Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 439–455

From humanized mice to human disease: guiding extrapolation from model to target

Article

Abstract

Extrapolation from a well-understood base population to a less-understood target population can fail if the base and target populations are not sufficiently similar. Differences between laboratory mice and humans, for example, can hinder extrapolation in medical research. Mice that carry a partial or complete human physiological system, known as humanized mice, are supposed to make extrapolation more reliable by simulating a variety of human diseases. But what justifies our belief that these mice are similar enough to their human counterparts to simulate human disease? I argue that, unless three requirements are met in the process of humanizing mice, very little does. My requirements are not meant to provide necessary and sufficient conditions that guarantee a particular outcome. Instead, they serve as a heuristic for guiding scientific judgments involving extrapolation. In developing each requirement, I engage with philosophical issues concerning the nature of model-based science and the mechanistic approach (and its limits) to making generalizations in the life sciences.

Keywords

Extrapolation Genetic engineering Humanized mice Mechanism Models 

References

  1. Ankeny RA (2001) Model organisms as models: understanding the ‘lingua franca’ of the human genome project. Proc Philos Sci Assoc 3:251–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechtel W, Abrahamsen A (2005) Explanation: a mechanistic alternative. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 36:421–441Google Scholar
  3. Bechtel W, Richardson RC (1993) Discovering complexity: decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckers J, Wurst W, Hrabé de Angelis M (2009) Towards better mouse models: enhanced genotypes, systemic phenotyping and envirotype modeling. Nat Rev Genet 10:371–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolker JA (1995) Model systems in developmental biology. BioEssays 17:451–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burian RM (1993) How the choice of experimental organism matters: epistemological reflections on an aspect of biological practice. J Hist Biol 26:351–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cartwright N (1989) Nature’s capacities and their measurement. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaible LM, Corat MA, Abdelhay E, Dagli MLZ (2010) Genetically modified animals for use in research and biotechnology. Genet Mol Res 9(3):1469–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craver CF (2007) Explaining the brain: mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Downes S (1992) The importance of models in theorizing: a deflationary semantic view. In: Hull D (ed) Proceedings of the philosophy of science association 1. Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp 142–153Google Scholar
  11. Edelman GM, Gally JA (2001) Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems. Proc Nat Acad Sci 98(24):13763–13768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Enard W, Przeworski M, Fisher SE, Lai CS, Wiebe V, Kitano T et al (2002) Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language. Nature 418(6900):869–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Enard W, Gehre S, Hammerschmidt K, Hölter S, Blass T, Somel M et al (2009) A humanized version of FOXP2 affects cortico-basal ganglia circuits in mice. Cell 137(5):961–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Falk R (1986) What is a gene? Stud Hist Philos Sci 17:133–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frigg R, Hartmann S (Summer 2009 Edition) Models in science. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. In: EN Zalta (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved 10 May 2011 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/models-science/
  16. Gannett L (1999) What’s in a cause?: the pragmatic dimensions of genetic explanations. Biol Philos 14:347–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gearhart JM, Davisson M, Oster-Granite ML (1986) Autosomal aneuploidy in mice: generation and developmental consequences. Brain Res Bull 16:789–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerstein MB, Can B, Rozowsky JS, Zheng D, Du J, Korbel JO et al (2007) What is a gene, post-ENCODE? History and updated definition. Genome Res 17:669–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giere RN (2004) How models are used to represent reality. Philos Sci 71(Suppl):S742–S752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Godfrey-Smith P (2006) The strategy of model-based science. Biol Philos 21:725–740Google Scholar
  21. Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1978) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205:581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haugeland J (1998) Having thought: essays in the metaphysics of mind. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Hauser MD, Chmosky N, Tecumseh F (2002) The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298(5598):1569–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hughes MJ, Mestas J (2007) The mouse trap: how well do mice model human immunology? In: Fox JG, Barthold S, Davisson M, Newcomer CE, Ouimby FW, Smith A (eds) The mouse in biomedical research, vol 4, 2nd edn. American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine, Academic Press, New York, pp 303–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. James D, Noggle SA, Swigut T, Brivanlou AH (2006) Contribution of human embryonic stem cells to mouse blastocysts. Dev Biol 295(1):90–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jucker M (2010) The benefits and limitations of animal models for translational research in neurodegenerative disease. Nat Med 16(11):1210–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kauffman SA (1971) Articulation of parts explanations in biology and the rational search for them. Boston Stud Philos Sci 8:257–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaufman MH (2007) Mouse embryology: research techniques and a comparison of embryonic development between mouse and man. In: Fox JG, Barthold S, Davisson M, Newcomer CE, Ouimby FW, Smith A (eds) The mouse in biomedical research, vol 1, 2nd edn. American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine, Academic Press, New York, pp 165–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kipling D, Cooke HJ (1990) Hypervariable ultra-long telomeres in mice. Nature 347:400–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. LaFollette H, Shanks N (1996) Brute science: dilemmas of animal experimentation. Rutledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewontin R (2002) The triple helix: gene, organism, and environment. