ArticleBiomedicines2023
Evaluation of Five Mammalian Models for Human Disease Research Using Genomic and Bioinformatic Approaches.
Article in Biomedicines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Generation of marmoset monkeys with a non-mosaic disruption of the OTOF gene as a model of human deafness.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Incorporating farm animal models for the study of neuropsychiatric diseases: Expansion of the possibilities.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Review
- Shared signatures of alcohol-associated dysbiosis in humans and non-human primates.Current research in microbial sciences · 2026Article
- A comparative review of single-cell atlases: mapping cellular diversity across species and tissues.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2025Review
- Selective epithelial expression of KRASScientific reports · 2025Article
- Animal models in biomedical research: Relevance ofHeliyon · 2025Review
- Current Insights in Murine Models for Breast Cancer: Present, Past and Future.Current pharmaceutical design · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The suitability of an animal model for use in studying human diseases relies heavily on the similarities between the two species at the genetic, epigenetic, and metabolic levels. However, there is a lack of consistent data from different animal models at each level to evaluate this suitability. With the availability of genome sequences for many mammalian species, it is now possible to compare animal models based on genomic similarities. Herein, we compare the coding sequences (CDSs) of five mammalian models, including rhesus macaque, marmoset, pig, mouse, and rat models, with human coding sequences. We identified 10,316 conserved CDSs across the five organisms and the human genome based on sequence similarity. Mapping the human-disease-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from these conserved CDSs in each species has identified species-specific associations with various human diseases. While associations with a disease such as colon cancer were prevalent in multiple model species, the rhesus macaque showed the most model-specific human disease associations. Based on the percentage of disease-associated SNP-containing genes, marmoset models are well suited to study many human ailments, including behavioral and cardiovascular diseases. This study demonstrates a genomic similarity evaluation of five animal models against human CDSs that could help investigators select a suitable animal model for studying their target disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.