Question for /vets/

>>2432519
we already know how to transplant livers, and drugs are necessary every time. Even if you found some magical match that doesn't require drugs it would take billions of attempts and we wouldn't be able to repeat the success.

so no, you're retarded.

>>2432525
no thats not the question Yes we know how to transplant livers, but would it be possible to try new anti rejection drugs or an anti rejection injection that would prevent the new liver from dying on animals like cats and dogs?

>>2432531
do you have new anti-rejection drugs or are you going to just inject random substances until you find something that works?

>>2432535
>are you going to just inject random substances until you find something that works?

I guess?

Would it be possible to lace the food with anti rejection drugs? i know some dogs/cats eat special food because of health problems

>>2432519
Vet student here- we actually talk about this quite a bit amongst ourselves at vet school. The big problem with transplantation is ethically you can't get an animal to 'agree' to donate like you can with a human.

Plus, in your scenario the liver wouldn't be viable, as you have to preserve the blood supply for an extended amount of time post- death.
However, presuming the liver was viable... Given we already do liver transplants in research, and kidney transplants commerically (http://www.marvistavet.com/kidney-transplants-in-pets.pml ) then to answer your question it is perfectly doable.

However, doable without immunosuppressants? Depends really on the donor- you'd have to genetically match your patient to match the MHCI. In theory you could create a liver from scratch which perfectly matched the patient (which they can do for humans I believe), but I suspect they still use immunosuppressants as once you've spent that much on essentially creating a new liver you don't really want the body automatically destroying it.

Without immunosuppressants from a random dog? No, the body will see the new liver as foreign.

>>2432535

To answer this question with a bit of science...Although this is simplifying it massively please note.

The reason the body will reject a new organ is that it is seen as foreign. The liver does not die because of a lack of blood supply etc, it dies because the host body will destroy it. All the cells (nucleated) on your body have an antigen on their surface called MHCI- this is UNIQUE to you. Immune cells (aka lymphocytes etc- or WBC for laymen) go around checking these MHCI everyday- anything which doesn't have YOUR bodies unique signature MHCI will be destroyed.

Aka, any new donor will have a different unique MHCI from you- that will trigger your immune system to see that tissue as foreign.

Now, we can work around this in a few ways- we can either suppress your immune system (using immunosuppressants) so the new tissue is not destroyed, or we can use genetically engineer a new liver with the hosts MHC1 using various methods so it's not seen as foreign.

As for new types of drugs- they would essentially HAVE to perform a similar function to the current ones. I'm sure there will be some in the pipeline. Hope this explains things a bit, as I said- this is babies first immunology explanations really.

>>2432538

Also, finally, because a drive has reminded me of something.

It's illegal to inject random substances for this sort of experimentation as your generic vet. Even if we presume you think it's going to work- you would be brought to court under the Animals (scientific procedures) act.

We are not allowed to inject/take bloods/ do anything which would harm the animal if it does not directly benefit the animal (e.g pre-anesthetic bloods). So, one example we used in vet school is lets say someone brings you two really rare rodents- you suspect an electrolyte abnormality in one, the other is perfectly normal. We would not be allowed to take bloods from both to compare sick to healthy levels- the bloods we took from the healthy rodent would be prosecuted under the scientific procedures act. This is half the battle with research- as obtaining samples can require lengthy ethical council debates before you can even begin.

Mind, there are work arounds, such as a zoo 'accidently' taking a few more ml than needed off their animals during annual health checks- but I digress.

This basically gives you, the general public, safe in the knowledge that anything we do has scientific evidence behind it. Heck, half the battle with vet med in particular is how our hands are tied with some medications- there's a cascade we have to run through for perscription, which can be frustrating at times.

>>2432875

Now, IF the animal was at a scientific laboratory, and lets say magically you had ethical approval- you COULD do this to try some new drugs- but in reality you wouldn't- this scenario would prove to have far too many external variables that would make these animals essentially useless test subjects. You would likely do this with two lab animals that had been geneticallly engineered plus raised specificially for this experiment to eliminate as many random variables as possible. Either that or you'd simulate with organs all sorts of other ways- research is amazing these days at avoiding live experimentation wherever possible.

Hope this answers your question OP.

TLDR: Vets are not allowed to randomly inject substances into your dog and act like a mad scientist- what OP is suggesting is illegal for your average vet. Also, OP's example would not be viable as the animals would have too many variables - and as of such would be useless to medical research.