Talk:Naked mole-rat

Interesting

What a weird little creature. Any word on why they don't have any hair like other mammals? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:11, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

They have hair. It's just fine and sparse. Concentrated on their heads, base of tail, and between toes.

True. Dora Nichov 03:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As featured in ZooNooz

Naked mole rats were featured in the San Diego Zoo's February 2005 issue ZooNooz. According to this article, the queen mates with 1-3 chosen males, is attended by a few additional mole rats, and bears up to 80 pups a year. The remaining mole rats basically dig tunnels and find food. This article also states that the queen's aggression inhibits other females from becoming fertile, and notes that the absence of Substance P inhibits the feeling of pain. Once a female becomes queen, she actually grows longer as her vertebrae separate. The incisors are used for digging, and can actually be spread apart or drawn together, like chopstick, using muscles comprising about 1/4 of the total muscle mass - Carl Kaun (email in format lastname_firstname@bah.com)

Diet?

I've been able to find surprisingly little info on naked mole rat diet. What do they eat underground out in the African desert? I'm assuming probably insects, but has their natural diet been ascertained? --Bk0 (Talk) 02:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

According to Daniel Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea (pg 484), they regularly eat their own feces. He doesn't say what else they eat, though... JordanDeLong 03:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

They eat roots. Dora Nichov 03:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I added some information about this from The Selfish Gene. I might have overdone the ref markup; I'm not sure how many references are appropriate when it all comes from one source.... JordanDeLong 05:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why is the root measures in the number of rodents (1000 rats) and not Pounds at least,if not a regular kilogram measure? Sochwa 09:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't get it. Dora Nichov 11:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

I changed a little word-usage error, "nearly unique." There are no degrees of unique. It either is or it isn't.

Nearly unique means rare, duh.

Image

It looks better on kim possible.lolPeace, Cute 1 4 u 07:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, they are ugly! I guess they don't have to look good cause their eyesight's so bad. LOL PEACE -Pop-Tart(don't ask) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.232.131 (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sand Rat ?

I don't think the redirection from Sand Rat to this page is right. Sand Rat is from genus Psammomys and species obesus, which is different from the animal mentioned in this page.

I would agree, sand rats are usually gerbillines. --Aranae 17:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sand rats are definately different from naked-mole rats. Dora Nichov 03:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Virtually Cold Blooded

The article defines them as being "nearly cold blooded" and "virtually cold blooded" but makes no effort to distinguish the differences between them and the cold blooded of say a reptile. What is the purpose behind the "nearly" and "virtually" qualifiers? I'm actually very interested in knowing how they're not really cold blooded, or if they really are. I personally thought they were and if they're not really, it would be nice to know the details of why or why not.

Ditto. Does that mean they can change their own temperature a -little-? Does it mean their temperature behaves like an ectotherm but has the function and physiological characteristics of an endotherm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Extenable spine

I heard on a nature channel that the queen mole rat can extend her spine once she becomes queen to become larger than the other rats. is this true? If so, should it be added to the article? Sliver Slave (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for protection discussion

Below is a copy of the original request/response, located here). If you people are as annoyed as I am at the chronic vandalism that this article suffers, please feel free to weigh in at the above location, or to make a new request here. --Wormcast (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Naked mole rat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indefinite semi-protect. Chronic, frequent IP vandalism. Note: temporary semi-protection has been tried , and had no lasting deterrent effect. This is not some particular grudge or disgruntled editor(s); the title of the article just attracts the immature. At this point, the bulk of the work done on the article is more or less reverting vandalism. Wormcast (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. That one protection back in 2007 was the only protection ever, and from looking at the whole history out of curiosity was one of the only sustained bursts (in a day or two) of vandalism ever. The last total 100 edits go all the way back to October 2008, and it's as of now only been edited 12 times total from February 1-13. rootology (C)(T) 05:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of the last 100 edits you cited, no less than 56 were either vandalism or reverts/repairs due to vandalism. This high level is deleterious to the health of the article - it is often hard to see when the last true edit was made. The article is relatively stable, other than this activity. I fail to understand why it is significant in the case of a request for indefinite semi-protection, for the vandalism to be concentrated in a short time period. Such a pattern would only be relevant if I were requesting temporary semi-protection; where the hope would be that a particular vandal or group of vandals would grow bored, or that tempers would subside. Wormcast (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Now 64/100...Wormcast (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Now 65/100...Wormcast (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Now 70/100...Wormcast (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

longevity

Naked Mole Rats May Hold Clues to Successful Aging. newswise.com ( UT Science Center at San Antonio. 04-Mar-2009 ) nennt Viviana Perez (fellow at the Barshop Institute), Asish Chaudhuri and Co-author Rochelle Buffenstein (professor of physiology at the Barshop Institute):

• Protein stability and resistance to oxidative stress are determinants of longevity in the longest-living rodent, the naked mole rat; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, March 3, 2009; Viviana Perez, Rochelle Buffenstein, Venkata Masamsetti, Shanique Leonard, Adam Salmon, James Mele, Blazej Andziak, Ting Yang, Yael Edrey, Bertrand Friguet, Walter Ward, Arlan Richardson, Asish Chaudhuri.

