乳腺癌HSV—1,HSV—2与c—erbB—2的免疫组化研究

采用免疫组织化学Ｓ－Ｐ法检测５２例手术切除乳腺癌组织ｃ－ｅｒｂＢ－２蛋白和ＨＳＶ－１、ＨＳＶ－２表达情况。结果发现癌组织中ｃ－ｅｒｂＢ－２阳性３４例（６５．４％）;ＨＳＶ－１阳性３８例（７３．１％）;ＨＳＶ－２阳性１５例（２８．８％）。癌旁组织３２例,阳性分别为３例（９．４％）;１２例（３７．５％）;２例（６．３％）。乳腺癌中ｃ－ｅｒｂＢ－２阳性率明显高于癌旁组织。乳腺癌及癌旁的ＨＳＶ－１阳性率明显高于ＨＳＶ－２,乳腺癌ｃ－ｅｒｂＢ－２阳性组中ＨＳＶ－１和ＨＳＶ－２的表达有显著差异,而在阴性组二者无差异,提示乳腺癌的发生可能和ＨＳＶ－１感染密切相关,ｃ－ｅｒｂＢ－２表达也可能和ＨＳＶ－１感染有关。     

妇女生殖道单纯疱疹病毒Ⅱ型和人乳头瘤病毒的感染及其相关关系的研究

为探讨妇女生殖道单纯疱疹病毒Ⅱ型（ＨｅｒｐｅｓＳｉｍｐｌｅｓＶｉｒｕｓ２,ＨＳＶ２）和人乳头瘤病毒（ＨｕｍａｎＰａｐｉｌａｍａｖｉｒｕｓ,ＨＰＶ）的感染及其相关关系,我们应用聚合酶链反应（ＰＣＲ）对４８例患有性病、生殖道感染的妇女和３９例正常妇女进行了下生道ＨＳＶ２、ＨＰＶ的检测。ＨＳＶ２在实验组和对照组妇女中的感染率分别是７２９％和２５６％,两组有极显著性差异（Ｐ＜００１）;ＨＰＶ在实验组和对照组妇女中的感染率分别是５３３％和３３３％,两组无显著性差异（Ｐ＞００５）;两组中ＨＳＶ２、ＨＰＶ双阳性率分别是４５８％（２２／４８）和２３１％（９／３９）,有显著性差异（Ｐ＜００５）;在两组共８７份标本中,ＨＳＶ２和ＨＰＶ双阳性者占３１例,阳性率是３５６％。统计学分析表明：ＨＳＶ２和ＨＰＶ感染之间有极显著的相关性（Ｘ２＝２４０８,Ｐ＜００１）。研究表明：患有生殖系感染和性病妇女其ＨＳＶ２或ＨＰＶ和ＨＳＶ２混和感染的机率显著高于正常妇女,ＨＳＶ２和ＨＰＶ的感染具有协同作用。由于这两种病毒均与宫颈癌的发生有关,它们在生殖道中感染的相互作用机理有待于进一步研究。     

妇女生殖道单纯疱疹病毒Ⅱ型和人乳头瘤病毒的感染及其相关 …

为探讨妇女生殖道单纯疱疹病毒Ⅱ型（ＨｅｒｐｅｓＳｉｍｐｌｅｓＶｉｒｕｓ２,ＨＳＶ２）和人乳头瘤病毒（ＨｕｍａｎＰａｐｉｌｌａ－ｍａｖｉｒｕｓ,ＨＰＶ）的感染及其相关关系,我们应用聚合酶链反应（ＰＣＲ）对４８例患有性病,生殖道感染的妇女和３９例正常妇女进行了生道ＨＳＶ２,ＨＰＶ的检测,ＨＳＶ２在实验组和对照组妇女中的感染率分别为７２．９％和２５．６％,两组有极显著性差异（Ｐ〈０．０１）;ＨＰＶ在实验     

