Gene targeting trio win the Nobel

S.A.M.

uniquely dreadful
Valued Senior Member
Two American scientists and a Briton won the 2007 Nobel Prize in medicine on Monday for groundbreaking discoveries that led to a powerful technique for manipulating mouse genes.

The widely used process has helped scientists use mice to study heart disease, diabetes, cancer, cystic fibrosis and other diseases.


The prize is shared by Mario R. Capecchi, 70, of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City; Oliver Smithies, 82, a native of Britain now at University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, and Sir Martin J. Evans, 66, of Cardiff University in Wales.

The three scientists were honored for a technique called gene targeting, which lets scientists deactivate or modify particular genes in mice. That in turn lets them study how those genes affect health and disease.

To use this technique, researchers introduce a genetic change into mouse embryonic stem cells. These cells are then injected into mouse embryos. The mice born from these embryos are bred with others, to produce offspring with altered genes.

The first mice with genes manipulated in this way were announced in 1989. More than 10,000 different genes in mice have been studied with the technique, the Nobel committee said. That's about half the genes the rodents have.

"Gene targeting has pervaded all fields of biomedicine. Its impact on the understanding of gene function and its benefits to mankind will continue to increase over many years to come," said the citation for the $1.54 million prize.


http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=3701925
 
Its impact on the understanding of gene function and its benefits to mankind will continue to increase over many years to come," said the citation for the $1.54 million prize.

You could also say that they hindered a true understanding of gene function and will do so for years to come.
 
Why do you say that? A lot of people are using these mice.

and they were perplexed to mostly find no phenotypes. Which is only suprising if you believe in the dogma that the knockout technology is based on. A dogma that held back true understanding of the function of the gene and still is doing exactly that same thing.

Hence my statement.
 
and they were perplexed to mostly find no phenotypes. Which is only suprising if you believe in the dogma that the knockout technology is based on. A dogma that held back true understanding of the function of the gene and still is doing exactly that same thing.

Hence my statement.

We've used cre-lox tissue specific gene knockouts to study effects for vitamin D receptor and 1 alpha hydroxylase genes and they seem pretty useful (just started so I'm talking basics) in studying extrarenal activation of dihydroxyvitamin D. Do you mean in terms of alternate pathways initiated in knockouts or something else?

I'm not getting what you are driving at; what dogma?
 
Fine then. But without being prepared to give explanations/evidence, making a claim in this thread in the first place was pretty meaningless, wasn't it? :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top