-- aaaah (^post ?), 93.196.75.38 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.196.75.38 (talk)

Social Structure

The article currently says, "This eusocial organisation social structure, similar to that found in ants, termites, and some bees and wasps, is very rare among mammals." Continue the thought: It is not found at all among non-mammalian vertabrates. Might also point out there are species in the genus Synalpheus that are eusocial (according to the book Superorganism).

Then again, eusociality is very rare, period -- there aren't that many insect species that are eusocial, and no arachnids or crustaceans are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.234.152 (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Reproduction

Why is it nowhere mentioned that there is also parthenogenesis among mole rats?--80.141.181.67 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't happen. Do you have a citation? --Aranae (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Genetics of longevity

Why was this version reverted? I thought it was a very nice, yet simple explanation for this significant recent research. The article should have more of this kind of content, not less. --Aranae (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and went ahead and reinstated the deleted content. It did need some stylistic improvement, so I edited the text. I also placed it in a separate section, because the cancer prevention mechanism, although related to longevity, is really a separate topic. Ucucha 22:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What about humans?

"It is one of only two known eusocial mammals (the other being the Damaraland mole rat)"

Aren't humans considered to be eusocial? If not - why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.209.109.194 (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Eusociality has a fairly specific definition in biology, and among others refers to a situation in which some individuals carry out labor, but do not reproduce, and others carry out reproduction. That doesn't happen in humans, I hope. Ucucha 21:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"situation in which some individuals carry out labor, but do not reproduce, and others carry out reproduction"

Isn't that the same as surrogacy? Is there another example requirement for Eusociality that does not occur in humans?

Sorry if I am asking dumb questions -- I'm just a lay person with curiousity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.209.109.194 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a minority opinion that humans may qualify as eusocial animals (as discussed on the eusociality page). The complexity and diversity of our culture makes it so that it is often easy to find an example of a characterized animal behavior in humans. Are we harem animals? Do we lek? Perhaps sometimes. I think the key to classifying humans in this manner is to look at the overall distribution of our species and see what the general trends. Some humans exhibit some aspects of eusocial behavior, but the mean human probably doesn't qualify. --Aranae (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks. That does makes sense; humans are indeed so diverse and complex that I guess you could probably find examples of just about anything.

Edit request from Psalmotoxin, 26 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} My research group, in collaboration with another group, has just published a new article about how histamine-induced itch is absent in the naked mole-rat - the paper's reference (open access) is: Absence of histamine-induced itch in the African naked mole-rat and "rescue" by Substance P. Ewan St. John Smith, Gregory R. C. Blass, Gary R. Lewin, Thomas J. Park Molecular Pain 2010, 6:29 (24 May 2010).

In view of this new, peer reviewed, published information, I would like to add the following edit at the end of the "Physical Description" part about naked mole-rats. The reference given above should be cited at the end of the paragraph.

Not only is pain signaling unusual in the naked mole-rat, but it has also been shown that pathways involved in itching/scratching are also different to other rodents. Histamine is one substance released by cells of the immune system during allergic reactions and it induces itching. Furthermore, injecting histamine into human volunteers and many rodent species/strains brings about batches of scratching behavior, but recent experiments show that naked mole-rats do not scratch in response to histamine. However, similar to the "rescuing" of capsaicin sensitivity, intrathecal administration of substance P was able to "rescue" sensitivity to histamine. It was concluded that a portion of the same sensory nerve fiber population that is responsible for transmitting capsaicin “pain” information may also transmit histamine “itch” information and thus the theory about altered spinal cord dorsal horn connectivity of sensory nerve fibers that underly the lack of itch and pain-related behavior in the naked mole-rat is reinforced.

