ReviewAnimal models and experimental medicine2024
Against all odds: The road to success in the development of human immune reconstitution mice.
Review in Animal models and experimental medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intracranial LPS injection induces cerebral palsy-like motor and behavioral deficits in immunodeficient mice.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Advancements on the synergistic application of oncolytic viruses and molecularly targeted therapies for the treatment of solid tumors (Review).International journal of oncology · 2026Review
- Midgestational injection of highly expanded human CD34+ cells increases lineages of human immune cells and supports thymic development inFrontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- A pig with functional human immunity.Nature biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Animal Models in Wound Healing Research and the Utility for Humanized Mice Models.Advances in wound care · 2025Review
- Against all odds: The road to success in the development of human immune reconstitution mice.Animal models and experimental medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The mouse genome has a high degree of homology with the human genome, and its physiological, biochemical, and developmental regulation mechanisms are similar to those of humans; therefore, mice are widely used as experimental animals. However, it is undeniable that interspecies differences between humans and mice can lead to experimental errors. The differences in the immune system have become an important factor limiting current immunological research. The application of immunodeficient mice provides a possible solution to these problems. By transplanting human immune cells or tissues, such as peripheral blood mononuclear cells or hematopoietic stem cells, into immunodeficient mice, a human immune system can be reconstituted in the mouse body, and the engrafted immune cells can elicit human-specific immune responses. Researchers have been actively exploring the development and differentiation conditions of host recipient animals and grafts in order to achieve better immune reconstitution. Through genetic engineering methods, immunodeficient mice can be further modified to provide a favorable developmental and differentiation microenvironment for the grafts. From initially only being able to reconstruct single T lymphocyte lineages, it is now possible to reconstruct lymphoid and myeloid cells, providing important research tools for immunology-related studies. In this review, we compare the differences in immune systems of humans and mice, describe the development history of human immune reconstitution from the perspectives of immunodeficient mice and grafts, and discuss the latest advances in enhancing the efficiency of human immune cell reconstitution, aiming to provide important references for immunological related researches.
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.