• Mon. Nov 28th, 2022

First, nonhuman animals share genetic and physiologic similarity to humans

Byacusticavisual

Jan 21, 2022

First, nonhuman animals share genetic and physiologic similarity to humans. more accurate models to medical research. For example, scientists can modulate animal genomes Madecassoside Madecassoside by adding or deleting genes to mimic disease or to study the function of these genes [12]. These animals are called transgenic animals. The most common transgenic animal is the transgenic mouse, but this technology applies to other species like rats, cats, and rabbits [1,13,14,15,16]. Open in a separate window Figure 2 Number of Pubmed indexed publications on different animal models. The number of publications is the number obtained when entering the keyword in the search bar on PubMed website. 1.2. Why Animal Testing There are many reasons why scientists all over the world still use animals to study human diseases. First, non-human animals share genetic and physiologic similarity to humans. For example, mice share 80% of their genome with humans [17]. Since animals are very similar to humans, they can suffer diseases similar to human ones. For example, Joseph von Mering and Madecassoside Oskar Minowski have used a dog pancreas to prove that the pancreas has a role in diabetes [18]. Another advantage of an animal models is that while they often have a shorter life expectancy than humans, they generally share a similar ageing pattern; therefore, scientists can study disease in a lifetime in less time than in a human body [13]. Moreover, some pathologies or biological phenomena, requiring interaction between several organs, do require the use of animals as an experimental unit: for example, studying metastases. In addition, despite the intense work of lobbying from opponents Madecassoside to animal testing, many regulatory agencies still require the use of animals in preclinical testing phases. For example, U.S. federal laws require that nonhuman animal research occur to show the safety and efficacy of new treatments before any human research will be conducted (U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Investigational New Drug (IND) Application. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 5 October 2017. Available at the US Food and Drug Administration website. 1.3. Relevance of 3R Principles in Research If animal models can be seen as valuable tools to study human diseases, they nevertheless have several flaws. For example, more ethical concerns have been raised about the use of living things in research. In 1959, Russel and Burch defined the 3R principles for animal use in research: replacement, reduction, and refinement. To offer better treatment to laboratory animals, 3Rs were proposed in the principle of human experiment technique [19]. Replacing should be the primary goal of the 3Rs: if the research no longer uses Madecassoside animals, the problem related to their use disappears. Nevertheless, as this seems unrealistic in the short or medium term, reducing and refining should be short/middle-term goals. The term reduce means minimization of the number of animals that are used in research and the term PTPRQ refine corresponds to the use of techniques that are doing less harm to animals [20]. 1.4. Why Replacing, Reducing, and Refining? 1.4.1. Replacement In several cases, animal models should be replaced by more accurate and innovative in vitro models. First, there are many ethical concerns about animal use in research [21]. Moreover, the translation of results obtained from animal models to humans has long been questioned. In some cases, results observed in animals do not accurately predict human responses, like it has been the case for different toxicity tests that did not succeed in accurately predicting toxicity in humans [22]. The complexity of whole mammal organisms is also an aspect to consider [23]. Although animal models have been improved over time, for instance, to study specific conditions, there are still uncontrollable variables in animal organisms [24]. The reproducibility of research involving animal models has also been considered inferior, especially in preclinical research [25]. Because of the possible lack of relevant animal testing results, this practice has been qualified wasteful by some [26,27]. For example, the chimpanzee was considered an excellent model to develop a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) vaccine in the 1990s. Some vaccines were promising in the primate, but the results were not the same in human trials. Indeed, the chimpanzee does not have the same immune system as humans. Still today, no vaccine has been found to prevent HIV [28]..