workers increased by 13pc overnight. Now, and despite promised deregulation, we face new and counter-productive red tape in the shape of employment law changes. Retailers are busier at some times than others, as Saturday or Christmas, as shoppers will have noticed. So retailers need to flex up and down the number of colleagues on the shopfloor accordingly. That works for colleagues looking for flexible work, for customers to get good service and for retailers to make an honest profit. But the Government's so-called 'guaranteed hours' proposals will force retailers to offer all colleagues the same number of hours as they've worked in the recent past – and pay for hours we don't need. Even successful retailers such as Currys work on fine margins – we make £1.60 profit for every £100 we sell. We simply can't afford to pay for hours we don't need, especially now those hours cost more. The result will be that retailers have to hire fewer people. It's no wonder that the Retail Jobs Alliance expects over 300,000 retail jobs to be lost in the next three years – and those job losses have already started. Thus government policy threatens the viability of the very jobs it sets out to protect, and this when the country desperately needs us to hire more people, not fewer. Where's the joining of dots here? The frustrating part? Nobody doubts the Government's good intentions. There's much to praise in its long-overdue planning reforms and investment in decaying infrastructure, both essential for growth. The Government has shown it can listen to business when presented with reasoned arguments. For example, it withdrew ill-thought-through recycling proposals inherited from the previous government which would have had the perverse impact of reducing recycling. We welcomed that warmly. Smart people know that changing your mind in the face of compelling evidence is a sign of strength, not weakness. It's not too late for the Government to change its mind on employment law changes that would lead to less employment. It's not too late to address the broken business rates system. It's not too late, instead of making it harder, riskier and more expensive to hire people, to do the reverse. We all want more growth and jobs. Businesses like Currys stand ready to play our part in getting Britain back to work. Enlist us in this cause, don't hammer us. We could be doing so much more to help. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Alcohol linked to increased risk of pancreatic cancer: Study
Alcoholic beverages, particularly beer and spirits, may increase the risk of developing pancreatic cancer, according to a new study led by the UN World Health Organization. The research, which pooled data from nearly 2.5 million people across Asia, Australia, Europe and North America, revealed a 'modest but significant' link between alcohol consumption and pancreatic cancer risk, regardless of sex or smoking status. 'Alcohol consumption is a known carcinogen, but until now, the evidence linking it specifically to pancreatic cancer has been considered inconclusive,' said Pietro Ferrari, senior author of the study and head of the nutrition and metabolism branch at the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer. The study revealed that each additional 10 grams of alcohol consumed per day was associated with a three percent increase in pancreatic cancer risk. Additionally, women consuming 15-30 grams of alcohol daily, which equates to about one to two drinks, had a 12 percent higher risk. Men drinking 30-60 grams daily had a 15 percent increased risk, increasing to 36 percent for those consuming more than 60 grams. The study confirmed alcohol as an 'independent risk factor,' even after accounting for smoking. Ferrari emphasized that 'alcohol is often consumed in combination with tobacco,' but the elevated risk persists among non-smokers. Pancreatic cancer, a disease that impacts digestive enzyme production and blood sugar regulation, remains one of the deadliest cancers due to late-stage diagnoses. Although it ranks 12th in global cancer incidence, it accounts for 5 percent of all cancer-related deaths, according to the WHO. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Bloomberg
4 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Why Taxing the UK's Rich Less May Make Sense
The Laffer Curve does exist. You may not want it to, but it does. The UK's political class is in the process of learning this lesson. One of the first things Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves did was to make the global assets of those living in the UK but domiciled elsewhere for tax purposes (the 'non-doms') subject to UK inheritance tax. Those people have responded to that incentive exactly as one might expect. They are leaving. Exact numbers aren't available, but many financial advisers will tell you of their fast-vanishing high-net worth clients—heading for the United Arab Emirates, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Malta and maybe even the US (there are some 70,000 applications for information on the new ' gold Trump card ' visa, apparently). Henley and Partners, a global relocation company, backs this up. It reports that inquiries on how to become a resident elsewhere were three times higher in the first three months of 2025 than the same period in 2024.
