New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Mouse Genome Sequenced

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In the name of science, researchers have fashioned numerous kinds of mice: fat, thin, hairless, or afflicted with a particular disease, to name a few. Now the first draft sequence of the mouse genome, published today in the journal Nature, should make the tiny rodents even more helpful for future research into a variety of diseases. The findings suggest that mice and humans have a similar number of genes (around 30,000) and that nearly 90 percent of genes associated with disease in people have counterparts in mice.

The international Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium sequenced and analyzed more than 95 percent of the genetic code of Mus musculus, which contains about 2.5 billion DNA base pairs compared to 2.9 billion in the human genome. "We share 99 percent of our genes with mice," says Jane Rogers of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge, England, "and we even have the genes that could make a tail." In fact, only about 300 genes are unique to either organism, which further supports the use of the mouse models for studying various diseases as well as testing novel treatments. The key differences lie in those areas of the genome governing immunity, detoxification, smell and sex, which makes sense considering where rodents usually live, how they find food and the number of offspring they can produce.

According to Allan Bradley, also at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, the mouse genome "is a huge asset to researchers, and its significance matches that of the human genome." Indeed, by comparing specific sections of the mouse genome to our own, scientists can garner insight not evident from examination of our genetic code alone. For example, additional findings published today in Nature by Stylianos Antonaradkis of the University of Geneva Medical School and his colleagues highlight the similarity of non-protein-encoding sequences between man and mouse. By comparing human chromosome 21 to the corresponding section of the mouse genome, the team determined that 2,262 nongene DNA segments have been conserved. Because evolution has left these chunks of DNA intact, the scientists posit that they play an important role and could exert control over other genes at specific times and places, or provide chromosomes with the necessary structure to function properly.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe