About this Research Topic
Many features are taken into account when finding the best animal model for a disease. Criteria include cost, ease of manipulation, genetic homogeneity, phylogenetic relatedness, ethical implications, and previous knowledge of the animal in question. Rodents such as mice (Mus musculus) have traditionally been used as the ideal model for humans due to their genetic, physiological, and anatomical similarities. However, more recently other animals have gained popularity in biomedical research and have emerged as promising models. Examples include zebrafish (Danio rerio), the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, and roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans) - which are advantageous due to their small size, high fecundity, sophisticated genetic tools, and low maintenance costs. Other commonly used model organisms including chick and amphibians such as Xenopus have also been invaluable in revealing cellular and developmental processes relevant to human health. Furthermore, additional non-classical laboratory species have also begun to shed light on the genetics and pathology of certain human clinical disorders.
This topic invites researchers to explore the different non-mouse models for genetic diseases in humans, and how they are currently being used to expand our knowledge for biomedical research. We welcome original articles, reviews, perspectives, and commentaries that cover topics including, but not limited to, the following:
1. New technologies to advance genetic disease research using insights from non-mouse models.
2. Fundamental genetic, cellular, and developmental studies of disease-relevant genes and pathways.
3. Preclinical testing for the treatment of genetic diseases using non-mouse models.
4. The advantages or disadvantages of using non-mouse models for genetic disease research.
5. Validation of alternative models for genetic disease research.
Keywords: model organisms, genetic diseases, zebrafish, Drosophila, roundworms
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.