Science1 distinct publisher3 min readUpdated
Deleting the Y chromosome from cloned male embryos produced fertile female mice that bred with their male clone brothers. Whether XO animals stay fertile in other species is the constraint.
The Scientist · Science desk

Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
Takashi Ishiuchi's group at the University of Yamanashi, working with Shogo Matoba at the RIKEN BioResource Research Center, reports deleting the Y chromosome from cloned male mouse embryos with a CRISPR tool and obtaining healthy, fertile female mice otherwise genetically identical to the donor male [1][2][4][7]. Sex is now a variable that can be set during a cloning run, which is the difference between a tissue bank holding one male you can copy and one you can breed from [3][10].
The procedure is standard somatic cell nuclear transfer with one added step. The team put DNA from the blood cells of a male mouse into mouse eggs whose own DNA had been removed, treated some of the resulting embryos with a CRISPR-based tool they call Y-CUT, and transferred the embryos to surrogate mothers [5]. Every mouse born from a Y-CUT embryo was female, genetically identical to the donor father apart from the missing Y; the untreated embryos all produced male clones [6]. Matoba calls the result "dual-sex cloning" [7]. The clones bred with each other and produced offspring that appeared healthy, alive for more than a year with no clear defects, which Matoba describes as sexual reproduction initiated from a single male genome [8]. Ishiuchi's framing is blunter: remove the Y immediately after fertilisation and "it is essentially sex reversal" [2].
XO females had turned up in mouse cloning before, by accident, when the Y happened to be lost [9]. What is new is doing it on purpose with a tool the authors describe as reliable [4]. The delivery route matters as much as the edit. An earlier study produced both male and female clones from a male mouse embryonic stem cell line, but by a method unlikely to work in other species, whereas nuclear transfer has already been applied in many mammals and accepts living or stored donor material [13]. The idea came from fish that switch sex, including the Okinawa rubble goby, to keep sexual reproduction going [16].
Two constraints sit on the conservation pitch. The first is chromosome tolerance: an XO mouse is healthy and fertile, but that is not true across species, and Linda Penfold of SEZARC says Y-deleted offspring are infertile in humans and horses and that this is likely in multiple wildlife species; she also raises ethical concerns about producing Y-deleted animals [14][15]. The second is arithmetic. If both parents are clones of the same male, the offspring's nuclear genome traces to one founder, so the technique restarts reproduction without adding genetic diversity [1].
What to watch is whether Y-CUT survives contact with a second species. Teruhiko Wakayama, at Yamanashi but not part of the study, says it would be incredibly valuable if it worked outside mice [11]. Ben Novak of Revive & Restore, which has worked on cloning Przewalski's horse and the black-footed ferret, says the group is laying foundations for chromosome manipulation that will matter in many conservation cases, and agrees the method suits frozen samples from only one or two individuals [12]. Also worth noting what this reporting does not contain: no livestock application, no regulator, and no approval pathway, with the only governance objection on record being Penfold's ethical one [2]. A technique that sets sex ratio at the embryo stage will not stay confined to endangered species, but nothing in the published account addresses that use yet [2].
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
Teruhiko Wakayama, also at the University of Yamanashi and not involved in the study: "It would be incredibly valuable if this were successful in species other than mice."
Ben Novak of Revive & Restore, which has been involved in cloning efforts with endangered species including Przewalski's horse and the black-footed ferret, says the team is "laying the foundations for a future of manipulating chromosomes that is probably going to be important in many cases for conservation", and agrees the technique may be useful for frozen tissue samples from species where samples exist from only one or two individuals.
Although an XO female mouse is healthy and fertile, that is not the case in many other species.
Linda Penfold of SEZARC, a group of zoos and conservation centres based in the US: "Y-deleted offspring are not fertile in humans and horses, and therefore this is likely to be the case in multiple wildlife species." She also says there could be ethical concerns with producing Y-deleted animals.
Male mouse embryos have been turned into females by a procedure that eliminates the Y chromosome; the technique relies on CRISPR gene editing and has been used to create healthy and fertile female and male mice, both clones of the father.
Takashi Ishiuchi at the University of Yamanashi, Japan: "We thought if we could remove the Y chromosomes immediately after fertilisation, we can change the sex... It is essentially sex reversal."
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
Concrete named-lab result, but no paper, counts or replication in the record
The core factual chain is specific and attributable: a named tool (Y-CUT), a named protocol (SCNT from blood-cell nuclei), a binary outcome (all treated pups female clones, all untreated male clones), and a durability datapoint (offspring alive past a year). Against that, the supplied reporting cites no journal or preprint, gives no numbers for embryos, surrogates or live births, reports no independent replication, and comes from a single outlet, so the result cannot be checked or sized from what is supplied.
One lab, one species, no use beyond the experiment
The only observation is the originating laboratory's own mouse demonstration. No second lab, no non-murine species, no conservation programme and no institutional deployment is reported; the conservation organisations quoted describe interest and foundations rather than use, and the stated blocker (XO infertility outside mice) means uptake cannot yet occur in the target species.
Framing is mostly disciplined; the conservation promise still runs ahead of the data
The reporting and its dek both foreground the species-generality constraint and give a critic space on fertility, ethics and genetic diversity, which keeps overstatement modest. The residual gap is the leap from one fertile XO mouse line to reviving endangered or extinct species from cell banks: that pathway rests on a drug-mediated X-restoration idea that is only speculated about, and even if it worked the offspring would descend from a single founder genome, so 'restoring sexual reproduction' is not the same as restoring a viable population.
Author-sourced claims plus an interested nonprofit, offset by a named sceptic
Almost all positive framing comes from the researchers who built Y-CUT and from a conservation organisation whose existing work is animal cloning, both of whom benefit from the technique appearing foundational. The counterweight is explicit and on the record: a zoo-and-conservation-centre scientist disputes cross-species fertility, raises ethics and argues habitat protection is more effective, and the cloning nonprofit itself cautions against needing the tool. That visible disagreement keeps the incentive distortion mid-range rather than high.
Moderate: coherent, well-attributed account from a single outlet with no primary citation
The internal consistency is good and every substantive claim is attributed to a named person or clearly reported as a result, so the direction of the story is likely sound. Confidence is capped by structural thinness: one publisher, no cited paper, no quantities, no replication, and the load-bearing extension to other species is explicitly unproven.
science
Two cloned beagles were edited so they cannot make the main dog allergen1 distinct publisher
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
1 article · August 18, 2026