ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Recent advances in the development and application of colorectal cancer mouse models.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Colorectal Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Signaling Pathways, Clinical Features, Screening, Diagnosis, and Management.MedComm · 2026Review
- Circadian Rhythms in Colorectal Cancer: Recent Advances in Development and Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2026Review
- Sodium butyrate inhibits colorectal cancer development by reducing M2 macrophage polarization and PD-L1 expression.mSystems · 2025Article
- Review
- The paradigm shift: re-evaluating preclinical animal models for colorectal cancer in the precision medicine era.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant global health challenge, necessitating the development of reliable preclinical models to advance mechanistic understanding and therapeutic innovation. This review comprehensively examines the diverse spectrum of rodent models employed in CRC research, focusing on their unique characteristics, applications, and translational relevance. We systematically evaluate conventional models, including carcinogen-induced models and genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs), which have been instrumental in elucidating tumorigenic pathways and genetic drivers. Furthermore, we highlight the emergence of patient-derived xenografts (PDX) as a transformative tool for recapitulating tumor heterogeneity and predicting clinical responses. The review also explores metastatic models, which are critical for studying advanced disease, and spontaneous models that mimic natural tumor progression. Additionally, we discuss the growing utility of composite animal models, which integrate multiple methodologies to better reflect the complexity of human CRC. By comparing the strengths and limitations of each model system, this review provides a framework for selecting appropriate models based on specific research objectives. Collectively, these preclinical platforms have significantly advanced our understanding of CRC biology and continue to drive the development of targeted therapies and personalized treatment strategies.
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.