安徽省不同人群及各型肝炎患者庚型肝炎病毒感染检测分析

应用酶联免疫试验（ＥＩＡ）和逆转录套式聚合酶链反应（ＲＴ－ｎＰＣＲ）对１００ 例一般人群、３８５例献血员、５４ 例血液透析患者、７２ 例乙型肝炎、４１ 例丙型肝炎２７ 例非甲－戊型肝炎患者进行检测。结果抗－ＨＧＶ 阳性率分别为２．００％ 、７．５３％ 、２７．７８％ 、１８．０６％ 、１９．５１％ 和１４．８１％ ;抗－ＨＧＶ 阳性者中ＨＧＶＲＮＡ 阳性率分别为１００．００％ 、６２．０７％ 、６６．６７％ 、６９．２３％ 、７５．００％ 和 １００．００％ ,提示本地区不同人群存在ＨＧＶ 感染。献血员、血透患者、乙型肝炎、丙型肝炎、非甲－戊型肝炎患者的ＨＧＶ 感染率显著高于一般人群,提示献血员,血透患者及ＨＢＶ、ＨＣＶ 感染者是ＨＧＶ 感染的高危人群。ＨＧＶ 常与ＨＢＶ 或ＨＣＶ 重叠／联合感染,也可单独感染。抗－ＨＧＶ 阳性者中ＨＧＶ ＲＮＡ 阳性率为８３．８２％ ,提示抗－ＨＧＶＥＩＡ 可用于ＨＧＶ 感染的检测。ＡＬＴ 正常和异常献血员中抗－ＨＧＶ 阳性率无显著性差异。     

抗ToRCH—IgM型抗体临床对比检测研究

ＴｏＲＣＨ系列病原微生物（包括弓形虫Ｔｏｘ、风疹病毒ＲｕＶ、巨细胞病毒ＣＭＶ、单纯疱疹病毒ＨＳＶ　　Ⅰ／Ⅱ等）是一组具有致畸作用的病原体,孕妇感染可导致流产　、早产、畸形甚至死胎。目前ＴｏＲＣＨ　ＩｇＭ型抗体的检测都在不同程度上受到非特异性的干扰,采用有效方法消除干扰对ＴｏＲＣＨ　ＩｇＭ型抗体检测的准确性至关重要。为此我们对比了多种消除ＩｇＭ检测中非特异性干扰　的方法,并以最佳方法对２５６例女性献血者、１４３例正常妊娠和６１例异常妊娠标本进行ＴｏＲＣＨ　　ＩｇＭ抗体的对比检测。结果显示健康人群中ＴｏＲＣＨ活动性感染率较高,健康孕妇ＴｏＲＣＨ　ＩｇＭ的　总阳性率高达２３．１％（其中Ｔｏｘ５．６％、ＣＭＶ９．８％、ＲｕＶ８．４％、ＨＳＶ４．９％）;而异常妊娠则显著上升　（　ｐ＜０．０１）,其中Ｔｏｘ、ＣＭＶ、ＲｕＶＩｇＭ阳性率上升明显（ｐ＜０．０５）,分别为１９．７％、２６．２％、２４．６％　。　由此可见孕期ＴｏＲＣＨ病原微生物活动感染是致异常妊娠的主要因素之一,应严密监视孕期ＴｏＲ　ＣＨ病原微生物活动性感染,特别是弓形虫、风疹病毒和巨细胞病毒的感染。     

疟疾患者丙型肝炎病毒感染原因的血清学研究

本文报道了９７例疟疾患者丙型肝炎病毒（ＨＣＶ）感染的原因。发现疟疾患者抗－ＨＣＶ阳性率为７１．１３％,其中有单采血浆还输血细胞（下称单采浆）献血史者为８９．７１％,有受血史者为６４．２９％,既无单采浆史又无受血史者无一例抗－ＨＣＶ阳性。有单采浆史的疟疾患者与同村非疟疾的单采浆献血者相比,抗－ＨＣＶ阳性率无显著不同,且二者均显著高于同村既无单采浆史又无受血史的非疟疾人群。在无单采浆史和受血史人群中,疟疾病例和非病例抗－ＨＣＶ阳性率很低。说明有单采浆史的疟疾病例ＨＣＶ感染与单采浆有关,有受血史的疟疾病例ＨＣＶ感染与受血有关。对当地单采浆血站进行调查,发现在采血、分离血浆和血细胞还输过程中存在血液交叉污染,这是导致有单采浆史的疟疾病例ＨＣＶ感染的主要原因。     

