hi

It is a good idea. However, if you measure the temperature inside a cancer cell and a normal cell are compared to the significant temperature difference can be design the polymeric nontoxic drug precursor (thermal sensitive polymers) in which the temperature convert to a toxic drug.

good luck

...but do cancer cells have higher temperatures than normal cells then? How has this been measured?sorry for the probably stupid question but i mostly work with whole animals but cells...

The testis and epididymis of males is kept an a lower optimal temperature in order to maintain sperm quiescence and proper storage conditions. Not sure if that will help answer your question, but this organ and cells from this organ require lower temperatures in vivo and in vitro for optimal growth and survival.

Beside brain, the best site specific differences in body temperature occur in the cardiac muscles.

Thanks, guys, these are really valuable thoughts. which is the hottest part in the heart?

Apart from brain, The site specific temperature in the animal (rat) could be studied at the ventral region of the foot paw, this is a mere guess. For more info. regarding the temperature studies on human, you may check the following.

i) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22411072‎

ii) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23274424‎

There is a whole body thermography report by Albert F. Kelso et al. (several years ago, more than a decade). It was used successfully to obtain data, but, as I recall, the data had too much variance to answer their research question.

What do you think about muscle tissue? Measuring the temperature before and after a mice running may will give you an alternative model!

I think this is a very nice idea, Erika! Do we actually know to which extent muscle tissue is warmed up through exercise?

:)

To me, 'body temperature' is not defined with precision in this question. Does 'skin temperature' belong to the class 'body temperature'?

If 'body temperature' is defined as 'energy' produced by the individual living being, temperatures leaving the individual body should also be defined as 'body temperature'. Is body temperature leaving the body an 'extended phenotype' as defined by Dawkins (1981)? Just to stimulate thinking about scientific terminology.....

If we are talking about terminology then I think we should stick to the strict physical definitions based on heat transfer theory. That is temperature of any body (living or not) is the amount of heat energy stored in the body multiplied by its specific heat capacity. When heat losses by the body balance heat gains the body temperature is stable, and when they are not balanced temperature will rise or fall. By these definitions it does not make any sense to talk about body temperature being equivalent to energy production, or to talk about temperature 'leaving the body'.

Heat leaving the body, however, really could be viewed as an extended phenotype, with adaptive consequences for other animals - eg heat given off by one animal can be used to heat up another individual during for example huddling behaviour.

OK concerning the physical definition. Just to philosophically add that 'body temperature' has been named in different science disciplines (ecology, physiology, medicine...), and that many use proxies of the physical definition because of practical reasons (e.g. ecological field work requiring rapid estimates, like skin measurements or laser beam measurements at a distance). 'Body temperature' might have 'any' value...., just depending on the scale of analysis and the definition perhaps varying across research disciplines....

Thanks and Happy New Year

Costs and benefits of scientific measurements:

Some might state that science terminology should be measurable from a practical point of view. Some measurements are practically rarely or not possible, such as 'detailed' scanning of spatiotemporal dynamics of body temperature within wildlife. Should science practice define 'optimality principles' in science terminology taken costs and benefits of measurements into account. 'Optimal' terminology, like measurable body temperature, might be scale dependent and vary across science questions and research fields.... .

Or not? Should science terminology always present the 'ideal terminology' most often inaccessible from a practical (logistic) point of view.

Science terminology and science practice

If science terminology should express what has been done, is a terminology like 'body temperature' undefinable or unrepeatable from a practical point of view given that each study claiming to investigate 'body temperature' has unique characteristics in practice?

Are the practical definitions of 'body temperature' unlimited? For instance, science theory might present one sentence for 'body temperature', whereas science practice will present an unlimited number of sentences defining measured 'body temperature'. Perhaps science terminology is represented by a class of phenomena grouped together under the same heading in empirical research, as reflected in the numerous fashions 'body temperature' has been described in methods sections of publications.

Is 'body temperature' a relative concept? The value is perceiver-dependent.