CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 647Animal testing and alternativesPhilosophy and History of ScienceEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

Mouse Models of Human Disease: An Evolutionary Perspective

Open access
Perlman, Robert L.·2016·Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health
DOI 10.1093/emph/eow014PMC PMC4875775
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The use of mice as model organisms to study human biology is predicated on the genetic and physiological similarities between the species. Nonetheless, mice and humans have evolved in and become adapted to different environments and so, despite their phylogenetic relatedness, they have become very different organisms. Mice often respond to experimental interventions in ways that differ strikingly from humans. Mice are invaluable for studying biological processes that have been conserved during the evolution of the rodent and primate lineages and for investigating the developmental mechanisms by which the conserved mammalian genome gives rise to a variety of different species. Mice are less reliable as models of human disease, however, because the networks linking genes to disease are likely to differ between the two species. The use of mice in biomedical research needs to take account of the evolved differences as well as the similarities between mice and humans.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/emph/eow014

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The validity of studies completed on mice may lack relevance when analysing a disease relationship because the networks linking genes and disease have a probability of differing.

    “The validity of studies completed on mice may lack relevance when analysing a disease relationship because the networks linking genes and disease have a probability of differing [81].”

    From Nanoparticles in Construction Materials and Other Applications, and Implications of Nanoparticle Use (2019) · cites this paper as [81]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. [2]Morse HCI Building a better mouse: one hundred years of genetics and biology In: Fox JG (ed.). The Mouse in Biomedical Research. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007, 1– 11.
  2. [3]Waterston RH Lindblad-Toh K Birney E Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature 2002; 420: 520– 62. 12466850
  3. [4]Brown SDM Hancock JM. The mouse genome In: Volff J-N (ed.). Vertebrate Genomes. Basel: Karger, 2066, 33– 45.
  4. [5]Fox JG Barthold SW Davisson MT, (Eds.) The Mouse in Biomedical Research. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007.
  5. [6]Kerbel RS. What is the optimal rodent model for anti-tumor drug testing? Cancer Metastasis Rev 1999; 17: 301– 4. 10352884
  6. [7]Adams DJ. The Valley of Death in anticancer drug development: a reassessment. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2012; 33: 173– 80. 22410081 PMC3324971
  7. [8]Anisimov VN Ukraintseva SV Yashin AI. Cancer in rodents: does it tell us about cancer in humans? Nat Rev Cancer 2005; 5: 807– 19. 16195752
  8. [9]Elsea SH Lucas RE. The mousetrap: what we can learn when the mouse model does not mimic the human disease. Ilar J 2002; 43: 66– 79. 11917158
  9. [10]Springer MS Murphy WJ. Mammalian evolution and biomedicine: new views from phylogeny. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2007; 82: 375– 92. 17624960
  10. [11]Rader KA. Making Mice: Standardizing Animals for American Biomedical Research, 1900–1955. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
  11. [13]Bonner JT. Why Size Matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006.
  12. [14]Stearns SC. The influence of size and phylogeny on patterns of covariation among life-history traits in the mammals. Oikos 1983; 41: 173– 87.
  13. [15]Schmidt-Nielsen K. Scaling: Why is Animal Size So Important? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
  14. [19]Hulbert AJ Else PL. Membranes and the setting of energy demand. J Exp Biol 2005; 208: 1593– 9. 15855390
  15. [20]Suarez RK Darveau CA. Multi-level regulation and metabolic scaling. J Exp Biol 2005; 208: 1627– 34. 15855394
  16. [21]Hulbert AJ. The links between membrane composition, metabolic rate and lifespan. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 2008; 150: 196– 203. 16904921
  17. [22]Berry RJ Bronson FH. Life history and bioeconomy of the house mouse. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 1992; 67: 519– 50. 1463810
  18. [23]Phelan JP Rose MR. Why dietary restriction substantially increases longevity in animal models but won’t in humans. Age Res Rev 2005; 4: 339– 50. 16046282
