Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Deathbeddit t1_j4arcin wrote

To start, I’d like an explanation on:

  • If using mice, why not use old mice, it’s not like they live forever? “Accelerating aging” in mice and then reversing effects seems roundabout and to not be testing what they say they’re interested in.

  • if the modification is essentially dedifferentiation: “instructions guided the cells to restart the epigenetic changes that defined their identity as, for example, kidney and skin cells” what is to stop the cells from uncontrolled growth (cancer)?

43

yaosio t1_j4dmzhi wrote

Because they need to control everything that happens to the mice. If you start with old mice a lot could have happened in their short lives. Even if they lived in a lab records could be neglected.

15

pittaxx t1_j4fncvi wrote

Mouse lifespan is 6 months to 2 years (wild vs perfect conditions). If you are doing research like this, you could age them up naturally yourself and have full records. Heck, you could even do most experiments on artificially aged mice and then use a smaller group of naturally and mice to confirm the results.

2

HauschkasFoot t1_j4cli72 wrote

Very good questions that I’m also curious about myself. Like why not get some mice, let them age, and then do the tests? Because it takes too much time? Seems like drugs like this take several years to develop/test so that wouldn’t make sense.

Because they’re more prone to developing complicating conditions (unrelated to “aging”) that could disrupt what they are testing for? Gives them a more consistent baseline/control group. But even then they can easily get enough mice to eliminate those anomalous mice as they present themselves, and have enough remaining for the experiment.

As to the cancer point, I’d imagine that just by purely numbers they would inherently be at a higher risk of developing cancer relative to an unmedicated person their age.

6