Insight from invertebrate models

[Cincinnatus]

Has anyone in this forum worked on translating findings from invertebrates to mammals? I'm wondering how successful this tends to be. How often are actual gene sequences conserved? When the genes are conserved, how often do they have the same function across systems? Or is the most valuable part of invertebrate research (in terms of implications to mammalian research) the "insight" (whatever that means) gained from the better control of the system we usually have in invertebrates?

I once took a class from a rather famous invertebrate biologist who had a pretty disdainful attitude toward research done in mammals. I wonder how widespread this view is among people who work on invertebrates.

If I remember correctly, In the study of circadian rhythms. A bunch of genes were implicated first in Drosophila, though one of the critical ones for the way the system works in Drosophila was first found in mice. It turned out that a lot of the same genes were involved in both systems. However, the overall functioning of the circadian rhythm system seemed pretty different between them despite similar genes being involved.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Other groups working on similar problems to mine (mechanosensation and the cilia) use Clamydomonas (an algae) as a model system. The relevant genes (ciliary/flagellar) are remarkably conserved and have the same functions.

In the end, NIH funds research towards solving human diseases. Use of invertebrate models in this context is useful because some aspect of the system is simple- culture conditions, for example.

 

[oswaler]

As a scientist who has worked with both invertebrate and mammalian models, I can say that translating findings from invertebrates to mammals can be successful, but it is not always straightforward. In general, the more evolutionarily distant the two species are, the less likely it is that the gene sequences will be conserved. However, there are certainly cases where important genes and pathways have been found to be conserved between invertebrates and mammals.

One example of this is the study of circadian rhythms, as mentioned in the post. While some of the genes involved in this process were first discovered in Drosophila, it was later found that many of these same genes are also present and have similar functions in mammals. However, it is important to note that the overall functioning of the circadian rhythm system can still differ between the two species, despite the conservation of certain genes.

In terms of the value of invertebrate research for mammalian research, I would say that it is not just about gaining insight from having better control of the system. While this can certainly be a benefit, invertebrate models also allow us to study fundamental biological processes in a simpler and more tractable system. This can provide valuable information and insights that can then be applied to more complex mammalian systems.

As for the attitude of some invertebrate researchers towards mammalian research, I believe this is not a widespread view. In fact, many scientists recognize the importance of studying both invertebrates and mammals in order to fully understand biological processes. Each model has its own strengths and limitations, and it is important to use a variety of models to gain a comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon.

In conclusion, translating findings from invertebrates to mammals can be successful, but it is not always a straightforward process. Gene sequences can be conserved, but the overall functioning of biological processes can still differ between species. The value of invertebrate research lies not just in gaining insight, but also in studying fundamental processes in a simpler system. It is important for scientists to use a variety of models in their research to gain a comprehensive understanding of biological processes.