Publications and Research

Authors

Rochelle Buffenstein, Calico Life Sciences LLC
Vincent Amoroso, University of Illinois at Chicago
Blazej Andziak, CUNY Graduate Center
Stanislav Avdieiev, Moffitt Cancer Center
Jorge Azpurua, Stony Brook University
Alison J. Barker, Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine
Nigel C. Bennett, University of Pretoria
Miguel A. Brieño‐Enríquez, Magee‐Womens Research Institute
Gary N. Bronner, University of Cape Town
Clive Coen, King's College London
Martha A. Delaney, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Christine M. Dengler‐Crish, Northeast Ohio Medical University
Yael H. Edrey, Northwest Vista College
Chris G. Faulkes, Queen Mary University of London
Daniel Frankel, Newcastle University
Gerard Friedlander, Université Paris Descartes
Patrick A. Gibney, Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine
Vera Gorbunova, University of Rochester
Christopher Hine, Cleveland Clinic, Lerner Research Institute
Melissa M. Holmes, University of Toronto Mississauga
Jennifer U. M. Jarvis, University of Cape Town
Yoshimi Kawamura, Kumamoto University
Nobuyuki Kutsukake, The Graduate University for Advanced Studies, Hayama
Cynthia Kenyon, Calico Life Sciences LLC
Walid T. Khaled, University of Cambridge
Takefumi Kikusui, Azabu University
Joseph Kissil, The Scripps Research Institute
Samantha Lagestee, University of Illinois at Chicago
John Larson, University of Illinois at Chicago
Amanda Lauer, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Leonid A. Lavrenchenko, Russian Academy of Sciences
Angela Lee, CUNY Graduate Center
Jonathan B. Levitt, CUNY City CollegeFollow
Gary R. Lewin, Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine
Kaitlyn N. Lewis Hardell, Calico Life Sciences LLC
TzuHua D. Lin, Calico Life Sciences LLC
Matthew J. Mason, University of Cambridge
Dan McCloskey, CUNY College of Staten IslandFollow
Mary McMahon, Calico Life Sciences LLC
Kyoko Miura, Kumamoto University
Kazutaka Mogi, Azabu University
Vikram Narayan, Calico Life Sciences LLC
Timothy P. O'Connor, The Rockefeller University
Kazuo Okanoya, The University of Tokyo
M. Justin O'Riain, University of Cape Town
Thomas J. Park, University of Illinois at Chicago
Ned J. Place, Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine
Katie Podshivalova, Calico Life Sciences LLC
Matthew E. Pamenter, University of Ottawa
Sonja J. Pyott, University Medical Center, the Netherlands
Jane Reznick, University Hospital Cologne
J. Graham Ruby, Calico Life Sciences LLC
Adam B. Salmon, University of Texas Health Science Center
Joseph Santos‐Sacchi, Yale University School of Medicine
Diana K. Sarko, Southern Illinois University
Andrei Seluanov, University of Rochester
Alyssa Shepard, The Scripps Research Institute
Megan Smith, Calico Life Sciences LLC
Kenneth B. Storey, Carleton University
Xiao Tian, Harvard Medical School
Emily N. Vice, University of Illinois at Chicago
Mélanie Viltard, Université Catholique de Louvain
Akiyuki Watarai, Azabu University
Ewa Wywial, CUNY City College
Masanori Yamakawa, The Graduate University for Advanced Studies, Hayama
Elena D. Zemlemerova, Russian Academy of Sciences
Michael Zions, CUNY Graduate Center
Ewan St. John Smith, University of Cambridge

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

9-3-2021

Abstract

The naked mole‐rat (Heterocephalus glaber) has fascinated zoologists for at least half a century. It has also generated considerable biomedical interest not only because of its extraordinary longevity, but also because of unusual protective features (e.g. its tolerance of variable oxygen availability), which may be pertinent to several human disease states, including ischemia/reperfusion injury and neurodegeneration. A recent article entitled ‘Surprisingly long survival of premature conclusions about naked mole‐rat biology’ described 28 ‘myths’ which, those authors claimed, are a ‘perpetuation of beautiful, but falsified, hypotheses’ and impede our understanding of this enigmatic mammal. Here, we re‐examine each of these ‘myths’ based on evidence published in the scientific literature. Following Braude et al., we argue that these ‘myths’ fall into four main categories: (i) ‘myths’ that would be better described as oversimplifications, some of which persist solely in the popular press; (ii) ‘myths’ that are based on incomplete understanding, where more evidence is clearly needed; (iii) ‘myths’ where the accumulation of evidence over the years has led to a revision in interpretation, but where there is no significant disagreement among scientists currently working in the field; ( iv ) ‘myths’ where there is a genuine difference in opinion among active researchers, based on alternative interpretations of the available evidence. The term ‘myth’ is particularly inappropriate when applied to competing, evidence‐based hypotheses, which form part of the normal evolution of scientific knowledge. Here, we provide a comprehensive critical review of naked mole‐rat biology and attempt to clarify some of these misconceptions.

Comments

This work was originally published in Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society available at doi: 10.1111/brv.12791

This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.