Psalmotoxin (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed your edit request and declined to include the content for the following reasons. First you indicated that this is a product of original research which is precluded by WP:OR. Second you need to provide references to the content you intend to include. It is a WP:COI to cite as a source a published work of which you are the author. There must be a verifiable third party to substantiate the claim. See WP:V Provide some verifiable references to this content and I or another will add the content at that time. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. I will add a welcome to your talk page which will contain information you might find useful in any future edits you attempt. Kind Regards. My76Strat (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that you do not have a user page or a talk page. You may want to consider creating one which can be a helpful resource for you. Good luck in your future endeavors. My76Strat (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am a little confused - 1) original research is currently cited in the article; 2) I did provide a reference for the information in the first sentence that I wrote - Molecular Pain is a peer reviewed journal - here is the link to the abstract http://www.molecularpain.com/content/6/1/29 3) I am already an author of other work that is cited on the naked mole rat page, e.g. cite number 2 Park et al. in PLoS Biology - I cannot say what third party verified that article, but I assume that peer review and publication is enough?

Psalmotoxin (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for any confusion caused by my response. The reference you sited is valid and considered reputable. My initial concern was spawned by the assertion that you were an author of this published work. Further consideration as well as collaboration with editors more experienced than myself has led me to conclude this information is encyclopedic and worthwhile for inclusion. I must go to work right now but will incorporate the information into the article when I return this evening. I hope this is acceptable for you. Cheers. My76Strat (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

All cool. Glad that the info. can be added. On a second point, I do not know if this is doable, but the rest of the information about substance P/pain, while not being incorrect, could be summarized more adequately - I would be willing to write a draft of this if that would be appreciated?

Psalmotoxin (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please remember the target audience - the layman; at the moment, the suggestion above sounds just like a science paper abstract; it's not idea for Wikipedia. From my own limited knowledge, what it appears to actually say is, something like this;

The naked mole-rat reacts differently to histamine injections than other rodents. Injecting many species caused them to itch, but the mole-rat does not - however, adding substance P does make them react.

...followed by the reasoning/conclusions which I don't really understand (re. "altered spinal cord dorsal horn connectivity"

• Therefore, please try to rephrase it in more understandable terms. It does not have to be 'dumbed-down', but frankly, if I am struggling to understand it, it needs work - I'm no biologist, but I'm a fairly smart layman.

• Yes, the existing stuff is not good; please do suggest better. The two would combine quite well.

• Importantly, a) please consider using other referenced material from other studies - from a bit of Googling, I see quite a bit on the subject. It could be written in a very interesting manner - it appears to me that the mole-rat is singularly capable of eating super-hot curry :-)

• Also, keep it in perspective. This is not a large article. I imagine that, really, this reaction to certain substances - whilst terribly interesting - is not the be-all and end-all of the mole-rat. If a large percentage of the article is about this specific aspect, it throws the article off-balance.

I hope these suggestions are constructive. Please do not be discouraged; be bold! In 4 days, after making 7 more edits to any page, Psalmotoxin, you'll be able to edit semi-prot articles directly, yourself - I encourage you to do so. Seek help when you need it.

I suggest that you get involved with WikiProject Rodents, WikiProject Biology.

Top tip: get live help, with this or this. Best,  Chzz  ►  18:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding. Points taken re writing for layperson and avoiding unnecessary detail. Much of the current info. could do with a better referenced, more correct overhaul - hopefully I can find the time to write a draft in the next wee while.

Psalmotoxin (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture

Should it be mentioned that a naked mole rat is a character in the children's animated show Kim Possible? --69.169.163.169 (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Wormcast (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Any particular reason against a pop culture section? It's one of the main characters in that well-known American cartoon. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Mole rats are also featured in the Fallout series (video game). Maybe it could be mentionned too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.80.130 (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Material from Vitamin D

The following is text I removed from the vitamin D article that may be better incorporated here.

Interestingly, the naked mole rat is resistant to aging, never gets cancer, maintains healthy vascular function and is the longest lived of all rodents.

Yobol (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that these creatures are so resistant to diseases, why is their lifespan limited to 28yr?

What are some common causes of death among NMRs other than injuries/starvation/etc? Everything Is Numbers (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• 28 years is ridiculously long for a mammal of its mass. Speciate (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, and I'm sorry for minifying the impressiveness of this fact! But I'm just thinking: cancer has never been observed in them, and they're very good at keeping their cardiovascular system healthy—these two are the main factors of mortality in the developed world—so what's left? They have a maximum lifespan, which means that there has to be something that kills them eventually, so what is it? Everything Is Numbers (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hyphen or not

This is a really minor point, but here goes... Should mole rat have a hyphen (mole-rat) or not? The article uses "mole rat" but many of the references use "mole-rat". I think I have too much time on my hands!__DrChrissy (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)