Random question: Why is there such a large difference between the life extension results for mice vs. for rats. Naively, they seem like they’re pretty similar.
Are we trying different kinds of treatments on one than the other for some reason, or is it just much harder to intervene on rat life-spans?
My understanding is that the usual lab mouse breeds are highly inbred, resulting in high levels of cancer. That makes is “easier”, in some sense, to extend their lifespans—especially by interventions which trade off cancer risk against other age-related deterioration. For instance, there are ways to make cells more sensitive to DNA damage, so they undergo senescence at lower damage levels. This can decrease cancer risk, at the cost of accelerating other age-related degeneration.
Random question: Why is there such a large difference between the life extension results for mice vs. for rats. Naively, they seem like they’re pretty similar.
Are we trying different kinds of treatments on one than the other for some reason, or is it just much harder to intervene on rat life-spans?
My understanding is that the usual lab mouse breeds are highly inbred, resulting in high levels of cancer. That makes is “easier”, in some sense, to extend their lifespans—especially by interventions which trade off cancer risk against other age-related deterioration. For instance, there are ways to make cells more sensitive to DNA damage, so they undergo senescence at lower damage levels. This can decrease cancer risk, at the cost of accelerating other age-related degeneration.