PDA

View Full Version : Stem cells of humans and mice differ more strongly than suspected


barbara
03-05-2010, 02:15 PM
Unbelievable! That's what I thought after reading this. How many millions of dollars and years have been wasted researching endlessly on rodents? Now, we are told that these tests may be useless and misleading.


March 5, 2010


Neural differentiation of mouse epiblast stem cells by inactivating the FGF signalling pathway. Molecular mechanisms to differentiate human and mouse stem cells may be similar but may also vary substantially on occasion.

(PhysOrg.com) -- They are considered to be the most important model organism for research into human biology: mice may look totally different, but they are in many ways similar to Homo sapiens on a fundamental level.

For instance, an impressive 99 per cent of the mouse genes are matched by a corresponding sequence in the human genome. That is also why the law in this part of the world only permits scientists to conduct research on human embryo stem cells when they have "clarified in advance" their specific questions by using animal cells as far as possible. However, such tests are often pointless - and sometimes even misleading, as a recent study by scientists working with Hans Sch?ler at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine in M?nster demonstrates. (Cell Stem Cell, March 5th, 2010)

For years scientists have puzzled over to what extent the findings of studies on the embryonic stem cells (ES cells) of mice are transferable to humans. It is certainly true that human and mouse ES cells are both pluripotent. That means they are capable of forming any of the body?s cell types, numbering more than 200 in all. And both types of cells have an active Oct4 transcription factor, for example. This is the gene that is essential for maintaining pluripotency, and is what makes egg cells, as well as embryonic stem cells and early embryos, potentially immortal.

In other aspects, though, as scientists have known for some time now, human and mouse ES cells differ enormously. Certain signalling substances that can be used to turn mouse cells into liver, nerve or muscle cells, for instance, produce either no effect or totally different effects in human ES cells.

The reasons for this are still uncertain. However, in 2007 two research teams succeeded in isolating a promising new type of pluripotent cells from mice embryos (see Brons et al., Nature 448, 2007). Known as epiblast stem cells (EpiSC), these cells are also pluripotent. However, they stem from a later stage of embryonic development: unlike ?traditional? ES cells, which are harvested from a few-days-old embryo in the blastocyst stage, these are harvested from an embryo that has just lodged itself in the uterus and which is referred to as an epiblast.

The astonishing thing about it is that although epiblast stem cells are actually a step ahead in their development, they appear to be more similar to human ES cells than ?classic? mouse ES cells are. For example, both epiblast stem cells and human ES cells can, with the addition of a certain hormone, the FGF2 growth factor, be grown and held in a state in which they can turn into any tissue at all. "Epiblast stem cells from mice are therefore more-or-less equated with human ES cells in the general scientific discussion," says Boris Greber, the lead author of the study.

Differing effects of signal molecules

But Greber, a biochemist, wanted to know more. In their latest study, he and his fellow scientists therefore looked at how mouse epiblast and human embryonic stem cells react to different growth factors and inhibitors - and they found that the two types of cells do, in fact, differ on a crucial point. Whereas the FGF growth factor actively supports the self-renewal of human ES cells, this is not the case with mouse epiblast cells.

"Ultimately, what this means is that many preliminary tests on animal cells - particularly in medically relevant projects - may not only be useless, but the findings from this kind of early testing may even be misleading," explains Hans Sch?ler, who goes on to say that human ES cells will therefore continue to be absolutely essential for stem cell research in the future. "The recent successes in reprogramming mature human somatic cells sometimes make it look as though tests using human ES cells are nowadays redundant. But appearances are deceptive." Neither the technologies for reprogramming nor those for purposefully differentiating cells are as yet fully-developed.

Human stem cells remain indispensable

Only a fraction of the cells that the scientists treat with their formulas go on to display the right attributes. And only through elaborate, time-consuming tests can the successfully transformed cells be picked out from among the large numbers of cells that failed to be completely reprogrammed. "Our latest study demonstrates that animal model systems are inadequate for a great many tests of this kind," says Sch?ler. "Particularly when we?re talking about developing safe and effective stem cell therapies, we will still need human ES cells as the gold standard against which to compare everything else. In such cases, lengthy preliminary testing on animal cells risks wasting valuable time and resources."

More information: Conserved and divergent roles of FGF signaling in mouse epiblast stem cells and human embryonic stem cells, Cell Stem Cell, 5 March 2010, doi:10.1016/j.stem.2010.01.003

Provided by Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

barbara
03-05-2010, 02:27 PM
If you liked the news about mice, then you will probably like this article on fat rats as well.


March 5, 2010 by Lin Edwards lab rats

(PhysOrg.com) -- Many laboratory animals are over-fed and under-excercised, and failing to recognize this may lead researchers to misinterpret the results of their experiments, according to a new study by the Laboratory of Neurosciences at the US National Institute on Aging in Bethesda, Maryland.

The researchers found that many rodents used in laboratories have constant access to food, but little access to exercise. As a result many are overweight, under-exercised, glucose-intolerant, and heading for premature death. In some cases, ?fat rats? can weight up to 1 kg. The results of experiments on overweight rats and mice, such as those done in the development of therapeutic drugs, may therefore not apply to animals of normal weight.

Mark Mattson, co-author of the paper, published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), said ?the vast majority of investigators? using rats and mice do not recognize or take into account the fact that the conditions in which they are kept are generally unhealthy. Mattson said the data obtained from these animal models would be most relevant to people who are sedentary and overweight, rather than those who are active and healthy weight.

According to the research group, beneficial effects found in laboratory studies for a therapeutic drug or behavior must be reinterpreted in the light of the animals? unhealthy lifestyles, including research showing that lifespans can be extended by caloric restriction. Mattson said the main reason lifespan of rodents is extended is because they are beginning from an unhealthy state.

Other research results that may need to be re-examined include those on cancer treatments, neurological disorders such as Alzheimer?s disease, and immune functions. The obesity of the laboratory rats and mice means, for example, that the health problems and diseases they develop in drug studies may be mistaken for side-effects, when they are in fact simply related to being overweight. Mattson notes that many biological processes, such as inflammation and susceptibility to disease, are affected by diet and exercise, so while ?fat rats? are good models for obesity research, treatments that work on these overweight animals may be ineffective, skew the results, or produce novel side effects in individuals of healthy weight.

Mattson suggested the problem could be overcome by encouraging researchers to adopt measures such as feeding only on alternate days, and providing exercise wheels in cages.

More information: 'Control' laboratory rodents are metabolically morbid: Why it matters, Bronwen Martin et at., Published online before print March 1, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.0912955107