Genetic Difference May Make Humans Easier to Clone Than Sheep

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A single genetic difference may make the cloning process less complicated in humans than in sheep and other mammals, scientists say. According to a report published today in the journal Human Molecular Genetics, humans and their primate kin possess two active copies of a gene called insulin-like growth factor II receptor (IGF2R) that prevents fetal overgrowth¿a problem that has often thwarted efforts to clone animals. Nonprimates have only one functional copy of this gene, the result of a phenomenon called genomic imprinting, which effectively silences the other copy. As a result, these animals are more susceptible to cancer and to cloning-related complications.

Keith Killian and his colleagues at Duke University used distinctive genetic markers known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to test for imprinted IGF2R in humans and to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the imprinted gene. The team found no evidence of it in humans. Indeed, the results indicate that primates and their closest relatives lost the imprinted gene some 70 million years ago. In contrast, other mammals¿including mice, sheep, cows, pigs and opossums¿still carry it.

"This is the first concrete genetic data showing that the cloning process could be less complicated in humans than in sheep," Killian observes. "Only one in 300 sheep embryos takes hold, and up to half of these embryos have large offspring syndrome, which can kill the mother and fetus. Since humans are not imprinted at IGF2R, fetal overgrowth would not be predicted to occur if humans were cloned."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Other scientists assert that the study authors' conclusions are flawed, noting that other genes may contribute to the problems seen in cloning sheep. "It seems that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the authors have allowed themselves to overinterpret their interesting results," Ian Wilmut, who created the cloned sheep Dolly, told Reuters. "I hope that this will not be used to give encouragement to those who wish to clone humans."

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she has focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe