Embyro Selection from DNA Testing of 900+ Genes – IQ, Longevity and More

by

People who use IVF (in vitro fertilization) will soon be able to rank embryos using genetic and other information in the hopes of extending the longevity of their offspring, according to the 25-year-old entrepreneur behind Nucleus Genomics, a DNA testing and analysis company.

Nucleus plans to charge $5,999 for an analysis of up to 900 conditions, including diseases that occur later in life and are major causes of death in older people such as Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease and cancers. The company will analyze up to 20 embryos.

IVF usage has surged globally, with the market growing from $19.6-25.3 billion in 2023 to an estimated $26.7-28.2 billion by 2025, and projected to reach $35-38 billion by 2030. Leading countries like Israel, Japan, and Denmark excel in per capita utilization due to supportive policies, while costs remain a key determinant of access, ranging from heavily subsidized in Israel to over $12,000 per cycle in the US. This growth trajectory underscores the increasing role of IVF in addressing infertility worldwide, shaped by technological, economic, and social factors.

There are estimated to be about 800,000 babies born via IVF in 2025.

Top Countries for IVF are
China: ~300,000 to 400,000
Japan: ~150,000 to 200,000
United States: ~110,000 to 120,000

The embryos are given probabilities for the likelihood they will get these chronic conditions. It is up to the parents to decide the qualities most important to them when choosing which embryos to use. They can book sessions with genetic counselors if they want to discuss the results.

Parents get the full analysis of their frozen embryos—each embryo’s probability of having some 900 diseases, as well as information about their appearance (male pattern baldness, eye color, hair color), IQ, and more.

Prior Related Work for Visual Data for Embryo Selection

In 2021, KTU researchers lead by Dr Raudonis, developed an automated method for early-stage embryo evaluation. The method is based on processing the visual data collected by photographing the developing embryo every five minutes from seven different sides for up to five days. Up to 20,000 images are generated during the image-capturing process. To evaluate them all manually would be an impossible task for the embryologist in charge of the procedure.

12 thoughts on “Embyro Selection from DNA Testing of 900+ Genes – IQ, Longevity and More”

  1. The real question is how fast the cost will fall to $1000 and $100 for embryo?
    6K is for wealthy people.
    100$ is for common people.

  3. It’s too dangerous to select for intelligence when we haven’t fully understand what is intelligence. It’s like a toddler playing with fire and it will start an uncontrollable race for engineered babies that can lead to destruction of human civilization. Developing AIs then slowly integrate them with human mind seems to be a safer bet.

  4. Some minor artificial evolution like this probably has few negative effects. We pretty much know the potential result since we have practiced this on other species for thousands of years.

    Gene editing of embryos is a more problematic shortcut.

    • If people can pay to give their kids a head start in life, they will.

      And I’d say they have the right.

      • Sure, but the issue is paying for what you think is an advantage without any real knowledge of the implications. Humans are not a very prolific species, and we do not experiment (rightly so) on children: we might have detected genes that are involved in a certain level of performance, but the variants of these genes are not very frequent, and therefore they usually do not exist in specific combinations with other genes. Thinking that very rare combinations that do not exist in our population are highly advantageous is usually wrong; you think you are giving your kids an advantage, but you (or a couple of generations down the road, your grandkids) will see the issues.
        Single advantageous mutations (like the ability to digest milk) spread through our species like wildfire; if some traits that appear clearly advantageous (like intelligence or very high strength) are not very common, it is usually because they are counterselected for other reasons.

        • Yes, pretty much like nature. Or maybe not.

          The price here is in potential diseases related to the changes that weren’t noticed when tampering with certain genes, which can be remediated.

          In nature the cost is the life of the maladapted mutations.

          The arguments of naturalness against genetic changes usually boil down to this: nature is not good no bad, it is blind and doesn’t give a hoot about the sufferers of mutations, except the useful ones that survive to replicate.

          • You stated that unwanted changes due to gene “tampering” can be remediated. But unless we are talking about very specific mutations that affect blood precursors and that can be solved by a bone marrow transplant, we do not have real options to fix issues due to detrimental combination of genes. If the mutations affect organ functionalities, again, a transplant might work (for example in the case of pulmonary fibrosis), but the effects of genes expressed organism-wide or in the brain cannot be fixed. So I am not sure what you are talking about.

    • This sounds like fingernails scratching on the chalkboard. But If you think carefully, you only are changing random selection by chosen selection. I don’t know what to think…

      • You don’t need to think too had about it. Successful smart and attractive people marry others just like them. College grads marry college grads. The evolutionary pressure is already there. This just speeds it up.

Comments are closed.