Slashdot Mirror

We've been creating mice with human immune systems for probably decades now. Heck, you can even order them from commercial suppliers:

https://www.jax.org/jax-mice-a...

I agree. It is good that it is getting a headline, but this is in textbooks.

An average lab mouse lives about 2 years, I think the record as of Feb 2016 is about 4.5 years, so we seem to be making progress.

More interesting are the nematode C. elegans, thanks to its short lifespan of 2-3 weeks. The record lifespan appears to be 8 weeks.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
https://www.jax.org/news-and-i...

http://genomics.senescence.inf...

The problem is that Type 1 diabetes is from an auto-immune reaction.

Millions owe their lives to insulin. The genetically engineered human insulin is superior to both the bovine and pork insulins. Blood testing and self-injecting become habits that are easily integrated into your daily routine. The only real hassle is when you miscalculate how much insulin you need based on your food intake and ensuing energy output and your blood sugar goes too low.

So you wake up in an ambulance once in a blue moon because you passed out in public. It's a lot better than waking up missing toes, feet, legs etc from untreated or mismanaged diabetes.

From the article:

“But it’s probably overly simplistic to say that everyone should go on a low-protein diet at this point.” Among the many caveats, for example, is that the mouse study used a single strain, though different strains can have different reactions to diets such as calorie restriction. Kaeberlein also thinks it’s unlikely that reduced protein alone explains the dramatic impact of calorie restriction on lifespan.

Mice strain can have a huge impact on the results.

http://jaxmice.jax.org/strain/... http://jaxmice.jax.org/strain/...

From the article:

“But it’s probably overly simplistic to say that everyone should go on a low-protein diet at this point.” Among the many caveats, for example, is that the mouse study used a single strain, though different strains can have different reactions to diets such as calorie restriction. Kaeberlein also thinks it’s unlikely that reduced protein alone explains the dramatic impact of calorie restriction on lifespan.

Mice strain can have a huge impact on the results.

http://jaxmice.jax.org/strain/... http://jaxmice.jax.org/strain/...

Some mice are more expensive than others. Your basic boring brown ones are pretty damn cheap, as are common research variants.

A bit of poking around on the expensive side of the menu though, and you can end up paying north of $200/mouse, plus any additional costs for special requests.

Of course, since this sensor widget is designed to be used in tissue cultures, you'll end up paying extra for exotic genomes whether in goo form or in mouse form(on the other hand, the instruments/diagnostics/dissection/whatever tests done on the mice also aren't necessarily cheap, depending on what you are testing for).

Now if we could only get governments to have some kind of taxes on the bad stuff, and subsidize the good stuff. I'd eat better if I could afford it, quite frankly.

No, it's not the government's job to be your nanny. You know you should eat healthier, go forth and do so. It's not all that expensive; it's just usually more convenient to buy a McFatburger than make a healthy salad. Buy foods that are unprocessed. Yes, there is bagged salad, but it would be cheaper and healthier to buy a head of lettuce and a couple of carrots without the preservatives. Top with olive oil and vinegar and maybe some dried herbs instead of bottled dressing.

Buying food in it's most unprocessed state is usually best. I would except frozen vegetables (check for salt and other preservatives) which are usually flash frozen and so retain their vitamins potency longer and raw, unpasteurized milk. And this doesn't mean you have to become a vegetarian. But buying leaner meats, such as ground round instead of just ground beef, while they're more expensive, they have less waste as well as less fat. And you don't have to have red meat everyday. Chicken and some fish (baked, not fried) provide protein for less. Or combine non-meat products that form complete proteins. Like, peanut butter and whole wheat bread, beans and cornbread or corn tortilla, red beans and rice.

They raised taxes on cigarettes for years, yet change in people's habits did not come until there was massive peer pressure not to be around second hand smoke or to subject you child to it. Once it became both inconvenient and *uncool* to smoke, more people stopped smoking.

But junk food is not smoking and having a fast food burger or dining out isn't bad in moderation. The problem with these studies is it's all or nothing. They fed these mice nothing but fast food equivalent for NINE MONTHS. (Don't forget that research mice are not common mice but are bred to be more susceptible to disease.) Well of COURSE they're going to get sick. Who eats like this? But had they fed them healthy meals and then once or twice a week they got junk food, they probably wouldn't have the dramatic results to report.

Now if we could only get governments to have some kind of taxes on the bad stuff, and subsidize the good stuff. I'd eat better if I could afford it, quite frankly.

No, it's not the government's job to be your nanny. You know you should eat healthier, go forth and do so. It's not all that expensive; it's just usually more convenient to buy a McFatburger than make a healthy salad. Buy foods that are unprocessed. Yes, there is bagged salad, but it would be cheaper and healthier to buy a head of lettuce and a couple of carrots without the preservatives. Top with olive oil and vinegar and maybe some dried herbs instead of bottled dressing.

Buying food in it's most unprocessed state is usually best. I would except frozen vegetables (check for salt and other preservatives) which are usually flash frozen and so retain their vitamins potency longer and raw, unpasteurized milk. And this doesn't mean you have to become a vegetarian. But buying leaner meats, such as ground round instead of just ground beef, while they're more expensive, they have less waste as well as less fat. And you don't have to have red meat everyday. Chicken and some fish (baked, not fried) provide protein for less. Or combine non-meat products that form complete proteins. Like, peanut butter and whole wheat bread, beans and cornbread or corn tortilla, red beans and rice.

