h a l f b a k e r yRenovating the wheel
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
wild mouse science protocol
using voluntary wild mice gives 1400 times more value to longevity researchers Also the mice go where they like | |
Researchers that study longevity have noted that deferring disease with longevity treatments defers death which is kind of like curing mouse cancer at month 20 or rabbit atherosclerosis at month 30
Thus from a human perspective deferring cancer or atherosclerosis to beyond 300 feels like a cure at
age 70
There is a way to research longevity drugs that is 1400 times more effective than previous protocols Use the voluntary actions of wild mice to measure the effect of new longevity drugs
Ive visited an area where grain yields are above 100 bushels per acre, that 9k lbs of grain has a value to the farmer near 300 to 400 USD Thus leasing an acre of land to host wild mice is less than $1k
Peak populations of swarming mice are over 80k per acre a more moderate 20 or 40k per acre gives 20 or 40k wild mice to voluntarily consume longevity drugs along with their food at the high N per study of 40 or even 1k mice A thousand plausible longevity drugs could be tested or 40 highly likely prescreened drugs with a huge 1k animals to lend numeric precision to the results
Lab mice are near .49 USD each 24 hours calculating this out is near 7.1 million dollars per 40k Mice each year Yet the wild mice on an acre of land plus grain at 3.9 usd per bushel is less than 5k$ per year thats 1420 times less to host the mice
Thus a 1400 times cheaper way to do longevity research which directly applies to a number of well known human diseases as deferment beyond age 300 is similar to cure
Naturally I figured out autofeeders plus little things that would spray nonvisible UV codes on the mice as well as things that deter predators
1400 times the value gives scientists the ability to use Many more mice per drug to give greater numeric validity
Animal rights persons could be tremendously pleased that the mice travel as they please as well are absent predation
The strategy even complements labwork as it provides super cheap corroboration of findings which would be of great value
90 lbs per bushel
http://www.wheatfoo...eat-facts/Index.htm
[beanangel, Jul 19 2010]
Peak natural occurence of 80k mice per acre
http://www.enature....l.asp?recnum=MA0080
[beanangel, Jul 19 2010]
near .49 per mouse per 24 hours
http://www.mcg.edu/...mal/perdiem2007.htm
[beanangel, Jul 19 2010]
Wheat 3.05 USD per bushel
http://southwestfar...ent_incentive_hard/
[beanangel, Jul 19 2010]
Video version
http://www.youtube....watch?v=VKJC6B4XpgM
[beanangel, Jul 19 2010]
Not cruel
http://www.freelanc...-mouse-a-cookie.gif
[Voice, Jul 20 2010]
a kind of way it might look
http://tinypic.com/...php?pic=2cy4as4&s=3
[beanangel, Jul 21 2010]
[link]
|
| |
The limiting factors on mouse lifespans in the wild are most likely availability of food, environmental factors (winter temperatures), and predation. |
|
| |
Outside a controlled environment, the data gathered would be of very limited value, since any "control" group would not be truly controlled. |
|
| |
So the idea is that wild mice are cheaper because they live outside and forage for themselves? I like the idea of ecologic realism in longetivity research, but once you start spraycoding mice, deterring predators you kill the soul of the thing. |
|
| |
Plus this scheme hinges on mouse choice. Longetivity is all about the long term but mice are about the short term. What if longetivity treatments are nasty? Stuff proven to prolong life in mice: no breeding, semistarvation. Not adaptive in a wild population! |
|
| |
So, indeed, the basic idea is: |
|
| |
(a) Keep wild mice in a big field instead of keeping lab
mice in a lab |
|
| |
(b) Let the mice choose the eat the drugs. |
|
| |
Beany, I hope you won't take it personally when I say this
is an incredibly dumb idea? The reason lab mice are
expensive to keep is that they are genetically quite
uniform and well-defined; their food intake can be
monitored and controlled; their drug dosage can be
monitored and controlled; individual mice can be
identified; they are kept free from random diseases; they
are prevented from killing one another; about a zillion
other reasons. |
|
| |
Some other minor points: many of the relevant
experiments on aging are done using transgenic mice.
