Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers Create "Mighty Mouse" With Gene Tweak

Posted by samzenpus on from the we're-gonna-need-a-bigger-trap dept.

cylonlover writes "He can't fly just yet, but a team of scientists have made a big step towards creating a real-life Mighty Mouse. By tweaking a gene that normally inhibits muscle growth the researchers created a batch of super-strong mice and worms. The scientists acted on a genome regulator — known as NCOR1 — and were able to change the activity of certain genes. In simpler English, the scientists shut off the thyroid hormone that keeps most mammals from turning into the Incredible Hulk. The result was a strain of mice with muscles that were twice as strong as normal."

7 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. Give to 1 area, ur taking from another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I figure it this way: You give these mice that growth of musculature, something's going to take a beating (probably lifespan), because the body's designed to only grow so much in that area, there must be a reason, a LONG TERM REASON, why.

    1. Re:Give to 1 area, ur taking from another by MikeyO · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I figure it this way: You give these mice that growth of musculature, something's going to take a beating (probably lifespan), because the body's designed to only grow so much in that area, there must be a reason, a LONG TERM REASON, why.

      I reject the notion that mice were "designed" or that a mouses body is the way it is due to any reasoning.

    2. Re:Give to 1 area, ur taking from another by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "reason" wasn't the problematic term, "designed" was, as in "... the body's designed to ...".

      It is not designed to do anything, because it isn't designed in the first place.

      However, even the reason part is crap. "There must be a reason, a LONG TERM REASON" is just plain wrong.

      Evolution makes no claims of optimal outcomes in the first place.

      Maybe said mutation just never happened in the wild? Maybe the disadvantages it also produced are no longer disadvantages due to environmental changes or other genome changes? Maybe it doesn't actually give an advantage to survival or reproduction? Maybe is requires more energy input which is bad in the short term? Maybe there's one of a million other short term disadvantages that don't apply in a lab setting.

      Assuming it must be bad is the antithesis of evolution - a theory in which the core concept is that such a change might be beneficial.

    3. Re:Give to 1 area, ur taking from another by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Natural selection results in 'good enough' genetics. There isn't any reason why people couldn't have eyesight as good as predatory birds (though some diet changes would be needed), or hearing as good as bats, or olfactory senses as good as canines, etc. but the conditions under which we evolved did not include pressures that selected for senses beyond our current state. Our sense were not maximized, simply good enough for most to survive, and that is natural selection's ultimate standard.

      Speciation is not about some 'ultimate lifeform' so much as it is about lifeforms that are best adapted to their niche and environment. Predatory birds need top eyesight to catch quick small prey on the ground. We don't need it because our prey was usually bigger, or stationary (being omnivores). By the same token mice might just not have needed more strength to survive. Furthermore, and more importantly, if environmental pressures were such that only stronger mice were surviving, you could damn near bet money that these sorts of genetic changes would occur naturally. In a model of punctuated equilibrium, you'll find that changes usually occur when they have to, not simply because they are 'objectively better' in some abstract sense that doesn't significantly impact survival rate in a given environmental condition.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  2. Wait a minute. by Zironic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have this sneaking suspicion that if genome 'brakes' are present in most animals, they're probably there for a reason.

    I wonder what sort of long term side effects you'd be looking at with vastly increased muscle growth.

    1. Re:Wait a minute. by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are working under the impression that evolution works optimally. It doesn't evolution usually reaches a good enough state. It may be the case the reason why mice are not stronger is that the ones who were stronger didn't have any better chances then the ones who weren't or their extra bulk end up either being unattractive to the opposite sex or they were too strong and created damage to their mate. Or just just because the extra strength didn't help much more overall so his genes kinda just got washed out over time.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Wait a minute. by Zironic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The most intuitively obvious answer is that if your muscle growth can't be limited you're more likely to starve to death during famines.

      However I wouldn't be surprised if unchecked muscle growth also leads to bone/tendon damage/poor muscle control/heart issues etc.