Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34382636›Full record

ArticleDisease models & mechanisms2021

Bioluminescent imaging in induced mouse models of endometriosis reveals differences in four model variations.

Ashley Dorning, Priya Dhami, Kavita Panir, Chloe Hogg, Emma Park, Gregory D Ferguson, Diane Hargrove, James Karras, Andrew W Horne, Erin Greaves

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Disease models & mechanisms, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Induction of Endometriosis in a Menstruating Mouse Model (Mus musculus): A Translational Animal Disease Model.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Modelling Endometriosis Using In Vitro and In Vivo Systems.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

10 authors.

Ashley DorningMedical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health, Queen's Medical Research Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4TJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0595-8616
Priya DhamiCentre for Early Life, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
Kavita PanirCentre for Early Life, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7139-819X
Chloe HoggMedical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health, Queen's Medical Research Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4TJ, UK.
Emma ParkMedical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health, Queen's Medical Research Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4TJ, UK.
Gregory D FergusonFerring Research Institute, 4245 Sorrento Valley Blvd, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Diane HargroveFerring Research Institute, 4245 Sorrento Valley Blvd, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
James KarrasFerring Research Institute, 4245 Sorrento Valley Blvd, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Andrew W HorneMedical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health, Queen's Medical Research Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4TJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9656-493X
Erin GreavesCentre for Early Life, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9165-5851

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M009238/1Medical Research Council MR/M009238/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our understanding of the aetiology and pathophysiology of endometriosis remains limited. Disease modelling in the field is problematic as many versions of induced mouse models of endometriosis exist. We integrated bioluminescent imaging of 'lesions' generated using luciferase-expressing donor mice. We compared longitudinal bioluminescence and histology of lesions, sensory behaviour of mice with induced endometriosis and the impact of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist Cetrorelix on lesion regression and sensory behaviour. Four models of endometriosis were tested. We found that the nature of the donor uterine material was a key determinant of how chronic the lesions were, as well as their cellular composition. The severity of pain-like behaviour also varied across models. Although Cetrorelix significantly reduced lesion bioluminescence in all models, it had varying impacts on pain-like behaviour. Collectively, our results demonstrate key differences in the progression of the 'disease' across different mouse models of endometriosis. We propose that validation and testing in multiple models, each of which may be representative of the different subtypes/heterogeneity observed in women, should become a standard approach to discovery science in the field of endometriosis.

Indexed as

EndometriosisAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalFemaleHormone AntagonistsHumansMiceHormone AntagonistsEndometriosisGnRH antagonistLesionPain

Identifiers

PMID34382636
PMCPMC8419713

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.