4.3 Article

Candidate Bird Species for Use in Aging Research

期刊

ILAR JOURNAL
卷 52, 期 1, 页码 89-96

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ilar.52.1.89

关键词

bird; budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus); canary (Serinus canaria); domestication; house sparrow (Passer domesticus); longevity; senescence; starling (Sturnus vulgaris); zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata)

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [K07 AG025063, R01 AG022873, R01 AG035327]
  2. Paul Glenn Foundation for Medical Research
  3. Ellison Medical Foundation
  4. San Antonio Area Foundation
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG022873, R01AG035327, K07AG025063] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Birds live about 3 times as long as an average mammal of similar size. They exhibit this remarkable resistance to the degenerative processes of aging despite traits such as elevated body temperature, a rapid metabolic rate, and high blood glucose that might lead one to expect them to be especially short-lived. Although birds appear to age slowly, the patterns of age-related deterioration and development of disease parallel in many ways those of mammals such as humans. Therefore, birds may reveal novel mechanisms of resistance to senescence. A previous impediment to the use of birds in modern biomedical research was the inability to perform targeted genetic manipulations, which has revolutionized the use of other model species. But with the publication of the whole genome sequence of two bird species and the development of gene knockdown technology and tissue-specifi c transgenesis, this impediment seems to be disappearing. At least five bird species deserve special attention for development as models of successful aging. Three of these species-budgerigars, canaries, and zebra finches-are common cage birds and are already used extensively in the study of vocal learning and sustained neurogenesis in adulthood. In addition, two wild species-the European starling and the house sparrow-may also make excellent models for aging research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据