Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28378063›Full record

ReviewMammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society2017

Bridging the gap: large animal models in neurodegenerative research.

S L Eaton, T M Wishart

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Ageing, Neurodegeneration and the Endocannabinoid System.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. LinkedbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Huntingtin Interacting Proteins and Pathological Implications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

S L EatonRoslin Institute and Royal (Dick) Veterinary studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Campus, Edinburgh, EH25 9RG, UK.
T M WishartRoslin Institute and Royal (Dick) Veterinary studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Campus, Edinburgh, EH25 9RG, UK. t.m.wishart@roslin.ed.ac.uk.

Funding

BBSRC BB/J004332/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20251969Medical Research Council MR/M010341/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The world health organisation has declared neurological disorders as one of the greatest public health risks in the world today. Yet, despite this growing concern, the mechanisms underpinning many of these conditions are still poorly understood. This may in part be due to the seemingly diverse nature of the initiating insults ranging from genetic (such as the Ataxia's and Lysosomal storage disorders) through to protein misfolding and aggregation (i.e. Prions), and those of a predominantly unknown aetiology (i.e. Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease). However, efforts to elucidate mechanistic regulation are also likely to be hampered because of the complexity of the human nervous system, the apparent selective regional vulnerability and differential degenerative progression. The key to elucidating these aetiologies is determining the regional molecular cascades, which are occurring from the early through to terminal stages of disease progression. Whilst much molecular data have been captured at the end stage of disease from post-mortem analysis in humans, the very early stages of disease are often conspicuously asymptomatic, and even if they were not, repeated sampling from multiple brain regions of "affected" patients and "controls" is neither ethical nor possible. Model systems therefore become fundamental for elucidating the mechanisms governing these complex neurodegenerative conditions. However, finding a model that precisely mimics the human condition can be challenging and expensive. Whilst cellular and invertebrate models are frequently used in neurodegenerative research and have undoubtedly yielded much useful data, the comparatively simplistic nature of these systems makes insights gained from such a stand alone model limited when it comes to translation. Given the recent advances in gene editing technology, the options for novel model generation in higher order species have opened up new and exciting possibilities for the field. In this review, we therefore explain some of the reasons why larger animal models often appear to give a more robust recapitulation of human neurological disorders and why they may be a critical stepping stone for effective therapeutic translation.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalResearchAnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansNervous System DiseasesNeurodegenerative DiseasesWorkflowDuchenne Muscular DystrophyScrapieSimian Immunodeficiency VirusSomatic Cell Nuclear Transfer

Identifiers

PMID28378063
PMCPMC5569151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.