Menus Subscribe Search

Genes Are Us

mouse

(Photo: schankz/Shutterstock)

Are Lab Mice of Men?

• April 18, 2014 • 12:00 PM

(Photo: schankz/Shutterstock)

There have always been limitations to experiments done on mice, but new technology, which allows scientists to replace mouse genes with human genes, could clear the way for new ground to be broken.

For a century, scientists have turned to mice in order to understand our biology—not just our common biology as mammals, but also our specifically human biology. Researchers have made major efforts to create lab mice that replicate some essential aspect of a human disease. Now a recent technological breakthrough makes it possible to “humanize” mice to an unprecedented degree, but it also raises the question: How many of our human traits can we build into a mouse?

Why do researchers use mice? There are the obvious reasons: they are small and easily kept; they breed quickly; and as mammals, they share much of our biology. While mice obviously aren’t tiny humans, for many purposes they are genetically close enough. The broad outlines of the mouse and human genomes are very similar, and nearly all of our roughly 21,000 genes have a murine counterpart. Because mice are so similar to us, researchers can often take a disease mutation discovered in humans and make the corresponding mutation in a mouse in order to learn something about the molecular underpinnings of the disease. There are now many mouse genetic “models” that exhibit key features of human diseases, including common diseases like heart disease, obesity, asthma, type I and type II diabetes; cancers, including Leukemia, pancreatic cancer, and melanoma; and neurological diseases such as autism, Huntington’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and schizophrenia.

How many of our genes can function properly in a mouse? How many mouse genes can you simultaneously replace with human ones and still get a viable mouse? We have no idea.

These mouse models have proven tremendously useful in basic research, but new disease treatments that are developed in mouse studies have a shockingly high failure rate—80 percent—when they are tried in humans. A fair number of these failures happen because the mouse studies were poorly done, but often the problem is that the biology of these mice isn’t human enough. To overcome this issue, scientists attempt to “humanize” lab mice: Instead of simply mutating the mouse version of the gene being studied, researchers conduct a direct DNA transplant to completely replace the mouse gene with the human version. You might think that, like an attempt to run an Android app on an iPhone, humans genes wouldn’t work so well in the mouse operating system. But humanizing mice with DNA transplants works surprisingly well. Last week, three different teams of scientists reported the largest successful human-mouse DNA transplants to date.

The first research team, based at Yale University and University Hospital Zurich, set out to create a mouse that could properly transform human blood stem cells into fully functional immune cells, a process that is a critical part of a healthy immune response. To study this aspect of human immunity, scientists frequently inject human blood stem cells into mice and observe them as they develop into mature immune cells. Unfortunately, the mouse immune system components don’t always play nice with the human cells. By swapping four mouse genes with their human versions, the researchers created mice with humanized immune systems that properly mature human blood stem cells.

The other two research teams, one at U.K.’s Sanger Institute in the U.K. and the biotech company Kymab, and the other at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals in New York, swapped out a different set of immune system genes to create mice that make human antibodies. Both groups, using somewhat different technologies, substituted large human antibody genes for the mouse versions. The human genes appear to function just fine in the mice, which can now produce therapeutic antibodies suitable for treating human disease. More significant, though, are the technological implications: One of the teams replaced 0.002 percent of the mouse genome with human DNA. That may not sound like much, but it’s the largest replacement ever carried out in a mouse, and it’s a game-changer.

THE ABILITY TO MANIPULATE and transfer very short bits of DNA revolutionized molecular biology in the 1970s by removing the barriers to previously impossible experiments. The latest technologies are tearing down a new set of barriers. Earlier this month, a team of researchers reported the first complete synthesis of a “designer” chromosome. In this case it was a yeast chromosome, and thus small by human standards, but it was a thousand times larger than what researchers get from the current standard technology for DNA synthesis. It’s not cheap, but we now have the technology to replace each mouse gene with its human counterpart, and thereby ask previously impossible questions. How many of our genes can function properly in a mouse? How many mouse genes can you simultaneously replace with human ones and still get a viable mouse? We have no idea.

A way to rephrase these questions is this: How modular are human traits? What chunks of our biology can we isolate and transfer to mice, in order to better understand ourselves?

An example of the possibilities and limits of modularizing our biology is a 2009 study (PDF), where researchers at the Max Plank Institute in Leipzig humanized a mouse gene that plays an important role in an essential human trait: speech. Mutations in the gene FOX2P in humans result in severe impairments in the ability to speak and process grammar. Two small differences in FOXP2 distinguish the human version of this gene from that of other mammals, including chimps, our closest non-speaking relatives. It’s tempting to see these two small changes in a single gene as somehow central to one of our most human traits. The Leipzig researchers made those two changes to the mouse FOXP2, in the hope that the results would lead insight into the evolution of human speech.

But the results were more tantalizing than illuminating. The humanized FOXP2 mice showed distinct changes in the sounds they made and in the development of certain neurons. But it’s difficult to say much about the evolution of a complicated trait like language from the observation that “medium spiny neurons have increased dendrite lengths and increased synaptic plasticity” in humanized FOXP2 mice. Divorced from their native context, single human genes are unlikely to reproduce much of our biology in mice, although such experiments can generate important clues. But now we can swap in multiple human genes at once and recreate whole biological systems in mice. How human can we make lab mice? We don’t know what the limits are, but, given the new technology coming online, we haven’t reached them just yet.