福州地区庚型肝炎病毒重叠感染

为研究庚型肝炎病毒在福州地区的重叠感染,采用ＥＬＩＳＡ法检测本院住院的２８６例病毒性肝炎（ＨＶ）患者和５００名供血员的抗－ＨＧＶ。结果表明,甲、乙、丙、戊型肝炎患者和供血员的抗－ＨＧＶ检出率分别为２．０％、２．２％、４．０％、１０．０％和０．２％。急性肝炎、慢性肝炎、慢性重型肝炎、肝硬化、原发性肝癌和抗－ＨＣＶ阳性供血员的检出率分别为７．９％、４．３％、３３．３％、０％、７．１％和６．３％,慢性重型肝炎检出率较慢性肝炎显著升高（Ｐ＜０．０５）。各型肝炎患者和供血员均存在庚型肝炎病毒重叠感染,以慢性重型肝炎为著。     

乙型肝炎病人重叠感染丙型肝炎的评价

应用ＥＬＩＳＡ和ＰＣＲ法检测５０２例乙肝病人血清,４０１例ＨＢｓＡｇ阳性血清中,有１１４例（２８．４％）抗－ＨＣＶ和ＨＣＶＲＮＡ双项阳性,２５例（６．２％）ＨＣＶＲＮＡ单项阳性;２１例（５．２％）抗－ＨＣＶ单项阳性。将ＨＢｓＡｇ乙肝病人分成ＨＢＶＤＮＡ,ＨＢｅＡｇ阳性组和ＨＢＶＤＮＡ,ＨＢｅＡｇ阴性组。前者抗－ＨＣＶ阳性率为１１．６％～２０．５％,ＨＣＶＲＮＡ阳性率为１６．２％～２０．５％。后者抗－ＨＣＶ阳性率为２０．２％～５５．６％,ＨＣＶＲＮＡ阳性率为２３％～６０．３％。结果说明长期携带ＨＢＶ者和慢性乙肝病人均可重叠ＨＣＶ感染。ＨＢＶＤＮＡ阳性组抗－ＨＣＶ和ＨＣＶＲＮＡ阳性率明显高于ＨＢＶＤＮＡ阳性组     

蛋白激酶底物p36在肝硬变、肝细胞肝癌中的表达及与HBV、HCV感染的关系

本文应用鼠抗蛋白激酶底物ｐ３６单克隆抗体,采用免疫组织化学法对ｐ３６在５４例肝硬变,７９例肝细胞肝癌中的表达分布进行了研究,同时结合ＨＢＶ、ＨＣＶ感染情况分析其相互关系,结果显示：ｐ３６在肝硬变及肝细胞肝癌中定位于肝细胞或癌细胞胞浆内,在胞浆内弥漫分布,阳性细胞呈灶状或弥漫分布,部分病例癌周肝细胞信号较癌组织为强,ｐ３６在肝硬变、肝细胞癌中的阳性率分别为８８．８％（４８／５４）及８２．３（６５／７９）,ＨＢｘＡｇ在两种组织的阳性率分别为７０．４％及７６％,ＨＣＶ核心抗原在两种组织的阳性率分别为８０％及７８．５％;三者同时阳性分别为５５．５％及５８．２％;ｐ３６、ＨＢｘＡｇ同时阳性分别为６８．５％及６４．５％;ｐ３６、核心抗原同时阳性分别为７４．１％及７０．８％,我们的结果提示,肝硬变、肝细胞肝癌组织中ｐ３６存在高表达,其高表达可能与ＨＢＶ、ＨＣＶ感染密切相关     

中国河南两株庚型肝炎病毒（HGV）NS5区部分cDNA的克隆与序列分析

通过逆转录－聚合酶链反应从我国河南省２例重叠感染ＨＣＶ或ＨＢＶ／ＨＤＶ的献血啼中,分离到ＨＢＶＮＳ５区的部分ｃＤＮＡ,对其进行序列分析比较,结果表明,河南株ＨＧＶＮＳ５工核苷酸与两中国ＨＧＶ主同源性高于国外代表株（８８．５－９０．６％）,但由核苷酸推导的氨基酸的同源性都无明显的地区性区别。ＨＧＶＮＳ５区氨基酸序列较保守,缺乏明显高变区,中国４株ＨＧＶ在７３８４位发生了由Ｃ→Ｔ的变异,从而导致一个人     

