Rough draft.This research track is under review with Dr. Atit's lab. Content and sequence may still change.
Craniofacial Research Track
Session 16The Fix, January (intensive)Lens: Biomedical Innovations
Why zebrafish and mice: animal models and the Atit lab
Discovery question
We cannot experiment on Mateo. So how do labs test whether correcting a gene actually works, and what makes a zebrafish or a mouse a fair stand-in?
Model organisms such as zebrafish and mice share the same core developmental program for building a face, so work tested in them can teach us about human development. Animal models and -based perturbation and rescue studies are used to test how craniofacial genes work. Some prenatal or editing work exists in animal systems, but correction remains and is gene-specific and model-specific. Craniofacial labs like Dr. Atit's study exactly these mechanisms.
The plan
Prerequisite check
Before this page, you should know
- The critical window (about weeks 4 to 12) is when facial must happen, so in theory a correction aimed at that step would have to act during the same window. In humans this is not an approved or near-term treatment for clefting.
- A delivery vector is the (such as a virus or a nanoparticle) that gets the editing tool into the right cells.
Today's new idea is only
Model organisms such as zebrafish and mice share the same core developmental program for building a face, so work tested in them can teach us about human development. Animal models and -based perturbation and rescue studies are used to test how craniofacial genes work. Some prenatal or editing work exists in animal systems, but correction remains and is gene-specific and model-specific. Craniofacial labs like Dr. Atit's study exactly these mechanisms.
Learn first
What to learn
Goal: Explain why model organisms are valid stand-ins for human , and connect animal-model correction work to Dr. Atit's craniofacial research.
Know by the end
- A is a species studied because its biology is similar enough to ours to teach us about human development.
- Zebrafish and mice build their faces using the same core developmental program (, , and the same key genes).
- Because the program is shared, a gene like IRF6 or does a similar job across these species.
- -based perturbation and rescue studies in animal models are how craniofacial gene function gets tested before any human use; correction remains and is gene-specific and model-specific.
- Craniofacial labs, including Dr. Atit's, study how these cells and signals build the head, which grounds the case in real research.
The plan
Guided notes
1
Why a fish or a mouse counts
Model start: A is a species we study because its biology is close enough to ours to teach us about human development.
- Define in one sentence.
- List two reasons a zebrafish or mouse face is a fair stand-in for studying human facial development.
2
The shared program
Model start: Zebrafish, mice, and humans all use cranial and the same step, so the same genes matter in each.
- Name the shared pieces: the , the step, and a shared gene such as IRF6 or .
- Explain why a shared gene doing a shared job is what makes the model trustworthy.
3
From model to the Atit lab
Model start: Dr. Atit's lab studies how cranial and signals build the bones and tissues of the head.
- Open Dr. Atit's published craniofacial research and write one line on what kind of question her lab asks.
- Explain how testing a correction in an is a step that has to come before any human use.
Explore
Reading the Research
What to read
Read the title and the abstract only, not the whole paper. Dr. Atit's published craniofacial research (PubMed)
Why this source matters
This is the published evidence behind today's idea: Model organisms such as zebrafish and mice share the same core developmental program for building a face, so work tested in them can teach us about human development. Animal models and -based perturbation and rescue studies are used to test how craniofacial genes work. Some prenatal or editing work exists in animal systems, but correction remains and is gene-specific and model-specific. Craniofacial labs like Dr. Atit's study exactly these mechanisms.
Words to unlock first
Reading moves
- Skim the title and abstract first to get the gist.
- Circle the one sentence that states the main claim.
- Box the evidence the authors give for that claim.
- Mark one sentence that confuses you, and move on.
Stop point
You do not need the methods or statistics yet. If a sentence is about lab technique or math you have not learned, mark it and skip it.
Your output
Write one claim-evidence sentence: what this source claims, and the one piece of evidence that backs it up.
Explore
Vetted links for this session
Learn first
Pick your level
Level 1, Guided
Use the sentence starters, a word bank from the vocabulary, a labeled diagram, and the exact source link.
Level 2, Collaborative
Complete a partly blank model or table and explain it.
Level 3, Independent
Make a claim from a new example or an unfamiliar entry in the same database.
The plan
Work as a research team
Team roles
- Manager: keeps the group moving
- Recorder: writes the shared model or table
- Evidence checker: verifies each claim against the source
- Reporter: explains the group's reasoning
Process reflection
- What evidence changed your thinking today?
- What did your group disagree about, and how did you resolve it?
- What question is still unresolved?
Check yourself
Demonstration of learning
By the end of this session, submit ONE of: a labeled diagram with a 2-sentence explanation; a claim, evidence, reasoning paragraph; a completed data table from a real database; or a one-question exit ticket using today's vocabulary.
Meets standard if your explanation correctly connects structure, timing, gene or protein function, or evidence source to Mateo's case: Explain why model organisms are valid stand-ins for human craniofacial development, and connect animal-model correction work to Dr. Atit's craniofacial research.
How this is graded (rubric)
For: Explain why model organisms are valid stand-ins for human craniofacial development, and connect animal-model correction work to Dr. Atit's craniofacial research.
| Criterion | Proficient | Developing | Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complete | Every required part of the artifact is present and filled in. | Most parts are present, but one is missing or left blank. | Several parts are missing. |
| Accurate | The science and data are correct and match the evidence. | Mostly correct, with a small factual slip. | Key science or data is wrong. |
| Scientific reasoning (CER) | States a claim, backs it with specific evidence, and explains the reasoning. | Has a claim and evidence, but the reasoning is thin or missing. | Gives an answer with no evidence or reasoning. |
| Professional communication | Clear, organized, and labeled the way a clinician or scientist would write it. | Readable but disorganized or missing labels. | Hard to follow. |
| Submitted | Turned in the right way (Schoology for routine work) and confirmed. | Turned in, but in the wrong place or unconfirmed. | Not turned in. |
How the model answer scores against this rubric
- CompleteProficient: Nothing is left blank: the model fills every part of "Explain why model organisms are valid stand-ins for human craniofacial development, and connect animal-model correction work to Dr. Atit's craniofacial research.".
- AccurateProficient: Every number and claim matches the case evidence.
- Scientific reasoning (CER)Proficient: It names a claim, cites the specific evidence, and explains the reasoning, not just the answer.
- Professional communicationProficient: It is organized and labeled like a real chart note.
- SubmittedProficient: It would be turned in on Schoology and confirmed.