How do you plan to do that? Also, I suspect researchers
would not be allowed to expose experimental animals to
the risks of privation, disease, fighting and other such
facts of wild mouse-life. |
|
| |
What annoys me is that you think that (a) if researchers
could afford more mice they'd use more mice; (b) all
research is just a question of "feed them X and see what
happens"; and (c) nobody who works with mice might
perhaps have previously had the deep, deep insight to
think "hey, let's make this cheaper by keeping the mice in
a big field". |
|
| |
I bet c is the case. Those research types are pasty and white, pipettemen dangling limply from their fingers. Plus it would be outrageously hard to control. |
|
| |
I like the idea of a tracking system for wild mice, though. Not sure about the feeding stations as the buff boss mice would take them over and exclude the long-lived spindly ones who do not eat enough and feel no urge to breed. Maybe this could be done without the intervention. After a few years one might spontaneously identify the Methuseleh Mice and then learn what they are doing to make it work. |
|
| |
If there are spontaneous 300 year olds among the human population, I suspect they keep a low profile. They must. Maybe the same is true for mice. |
|
| |
Hey, my Pipetteman never dangles limply. |
|
| |
The idea here is that there is a way to screen 700 longevity compounds at the wild rather than one at the lab to make drug finding more rapid |
|
| |
This rapid development of new drug leads would definitely go with other researchers verifying the result |
|
| |
The very high number of mice per compound like 40 or 700 gives a very strong effect to noise ratio a high N to create p<.0001 measures of effect rather than lesser p values |
|
| |
There are well known longitudinal studies of human populations where they measure the effect of diet on atherosclerosis N is near 10k yet the numeric power goes to studied groups of a few K These studies are sometimes published at Science or Nature There is a statistically valid way to treat very large groups to find publishable applicable effects |
|
| |
If you were measuring a fairly obvious radio effect yet could make just 24 measurements at a clean room or 700 outside the greater number of measurements plus statistical work would be the more complete description |
|
| |
I like the scientific method where noncontrolled effects are minimized I think that there is a place where noncontrolled effects compared with high N with very high P values compensate |
|
| |
Resveratrol makes things live longer If you would like to test 700 alternate forms of resveratrol on mammals this is a technique Also the lab animals get to work voluntarily |
|
| |
Now theres a video It is a video that approaches funny |
|
| |
I think this is workable with proper statistical analysis
and automated checking of which mouse got which
medicine. |
|
| |
I don't think you'd be saving any money once you got it up to lab standards. [ ] |
|
| |
OK, the problem is that mice in the wild have a mean life expectancy of about three months due to predation and the like, so this just doesn't work. Also, they're not human. They have different needs, adaptations, metabolism and so forth. |
|
| |
you can tell humans what to do this is a form of social
contraint n makes for larger p values while testing on
smaller n if it were possible to language facilitate the
mouse life n add compounds to make for better healthy
feelings inside the mouse brain structuritic supports then
maybe mouse talking would make for easier tests but first
we must test the talking mouse compounds like
linguamickey and fastforwardase mousehumanase |
|
| |
Amazing, [daseva]. What language is that, exactly ? |
|
| |
How do you get all the mice to tell you how they're getting on? |
|
| |
In my experience, mice are reluctant to provide this kind of detailed medical information to a strict timetable, they also have a tendency to scurry off. |
|
| |
Use American mice. Big, obese, lazy mice, stuffed with junkfood, wearing sunglasses, sunhats, sandals and ghastley multicoloured Hawaian shirts and shorts ... |
|
| |
No, on second thoughts, don't. |
|
| |
This still boils down to: "Why keep special lab mice in
controlled conditions instead of keeping ordinary mice
cheaper?" |
|
| |
Believe it or not, that level of economic reasoning is not
beyond the abilities of the people who design these
studies, and the people who commission the ludicrously
expensive mouse-houses which keep the mice under
known conditions, with controlled diets and the exclusion
of pathogens. |
|
| |
Experiments involving animals (and indeed people) are
generally assessed for their statistical power very
