Scientists have used lab mice to decipher the mechanisms of the immune system due to its low cost, availability as well as the wide variety of inbred strains. The researchers also find it easy to manipulate and standardize pathogen free husbandry thus increasing reproductivity of research experiments. The study by Rosshart et al., (2017) compared the microbiomes of lab and wild rats and their ability to counter inflammation and survive influenza infections and resistance against inflammation.
The scientific method consists of a series of steps followed by scientists as they conduct their studies. The steps are usually presented in a logical way where the researcher begins by asking a question then conducting some background studies and developing a hypothesis. The hypothesis is then tested with an experiment and the procedure is determined whether it is working. The data is then analyzed and conclusions are drawn. The results are compared with the hypothesis developed earlier to determine whether they align. Finally, the results are communicated. All studies must not follow the logical process as outlined. Similarly, the scientist can go back to any step that they desire if they wish.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The researchers in this study were interested in understanding why experiments in lab mice were different from human and other animal outcomes. The researchers hypothesized that lab mice do not have essential symbiotic interactions with the host microbes necessary for host physiology that includes immunity which is found in mice in the natural environment that evolve under pressure from communicable diseases as well as naturally occurring inflammatory immune stimuli. According to the study, it is difficult to predict the utility of lab mice in modeling complex disease of mammals living in the natural environment. The study examined how restoring the natural gut microbiome in lab mice affected the response of the host to infectious diseases. The researchers gave the lab mice a naturally co-evolved wild mouse gut microbiota to give them what they have lost in the controlled environment. Over 800 wild mice were trapped from eight different locations to identify healthy suitable candidates that could donate gut microbiota. The scientist then tested and compared the microbiomes of the wild mice and a strain of lab mice from different sources (Rosshart et al., 2017). The researchers established that the common strain in the lab mice had gut microbiomes held by wild mice.
The researchers engrafted the microbiota found in wild mice to pregnant lab mice raised in a sterile environment and lacking their own microbiomes for control group comparison. The scientists also introduced microbiota from regular mice to germ-free pregnant mice in separate groups (Cell Press, 2017). It was found out that the mice still carried the microbiomes from the wild or those from the control lab four generations later.
Exposure to high doses of influenza led to different outcomes where 92% of lab mice having wild microbiomes survived compared to 17% of those on the control group. Similarly, the lab mice having wild microbiomes showed better response to induced colorectal tumors compared to the other mice which had more rumors and severe diseases. The wild micro biodata therefore led to the decline in inflammation in the models (Cell Press, 2017). The dependent variables in the research were disease response and the independent variable was the natural microbiota.
The test subjects and treatment in the study were relevant and appropriate as most of the studies use mice to determine the reactions of human and other animals to different microbiota. It can therefore be relevant in the study of how microbiota could be transferred from one generation to the other and its relevance in disease prevention. The study can therefore be used to perform additional research using different sample size and environments. The sample size of 800 mice from 8 natural environments was large enough to enable the researchers to draw a conclusion that could be applied to the larger population. The sample size therefore reduced the margin of error and increased the confidence level of the study. It also enhance the power to detect differences in the samples. The method used in this study was appropriate as it gave the researchers the ability to compare different groups and to draw conclusions. The research meth.ods used in the study were also appropriate as they resulted in information that could be used for comparison and drawing of a conclusion (Wisker, 2008). There are potential biases in this type of research like the confirmation bias where a researcher forms a hypothesis and uses the finding s to confirm the belief. One of the limitation of the conclusion of the study is how to combine a complete mouse microbiome with natural occurring murine pathogens as a way of improving mouse model accuracy.
The research is relevant for the world and for the students as it gives an insight of the differences in the microbiomes in wild and lab mice. It helps in the understanding of how microbiota plays a critical role in the health of a living organisms advancing knowledge on how improvements can be made to address serious medical issues.
References
Cell Press. (2017). Gut bacteria from wild mice boost health in lab mice. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171019143012.htm
Rosshart, S., Vassallo, B., Angeletti, D., Hutchinson, D., Morgan, A., & Takeda, K. et al. (2017). Wild Mouse Gut Microbiota Promotes Host Fitness and Improves Disease Resistance. Cell , 171 (5), 1015-1028.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.016
Wisker, G. (2008). The postgraduate research handbook (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
