2012
DOI: 10.1007/s10555-012-9409-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling prostate cancer in mice: something old, something new, something premalignant, something metastatic

Abstract: More than 15 years ago the first generation of genetically-engineered mouse (GEM) models of prostate cancer was introduced. These transgenic models utilized prostate-specific promoters to express SV40 oncogenes specifically in prostate epithelium. Since the description of these initial models, there have been a plethora of GEM models of prostate cancer, representing various perturbations of oncogenes or tumor suppressors, either alone or in combination. This review describes these GEM models, focusing on their… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
52
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 111 publications
0
52
0
Order By: Relevance
“…S4 A-E and Table S1). Notably, the essentially 100% penetrance of metastases in the NPK mice differ from the lower frequency of metastases in most other mouse models or prostate cancer (45), including an analogous model based on activated B-Raf oncogene in cooperation with loss of function of Pten (46). The visible metastases in the NPK mice were corroborated by histological analysis, and their prostate origin was verified with markers from the primary tumor (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…S4 A-E and Table S1). Notably, the essentially 100% penetrance of metastases in the NPK mice differ from the lower frequency of metastases in most other mouse models or prostate cancer (45), including an analogous model based on activated B-Raf oncogene in cooperation with loss of function of Pten (46). The visible metastases in the NPK mice were corroborated by histological analysis, and their prostate origin was verified with markers from the primary tumor (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…Notably, though we detect disseminated cells in the bone marrow, we have not observed bone metastases, which may reflect the unfavorable host environment. Indeed, most genetically engineered mouse models of cancer do not develop consistent metastases to bone (45), and the few mouse models of prostate cancer that have reported metastases to bone (60) have Fig. 2) is robustly expressed in the prostate tumors at both time points, whereas Etv4 is only expressed in the 3-mo prostate as well as in the lung metastases from this time point as well as the micrometastases at 2 mo.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Overall, we have analyzed a representative sample of widely used mouse models of human prostate cancer (Irshad and Abate-Shen, 2013; Ittmann et al, 2013; Shappell et al, 2004). However, there may be specific caveats associated with each model; for example, tumor initiation might conceivably occur in basal cells prior to seven weeks of age in the transgenic models, resulting in early basal to luminal differentiation that would escape lineage-marking.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The current breakthroughs in analysis of the prostate cancer genome, have revealed that the gradual accumulation of genome alterations is intimately associated with metastatic disease progression and the derived genome landscape revealed a critical role for copy number changes (3-6). In the past, making sense of putative oncogenic events was made possible due to functional validation of candidate genes by mouse genetic engineering of prostate cancer (7-15). Today however, two major problems have arisen: first, the GEM models have not so far reconstituted highly penetrant metastatic prostate cancer.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%