Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Genetically modified mice for research on human diseases: A triumph for Biotechnology or a work in progress? Cover

Genetically modified mice for research on human diseases: A triumph for Biotechnology or a work in progress?

Open Access
|Apr 2022

References

  1. 1. List of Currently Incurable Diseases. Disabled World Available from: https://www.disabled-world.com/definitions/lists/incurable.php.2020. Accessed February 28, 2022.
  2. 2. Beckers J, Wurst W, de Angelis MH. Towards better mouse models: enhanced genotypes, systemic phenotyping and envirotype modelling. Nat Rev Genet 2009;10:371–380.10.1038/nrg257819434078
  3. 3. Dawson TM, Golde TE, Lagier-Tourenne C. Animal models of neurodegenerative diseases. Nat Neurosci 2018;21:1370–1379.10.1038/s41593-018-0236-8661503930250265
  4. 4. Gitler AD, Dhillon P, Shorter J. Neurodegenerative disease: models, mechanisms, and a new hope. Dis Model Mech 2017;10:499–502.10.1242/dmm.030205545117728468935
  5. 5. Onaciu A, Munteanu R, Munteanu VC, et al. Spontaneous and Induced Animal Models for Cancer Research. Diagn Basel Switz 2020;10:E660.10.3390/diagnostics10090660755504432878340
  6. 6. Riehle C, Bauersachs J. Small animal models of heart failure. Cardiovasc Res 2019;115:1838–1849.10.1093/cvr/cvz161680381531243437
  7. 7. Tsuneyama K, Nishitsuji K, Matsumoto M, et al. Animal models for analyzing metabolic syndrome-associated liver diseases. Pathol Int 2017;67:539–546.10.1111/pin.1260029027308
  8. 8. Vaquer G, Rivière F, Mavris M, et al. Animal models for metabolic, neuromuscular and ophthalmological rare diseases. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2013;12:287–305.10.1038/nrd383123493083
  9. 9. Flora A. The Versatile Mouse Model for Rare Disease Research. The Jackson Laboratory Available from: https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/jax-blog/2019/may/the-versatile-mouse-model-for-rare-disease-research. Accessed April 3, 2022.
  10. 10. Moore M. A new world of opportunity in rare diseases. The Jackson Laboratory Available from: https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/2018/october/a-new-world-of-opportunity-in-rare-diseases. Accessed April 3, 2022.
  11. 11. Cacheiro P, Haendel MA, Smedley D, et al. New models for human disease from the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium. Mamm Genome Off J Int Mamm Genome Soc 2019;30:143–150.10.1007/s00335-019-09804-5660666431127358
  12. 12. Brommage R, Ohlsson C. High Fidelity of Mouse Models Mimicking Human Genetic Skeletal Disorders. Front Endocrinol;10 Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fendo.2019.00934. 2020. Accessed April 3, 2022.
  13. 13. Sztretye M, Szabó L, Dobrosi N, et al. From Mice to Humans: An Overview of the Potentials and Limitations of Current Transgenic Mouse Models of Major Muscular Dystrophies and Congenital Myopathies. Int J Mol Sci 2020;21:8935.10.3390/ijms21238935772813833255644
  14. 14. Deshpande O, Lara RZ, Zhang OR, et al. ZNF423 patient variants, truncations, and in-frame deletions in mice define an allele-dependent range of midline brain abnormalities. PLOS Genet 2020;16:e1009017.10.1371/journal.pgen.1009017751520132925911
  15. 15. Nair RR, Corrochano S, Gasco S, et al. Uses for humanised mouse models in precision medicine for neurodegenerative disease. Mamm Genome Off J Int Mamm Genome Soc 2019;30:173–191.10.1007/s00335-019-09807-2
  16. 16. Murillo-Cuesta S, Artuch R, Asensio F, et al. The Value of Mouse Models of Rare Diseases: A Spanish Experience. Front Genet 2020;11:583932.10.3389/fgene.2020.583932
  17. 17. Zárybnický T, Heikkinen A, Kangas SM, et al. Modeling Rare Human Disorders in Mice: The Finnish Disease Heritage. Cells 2021;10:3158.10.3390/cells10113158
  18. 18. Wojczynski MK, Tiwari HK. Definition of phenotype. Adv Genet 2008;60:75–105.10.1016/S0065-2660(07)00404-X
