Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37269418›Full record

ReviewJournal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia2023

Molecular Characterization and Landscape of Breast cancer Models from a multi-omics Perspective.

Mylena M O Ortiz, Eran R Andrechek

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. ERFrontiers in oncology · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Murine Models of Obesity-Related Cancer Risk.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. CXCR4Nature communications · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Molecular Basis of Breast Tumor Heterogeneity.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mylena M O OrtizGenetics and Genomics Science Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Eran R AndrechekDepartment of Physiology, Michigan State University, 2194 BPS Building 567 Wilson Road, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA. Andrech1@msu.edu.
Michigan State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer is well-known to be a highly heterogenous disease. This facet of cancer makes finding a research model that mirrors the disparate intrinsic features challenging. With advances in multi-omics technologies, establishing parallels between the various models and human tumors is increasingly intricate. Here we review the various model systems and their relation to primary breast tumors using available omics data platforms. Among the research models reviewed here, breast cancer cell lines have the least resemblance to human tumors since they have accumulated many mutations and copy number alterations during their long use. Moreover, individual proteomic and metabolomic profiles do not overlap with the molecular landscape of breast cancer. Interestingly, omics analysis revealed that the initial subtype classification of some breast cancer cell lines was inappropriate. In cell lines the major subtypes are all well represented and share some features with primary tumors. In contrast, patient-derived xenografts (PDX) and patient-derived organoids (PDO) are superior in mirroring human breast cancers at many levels, making them suitable models for drug screening and molecular analysis. While patient derived organoids are spread across luminal, basal- and normal-like subtypes, the PDX samples were initially largely basal but other subtypes have been increasingly described. Murine models offer heterogenous tumor landscapes, inter and intra-model heterogeneity, and give rise to tumors of different phenotypes and histology. Murine models have a reduced mutational burden compared to human breast cancer but share some transcriptomic resemblance, and representation of many breast cancer subtypes can be found among the variety subtypes. To date, while mammospheres and three- dimensional cultures lack comprehensive omics data, these are excellent models for the study of stem cells, cell fate decision and differentiation, and have also been used for drug screening. Therefore, this review explores the molecular landscapes and characterization of breast cancer research models by comparing recent published multi-omics data and analysis.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAnimalsCell Line, TumorFemaleGene Expression ProfilingHumansMiceMultiomicsProteomicsCancer subtypesGene expressionIntegrated analysisModeling systemsMouse modelsSequencing

Identifiers

PMID37269418
PMCPMC10239388
OpenAlexW4379259730

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.