carefully, to ensure that enough animals are used to give
reliable data, but not more animals than are needed. |
|
| |
If you could get the same data from a gazillion wild mice,
with random genetic backgrounds, living under "wild"
conditions and with very little control over what they eat
or do, this would be great. Sadly, you can't. |
|
| |
Can poorly controlled experiments yield useful data? Like
fair young maids, such data are deceiving, sad experience
teaches me. |
|
| |
//It is time to halt the spread of the vacuous sterile mass of
science//......said the Luddite, typing on his wood-and-
leather PC, uploading the data by means of smoke-signals to
his village's World Wide String-and-Can-Telephone system,
and wishing there were something that could treat his
annoying headache. |
|
| |
I think [rcarty] is doing the Sokol thing. And very skillfully,
too. |
|
| |
Not that they don't have a point: it *is* interesting to
reflect on that word "control." The concept, pragmatically
speaking, seems to be essential to learning anything about
Nature (Science, unlike Engineering, isn't about
*controlling* nature, but about understanding it.) The fact
that we refer to the concept by that name, though, may
say something about the sort of personality which is
attracted to science. |
|
| |
However, I don't for a minute, believe that abandoning the
concept would be beneficial. [rcarty] on the off chance
you're serious, I'll point out that "control, verb,
intransitive" has a different meaning than "control, verb,
transitive" i.e. you can control *for* something without
controlling that thing at all. |
|
| |
Thoughtful persons like [mousposture] as well as [rcarty] have had their annotations republished each with a word removed as I have a word sensitivity |
|
| |
This behavior is, perhaps, kind of rude I appreciate the thoughts |
|
| |
[mouseposture] Jul 20 2010 wrote words similar to |
|
| |
//The reason lab mice are expensive...//
//workable with proper statistical analysis//
A way to cut corners on experimental design and patch it up later with statistics. I'd like to say you'll never get published that way, but I'd be lying. |
|
| |
Essentially, this idea works if uncontrolled variables are random & independent, i.e. what statisticians call "error" rather than "bias." Under that (unrealistic) assumption, enlarging your sample size wipes out the effect of the uncontrolled variables. |
|
| |
Does this work in practice? Well, in the case of humans, as opposed to mice, we have an answer from epidemiology: In general uncontrolled variables cause so much bias as to swamp any effect of interest. The (imperfect) solution, is to measure as many other variables as possible (sex, family history, diet, occupation ...) and build a statistical model of their effect on the dependent variable of interest, so that effect can be "subtracted" out of the data. ("Subtracted" meant literally only if it's a linear model.) |
|
| |
But [Maxwell_Buchanan], one often sees crappy observational epidemiological studies, relating, say, calcium channel blockers to cancer, without much control or compensation for confounding variables. No one (except science journalists, unfortunately) takes them seriously *except* as a way to "get the ball rolling" and generate interest & funding for better-designed studies. |
|
| |
Might not this be described as a ( ) to do something similar (effectively, though not strictly observational) in mice?
— mouseposture, Jul 20 2010 |
|
| |
[rcarty] Jul 20 2010 wrote words similar to |
|
| |
I've read through the above annotations, and must comment that the prevailing theme of control is unsettling to say the least. These modern notions that science can be used to predict and control, and control to better predict are well past expiry. Like a charity loaf of stale bread, the gifts of science must be received with some ambivalence. The scientist of modern science is the Prometheus of the Space Age, who, instead of stealing fire from the gods, steals the vacuum from Space. And It is into this vacuum the scientist is bound to repeat his or her trials daily perhaps on the livers of an endless supply of specimens, who knows. Not I; but, one thing is for certain. The scientist's vacuum envelopes far beyond the boundaries of his or her existence, but into the lives of all who are touched by the innovations of science. Only these innovations that bring the cold, sterile conditions of the lab to the world outside it give any relevance to the scientist's daily ordeal. I say let their routinized existence be in vain! It is time to halt the spread of the vacuous sterile mass of science before all of humanity is condemned to a tortuous daily routine. Start by stopping the clocks, and voting for Bean's idea.
