Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34476572›Full record

ReviewMammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society2022

Swine models for translational oncological research: an evolving landscape and regulatory considerations.

Adeline N Boettcher, Kyle M Schachtschneider, Lawrence B Schook, Christopher K Tuggle

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Improvements in pig agriculture through gene editing.CABI agriculture and bioscience · 2022
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Adeline N BoettcherDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, 2255 Kildee Hall, 806 Stange Road, Ames, IA, 50011, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3791-612X
Kyle M SchachtschneiderDepartment of Radiology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7293-8642
Lawrence B SchookDepartment of Radiology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6580-8364
Christopher K TuggleDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, 2255 Kildee Hall, 806 Stange Road, Ames, IA, 50011, USA. cktuggle@iastate.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4229-5316
Iowa State University · USUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · US

Funding

Developing second generation SCID pig models: filling the gaps to improve translation of therapeutics in regenerative medicineR24OD028748 · OD · IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Christopher Tuggle · 2020 to 2026
$4.7M
NIH HHS R24 OD028748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Swine biomedical models have been gaining in popularity over the last decade, particularly for applications in oncology research. Swine models for cancer research include pigs that have severe combined immunodeficiency for xenotransplantation studies, genetically modified swine models which are capable of developing tumors in vivo, as well as normal immunocompetent pigs. In recent years, there has been a low success rate for the approval of new oncological therapeutics in clinical trials. The two leading reasons for these failures are either due to toxicity and safety issues or lack of efficacy. As all therapeutics must be tested within animal models prior to clinical testing, there are opportunities to expand the ability to assess efficacy and toxicity profiles within the preclinical testing phases of new therapeutics. Most preclinical in vivo testing is performed in mice, canines, and non-human primates. However, swine models are an alternative large animal model for cancer research with similarity to human size, genetics, and physiology. Additionally, tumorigenesis pathways are similar between human and pigs in that similar driver mutations are required for transformation. Due to their larger size, the development of orthotopic tumors is easier than in smaller rodent models; additionally, porcine models can be harnessed for testing of new interventional devices and radiological/surgical approaches as well. Taken together, swine are a feasible option for preclinical therapeutic and device testing. The goals of this resource are to provide a broad overview on regulatory processes required for new therapeutics and devices for use in the clinic, cross-species differences in oncological therapeutic responses, as well as to provide an overview of swine oncology models that have been developed that could be used for preclinical testing to fulfill regulatory requirements.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsTranslational Research, BiomedicalAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalDogsMicePrimatesSwineTransplantation, Heterologous

Identifiers

PMID34476572
PMCPMC8888764
OpenAlexW3198259805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.