3 ms·

In the past many discovery's where made by finding better animal models. For example, Guinea Pigs get scurvy mice don't and once we had a model it was possible

In the past many discovery's where made by finding better animal models. For example, Guinea Pigs get scurvy mice don't and once we had a model it was possible to isolate vitamin C. But, today we can probably create mice that could get scurvy... Which suggest for many things tinkering with a mouse DNA may bet the best option because there is no good animal models for things like genetic diseases.

Cyranix 15y ago
On what basis can you possibly conclude that we have exhausted our options in terms of discovering novel animal models? The article itself states that "[i]n 2009, a Japanese team created a transgenic line of marmosets—the first time that had ever been accomplished in a primate species." My wife does stroke research with mice, but she also has described the importance of using multiple models as a way to expose new facets of the same issue. Animal research is learning by approximation, so it's critical to find new ways to examine similar problems.
- bh42222 15y ago
  transgenic line of marmosets I first read that as transparent, and I though of the transparent line of zebrafish, and I imagined transparent marmosets and was about to google them when I realized it's transgenic. And then I was kind of let down, and then I was embarrassed about being underwhelmed by transgenic primates!
- onemoreact 15y ago
  for many things there is simply no good animal model so you are going to need to alter somethings DNA to get a good approximation of what's going on. Sure you can also alter the DNA of a primate but the downsides are A) we know less about primate systems than mice and B) they cost a lot more. This is not to say a primate or even a zebra finches may not be a better animal model for many diseases, just that we share a lot of DNA with mice so there is a lot of relevant information we can gain from continuing to study them. Which when combined with their low cost means it's reasonable to spend more time and money looking at mice than our closer relatives. PS: There is a vary vary large but finite set of useful drugs we can discover. As a first pass approximation being able to consider 30x the candidates at the cost of doubling our false positive and false negative rates is probably worth it (for now). Eventually, I suspect we will be able to accurately simulate many diseases in software based on human DNA or even an individuals DNA at which point we may be able to revisit a lot of these false negatives for lower cost. Between now and then we will probably start looking at a larger array of animal models based on our understanding of an ever more detailed understanding of DNA. But, until we can actually debug diseases the old shotgun approach has a lot of merit.

Cyranix 15y ago

On what basis can you possibly conclude that we have exhausted our options in terms of discovering novel animal models? The article itself states that "[i]n 2009, a Japanese team created a transgenic line of marmosets—the first time that had ever been accomplished in a primate species." My wife does stroke research with mice, but she also has described the importance of using multiple models as a way to expose new facets of the same issue. Animal research is learning by approximation, so it's critical to find new ways to examine similar problems.

bh42222 15y ago
transgenic line of marmosets I first read that as transparent, and I though of the transparent line of zebrafish, and I imagined transparent marmosets and was about to google them when I realized it's transgenic. And then I was kind of let down, and then I was embarrassed about being underwhelmed by transgenic primates!
onemoreact 15y ago
for many things there is simply no good animal model so you are going to need to alter somethings DNA to get a good approximation of what's going on. Sure you can also alter the DNA of a primate but the downsides are A) we know less about primate systems than mice and B) they cost a lot more. This is not to say a primate or even a zebra finches may not be a better animal model for many diseases, just that we share a lot of DNA with mice so there is a lot of relevant information we can gain from continuing to study them. Which when combined with their low cost means it's reasonable to spend more time and money looking at mice than our closer relatives. PS: There is a vary vary large but finite set of useful drugs we can discover. As a first pass approximation being able to consider 30x the candidates at the cost of doubling our false positive and false negative rates is probably worth it (for now). Eventually, I suspect we will be able to accurately simulate many diseases in software based on human DNA or even an individuals DNA at which point we may be able to revisit a lot of these false negatives for lower cost. Between now and then we will probably start looking at a larger array of animal models based on our understanding of an ever more detailed understanding of DNA. But, until we can actually debug diseases the old shotgun approach has a lot of merit.