4 ms·
They are called model organisms or model animals. Basically, when you want to study something in biology, the classical route to test on organisms is this: - E
by Iv 9y ago
They are called model organisms or model animals. Basically, when you want to study something in biology, the classical route to test on organisms is this:
- E.Coli, a bacterium
- C.Elegans, a simple nematode (worm) with 1031 cells
- Drosophilia, fruit flies
- Laboratory mice
These organisms are very well known and are possibly even more known than humans. They can be bred quickly. We know their genetic lines perfectly, you can order some with specific mutations activated.
It is not necessary optimal picks, there is a lot of history behind these choices. The thing is, if you want to check an effect on a real organism, we know very well how these normally react so spotting small variations in growth, metabolism or behavior is easy. They are the benchmarks of biology.
You found a molecule that kills cancer cells? Congratulations! Check first that it does not harm E.coli normal metabolism. Check it works on C.Elegans, make sure that fruit flies are still fertile, fly normally, etc...
- stefanpie 9y agoI also thought zebrafish we're also considered at the same level of "popularity" as the choices you've listed but I don't actually know for a fact if they are.
- rurban 9y agoYou didn't explain why those organisms are the best to study in genetics. The poor article did neither. The others did. citing @holograham: > 60% DNA shared with humans + 4 chromesomes for easy mutation tracking + 2 week reproductive cycle for fast generation studying + easy to house/keep alive = great lab specimens to test genetic mutations In addition to that: * Some chromosomes, the ones in the salivary gland of the drosophila melanogaster are huge. Much easier to study under the microscope. * Most important being the very short mutation cycle: 10 days. * Very easy to see mutated phenotypes. 4 chromosomes -> eye color, wing size, ... There were very good reasons Meigen 1830 and Castle 1901 picked them from the very beginning on. The article didn't even get the most basic numbers right. It were 8 nobel prizes so far based on drosophila research, not 6. 1. Morgan 33 2. Müller 46 3. Beadle, Tatum 56 4. Delbrück, Hershey, Luria 69 5. Lewis, Nusslein-Volhard, Wieschaus 95 6. Axel, Buck 04 7. Hoffman, Beutler, Steinmann 11 8. Hall, Rosbash, Young 17 http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-advances/nobel-prizes/ http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-advances/nobel-pri...