| Literature DB >> 29651417 |
Hidetoshi Mori1, Robert D Cardiff1,2, Alexander D Borowsky1,2.
Abstract
Mouse models and genetically engineered mouse models (GEMM) are essential experimental tools for the understanding molecular mechanisms within complex biological systems. GEMM are especially useful for inferencing phenocopy information to genetic human diseases such as breast cancer. Human breast cancer modeling in mice most commonly employs mammary epithelial-specific promoters to investigate gene function(s) and, in particular, putative oncogenes. Models are specifically useful in the mammary epithelial cell in the context of the complete mammary gland environment. Gene targeted knockout mice including conditional targeting to specific mammary cells can reveal developmental defects in mammary organogenesis and demonstrate the importance of putative tumor suppressor genes. Some of these models demonstrate a non-traditional type of tumor suppression which involves interplay between the tumor susceptible cell and its host/environment. These GEMM help to reveal the processes of cancer progression beyond those intrinsic to cancer cells. Furthermore, the, analysis of mouse models requires appropriate consideration of mouse strain, background, and environmental factors. In this review, we compare aging-related factors in mouse models for breast cancer. We introduce databases of GEMM attributes and colony functional variations.Entities:
Keywords: aging; gene knockout mice; genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs); mammary tumorigenesis; mouse strain
Year: 2018 PMID: 29651417 PMCID: PMC5884881 DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2018.00035
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol ISSN: 2296-634X
Figure 1Tumor latency in MMTV-LTR driven GEMM. A graph indicates a tumor latency (T50, weeks) in each MMTV-LTR driven GEMM. GEMM in Mouse Gemone Informatics (http://www.informatics.jax.org/) are shown. Blue and red bars indicate nulliparous and multiparous, respectively. Green line indicates 43 weeks (10 months) when the mouse is in age equivalent in mid-age human (Flurkey et al., 2007). If each publication described T50 or a graph for percentage of tumor free, T50 is indicated as weeks. If the publication does not indicate these parameters but has enough information to predict T50, indicated T50 were calculated. MMTV-LTR driven GEMM, which does not have sufficient information to calculate T50 or have other information (e.g., non-palpable tumor but microscopic observation for hyperplastic region), are summarized in additional Supplementary Data Sheet 1.
Figure 2Tumor latency in Wap-promoter driven GEMM. A graph indicates a tumor latency (T50, weeks) in each Wap-promoter driven GEMM. Blue and red bars indicate nulliparous and multiparous, respectively. Green line indicates 43 weeks (10 months). As same as MMTV-LTR driven GEMM, if each publication does not indicate T50, the T50 is estimated from the information. Additional information for GEMM not listed on this graph is available in Supplementary Data Sheet 1.