Inflammation Data Clash

Identical datasets yield opposite conclusions on the use of mice as models of human inflammation.

By | August 7, 2014

WIKIMEDIA, DOUG BECKERSIn 2013, a large group of collaborators published a paper in PNAS concluding that genomic responses to inflammatory stress in mice don’t correlate well with those in humans. “The prevailing assumption—that molecular results from current mouse models developed to mimic human diseases translate directly to human conditions—is challenged by our study,” Junhee Seok, who’s now at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, and his colleagues wrote in their paper.

Fast forward to last week, and another study, using the very same data, reached the opposite conclusion.

“Here we re-evaluated the same gene expression datasets used in the previous study by focusing on genes whose expression levels were significantly changed in both humans and mice,” Keizo Takao and Tsoyosji Miyakawa wrote in their recent paper, also published in PNAS. “Contrary to the previous findings, the gene expression patterns in the mouse models showed extraordinarily significant correlations with those of the human conditions.”

So what gives?

According to a press release from Fujita Health University, where Miyakawa is based, the original study compared all the genomic changes, regardless of whether the involved genes only responded to the stress in one of the species. Such an approach “obscures the correlation between homologous genes of humans and mice to nearly zero, as demonstrated by Seok et al.” in the 2013 paper, the release read.

Gregory Hickok, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, tweeted: “Reflects that the conclusions aren’t automatically given by data. It’s all in the interpretation.”

Hat tip: Richard Sever

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You



Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo


Avatar of: Paul Stein

Paul Stein

Posts: 205

August 7, 2014

Let's look at reality.  Do the drugs that work in mice also work in people?  If not, then we need to take a cold, hard look at the gene expression datasets in mice as an indicator of anything translation-wise, and then look for a better animal model.

Avatar of: Mary Finelli

Mary Finelli

Posts: 24

August 7, 2014

The only good animal model for human beings is a human being. Stop torturing sentient beings and wasting time and money on vivisection. 

Popular Now

  1. UC Berkeley Receives CRISPR Patent in Europe
    Daily News UC Berkeley Receives CRISPR Patent in Europe

    The European Patent Office will grant patent rights over the use of CRISPR in all cell types to a University of California team, contrasting with a recent decision in the U.S.

  2. What Budget Cuts Might Mean for US Science
    News Analysis What Budget Cuts Might Mean for US Science

    A look at the historical effects of downsized research funding suggests that the Trump administration’s proposed budget could hit early-career scientists the hardest.  

  3. Opinion: On “The Impact Factor Fallacy”
  4. Unstructured Proteins Help Tardigrades Survive Desiccation
Business Birmingham