Ami992 t1_iw3qdud wrote
In my lab we have few mothods of creating tumors in general and in specific places:
- We breed mice that dont have a tumor suppressor genes so they have random cancers in random areas of the body.
- Something we inject the tail vain with cancer cells (in my case cells that i suspect are canserus) the cell's usually metastasize in the lungs
- we can remove a lobe from the liver and inject cancer cells to the pancreas in order to create liver tumors
- we have the cre-lox system that turns off tumer suppressor genes in specific area of the body to induce cancers in hard to reach parts (usually the nervous system)
I never worked with monkeys but i assume the process is largely the same but require harder premmision from Helsinki comeete.
I have lot's of experience in this subject feel free to ask more questions
userbrn1 OP t1_iw3wnqy wrote
After you turn off the tumor suppressor genes, at that point do you have to wait until you get lucky with the correct mutation you're hoping to study? Or is it relatively quick if you're precise enough with the gene modification
Ami992 t1_iw41tvj wrote
I breed mouse without a Gene called ATM (a very important tumor suppressor gene) the usually develop cancer's at the age of 3-4 months.
I can also breed mice with only one allele of the ATM gene also known as heterozygous mouse, they develop cancer at 1-1.5 years
If time of onset is of concern to me i can raise regular healthy mice with the ATM gene on a cre lox system, so when i give the mice water containing TAMOXIPEN (a drug) the ATM gene will turn off and the mouse will quickly develop tumor's
I can see that you are interested in the oods and luck based approach, 40 years ago humanity did breed animals and observed random occurrences of deseases and studied them. today we are way past that, we have almost complete control of the mose genome and can create whatever desease modle we want - no luck involved.
The problem with developing cures is not creating a sick mouse, when we find a cure that works on a mouse 90% of the time it would not be affective on humans and that's is what holding science back nowadays
[deleted] t1_iw3t9jp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iw6ar38 wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments