4.7 Review

Dual gene deficient models of Apc(Min/+) mouse in assessing molecular mechanisms of intestinal carcinogenesis

Journal

BIOMEDICINE & PHARMACOTHERAPY
Volume 108, Issue -, Pages 600-609

Publisher

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2018.09.056

Keywords

Apc(Min/+) mice; Double gene deficiency; Gene mutation; Intestinal tumor; Mouse model

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of P.R. China [81803570]
  2. Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [ZR2017BH093]
  3. Health and Family Planning Commission of Jinan, China [2017-2-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Apc(Min/+) mouse, carrying an inactivated allele of the adenomatous polyposis coli (Apc) gene, is a widely used animal model of human colorectal tumorigenesis. While crossed with other gene knockout or knock-in mice, these mice possess advantages in investigation of human intestinal tumorigenesis. Intestinal tumor pathogenesis involves multiple gene alterations; thus, various double gene deficiency models could provide novel insights into molecular mechanisms of tumor biology, as well as gene-gene interactions involved in intestinal tumor development and assessment of novel strategies for preventing and treating intestinal cancer. This review discusses approximately 100 double gene deficient mice and their associated intestinal tumor development and progression phenotypes. The dual gene knockouts based on the Apc mutation background consist of inflammation and immune-related, cell cycle-related, Wnt/beta-catenin signaling-related, tumor growth factor (TGF)-signaling-related, drug metabolism-related, and transcription factor genes, as well as some oncogenes and tumor suppressors. Future studies should focus on conditional or inducible dual or multiple mouse gene knockout models to investigate the molecular mechanisms underlying intestinal tumor development, as well as potential drug targets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available