— rcarty, Jul 20 2010 |
|
| |
I appreciate that people are commenting plus can only prefer that [rcarty] as well as [mouseposture] find the one word edits amusing rather than scurrilious |
|
| |
[mouseposture] has a meaningful criticism, the high N dietary studies first said cholesterol bad, then cholesterol good plus bad, now theres a few kinds of guidance These huge studies of large groups of physicians were the basis for the nutritional policies of entire nations |
|
| |
That said if you can prove a chemical makes mice live three times longer you might have a finding of value |
|
| |
That sounds outrageous yet wild people live hundreds of times longer than wild mice There are mammals that live two or three times longer than people There are even plants that have lived more than 40k years (kings holly) all share DNA as well as mitochondria plus lipid membranes |
|
| |
Using wild mice with better numeric techniques gives the developing world the opportunity to do much more research as well China has a cultural tradition of valuing longevity as well as literally millions of people cleverer than the cleverest person at my high school Creating these techniques makes research more value effective |
|
| |
[mb] notes the value of transgenic organisms Although this is a little different than wild mice clonal or near clonal sibling mice could certainly be used thus creating 20k or 40k near clonal mice at a field gives much greater specificity of physiological effect |
|
| |
Ive read some grumbling about how say one researcher used a particular variety of mouse then another researcher got different results with a different breed Using multiple forms of field living near clonal mice could provide higher quality data |
|
| |
Also it creates the appealing idea of doing labwork online A researcher or just thoughtful amateur clicks on the number of mice, the numeric process that is used to characterize the results plus a chemical code from Sigma or CAS |
|
| |
here is a way
If you have a feeling that just as water biofilms form on surfaces as having just one side of an organism kept away from wave action promotes survival may translate like cytomorphology changes are nearly the same as doubling or halving cytokine transport surface Then you could just feed the mice some kind of tubulin modifier that might change their cytomorphology to find effects |
|
| |
Online just describe the dose, the N, the CAS number plus the observational form |
|
| |
similar multiplier technologies worked with semiconductors as well as gene sequencing I think wild voluntary mice could give researchers a power multiplier |
|
| |
note the obvious engineering compared with science flavor here Both rule, I'm just feeling product creation urges I wouldnt know cytokines without the science (not that I know them now) |
|
| |
Also the idea is that this is kinder to the mice although you could say that mice engineered to be full of genes like Met-Met COMT that humans actually feel as happiness are a way to amplify mouse quality of life |
|
| |
Despite snide remarks to the contrary, there
nothing wrong with doing studies under less
controlled conditions. Large populations tend to
correct for random external variations. We don't
breed humans for lab tests and keep them locked
up when we test drugs on our own populations,
and that fact does not invalidate the results of
those tests. |
|
| |
But [zen_tom] seems to have a valid concern regarding how one would get any feedback as to
the treatments effectiveness. How can you track
the longevity of a wild mouse population? |
|
| |
//there nothing wrong with doing studies under less
controlled conditions// |
|
| |
No, there isn't, if you can't control conditions. But, when
you can control some variables, you do so. This avoids the
need to "average out" those variables, and allows you to
get more secure data, or to use a smaller sample
population. |
|
| |
The point I keep coming back to is that, believe it or not,
many scientists are capable of considering the basic idea
of "maybe we should try cheaper ways to keep mice".
They have considered it, and rejected it, reluctantly. |
|
| |
Kind of people to keep commenting
Theres now an image with writing at the link |
|
| |
Video audio as well as some laser measurements of the mouse are gathered |
|
| |
Also "roombaish" mechanisms gather isotope ratio or chemocoded mouse poop from coded drugs to provide data samples on each mouses chemistry |
|
| |
The writing at the image says |
|
| |
The mice move through the corridors to get food whenever they pass a Green place the videocamera views their uv coded fur (as well as possible GFP type clonal identifier) then permits visiting the yummy food area that has drugged food that a mechanism gives precisely to them or if they feed ad lib as a group just permits that group of mice with particular UV coding The green view area also records their walking acoustics to detect movement form changes that may go with the drug although mostly the scientists would computer process the video Also there is laser measurement of things like BP or pulse as well as some chemistry |
|
| |
Very impressive would be to have the drug isotope or chemocoded to show which mouse poops went with which mouse then a roomba like mechanism could do chemical labwork on mouse specific samples as part of the studies The entire thing is voluntary as the mice have food outside the labstation its just that the labstation is more amusing to the mice than the field (studies show mice like plus use mouse toys plus might prefer flavor improved longevity food above wild mouse food) |
|
| |
Beany, go do it and let us know how it works out. |
|
| |
Do longetivity drug screens with fruit flies. Cheap! Then use only the cream of the crop with expensive mice. |
|
| |
Ah, but dey do dat, don't dey, dough? |
|
| |
We'll watch out for that one in McDonalds. |
|
| |