This paper provides a comparison of how genetic biomarkers are used (or not) in three contexts: clinic-based diagnostic work with people; lab-based research on mice and their marbles; and lab-based research on thrashing nematodes. For all the worldwide drive to find biomarkers that can be used in the detection of early, presymptomatic dementia, there is little research on how or when the association between biomarkers and a definitive disease are being made to “hold.” First, we show the disjuncture between the animal modeling that underpins laboratory attempts to stabilize genetic biomarkers and the paradigms that inform clinical diagnosis. Secondly, we develop this theme to show how in our third site, an epigenetics “worm” laboratory, neurodegenerative changes are explored as located in specific gene-environment interactions over time. We speculate whether such an enactment brings us closer to a notion of “situated biology,” to undercut possibilities of making genetic biomarkers of preclinical dementia hold.

中文翻译：

---

生物标志物和大脑：在实验室和记忆诊所中定位痴呆症


本文对如何在三种情况下使用（或不使用）遗传生物标志物进行了比较：基于临床的人类诊断工作；对老鼠及其弹珠的实验室研究；以及基于实验室的捶打线虫研究。尽管全世界都在努力寻找可用于检测早期、症状前痴呆症的生物标志物，但关于如何或何时使生物标志物与明确疾病之间的关联“保持”的研究却很少。首先，我们展示了支持实验室稳定遗传生物标志物的动物模型与指导临床诊断的范式之间的脱节。其次，我们开发这个主题是为了展示如何在我们的第三个站点（表观遗传学“蠕虫”实验室）中探索神经退行性变化，随着时间的推移，神经退行性变化位于特定的基因-环境相互作用中。我们推测这样的制定是否会让我们更接近“情境生物学”的概念，从而削弱临床前痴呆症遗传生物标志物成立的可能性。