3.9 Review

Modeling Prostate Cancer in Mice: Limitations and Opportunities

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY
卷 33, 期 2, 页码 133-144

出版社

AMER SOC ANDROLOGY, INC
DOI: 10.2164/jandrol.111.013987

关键词

Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC); knockout; transgene; metastasis; prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [NIDDK RO1 DK 491815, NCI R01 CA107575]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The complex dynamics of the tumor microenvironment and prostate cancer heterogeneity have confounded efforts to establish suitable preclinical mouse models to represent human cancer progression from early proliferative phenotypes to aggressive, androgen-independent, and invasive metastatic tumors. Current models have been successful in capitulating individual characteristics of the aggressive tumors. However, none of these models comprehensively mimics human cancer progression, establishing the challenge in their exploitation to study human disease. The ability to tailor phenotypic outcomes in mice by compounding mutations to target specific molecular pathways provides a powerful tool toward disruption of signaling pathways contributing to the initiation and progression of castration-resistant prostate cancer. Each model is characterized by unique features contributing to the understanding of prostate tumorigenesis, as well as limitations challenging our knowledge of the mechanisms of cancer development and progression. Emerging strategies utilize genomic manipulation technology to circumvent these limitations toward the formulation of attractive, physiologically relevant models of prostate cancer progression to advanced disease. This review discusses the current value of the widely used and well-characterized mouse models of prostate cancer progression to metastasis, as well as the opportunities begging exploitation for the development of new models for testing the antitumor efficacy of therapeutic strategies and identifying new biomarkers of disease progression.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据