4.0 Review

Preclinical animal studies in ischemic stroke: Challenges and some solutions

期刊

ANIMAL MODELS AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 104-115

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ame2.12166

关键词

cerebral ischemia; circle of Willis; focal ischemic models; functional assessment tests; neuroprotection; preclinical model

资金

  1. Science and Engineering Research Board [CRG/2019/002076]
  2. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research [09/805(0012)/2019-EMR-I]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The lack of a powerful animal model for human ischemic stroke may be a major reason for the failure to develop successful neuroprotective drugs. Innovative animal models, better techniques in functional outcome assessment, and improved experimental designs are needed to develop truly beneficial drugs for human ischemic stroke.
Despite the impressive efficacies demonstrated in preclinical research, hundreds of potentially neuroprotective drugs have failed to provide effective neuroprotection for ischemic stroke in human clinical trials. Lack of a powerful animal model for human ischemic stroke could be a major reason for the failure to develop successful neuroprotective drugs for ischemic stroke. This review recapitulates the available cerebral ischemia animal models, provides an anatomical comparison of the circle of Willis of each species, and describes the functional assessment tests used in these ischemic stroke models. The distinct differences between human ischemic stroke and experimental stroke in available animal models is explored. Innovative animal models more closely resembling human strokes, better techniques in functional outcome assessment and better experimental designs generating clearer and stronger evidence may help realise the development of truly neuroprotective drugs that will benefit human ischemic stroke patients. This may involve use of newer molecules or revisiting earlier studies with new experimental designs. Translation of any resultant successes may then be tested in human clinical trials with greater confidence and optimism.

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

4.0
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