World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2018 ) > List of Articles


Applications and Limitations of Mouse Models in Oral Oncology: A Critical Appraisal

Doddabasavaiah B Nandini

Keywords : Head and neck cancer, Metastasis, Mouse models, Oral squamous cell carcinoma, Orthotopic model, Tumor microenvironment, Xenografts

Citation Information : Nandini DB. Applications and Limitations of Mouse Models in Oral Oncology: A Critical Appraisal. World J Dent 2018; 9 (6):527-531.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1592

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; The Author(s).


Background: The first step in a biomedical investigation of a disease entity involves framing a research hypothesis. The hypothesis is framed based on the pre-existing information. Evidence for the hypothesis is usually gathered starting with epidemiological studies to estimate the prevalence, etiology, associated risk factors of the disease. Once an epidemiological association is established then the investigation involves the use of experimental (in vivo, in vitro) studies to decode the molecular biology of the disease based on which we can formulate appropriate interventions. The major limiting factors in this approach is translating the data obtained from experimental studies on to clinical trials. These limitations are because of the inability of the in vivo and in vitro studies to replicate the microenvironment of the disease in humans. Experimental studies capable of closely simulating disease environment in humans would aid in eliciting the true nature of these diseases. At present, mouse models are largely being used to study human diseases including cancer. Aim and clinical significance: Although mouse models are considered better than other experimental models, it is vital that researchers select appropriate mouse models which would suit the purpose of the study. Thus, the present manuscript aims to critically review the applications and limitations of all mouse models employed in oral oncology which may aid the researchers in selecting the most optimal mouse models for their respective research.

PDF Share
  1. Pal D, Blair HJ, Elder A, Dormon K, Rennie KJ, Coleman DJL. Long-term in vitro maintenance of clonal abundance and leukaemia-initiating potential in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Leukemia. 2016;30:1691-1700.
  2. Bais MV, Kukuruzinska M, Trackman PC. Orthotopic nonmetastatic and metastatic oral cancer mouse models. Oral Oncol. 2015;51(5):476-482.
  3. Ishida K, Tomita H, Nakashima T, Hirata A, Tanaka T, Shibata T, et al. Current mouse models of oral squamous cell carcinoma: Genetic and chemically induced models. Oral Oncol. 2017;73:16-20.
  4. Braakhuis BJ, Sneeuwloper G, Snow GB. The potential of the nude mouse xenograft model for the study of head and neck cancer. Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1984;239:69-79.
  5. Sano D, Myers JN. Xenograft models of head and neck cancers. Head Neck Oncol. 2009;1:32.
  6. Tang XH, Knudsen B, Bernis D, Tickoo S, Gudas LJ. Oral cavity and oesophagus carcinogenesis modelled in carcinogentreated mice. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:301-313.
  7. Legrand N, Weijer K, Spits H. Experimental models to study development and function of the human immune system in vivo. J Immunol. 2006;176:2053-2058.
  8. Chang DH, Liu N, Klimek V, Hassoun H, Mazumder A, et al. Enhancement of ligand-dependent activation of human natural killer T cells by lenalidomide: Therapeutic implications. Blood. 2006;108:618-621.
  9. Lei Z, Ren X, Wang S, Liang X, Tang Y. Immunocompromised and immunocompetent mouse models for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Onco Targets and Therapy 2016; 9:545-555.
  10. Bogaards JJ, Bertrand M, Jackson P, Oudshoorn MJ, Weaver RJ, van Bladeren PJ, et al. Determining the best animal model for human cytochrome P450 activities: A comparisonof mouse, rat, rabbit, dog, micropig, monkey and man. Xeno biotica. 2000; 30:1131-1152
  11. Talmadge JE, Singh RK, Fidler IJ, Raz A. Murine models to evaluate novel and conventional therapeutic strategies for cancer. Am J Pathol. 2007;3:793-804.
  12. Richmond A, Su Y. Mouse xenograft models vs GEM models for human cancer therapeutics. Dis Model Mech. 2008;1(2-3): 78-82.
  13. Bian Y, Hall B, Sun ZJ, Molinilo A, Chen W, Gutkind JS et al. Loss of TGF-beta signalling and PTEN promotes head and neck squamous cell carcinoma through cellular senescence evasionand cancer related inflammation. Oncogene. 2012; 31:3322-3332.
  14. Gardener DG. Spontaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the oral region in domestic animals: A review and consideration of their relevance to human research. Oral Dis. 1996; 2:148-54.
  15. Talmadge JE, Lenz BF, Klabansky R, Simon R, Riggs C, Guo S et al. Therapy of autochthonous skin cancers in mice with intravenously injected liposomes containing muramyltripeptide. Cancer Res. 1986,46:1160-1163.
  16. Shirako Y, Taya Y, Sato K, Chiba T, Imai K, Shimazu Y et al. Heterogeneous tumor stromal microenvironments of oral squamous cell carcinoma cells in tongue and nodal metastatic lesions in a xenograft mouse model. J Oral Pathol Med. 2015; 44:656-668.
  17. Szaniszlo P, Fennewald SM, Qiu S, Kantara C, Shilagard T, Vargas G. Temporal Characterization of lymphatic metastasis in an orthotopic mouse model of oral cancer. Head Neck. 2014; 36(11):1638-1647.
  18. Dinesman A, Haughey B, Gates GA, Aufdemorte T, Von Hoff DD. Development of a new in vivo model for head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg, 1990;103:766-774.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.