Women and telomeres

Last year''s Nobel Prizes for Carol Greider and Elizabeth Blackburn should be encouraging for all female scientists with childrenCarol Greider, a molecular biologist at Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, MD, USA), recalled that when she received a phone call from the Nobel Foundation early in October last year, she was staring down a large pile of laundry. The caller informed her that she had won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine along with Elizabeth Blackburn, her mentor and co-discoverer of the enzyme telomerase, and Jack Szostak. The Prize was not only the ultimate reward for her own achievements, but it also highlighted a research field in biology that, unlike most others, is renowned for attracting a significant number of women.Indeed, the 2009 awards stood out in particular, as five women received Nobel prizes. In addition to the Prize for Greider and Blackburn, Ada E. Yonath received one in chemistry, Elinor Ostrom became the first female Prize-winner in economics, and Herta Müller won for literature (Fig 1).Open in a separate windowFigure 1The 2009 Nobel Laureates assembled for a photo during their visit to the Nobel Foundation on 12 December 2009. Back row, left to right: Nobel Laureates in Chemistry Ada E. Yonath and Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine Jack W. Szostak and Carol W. Greider, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Thomas A. Steitz, Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine Elizabeth H. Blackburn, and Nobel Laureate in Physics George E. Smith. Front row, left to right: Nobel Laureate in Physics Willard S. Boyle, Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences Elinor Ostrom, Nobel Laureate in Literature Herta Müller, and Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences Oliver E. Williamson. © The Nobel Foundation 2009. Photo: Orasis.Greider, the daughter of scientists, has overcome many obstacles during her career. She had dyslexia that placed her in remedial classes; “I thought I was stupid,” she told The New York Times (Dreifus, 2009). Yet, by far the biggest challenge she has tackled is being a woman with children in a man''s world. When she attended a press conference at Johns Hopkins to announce the Prize, she brought her children Gwendolyn and Charles with her (Fig 2). “How many men have won the Nobel in the last few years, and they have kids the same age as mine, and their kids aren''t in the picture? That''s a big difference, right? And that makes a statement,” she said.The Prize […] highlighted a research field in biology that, unlike most others, is renowned for attracting a significant number of womenOpen in a separate windowFigure 2Mother, scientist and Nobel Prize-winner: Carol Greider is greeted by her lab and her children. © Johns Hopkins Medicine 2009. Photo: Keith Weller.Marie Curie (1867–1934), the Polish–French physicist and chemist, was the first woman to win the Prize in 1903 for physics, together with her husband Pierre, and again for chemistry in 1911—the only woman to twice achieve such recognition. Curie''s daughter Irène Joliot-Curie (1897–1956), a French chemist, also won the Prize with her husband Frédéric in 1935. Since Curie''s 1911 prize, 347 Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine and Chemistry (the fields in which biologists are recognized) have been awarded, but only 14—just 4%—have gone to women, with 9 of these awarded since 1979. That is a far cry from women holding up half the sky.Yet, despite the dominance of men in biology and the other natural sciences, telomere research has a reputation as a field dominated by women. Daniela Rhodes, a structural biologist and senior scientist at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology (Cambridge, UK) recalls joining the field in 1993. “When I went to my first meeting, my world changed because I was used to being one of the few female speakers,” she said. “Most of the speakers there were female.” She estimated that 80% of the speakers at meetings at Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory in those early days were women, while the ratio in the audience was more balanced.Since Curie''s 1911 prize, 347 Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine and Chemistry […] have been awarded, but only 14—just 4%—have gone to women…“There''s nothing particularly interesting about telomeres to women,” Rhodes explained. “[The] field covers some people like me who do structural biology, to cell biology, to people interested in cancers […] It could be any other field in biology. I think it''s [a result of] having women start it and [including] other women.” Greider comes to a similar conclusion: “I really see it as a founder effect. It started with Joe Gall [who originally recruited Blackburn to work in his lab].”Gall, a cell biologist, […] welcomed women to his lab at a time when the overall situation for women in science was “reasonably glum”…Gall, a cell biologist, earned a reputation for being gender neutral while working at Yale University in the 1950s and 1960s; he welcomed women to his lab at a time when the overall situation for women in science was “reasonably glum,” as he put it. “It wasn''t that women were not accepted into PhD programs. It''s just that the opportunities for them afterwards were pretty slim,” he explained.“Very early on he was very supportive to a number of women who went on and then had their own labs and […] many of those women [went] out in the world [to] train other women,” Greider commented. “A whole tree that then grows up that in the end there are many more women in that particular field simply because of that historical event.Thomas Cech, who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1989 and who worked in Gall''s lab with Blackburn, agreed: “In biochemistry and metabolism, we talk about positive feedback loops. This was a positive feedback loop. Joe Gall''s lab at Yale was an environment that was free of bias against women, and it was scientifically supportive.”Gall, now 81 and working at the Carnegie Institution of Washington (Baltimore, MD, USA), is somewhat dismissive about his positive role. “It never occurred to me that I was doing anything unusual. It literally, really did not. And it''s only been in the last 10 or 20 years that anyone made much of it,” he said. “If you look back, […] my laboratory [was] very close to [half] men and [half] women.”During the 1970s and 1980s; “[w]hen I entered graduate school,” Greider recalled, “it was a time when the number of graduate students [who] were women was about 50%. And it wasn''t unusual at all.” What has changed, though, is the number of women choosing to pursue a scientific career further. According to the US National Science Foundation (Arlington, VA, USA), women received 51.8% of doctorates in the life sciences in 2006, compared with 43.8% in 1996, 34.6% in 1986, 20.7% in 1976 and 11.9% in 1966 (www.nsf.gov/statistics).In fact, Gall suspects that biology tends to attract more women than the other sciences. “I think if you look in biology departments that you would find a higher percentage [of women] than you would in physics and chemistry,” he said. “I think […] it''s hard to dissociate societal effects from specific effects, but probably fewer women are inclined to go into chemistry [or] physics. Certainly, there is no lack of women going into biology.” However, the representation of women falls off at each level, from postdoc to assistant professor and tenured professor. Cech estimated that only about 20% of the biology faculty in the USA are women.