Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28291161›Full record

ReviewPancreas2017

Development of the Nonobese Diabetic Mouse and Contribution of Animal Models for Understanding Type 1 Diabetes.

Yoko Mullen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pancreas, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Characterization and effective expansion of CD4Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Cells · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Advances in Rodent Experimental Models of Sepsis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Type 1Micromachines · 2023
    Review
  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

1 author.

Yoko MullenFrom the Department of Translational Research and Cellular Therapeutics, Diabetes & Metabolism Research Institute, City of Hope, Duarte, CA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 1974, the discovery of a mouse and a rat that spontaneously developed hyperglycemia led to the development of 2 autoimmune diabetes models: nonobese diabetic (NOD) mouse and Bio-Breeding rat. These models have contributed to our understanding of autoimmune diabetes, provided tools to dissect autoimmune islet damage, and facilitated development of early detection, prevention, and treatment of type 1 diabetes. The genetic characterization, monoclonal antibodies, and congenic strains have made NOD mice especially useful.Although the establishment of the inbred NOD mouse strain was documented by Makino et al (Jikken Dobutsu. 1980;29:1-13), this review will focus on the not-as-well-known history leading to the discovery of a glycosuric female mouse by Yoshihiro Tochino. This discovery was spearheaded by years of effort by Japanese scientists from different disciplines and dedicated animal care personnel and by the support of the Shionogi Pharmaceutical Company, Osaka, Japan. The history is based on the early literature, mostly written in Japanese, and personal communications especially with Dr Tochino, who was involved in diabetes animal model development and who contributed to the release of NOD mice to the international scientific community. This article also reviews the scientific contributions made by the Bio-Breeding rat to autoimmune diabetes.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAnimalsAutoimmunityDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1HumansIslets of LangerhansMice, Inbred NODRats

Identifiers

PMID28291161
PMCPMC5359790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.