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewontin R, Levins R (2007) Biology under the influence: dialectical essays on ecology, agriculture, and health. Monthly Review Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Love AC (2009) Typology reconfigured: from the metaphysics of essentialism to the epistemology of representation. Acta Biotheor 57:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Love AC (2010) Idealization in evolutionary developmental investigation: a tension between phenotypic plasticity and normal stages. Philos Trans R Soc B 365(1540):679–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Macchiarini F, Manz MG, Palucka AK, Shultz LD (2005) Humanized mice: are we there yet? J Exp Med 202(10):1307–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Macleod MR, Fisher M, O’Collins V, Sena ES, Dirnagl U, Bath PM et al (2009) Good laboratory practice: preventing introduction of bias at the bench. Stroke 40(3):e50–e52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Margulis L (1970) Origin of eukaryotic cells. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  38. Matthewson J, Weisberg M (2009) The structure of tradeoffs in model building. Synthese 170:169–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Monaco AP (2003) Chimerism in organ transplantation: conflicting experiments and clinical observations. Transplantation 75(9 Suppl):13S–16SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moss L (2012) Is the philosophy of mechanism philosophy enough? Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 43:164–172Google Scholar
  41. Muotri AR, Nakashima K, Toni N, Sandler VM, Gage FH (2005) Development of functional human embryonic stem cell-derived neurons in mouse brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:18644–18648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nesse RM, Bergstrom CT, Ellison PT, Flier JS, Gluckman P, Govindaraju DR et al (2010) Making evolutionary biology a basic science for medicine. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(Supplement 1):1800–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. O’Doherty A, Ruf S, Mulligan C, Hildreth V, Errington ML, Cooke S et al (2005) An aneuploid mouse strain carrying human chromosome 21 with Down syndrome phenotypes. Science 309:2033–2037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oehler MK, Bicknell R (2000) The promise of anti-angiogenic cancer therapy. Br J Cancer 82:749–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Panitch HS, Hirsch RL, Haley AS, Johnson KP (1987) Exacerbations of multiple sclerosis in patients treated with gamma interferon. Lancet 1:893–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Patterson D, Costa ACS (2005) Down syndrome and genetics—a case of linked histories. Nat Rev Genet 6:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosenthal N, Brown S (2007) The mouse ascending: perspectives for human-disease models. Nat Cell Biol 9(9):993–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schaffner KF (1986) Exemplar reasoning about biological models and diseases: a relation between the philosophy of medicine and philosophy of science. J Med Philos 11:63–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schaffner K (2001) Extrapolation from animal models: social life, sex, and super models. In: Machamer PK, Grush R, McLaughlin P (eds) Theory and method in the neurosciences. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp 200–230Google Scholar
  50. Shepherd FA, Sridhar SS (2003) Angiogenesis inhibitors under study for the treatment of lung cancer. Lung Cancer 41(Suppl 1):S63–S72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shultz LD, Ishikawa F, Greiner DL (2007) Humanized mice in translational biomedical research. Nat Rev Immunol 7(2):118–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Stearns SC, Koella JC (2008) Evolution in health and disease. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  54. Steel D (2008) Across the boundaries: extrapolation in biology and social science. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Sterelny K, Griffiths PE (1999) Sex and death. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  56. Sykes M (2001) Mixed chimerism and transplant tolerance. Immunity 14:417–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Porritt MJ, Rewell S, O’Collins V, Macleod MR (2010) Can animal models of disease reliability inform human studies? PLoS Biol 7(3):e1000245Google Scholar
  58. Van Oosten BW, Barkhof F, Truyen L, Boringa JB, Bertelsmann FW, von Blomberg BM et al (1996) Increased MRI activity and immune activation in two multiple aclerosis patients treated with the monoclonal anti-tumor necrosis factor antibody cA2. Neurology 47(6):1531–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vargha-Khadem F, Watkins K, Alcock K, Fletcher P, Passingham R (1995) Praxic and nonverbal cognitive deficits in a large family with a genetically transmitted speech and language disorder. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:930–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wade N (2009) A human language gene changes the sound of mouse squeaks. The New York Times. Retrieved 10 May 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/science/29mouse.html
  61. Wagner GP, Pavlicev M, Cheverud JM (2007) The road to modularity. Nat Rev Genet 8:921–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Waters KC (2007) Causes that make a difference. J Philos 54(11):551–579Google Scholar
  63. Weber M (2005) Philosophy of experimental biology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  64. Wimsatt WC (1974) Complexity and organization. In: Schaffner KF, Cohen RS (eds) Proceedings of the 1972 meeting of the philosophy of science association. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 67–86Google Scholar
  65. Wimsatt WC (1998) Simple systems and phylogenetic diversity. Philos Sci 65(2):267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Winther RG (2006) Parts and theories in compositional biology. Biol Philos 21:471–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Winther RG (2011) Part-whole science. Synthese 178:397–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wood KJ (2003) Passenger leukocytes and microchimerism: What role in tolerance induction? Transplantation 75(9 Suppl):17S–20SCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations