On 15-01-08 05:09 PM, Elliot Temple wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Paul Wakfer wrote:
>> On 15-01-06 11:19 AM, Craig Cooney wrote:
>>> Dear Edouard,
>>> Thank you for sharing your ppt with us. Because I didn’t see many specifics on how the studies will be run my recommendations include using purified diets like AIN-93 (not NIH-31) and to measure diet intake to determine treatment dosage and to monitor for inadverent CR effects. Also HET mice (Dave Harrison’s recommendation) would be best but another good option (less expensive) would be a well established cross (albeit if only an F1) such as B6C3F1 mice as Steve Spindler used in some of his studies. Inclusion of positive controls of CR mice in the diet studies and known life extending genes in the TG studies (like the Maria Blasco papers I sent today) is important.
>> As Craig pointed out, CR controls are just as important as regular controls and all treatment groups should be monitored for crypto-CR since very often with anything at all foreign to a normal mouse food intake, there will be an automatic reduction of intake, which in itself will have a life/health extending effect if not too great.
>> I would also suggest that all the mice be in similar enriched environments rather than the totally unrealistic small cages with nothing of interest to do.
> Why not cages? Please explain your reasoning.
There is nothing wrong with cages, if they are not too small and totally
devoid of objects of curiosity or activity for a mouse.
> If your suggestion is correct, it will be more persuasive if explained. And people won’t be able to implement it correctly without understanding what they are doing and why.
I did not see the need for explanation, since any person knowledgeable
about the literature relative to mouse experiments will know that there
exist many studies showing that enriched environments result in
healthier longer living mice, which is totally reasonable.
> (I say this not to criticize the lack of detail upfront. I have no objection there. You can’t and shouldn’t preemptively elaborate on everything. I am trying to explain why my question – and the additional details it asks for – are important to the anti-aging mission at GRG. Because these issues matter to how to do scientific experiments related to the GRG mission.)
> One issue I see here is the concept that mice are like people with interests, rather than being like non-intelligent computer software with algorithms.
The literature is replete with studies showing that all mammals (if no
all animals!) are far removed from being “like non-intelligent computer
software with algorithms”.
> Does anyone want to discuss that? Why do you think that? It is relevant to GRG mission b/c it’s relevant to how to do mice experiments which are important for anti-aging research.
> Has a mouse ever done anything that contradicts the algorithmic not-people-like view of mice? I’m not aware of anything despite looking and asking various people in the past. And if all mouse behavior is compatible with the algorithmic view, why reject it?
Because it is a false human/animal dichotomy point of view.
–Paul Wakfer (who has been reading the papers on mouse experiments for
over 30 years).
> This is all crucial to the GRG anti-aging mission because getting experiments right – in every little detail – can be the difference between correct and incorrect scientific conclusions. And also money is limited, so it’s important to know whether it’s necessary to spend money on something more than cages, and if so precisely what parameters it needs to have in detail (and note they need to be clearly defined and repeatable).
>> In addition, the experiments should not be done with certain isolated ingredients that may increase requirements for other ingredients. Rather each diet needs to be a fully consistent whole to the extent that is known or even suspected. There are many such interactions, some of which are well known but many of which are not. Therefore, it would be a good idea to post to this list and elsewhere the precise entire set of parameters planned for each mouse group *before* any further action is taken, so that all such potentially negative problems can be eliminated (at least all that are currently known by members of the groups to which you post).
> I agree about this, I think it makes sense. I also agree about the importance of controls, as explained above.
> I would similarly urge that, before the experiment is done, write a very clear, exact and list of the mouse habitat parameters (if the interesting non-cage approach is taken). It needs to be be specified well enough to be reproducible by other research groups exactly enough to qualify as replicating the same experiment. And it needs to be carefully thought out enough to serve as a kind of standard that future research could use, so we don’t end up with a bunch of different mouse studies using different habitats making the results potentially not comparable. (Maybe there already is such a standard? I don’t know. If so it’d be great to post that for discussion of any flaws it might have that could be worth changing.)
> Elliot Temple