ReviewVeterinary research2015
A review of the human vs. porcine female genital tract and associated immune system in the perspective of using minipigs as a model of human genital Chlamydia infection.
Review in Veterinary research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
43 citing papers in PubMed, 97 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estrogen Receptor Expression Changes After Puberty in the Porcine Anterior Cruciate Ligament.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The matrisome, methods, analytical evaluation and potential of decellularized porcine ovaries for fertility preservation.Cell and tissue research · 2026Review
- Mind the Litter: The Critical Role of Intralitter Variables in Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology Research.Birth defects research · 2026Review
- Decellularization method and tissue region impact the structural properties and composition of porcine vaginal extracellular matrix.Acta biomaterialia · 2026Article
- The development of a preclinical swine model for endometriosis†.Biology of reproduction · 2025Article
- Oxidative stress, apoptosis and proliferation in uterus of piglets fed by sow or formula after ex vivo endocrine compound exposure.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Study Models forMicroorganisms · 2025Review
- The pig as a medical model for gynecological diseases: an applied perspective.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
- Mechanisms of female reproductive toxicity in pigs induced by exposure to environmental pollutants.Molecules and cells · 2024Review
- A TriAdj-AdjuvantedVaccines · 2024Article
- Unlocking the Promise of Decellularized Pancreatic Tissue: A Novel Approach to Support Angiogenesis in Engineered Tissue.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Advances in vaccine development for Chlamydia trachomatis.Pathogens and disease · 2024Review
- Article
- In Vivo Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of Ethyl Cellulose-Ethanol Tissue Ablation in a Swine Cervix Model.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Morphological Characteristics of Genital Organ-Associated Lymphoid Tissue in the Vaginal Vestibule of Goats and Pigs.Veterinary sciences · 2023Article
- Immune responses in the uterine mucosa: clues for vaccine development in pigs.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Comparison of Morphological and Histological Characteristics of Human and Sheep: Sheep as a Potential Model for Testing Midurethral Slings in vivo.Urologia internationalis · 2023Article
- Effect of Dexamethasone and Route of Administration on Sow Farrowing Behaviours, Piglet Delivery and Litter Performance.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Unique Transcriptomic Changes Underlie Hormonal Interactions During Mammary Histomorphogenesis in Female Pigs.Endocrinology · 2022Article
- Study of fallopian tube anatomy and mechanical properties to determine pressure limits for endoscopic exploration.Journal of histotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sexually transmitted diseases constitute major health issues and their prevention and treatment continue to challenge the health care systems worldwide. Animal models are essential for a deeper understanding of the diseases and the development of safe and protective vaccines. Currently a good predictive non-rodent model is needed for the study of genital chlamydia in women. The pig has become an increasingly popular model for human diseases due to its close similarities to humans. The aim of this review is to compare the porcine and human female genital tract and associated immune system in the perspective of genital Chlamydia infection. The comparison of women and sows has shown that despite some gross anatomical differences, the structures and proportion of layers undergoing cyclic alterations are very similar. Reproductive hormonal cycles are closely related, only showing a slight difference in cycle length and source of luteolysing hormone. The epithelium and functional layers of the endometrium show similar cyclic changes. The immune system in pigs is very similar to that of humans, even though pigs have a higher percentage of CD4(+)/CD8(+) double positive T cells. The genital immune system is also very similar in terms of the cyclic fluctuations in the mucosal antibody levels, but differs slightly regarding immune cell infiltration in the genital mucosa - predominantly due to the influx of neutrophils in the porcine endometrium during estrus. The vaginal flora in Göttingen Minipigs is not dominated by lactobacilli as in humans. The vaginal pH is around 7 in Göttingen Minipigs, compared to the more acidic vaginal pH around 3.5-5 in women. This review reveals important similarities between the human and porcine female reproductive tracts and proposes the pig as an advantageous supplementary model of human genital Chlamydia infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.