Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life
scienceswitch.com
Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life
1–10 of 74 posts
Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life
#2By 4% which may as well be experimental error, right? The mice could have very well just lived longer due to increased interest/handling/measurement of their welfare.
This seems insignificant when compared with other selector genes such as H63D and C282Y, which could potentially double or halve subjects life span depending on environmental factors.
Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life
#3Anyone else envious of mice always being on the cutting edge of science?
Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life
#4Anyone else envious of mice always being on the cutting edge of science?
As I understand it, you can order 400 genetically identical mice very easily. Eliminating confounds, easy access, quick lifespans (for iteration) and mammals with at least some transferability to humans is the primary reason. Plus, unlike monkeys, no one cares.
Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life
#5How does it affect susceptibility to cancer?
Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life
#6Anyone else envious of mice always being on the cutting edge of science?
The cutting edge most literally, that is, the scalpel, and other sharp tools.
I don't know how enviable is that on average. Most experiments don't end up with a discovery, let alone a discovery of something beneficial.
Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life
#7I don't quite understand the premise of longevity research.
Isn't there a concept similar to "no free lunch" in biology? Infinite, cancer-free lives sounds just too good to be true. Something sounds off about that.
Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life
#8I don't quite understand the premise of longevity research. Isn't there a concept similar to "no free lunch" in biology? Infinite, cancer-free lives sounds just too good to be true. Something sounds off about that.
"Isn't there a concept similar to "no free lunch" in biology?"
Is there? Is this a widely accepted scientific fact? What does this even mean? That you can't get a benefit without a cost? I thought that this phrase comes from economics. I think you're thinking of economics which is... not human biology.
"Infinite, cancer-free lives sounds just too good to be true. Something sounds off about that."
So just accept the fact that we all die and not learn about our bodies? I mean I don't know; some of us value being alive and prefer to stay that way if possible. Do you not also see dying as a problem?
If you were to know that you were going to die tomorrow you wouldn't see that as a problem? Or is it only not a problem if you die at the sort of average full human lifespan age of ~70-80? Why is dying then ok and not tomorrow?
Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life
#9Anyone else envious of mice always being on the cutting edge of science?
As I understand it, you can order 400 genetically identical mice very easily. Eliminating confounds, easy access, quick lifespans (for iteration) and mammals with at least some transferability to humans is the primary reason. Plus, unlike monkeys, no one cares.
> you can order 400 genetically identical mice very easily.
And in many variants, for example one’s likely to be diabetic, get Alzheimer’s disease, etc.
If you want to know more of mouse dystopia, visit https://www.jax.org/jax-mice-and-services
> Plus, unlike monkeys, no one cares.
Animal welfare groups do, as does the law in some (most, I hope) countries.
I do, too, but I do realize I benefit from that mouse dystopia, too.
Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life
#10By 4% which may as well be experimental error, right? The mice could have very well just lived longer due to increased interest/handling/measurement of their welfare. This seems insignificant when compared with other selector genes such as H63D and C282Y, which could potentially double or halve subjects life span depending on environmental factors.
I would hope that they controlled for such systematic effects in the experiment (did not read the paper) by mixing individuals from both groups (my guess would be that they do not look different). I guess they should have also modified some other random gene in the control. Did they actually?
However, I find it very interesting that all those important details seem somewhere hidden in the paper. Also I guess if you consider a 10x increase between the species and then end up with 4% this sound really far less spectacular.