“[It] is a leaky pipeline,” Greider explained. “People exit the system. Women exit at a much higher proportion than do men. I don''t see it as a [supply] pipeline issue at all, getting the trainees in, because for 25 years there have been a great number of women trainees.“We all thought that with civil rights and affirmative action you''d open the doors and women would come in and everything would just follow. And it turned out that was not true.”Nancy Hopkins, a molecular biologist and long-time advocate on issues affecting women faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, MA, USA), said that the situation in the USA has improved because of civil rights laws and affirmative action. “I was hired—almost every woman of my generation was hired—as a result of affirmative action. Without it, there wouldn''t have been any women on the faculty,” she said, but added that: “We all thought that with civil rights and affirmative action you''d open the doors and women would come in and everything would just follow. And it turned out that was not true.”Indeed, in a speech at an academic conference in 2005, Harvard President Lawrence Summers said that innate differences between males and females might be one reason why fewer women than men succeeded in science and mathematics. The economist, who served as Secretary of Treasury under President William Clinton, told The Boston Globe that “[r]esearch in behavioural genetics is showing that things people previously attributed to socialization weren''t [due to socialization after all]” (Bombardieri, 2005).Some attendees of the meeting were angered by Summers''s remarks that women do not have the same ‘innate ability'' as men in some fields. Hopkins said she left the meeting as a protest and in “a state of shock and rage”. “It isn''t a question of political correctness, it''s about making unscientific, unfounded and damaging comments. It''s what discrimination is,” she said, adding that Summers''s views reflect the problems women face in moving up the ladder in academia. “To have the president of Harvard say that the second most important reason for their not being equal was really their intrinsic genetic inferiority is so shocking that no matter how many times I think back to his comments, I''m still shocked. These women were not asking to be considered better or special. They were just asking to have their gender be invisible.”Nonetheless, women are making inroads into academia, despite lingering prejudice and discrimination. One field of biology that counts a relatively high number of successful women among its upper ranks is developmental biology. Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard, for example, is Director of the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Tübingen, Germany, and won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1995 for her work on the development of Drosophila embryos. She estimated that about 30% of speakers at conferences in her field are women.…for many women, the recent Nobel Prize for Greider […] and Blackburn […] therefore comes as much needed reassurance that it is possible to combine family life and a career in scienceHowever, she also noted that women have never been the majority in her own lab owing to the social constraints of German society. She explained that in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, family issues pose barriers for many women who want to have children and advance professionally because the pressure for women to not use day care is extremely strong. As such, “[w]omen want to stay home because they want to be an ideal mother, and then at the same time they want to go to work and do an ideal job and somehow this is really very difficult,” she said. “I don''t know a single case where the husband stays at home and takes care of the kids and the household. This doesn''t happen. So women are now in an unequal situation because if they want to do the job, they cannot; they don''t have a chance to find someone to do the work for them. […] The wives need wives.” In response to this situation, Nüsslein-Volhard has established the CNV Foundation to financially support young women scientists with children in Germany, to help pay for assistance with household chores and child care.Rhodes, an Italian native who grew up in Sweden, agreed with Nüsslein-Volhard''s assessment of the situation for many European female scientists with children. “Some European countries are very old-fashioned. If you look at the Protestant countries like Holland, women still do not really go out and have a career. It tends to be the man,” she said. “What I find depressing is [that in] a country like Sweden where I grew up, which is a very liberated country, there has been equality between men and women for a couple of generations, and if you look at the percentage of female professors at the universities, it''s still only 10%.” In fact, studies both from Europe and the USA show that academic science is not a welcoming environment for women with children; less so than for childless women and fathers, who are more likely to succeed in academic research (Ledin et al, 2007; Martinez et al, 2007).For Hopkins, her divorce at the age of 30 made a choice between children or a career unavoidable. Offered a position at MIT, she recalled that she very deliberately chose science. She said that she thought to herself: “Okay, I''m going to take the job, not have children and not even get married again because I couldn''t imagine combining that career with any kind of decent family life.” As such, for many women, the recent Nobel Prize for Greider, who raised two children, and Blackburn (Fig 3), who raised one, therefore comes as much needed reassurance that it is possible to combine family life and a career in science. Hopkins said the appearance of Greider and her children at the press conference sent “the message to young women that they can do it, even though very few women in my generation could do it. The ways in which some women are managing to do it are going to become the role models for the women who follow them.”Open in a separate windowFigure 3Elizabeth Blackburn greets colleagues and the media at a reception held in Genentech Hall at UCSF Mission Bay to celebrate her award of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. © University of California, San Francisco 2009. Photo: Susan Merrell.     

