The naked truth: a comprehensive clarification and classification of current 'myths' in naked mole-rat biology

The naked truth: a comprehensive clarification and classification of current 'myths' in naked mole-rat biology

Rochelle Buffenstein

Vincent Amoroso

Blazej Andziak

Stanislav Avdieiev

Jorge Azpurua

Alison J Barker

Nigel C Bennett

Miguel A Brieño-Enríquez

Gary N Bronner

Clive Coen

Martha A Delaney

Christine M Dengler-Crish

Yael H Edrey

Chris G Faulkes

Daniel Frankel

Gerard Friedlander

Patrick A Gibney

Vera Gorbunova

Christopher Hine

Melissa M Holmes

Jennifer U M Jarvis

Yoshimi Kawamura

Nobuyuki Kutsukake

Cynthia Kenyon

Walid T Khaled

Takefumi Kikusui

Joseph Kissil

Samantha Lagestee

John Larson

Amanda Lauer

Leonid A Lavrenchenko

Angela Lee

Jonathan B Levitt

Gary R Lewin

Kaitlyn N Lewis Hardell

TzuHua D Lin

Matthew J Mason

Dan McCloskey

Mary McMahon

Kyoko Miura

Kazutaka Mogi

Vikram Narayan

Timothy P O'Connor

Kazuo Okanoya

M Justin O'Riain

Thomas J Park

Ned J Place

Katie Podshivalova

Matthew E Pamenter

Sonja J Pyott

Jane Reznick

J Graham Ruby

Adam B Salmon

Joseph Santos-Sacchi

Diana K Sarko

Andrei Seluanov

Alyssa Shepard

Megan Smith

Kenneth B Storey

Xiao Tian

Emily N Vice

Mélanie Viltard

Akiyuki Watarai

Ewa Wywial

Masanori Yamakawa

Elena D Zemlemerova

Michael Zions

Ewan St John Smith

2022

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.

Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc
. 2022 Feb;97(1):115-140. doi: 10.1111/brv.12791. Epub 2021 Sep 3.

English

https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12791