3 ms·

wondering to what degree finding the same outcome on a different animal increases the odds that it will work on humans. Maybe it ought to be an animal that also

by pyaamb 6y ago

wondering to what degree finding the same outcome on a different animal increases the odds that it will work on humans. Maybe it ought to be an animal that also shares high genetic commonality with humans but in a way that is different from the lab mouse

jcranmer 6y ago
Rodents are some of the closest mammals to primates in the evolutionary tree, so mice tend to be a very good models for human biological systems. There are some systems where there's virtually no difference between the two (I think the cardiovascular system is one, but I'm not really sure; biology isn't my thing). But there are some systems where the mouse system is very different from the human system, and the data you get from mice is practically garbage. Which brings us to Alzheimer's. Mice don't get Alzheimer's. Instead, mouse models for Alzheimer's work by attempting to genetically induce something that we think might be how Alzheimer's develops in humans. Except, we don't actually know that much about Alzheimer's: the dominant theory, and hence the basis for mice models, involves amyloid plaque formation, but amyloid beta blockers have had ruinously expensive clinical failures which makes the theory rather difficult to believe. So anything that shows improvement in Alzheimer's in mice is pretty worthless as a result.
- ltbarcly3 6y ago
  I think you are making a well reasoned point, but you might be overly kind to mouse models. The common ancestor of mice and humans lived before the dinosaurs went extinct, and humans (as well as other primates) have subsequently had very dramatic changes in genetics for nerve cells. We also live about 100 times longer, and Alzheimer's only ever shows symptoms around 30 years old at the absolute earliest, while a mouse used in experiments is rarely more than 6 months old. Widespread use of grant money to experiment on mice with the justification of researching Alzheimer's, without evidence there is reason to believe the experiment is isolating something meaningful to human expression of the disease, is literally fraud.

by pyaamb 6y ago

jcranmer 6y ago

Rodents are some of the closest mammals to primates in the evolutionary tree, so mice tend to be a very good models for human biological systems. There are some systems where there's virtually no difference between the two (I think the cardiovascular system is one, but I'm not really sure; biology isn't my thing). But there are some systems where the mouse system is very different from the human system, and the data you get from mice is practically garbage. Which brings us to Alzheimer's. Mice don't get Alzheimer's. Instead, mouse models for Alzheimer's work by attempting to genetically induce something that we think might be how Alzheimer's develops in humans. Except, we don't actually know that much about Alzheimer's: the dominant theory, and hence the basis for mice models, involves amyloid plaque formation, but amyloid beta blockers have had ruinously expensive clinical failures which makes the theory rather difficult to believe. So anything that shows improvement in Alzheimer's in mice is pretty worthless as a result.

ltbarcly3 6y ago
I think you are making a well reasoned point, but you might be overly kind to mouse models. The common ancestor of mice and humans lived before the dinosaurs went extinct, and humans (as well as other primates) have subsequently had very dramatic changes in genetics for nerve cells. We also live about 100 times longer, and Alzheimer's only ever shows symptoms around 30 years old at the absolute earliest, while a mouse used in experiments is rarely more than 6 months old. Widespread use of grant money to experiment on mice with the justification of researching Alzheimer's, without evidence there is reason to believe the experiment is isolating something meaningful to human expression of the disease, is literally fraud.