Attractiveness and Rivalry in Women’s Friendships with Women

Past research suggests that young women perceive their same-sex friends as both facilitating the pursuit of desirable mates and competing for access to desirable mates. We propose that similar levels of physical attractiveness between young adult female friends might be one explanation for the opposing forces in their friendships. Forty-six female friendship pairs completed questionnaires about themselves, their friend, and their friendship; in addition, each woman’s picture was rated by a set of nine naive judges. Friends were similar in both self-rated and other-rated level of attractiveness. Within-pair analyses revealed that women agreed on which friend was more attractive, and the less attractive members of each friendship pair (by pair consensus as well as outside judges’ ratings) perceived more mating rivalry in their friendship than did the more attractive members of each friendship pair. We offer directions for research on women’s friendships over the lifespan.     

Women as Healers; Women as Clients: The Encounter Between Traditional Arab Women Healers and Their Clients

Interviews conducted with Arab women in Israel who sought treatment from traditional women healers show that such women undergo a change of both a personal and a social nature after the visit. This study enumerates and analyzes the aspects of this change and concludes that visiting traditional Arab women healers constitutes a coping path that empowers clients. Such empowerment, achieved primarily by clients who maintain regular, extended contact with healers, is not social but personal and follows traditional norms without challenging them. This is a model of practical empowerment that derives from the accepted norms of its culture, implying the existence of an empowering agent and an individual who are involved in a process of growth in a social context that embodies numerous restrictions.     

Assisted Gestation and Transgender Women

Developments in uterus transplant put assisted gestation within meaningful range of clinical success for women with uterine infertility who want to gestate children. Should this kind of transplantation prove routine and effective for those women, would there be any morally significant reason why men or transgender women should not be eligible for the same opportunity for gestation? Getting to the point of safe and effective uterus transplantation for those parties would require a focused line of research, over and above the study of uterus transplantation for non‐transgender women. Some commentators object to the idea that the state has any duty to sponsor research of this kind. They would limit all publicly‐funded fertility research to sex‐typical ways of having children, which they construe as the basis of reproductive rights. This objection has no force against privately‐funded research, of course, and in any case not all social expenditures are responses to ‘rights’ properly speaking. Another possible objection raised against gestation by transgender women is that it could alter the social meaning of sexed bodies. This line of argument fails, however, to substantiate a meaningful objection to gestation by transgender women because social meanings of sexed bodies do not remain constant and because the change in this case would not elicit social effects significant enough to justify closing off gestation to transgender women as a class.