Kristina Allen-Brady1, Maria A T Bortolini2, Margot S Damaser3,4,5. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Williams Building 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. kristina.allen@utah.edu. 2. Department of Gynecology, Sector of Urogynecology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 5. Advanced Platform Technology Center, Louis Stokes Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Mouse knockout (KO) models of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) have contributed mechanistic evidence for the role of connective tissue defects, specifically impaired elastic matrix remodeling. Our objective was to summarize what mouse KO models for POP are available and what have we learned from these mouse models about the pathophysiological mechanisms of POP development. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and reported narrative findings according to PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Scopus and Embase for relevant manuscripts and conference abstracts for the time frame of January 1, 2000, to March 31, 2021. Conference abstracts were limited to the past 5 years. RESULTS: The search strategy resulted in 294 total titles. We ultimately included 25 articles and an additional 11 conference abstracts. Five KO models have been studied: Loxl1, Fbln5, Fbln3, Hoxa11 and Upii-sv40t. Loxl1 and Fbln5 KO models have provided the most reliable and predictable POP phenotype. Loxl1 KO mice develop POP primarily from failure to heal after giving birth, whereas Fbln5 KO mice develop POP with aging. These mouse KO models have been used for a wide variety of investigations including genetic pathways involved in development of POP, biomechanical properties of the pelvic floor, elastic fiber deposition, POP therapies and the pathophysiology associated with mesh complications. CONCLUSIONS: Mouse KO models have proved to be a valuable tool in the study of specific genes and their role in the development and progression of POP. They may be useful to study POP treatments and POP complications.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Mouse knockout (KO) models of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) have contributed mechanistic evidence for the role of connective tissue defects, specifically impaired elastic matrix remodeling. Our objective was to summarize what mouse KO models for POP are available and what have we learned from these mouse models about the pathophysiological mechanisms of POP development. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and reported narrative findings according to PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Scopus and Embase for relevant manuscripts and conference abstracts for the time frame of January 1, 2000, to March 31, 2021. Conference abstracts were limited to the past 5 years. RESULTS: The search strategy resulted in 294 total titles. We ultimately included 25 articles and an additional 11 conference abstracts. Five KO models have been studied: Loxl1, Fbln5, Fbln3, Hoxa11 and Upii-sv40t. Loxl1 and Fbln5 KO models have provided the most reliable and predictable POP phenotype. Loxl1 KO mice develop POP primarily from failure to heal after giving birth, whereas Fbln5 KO mice develop POP with aging. These mouse KO models have been used for a wide variety of investigations including genetic pathways involved in development of POP, biomechanical properties of the pelvic floor, elastic fiber deposition, POP therapies and the pathophysiology associated with mesh complications. CONCLUSIONS: Mouse KO models have proved to be a valuable tool in the study of specific genes and their role in the development and progression of POP. They may be useful to study POP treatments and POP complications.
Authors: Hiromi Yanagisawa; Elaine C Davis; Barry C Starcher; Takashi Ouchi; Masashi Yanagisawa; James A Richardson; Eric N Olson Journal: Nature Date: 2002-01-10 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Michal Sikora; David Scheiner; Cornelia Betschart; Daniele Perucchini; José María Mateos; Anthony di Natale; Daniel Fink; Caroline Maake Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Laura Cattani; Judit Decoene; Ann-Sophie Page; Natalie Weeg; Jan Deprest; Hans Peter Dietz Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Marcus Vinicius Barbosa de Paula; Marcos Antônio de Farias Lira Júnior; Vivian Costa E Silva Crocco Monteiro; Ricardo Peres Souto; César Eduardo Fernandes; Emerson de Oliveira Journal: Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 1.209
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Catherine A Matthews; Mitchell M Conover; Virginia Pate; Michele Jonsson Funk Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Slater A Jameson; Ganesh Swaminathan; Shataakshi Dahal; Bruna Couri; Mei Kuang; Anna Rietsch; Robert S Butler; Anand Ramamurthi; Margot S Damaser Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2020-06