ReviewMolecular biology reports2024
Critical appraisal of the chorioallantoic membrane model for studying angiogenesis in preclinical research.
Review in Molecular biology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Tight Spaces, Big Discoveries: Decoding Human Adhesion Biology with Avian Chorioallantoic Membrane Xenograft Models.Cancers · 2026Review
- Zebrafish model for studying vascular development and vascular-related disease.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Sinusoidal Extremely Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Stimulation (ELF-EMS) Promotes Angiogenesis In Vitro.Biomedicines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAngiogenesis, the biological mechanism by which new blood vessels are generated from existing ones, plays a vital role in growth and development. Effective preclinical screening is necessary for the development of medications that may enhance or inhibit angiogenesis in the setting of different disorders. Traditional in vitro and, in vivo models of angiogenesis are laborious and time-consuming, necessitating advanced infrastructure for embryo culture. MAIN BODY: A challenge encountered by researchers studying angiogenesis is the lack of appropriate techniques to evaluate the impact of regulators on the angiogenic response. An ideal test should possess reliability, technical simplicity, easy quantifiability, and, most importantly, physiological relevance. The CAM model, leveraging the extraembryonic membrane of the chicken embryo, offers a unique combination of accessibility, low cost, and rapid development, making it an attractive option for angiogenesis assays. This review evaluates the strengths and limitations of the CAM model in the context of its anatomical and physiological properties, and its relevance to human pathophysiological conditions. Its abundant capillary network makes it a common choice for studying angiogenesis. The CAM assay serves as a substitute for animal models and offers a natural setting for developing blood vessels and the many elements involved in the intricate interaction with the host. Despite its advantages, the CAM model's limitations are notable. These include species-specific responses that may not always extrapolate to humans and the ethical considerations of using avian embryos. We discuss methodological adaptations that can mitigate some of these limitations and propose future directions to enhance the translational relevance of this model. This review underscores the CAM model's valuable role in angiogenesis research and aims to guide researchers in optimizing its use for more predictive and robust preclinical studies.
conclusionThe highly vascularized chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) of fertilized chicken eggs is a cost-effective and easily available method for screening angiogenesis, in comparison to other animal models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39340708What 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.