  19. [24]Martignoni M Groothuis GM de Kanter R. Species differences between mouse, rat, dog, monkey and human CYP-mediated drug metabolism, inhibition and induction. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2006; 2: 875– 94. 17125407
  20. [25]Anderson S Luffer-Atlas D Knadler MP. Predicting circulating human metabolites: how good are we? Chem Res Toxicol 2009; 22: 243– 56. 19138063
  21. [28]Mestas J Hughes CC. Of mice and not men: differences between mouse and human immunology. J Immunol 2004; 172: 2731– 8. 14978070
  22. [29]Nachman MW Searle JB. Why is the house mouse karyotype so variable? Trends Ecol Evol 1995; 10: 397– 402. 21237083
  23. [30]Austad SN. A mouse’s tale. Nat Hist 2002; 111: 64– 70.
  24. [31]Paigen K. One hundred years of mouse genetics: an intellectual history. I. The classical period (1902–1980). Genetics 2003; 163: 1– 7. 12586691 PMC1462407
  25. [32]Hahn WC Weinberg RA. Modelling the molecular circuitry of cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2002; 2: 331– 41. 12044009
  26. [33]Rangarajan A Weinberg RA. Comparative biology of mouse versus human cells: modelling human cancer in mice. Nat Rev Cancer 2003; 3: 952– 9. 14737125
  27. [34]Frese KK Tuveson DA. Maximizing mouse cancer models. Nat Rev Cancer 2007; 7: 645– 58. 17687385
  28. [35]Morison IM Ramsay JP Spencer HG. A census of mammalian imprinting. Trends Genet 2005; 21: 457– 65. 15990197
  29. [36]Monod J Jacob F. General conclusions: teleonomic mechanisms in cellular metabolism, growth and differentiation. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 1961; 26: 389– 401. 14475415
  30. [38]Bolker J. Model organisms: there's more to life than rats and flies. Nature 2012; 491: 31– 3. 23128209
  31. [39]Wimsatt WC. Re-Engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
  32. [40]Khanna R Burrows SR. Human immunology: a case for the ascent of non-furry immunology. Immunol Cell Biol 2011; 89: 330– 1. 21412238
  33. [41]Bailey M Christoforidou Z Lewis MC. The evolutionary basis for differences between the immune systems of man, mouse, pig and ruminants. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 2013; 152: 13– 9. 23078904
  34. [42]Davis MM. A prescription for human immunology. Immunity 2008; 29: 835– 8. 19100694 PMC2905652
  35. [43]Nerbonne JM Nichols CG Schwarz TL Genetic manipulation of cardiac K(+) channel function in mice: what have we learned, and where do we go from here? Circ Res 2001; 89: 944– 56. 11717150
  36. [44]Goh KI Cusick ME Valle D The human disease network. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007; 104: 8685– 90. 17502601 PMC1885563
  37. [45]Kraja AT Province MA Huang P Trends in metabolic syndrome and gene networks in human and rodent models. Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Target 2008; 8: 198– 207. 18782016
  38. [46]Ravasi T Suzuki H Cannistraci CV An atlas of combinatorial transcriptional regulation in mouse and man. Cell 2010; 140: 744– 52. 20211142 PMC2836267
  39. [47]Maloney SK Fuller A Mitchell D Translating animal model research: does it matter that our rodents are cold? Physiology 2014; 29: 413– 20. 25362635
  40. [48]Coppe JP Patil CK Rodier F A human-like senescence-associated secretory phenotype is conserved in mouse cells dependent on physiological oxygen. PLoS One 2010; 5: e9188. 20169192 PMC2820538
  41. [49]Ioannidis JP. Extrapolating from animals to humans. Sci Transl Med 2012; 4: 151ps15. 22972841
  42. [51]Buffenstein R Nelson OL Corbit KC. Questioning the preclinical paradigm: natural, extreme biology as an alternative discovery platform. Aging 2014; 6: 913– 20. 25553771 PMC4276785
  43. [52]Pound P Bracken MB. Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? BMJ 2014; 348: g3387. 24879816
  44. [53]Young NS. Mouse medicine and human biology. Semin Hematol 2013; 50: 88– 91 24216168

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perlman, R. L.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Perlman, Robert L.
ORCID
Perlman, Robert L.
Venue
Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2016-04-27
Volume
2016
Issue
1
Pages
eow014
ISSN
2050-6201 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1093/emph/eow014
PMC
PMC4875775
OpenAlex
W2344533005
Cited by
647
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 90 · 2020: 91 · 2019: 85 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 1
FWCI
71.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Evolution Medicine and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
mouse models of human disease, human-mouse comparison, evolutionary medicine, gene-disease networks, translational research limitations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review