I see you are new to this subject. That’s OK. Everyone is new to any subject at some point. But here’s a pro tip: before engaging in a discussion, it is more useful and illuminating if you first get a good grounding in at least the basics.
As to the study you posted. I assume that this time, unlike other times, you read the study you posted. Since you read it, it can only mean you are very, very new to the topic, otherwise you wouldn’t have posted it with the commentary you did.
From the study you posted - quote:
“Mice of the CD-1 strain[…]”
And you can stop reading there. Done. The study has no relevance to your commentary.
Given your comment, I can see you literally need to start from a 101 level. Since the subject is so vast, I cannot possibly provide you with that grounding in a comment section on a website. You need to do that education yourself.
If you need to track down the characteristics of CD-1 mice, here is a precis:
Basic Characteristics & Common Applications of CD1 Mice
Quote:
“CD1 mice and C57BL/6 mice differ in the aging process, experimental operability, and genetic application scenarios. The median lifespan of CD1 mice is 18-22 months, shorter than that of C57BL/6 mice (24-28 months). CD1 mice are more likely to develop age-related diseases like cataracts.”
Key point of this is something that you should have already absorbed, and which you clearly did not - hence you need to start your exploration of this subject at the very basic level:
The impact of short-lived controls on the interpretation of lifespan experiments and progress in geroscience – Through the lens of the “900-day rule”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1568163724003301
It’s a fascinating and vast area, so happy study! When your commentary reaches levels rewarding discussion, I’ll be happy to engage, but until then I have to bow out.