Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25369133›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

"Glowing head" mice: a genetic tool enabling reliable preclinical image-based evaluation of cancers in immunocompetent allografts.

Chi-Ping Day, John Carter, Zoe Weaver Ohler, Carrie Bonomi, Rajaa El Meskini, Philip Martin, Cari Graff-Cherry, Lionel Feigenbaum, Thomas Tüting, Terry Van Dyke and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Leveraging preclinical models of metastatic breast cancer.Biochimica et biophysica acta. Reviews on cancer · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Advances in Immunocompetent Mouse and Rat Models.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Chi-Ping DayLaboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
John CarterIn Vivo Evaluation, Leidos Biomedical Research Inc., Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland, United States of America.
Zoe Weaver OhlerCenter for Advanced Preclinical Research of Leidos Biomedical Research Inc., Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland, United States of America.
Carrie BonomiIn Vivo Evaluation, Leidos Biomedical Research Inc., Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland, United States of America.
Rajaa El MeskiniCenter for Advanced Preclinical Research of Leidos Biomedical Research Inc., Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland, United States of America.
Philip MartinCenter for Advanced Preclinical Research of Leidos Biomedical Research Inc., Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland, United States of America.
Cari Graff-CherryLaboratory Animal Science Program, Leidos Biomedical Research Inc., Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland, United States of America.
Lionel FeigenbaumLaboratory Animal Science Program, Leidos Biomedical Research Inc., Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland, United States of America.
Thomas TütingDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Terry Van DykeCenter for Advanced Preclinical Research of The Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, Maryland, United States of America.
Melinda HollingsheadBiological Testing Branch, Developmental Therapeutics Program, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, Maryland, United States of America.
Glenn MerlinoLaboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Leidos (United States) · USNational Cancer Institute · USCenter for Cancer Research · USFrederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research · USUniversity Hospital Bonn · DE

Funding

Preclinical GEM and GDA Models of Primary and Metastatic MelanomaZIABC011462 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI VAN DYKE, TERRY · 2012 to 2015
$1.6M
CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CIntramural NIH HHSNCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001E
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preclinical therapeutic assessment currently relies on the growth response of established human cell lines xenografted into immunocompromised mice, a strategy that is generally not predictive of clinical outcomes. Immunocompetent genetically engineered mouse (GEM)-derived tumor allograft models offer highly tractable preclinical alternatives and facilitate analysis of clinically promising immunomodulatory agents. Imageable reporters are essential for accurately tracking tumor growth and response, particularly for metastases. Unfortunately, reporters such as luciferase and GFP are foreign antigens in immunocompetent mice, potentially hindering tumor growth and confounding therapeutic responses. Here we assessed the value of reporter-tolerized GEMs as allograft recipients by targeting minimal expression of a luciferase-GFP fusion reporter to the anterior pituitary gland (dubbed the "Glowing Head" or GH mouse). The luciferase-GFP reporter expressed in tumor cells induced adverse immune responses in wildtype mouse, but not in GH mouse, as transplantation hosts. The antigenicity of optical reporters resulted in a decrease in both the growth and metastatic potential of the labeled tumor in wildtype mice as compared to the GH mice. Moreover, reporter expression can also alter the tumor response to chemotherapy or targeted therapy in a context-dependent manner. Thus the GH mice and experimental approaches vetted herein provide concept validation and a strategy for effective, reproducible preclinical evaluation of growth and response kinetics for traceable tumors.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAnimalsAntineoplastic Agents, PhytogenicCell Line, TumorDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalFemaleGenes, ReporterImmunocompromised HostKaplan-Meier EstimateLuciferasesLung NeoplasmsMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMice, Inbred NODMice, SCIDAntineoplastic Agents, PhytogenicLuciferasesPaclitaxel

Identifiers

PMID25369133
PMCPMC4219677
OpenAlexW1985204639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.