Talk:Genetically altered mice are "superathletes"

This is a very surprising discovery, and I think an article on this topic should make it to the Wikipedia main page. Note, however, that I have not as yet accessed the full journal article, so my contribution remains incomplete. Others are invited to finish up and publish this article if they get to it first. Mike Serfas 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I should be able to get access to the paper on Monday but this will be all over the news by then. We're probably better off putting out this version as is. JoshuaZ 20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"leap forward"

"The change does not represent a leap forward in the evolution of the mouse, which in fact produces tiny amounts of PEPCK-C naturally in skeletal muscle, but rather a shift in regulation of the natural metabolism to favor performance over efficiency." - I'm uncomfortable with this sentence for a variety of reasons; for one, this reinforces the common misconception that evolution progresses in some way. JoshuaZ 20:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

By adding this sentence I admittedly interjected something of an opinion into the article that may not be fully appropriate. But I'd like to make it clear that if a box of these mice falls off a truck, it almost certainly would not mean that the entire world would be taken over by genetic super-mice. Turning on PEPCK-C in skeletal muscle is something that could probably happen from a simple insertion of a transposable element in any generation of mice that has ever lived, although the slow change in expression pattern by micromutation over twenty or many more generations wouid be more typical of natural evolutionary processes. This should also quietly remind those of us thinking of lining up for treatment, that nature for whatever reasons has not preferred this way of doing things. The need for more food is one obvious drawback, especially when in the presence of predators every foraging trip may be the last. I understand that the term "forward" can be misinterpreted - but "a large positive selective coefficient in the wild" would make the text even more unaccessible to the common reader, and I already have added too much jargon for a proper news article. Mike Serfas 21:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How about saying something like "This is not as major a change to the mouse genome as it might seem to the layperson. The PEPCK-C gene is already present in the mouse and a variety of natural mutations could likely cause similar results." (I actually don't see why they wouldn't have a high selection coefficient. Presumably the increased food requirement would be a serious issue in resource poor areas but in resource high areas I'd expect the modified mice to outbreed normal mice. JoshuaZ 21:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A qualm

This is not the first time that the press has dubbed a genetically modified mouse a "mighty mouse".

Certainly, the news here isn't what the press has dubbed earlier genetically modified mice. I may be nitpicking here, but I'm slightly allergic to any rhetoric that attempts to turn news themselves into news -- the yellow press tactic. Suggest rephrasing. 82.181.37.241 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point but I'm not sure how to rephrase it. What do you think of "This is not the first time that genetically modified mice have been dubbed "mighty mice". That also has the advantage since it seems like the researchers in both cases were involved with the introduction of the terms. JoshuaZ 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)