Café de Nuit

I don't know how many people on this site get the Greater Philadelphian Newspapers, but in the comics section of December 30th, they had a picture of a mouse in the ripley's section. Apparently, Massachucet(ian?) scientists had used cow cartiladge cells to grow a human (it looks human) ear on this mouse! This all happened at a Massachucets college. I know Arkham was in Rhode Island, but weren't most of the colleges up there in possession of the Necronomicon?

Oh, and it also happens to be true that African Eliphants are terrified of bees, and probably said mouse. I would be to.

^I had read about that online a few years ago. Sick and disturbing. Modern science has so much potential for great things, what's the point of doing something like that? IMO, we're over-stepping our bounds.

LadySoth wrote:^I had read about that online a few years ago. Sick and disturbing. Modern science has so much potential for great things, what's the point of doing something like that? IMO, we're over-stepping our bounds.

What's the point of growing human ears on the backs of mice, you mean? To give people ear transplants. (No, seriously!)

I suspect that when they actually implement that technology, an ear will be grown beneath the skin of the person who needs the transplant, from that person's own cartilage. (That way, there won't be any mouse or cow tissue to contaminate the graft.) It's a lot like how people who are going to need skin grafts can have a balloon implanted under their dermis that is slowly inflated over several weeks, causing extra skin to grow.

The mouse-with-an-ear-on-its-back is partly a way to prove the idea is workable, and partly a publicity gimmick to get funding for the research. IIRC, a mouse like that actually appeared on some talk shows a number of years ago, just because it looks so weird.

All of this just goes to show that truth can be scarier than fiction -- and worse to confront when you want to keep down your dinner. >.<

I suspect that when they actually implement that technology, an ear will be grown beneath the skin of the person who needs the transplant, from that person's own cartilage. (That way, there won't be any mouse or cow tissue to contaminate the graft.) It's a lot like how people who are going to need skin grafts can have a balloon implanted under their dermis that is slowly inflated over several weeks, causing extra skin to grow.

The mouse-with-an-ear-on-its-back is partly a way to prove the idea is workable, and partly a publicity gimmick to get funding for the research. IIRC, a mouse like that actually appeared on some talk shows a number of years ago, just because it looks so weird.

You think maybe the idea of Deep Homologies has something to do with that?

For those of you who are wondering what I'm talking about, Deep Homologies are features shared between two organisms that aren't phenotypically homologous (evolved independently), but both came from the same genetic mechanism.

For example: Eyes evolved independently in almost forty different lineages of species. To be more specific, a creature like a fruit fly does not share a common ancestor with Mice that has eyes. The gene that codes for the development of eyes in Mice is known as Pax 6. If a fruit fly has the eyeless mutation within it's genome, it unsurprisingly will not develop eyes. However, if you input the Pax 6 gene into a fruit fly that has eyeless, the fruit fly will develop regular fruit fly eyes (and not mouse eyes). This would suggest that eyes in the ancestors of both mice and fruit flies developed from the same genetic mechanism.

I'm glad I posted my ear-mouse, this is giving me great ideas for Mordenheim!

Undead Cabbage wrote:
For example: Eyes evolved independently in almost forty different lineages of species. To be more specific, a creature like a fruit fly does not share a common ancestor with Mice that has eyes. The gene that codes for the development of eyes in Mice is known as Pax 6. If a fruit fly has the eyeless mutation within it's genome, it unsurprisingly will not develop eyes. However, if you input the Pax 6 gene into a fruit fly that has eyeless, the fruit fly will develop regular fruit fly eyes (and not mouse eyes). This would suggest that eyes in the ancestors of both mice and fruit flies developed from the same genetic mechanism.

That's extremely interesting. I've read that in some remote regions of the world, there are actually eyeless mice that live in caves, underground etc., places of total darkness where no eyesight is necessary. That might be a type of adaptation, the loss of sight, but the strengthening of the other senses.

Rotipher of the FoS wrote:
The mouse-with-an-ear-on-its-back is partly a way to prove the idea is workable, and partly a publicity gimmick to get funding for the research. IIRC, a mouse like that actually appeared on some talk shows a number of years ago, just because it looks so weird.

That's what was so disturbing about that particular experiment. It seemed like more of a gimmick to generate funding/publicity than a viable experiment with real value. From what I'd read, the ear was malformed and not even functional. A better looking cosmetic ear for humans could probably be achieved through plastic surgery IMO.

LadySoth wrote: That's what was so disturbing about that particular experiment. It seemed like more of a gimmick to generate funding/publicity than a viable experiment with real value. From what I'd read, the ear was malformed and not even functional. A better looking cosmetic ear for humans could probably be achieved through plastic surgery IMO.

It was a "proof of concept" experiment, to show that you could, in fact, use the scaffolding/cell growth paradigm the researchers were interested in could work to make a relatively complete cartiliginous structure. It's really, really hard to make good ears and noses by plastic surgery, BTW, because they need a cartilage substructure that is really hard to produce with grafting techniques like those they use for skin. Hence the interest in artificial cartilage production, and the ear on the mouse. The result was pretty grotesque, but I think it was definitely an experiment with scientific and medical value.

Of course, I'm a scientist who does stuff with mice all the time, so my viewpoint is biased.

LadySoth wrote:From what I'd read, the ear was malformed and not even functional.

Well, it wasn't a whole ear, just the external pinna that the average person thinks is an ear. It was never meant to be functional, all by itself; for that, you'd need to grow a complete cochlea, ossicles, and the associated nerves, not just cartilage.

That being said, the pinna increases one's hearing by about 20%, so if you were born without external ears or have lost one in an accident, it'd be a substantial improvement to receive such a graft, not just a matter of aesthetics.

^Well, whatever the reason or justification given, to me, this image will always seem twisted and disgusting:



That's pretty much end of discussion on my part.

... What breed of mouse did they do this to, exactly? Was it already hairless?

Rock wrote:... What breed of mouse did they do this to, exactly? Was it already hairless?

I'm pretty sure it was; I know there are breeds of hairless rats out there (like the hairless cats they're sort of cute in a freak-of-nature way).

The picture above appears to show a rat, not a mouse. Whichever it is, it would've been of a hairless breed.