“…In this regard, it is paramount to utilise animal models that most closely resemble the human LUT, both in terms of anatomical and physiological function. A wide variety of animal species have previously been utilised to investigate LUT function, including non‐human primates, dogs, pigs, cats, rabbits, rats, guinea‐pigs, mice and hamsters (Harada et al ., 1989; Kontani et al ., 1992; Yoshimura et al ., 1993; Danuser & Thor, 1996; Ghoniem et al ., 1996; Watanabe et al ., 1997; Giuliani et al ., 1998; Yoshimura et al ., 1998; Zvara et al ., 1998; Doi et al ., 1999; Nickel & Venker‐van Haagen, 1999; Palea & Pietra, 1999; Pandita et al ., 2000; Bae et al ., 2001; Calvert et al ., 2001; Lecci et al ., 2001), the majority of these species sharing a number of common anatomical (DeLancey, 1990; Dwyer & Glenning, 1990; Birder & de Groat, 1993; Fletcher, 1996; Neuhaus et al ., 1999; 2001; Dass et al ., 2001; Ganzer et al ., 2002; 2004; Silva & Karram, 2004), pharmacological (de Groat & Yoshimura, 2001) and neurophysiological (de Groat, 1998; Blok & Holstege, 1999; Blok, 2002) features in comparison to humans. However a number of these species are also known to exhibit specific differences in normal urinary tract structure and function in comparison to humans, which must be considered before extrapolating pharmacological or physiological findings to potential therapeutic treatments in man.…”