4.6 Review

Exploring Animal Models That Resemble Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2017.00118

关键词

bleomycin; idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; murine model; asbestosis; aged mice

资金

  1. Lester and Sue Smith Foundation
  2. Coalition for Pulmonary Fibrosis
  3. Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation
  4. Marie Curie/Sklodowska ERS/RESPIRE 2 fellowship [8860-2015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Large multicenter clinical trials have led to two recently approved drugs for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF); yet, both of these therapies only slow disease progression and do not provide a definitive cure. Traditionally, preclinical trials have utilized mouse models of bleomycin (BLM)-induced pulmonary fibrosis though several limitations prevent direct translation to human IPF. Spontaneous pulmonary fibrosis occurs in other animal species, including dogs, horses, donkeys, and cats. While the fibrotic lungs of these animals share many characteristics with lungs of patients with IPF, current veterinary classifications of fibrotic lung disease are not entirely equivalent. Additional studies that profile these examples of spontaneous fibroses in animals for similarities to human IPF should prove useful for both human and animal investigators. In the meantime, studies of BLM-induced fibrosis in aged male mice remain the most clinically relevant model for preclinical study for human IPF. Addressing issues such as time course of treatment, animal size and characteristics, clinically irrelevant treatment endpoints, and reproducibility of therapeutic outcomes will improve the current status of preclinical studies. Elucidating the mechanisms responsible for the development of fibrosis and disrepair associated with aging through a collaborative approach between researchers will promote the development of models that more accurately represent the realm of interstitial lung diseases in humans.

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

4.6
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