Michael White
Michael White is a systems biologist at the Department of Genetics and the Center for Genome Sciences and Systems Biology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, where he studies how DNA encodes information for gene regulation. He co-founded the online science pub The Finch and Pea. Follow him on Twitter @genologos.

More From Michael White

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

September 2 • 2:00 PM

Music Lessons Enhance Brain Function in Disadvantaged Kids

Children from poor neighborhoods in Los Angeles who took regular music lessons for two years were able to distinguish similar speech sounds faster than their peers.


September 2 • 12:00 PM

California Passes a Bill to Protect Workers in the Rapidly Growing Temp Staffing Industry

The bill will hold companies accountable for labor abuses by temp agencies and subcontractors they use.


September 2 • 10:00 AM

SWAT Pranks and SWAT Mistakes

The proliferation of risky police raids over the decades.


September 2 • 9:12 AM

Conference Call: The Graphic Novel


September 2 • 8:00 AM

Why We’re Not Holding State Legislators Accountable

The way we vote means that the political fortunes of state legislators hinge on events outside of their state and their control.


September 2 • 7:00 AM

When Men Who Abstain From Premarital Sex Get Married

Young men who take abstinence pledges have trouble adjusting to sexual norms when they become husbands.


September 2 • 6:00 AM

The Rise of Biblical Counseling

For millions of Christians, biblical counselors have replaced psychologists. Some think it’s time to reverse course.


September 2 • 5:12 AM

No Innovation Without Migration

People bring their ideas with them when they move from place to place.


September 2 • 4:00 AM

Why Middle School Doesn’t Have to Suck

Some people suspect the troubles of middle school are a matter of age. Middle schoolers, they think, are simply too moody, pimply, and cliquish to be easily educable. But these five studies might convince you otherwise.


September 2 • 3:13 AM

Coming Soon: When Robots Lie


September 2 • 2:00 AM

Introducing the New Issue of ‘Pacific Standard’

The science of self-control, the rise of biblical counseling, why middle school doesn’t have to suck, and more in our September/October 2014 print issue.


September 1 • 1:00 PM

Television and Overeating: What We Watch Matters

New research finds fast-moving programming leads to mindless overeating.



September 1 • 6:00 AM

Why Someone Named Monty Iceman Sold Doogie Howser’s Estate

How unusual names, under certain circumstances, can lead to success.



August 29 • 4:00 PM

The Hidden Costs of Tobacco Debt

Even when taxpayers aren’t explicitly on the hook, tobacco bonds can cost states and local governments money. Here’s how.


August 29 • 2:00 PM

Why Don’t Men and Women Wear the Same Gender-Neutral Bathing Suits?

They used to in the 1920s.


August 29 • 11:48 AM

Your Brain Decides Whether to Trust Someone in Milliseconds

We can determine trustworthiness even when we’re only subliminally aware of the other person.


August 29 • 10:00 AM

True Darwinism Is All About Chance

Though the rich sometimes forget, Darwin knew that nature frequently rolls the dice.


August 29 • 8:00 AM

Why Our Molecular Make-Up Can’t Explain Who We Are

Our genes only tell a portion of the story.


August 29 • 6:00 AM

Strange Situations: Attachment Theory and Sexual Assault on College Campuses

When college women leave home, does attachment behavior make them more vulnerable to campus rape?


August 29 • 4:00 AM

Forgive Your Philandering Partner—and Pay the Price

New research finds people who forgive an unfaithful romantic partner are considered weaker and less competent than those who ended the relationship.


August 28 • 4:00 PM

Some Natural-Looking Zoo Exhibits May Be Even Worse Than the Old Concrete Ones

They’re often designed for you, the paying visitor, and not the animals who have to inhabit them.


August 28 • 2:00 PM

What I Learned From Debating Science With Trolls

“Don’t feed the trolls” is sound advice, but occasionally ignoring it can lead to rewards.


August 28 • 12:00 PM

The Ice Bucket Challenge’s Meme Money

The ALS Association has raised nearly $100 million over the past month, 50 times what it raised in the same period last year. How will that money be spent, and how can non-profit executives make a windfall last?


Follow us


Subscribe Now

When Men Who Abstain From Premarital Sex Get Married

Young men who take abstinence pledges have trouble adjusting to sexual norms when they become husbands.

Your Brain Decides Whether to Trust Someone in Milliseconds

We can determine trustworthiness even when we’re only subliminally aware of the other person.

Young, Undocumented, and Invisible

While young migrant workers struggle under poor working conditions, U.S. policy has done little to help.

Education, Interrupted

When it comes to educational access, young Syrian refugees are becoming a “lost generation.”

No, Smartphone-Loss Anxiety Disorder Isn’t Real

But people are anxious about losing their phones, even if they don’t do much to protect them.

The Big One

One third of the United States federal budget for fighting wildfires goes toward one percent of such fires. September/October 2014 big-one-fires-final

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.