They raised taxes on cigarettes for years, yet change in people's habits did not come until there was massive peer pressure not to be around second hand smoke or to subject you child to it. Once it became both inconvenient and *uncool* to smoke, more people stopped smoking.

But junk food is not smoking and having a fast food burger or dining out isn't bad in moderation. The problem with these studies is it's all or nothing. They fed these mice nothing but fast food equivalent for NINE MONTHS. (Don't forget that research mice are not common mice but are bred to be more susceptible to disease.) Well of COURSE they're going to get sick. Who eats like this? But had they fed them healthy meals and then once or twice a week they got junk food, they probably wouldn't have the dramatic results to report.

I could not, would not, on a boat.
I will not, will not, with a goat.
I will not eat them in the rain.
I will not eat them on a train.
Not in the dark! Not in a tree!
Not in a car! You let me be!
I do not like them in a box.
I do not like them with a fox.
I will not eat them in a house.
I do not like them with a mouse.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them ANYWHERE!

i have runny nose alot. it's part of me.
had asthma as a kid. i smoke now.

http://www.informatics.jax.org/searches/accession_ report.cgi?id=MGI:2176682

The fear is that someone could introduce a parasite, virus, or bacterial infection into one of the mouse colonies, which would be devistating to our research (http://www.jax.org/research/research_areas.html), and our mouse business (http://jaxmice.jax.org/index.html). I don't handle the lab mice, or even come in close proximity of the mice on a regular basis since I'm a software engineer and this restriction still applies to me.

The fear is that someone could introduce a parasite, virus, or bacterial infection into one of the mouse colonies, which would be devistating to our research (http://www.jax.org/research/research_areas.html), and our mouse business (http://jaxmice.jax.org/index.html). I don't handle the lab mice, or even come in close proximity of the mice on a regular basis since I'm a software engineer and this restriction still applies to me.

http://www.jax.org/staff/david_serreze.html

I've met this researcher (we both work at the same lab), and he thinks that the genes that cause type 1 diabetes (an autoimmune disorder - the immune system attacks the pancreas) were benneficial at some point. They probably provided a fast response to certain diseases, but in ultra clean environments they end up turning on the pancreas.

More evidence to support this idea was inadvertently discovered when a epidemic broke out in a German laboratory mice facility. All the mice died except for a strain that has the gene for type one diabetes, and while the epidemic was active in the mouse colony none of the mice were diabetic. As soon as the epidemic was stopped, the mice became diabetic again.

Since this gene doesn't have to be inhereted from both parents to be expressed, you would expect it to be removed through natural selection, since without insulin it kills before normal reproductive years. This suggests that it has a bennefit. He suggested that it is probably good to let your children play in the dirt.

The company I work for http://www.jax.org/ maintains over 2,000 straings of laboratory mice for sale to other research institutions (we do genetics research and are designated a national cancer center, the 69 million dollar a year mouse business all started by selling surplus mice to other researchers, now it's a large part of the company and there has been discussion about spinning it off as a for-profit subsidiary. Right now, since all the surplus funds from the mouse business go directly towards supporting the research, we enjoy a tax-free status). We have models for diabetes, glaucoma, aids, certain cancers, adult onset obesity, etc. In experiments that involve drug testing, the only real difference (after you factor in mass differences) between mice and humans is how fast the mice metabolize the drugs.

Your're right. These mice had their genes altered before birth, although the genes can be altered so that they are not activated or deactivated until after birth. With gene therapy, this could be used for soldiers, I guess. This is kind of changing genes on the fly. The other possibility is to produce a drug to knock down this gene or its pathway. Soldiers could then be given that drug before battle. Scary thought (for their enemies, at least).

"Super"-smart may not be here yet, but we had the "smart" mouse 4 years ago.

Just as an offtopic aside, according to this article using 4-bits per haploid base pair would come out at 750 megs.

Lucent's at $6.88. You can buy a rat's ass for anywhere between $4.00 (cull) to $23 (confirmed mated and dated) to $158 (Spontaneous Mutation Congenic). So that's anywhere from a 41% drop in stock price to almost a x23 gain. Of course, these prices are just approximations: you get all the other organs, too. No one would give me a price on just that the anal sphincter.

I spent a year working in a genetics lab doing research on lab mice. (How many western blots can you do in a day?) Genetic testing on animals allows for quick growth to a mature age, the ability to quickly see the effect on several generations of treatment, and provides a significantly easier way to test for effects and what have you. Some research requires brain examination, some requires cell harvesting. Try telling a person, "I'm sorry but we need to kill you now so we can examine your brain" is an impsibility. Attempting to perform research without animals, delays the ability for cures to be found. While I was there I saw promising research in many varieties of cancer, AIDs treatments, blood diseases, aging, and many others. The researchers who work there don't stand over the mice laughing maniacally as they perform tests, they perform as few tests as possible, conserve as much material as possible, and otherwise try to provide the mice as comfortable an environment with all things considered...

Even if the same resarch was allowed to be done on people, generations would need to live and die to see certain effects. In twenty years worth of mice, several generations may be explored. With humans, one hundred years of research probably only yields four generations.

Right now, genetic research is necessary - which means animal testing is necessary. Give genetics fifty more years of maturity and maybe it won't have as much of a need on animals, right now they are the mainstay.

But, I will agree with you in this case, using millionares sounds like a good idea too... just the mice need to go as well so the research is actually usefull.