  19. 19. Brown SDM. Advances in mouse genetics for the study of human disease. Hum Mol Genet 2021;30:R274–R284.10.1093/hmg/ddab153849001434089057
  20. 20. Adhikary PP, Ul Ain Q, Hocke AC, et al. COVID-19 highlights the model dilemma in biomedical research. Nat Rev Mater 2021;6:374–376.10.1038/s41578-021-00305-z796777833747552
  21. 21. Flores-Santin J, Burggren WW. Beyond the Chicken: Alternative Avian Models for Developmental Physiological Research. Front Physiol 2021;12:712633.10.3389/fphys.2021.712633856688434744759
  22. 22. Howland D, Ellederova Z, Aronin N, et al. Large Animal Models of Huntington’s Disease: What We Have Learned and Where We Need to Go Next. J Huntingt Dis 2020;9:201–216.10.3233/JHD-200425759737132925082
  23. 23. Leong X-F, Ng C-Y, Jaarin K. Animal Models in Cardiovascular Research: Hypertension and Atherosclerosis. BioMed Res Int 2015;2015:528757.
  24. 24. Obeid M, Khabbaz RC, Garcia KD, et al. Translational Animal Models for Liver Cancer. Am J Interv Radiol;2. Epub ahead of print February 24, 2018. DOI: 10.25259/AJIR-11-2017.10.25259/AJIR-11-2017
  25. 25. Vandamme TF. Use of rodents as models of human diseases. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2014;6:2–9.10.4103/0975-7406.124301389528924459397
  26. 26. Homberg JR, Adan RAH, Alenina N, et al. The continued need for animals to advance brain research. Neuron 2021;109:2374–2379.10.1016/j.neuron.2021.07.01534352213
  27. 27. Ma X, Aravind A, Pfister BJ, et al. Animal Models of Traumatic Brain Injury and Assessment of Injury Severity. Mol Neurobiol 2019;56:5332–5345.10.1007/s12035-018-1454-530603958
  28. 28. Yee NS, Ignatenko N, Finnberg N, et al. Animal Models of Cancer Biology. Cancer Growth Metastasis 2015;8s1:CGM.S37907.10.4137/CGM.S37907467643326688665
  29. 29. Procaccini C, De Rosa V, Pucino V, et al. Animal models of Multiple Sclerosis. Eur J Pharmacol 2015;759:182–191.10.1016/j.ejphar.2015.03.042709466125823807
  30. 30. Wagar LE, DiFazio RM, Davis MM. Advanced model systems and tools for basic and translational human immunology. Genome Med 2018;10:73.10.1186/s13073-018-0584-8616294330266097
  31. 31. Yu X, Petersen F. A methodological review of induced animal models of autoimmune diseases. Autoimmun Rev 2018;17:473–479.10.1016/j.autrev.2018.03.00129526631
  32. 32. Zaragoza C, Gomez-Guerrero C, Martin-Ventura JL, et al. Animal models of cardiovascular diseases. J Biomed Biotechnol 2011;2011:497841.10.1155/2011/497841304266721403831
  33. 33. Harris JC. Animal models of neurodevelopmental disorders with behavioral phenotypes. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2021;34:87–93.10.1097/YCO.000000000000067533395099
  34. 34. Chadman KK. Animal models for autism in 2017 and the consequential implications to drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2017;12:1187–1194.10.1080/17460441.2017.138398228971687
  35. 35. Varghese M, Keshav N, Jacot-Descombes S, et al. Autism spectrum disorder: neuropathology and animal models. Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 2017;134:537–566.10.1007/s00401-017-1736-4569371828584888
  36. 36. Sontag TA, Tucha O, Walitza S, et al. Animal models of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a critical review. Atten Deficit Hyperact Disord 2010;2:1–20.10.1007/s12402-010-0019-x21432586
  37. 37. de la Peña JB, Dela Peña IJ, Custodio RJ, et al. Exploring the Validity of Proposed Transgenic Animal Models of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Mol Neurobiol 2018;55:3739–3754.
  38. 38. Winship IR, Dursun SM, Baker GB, et al. An Overview of Animal Models Related to Schizophrenia. Can J Psychiatry Rev Can Psychiatr 2019;64:5–17.10.1177/0706743718773728636413929742910
  39. 39. Götz J, Bodea L-G, Goedert M. Rodent models for Alzheimer disease. Nat Rev Neurosci 2018;19:583–598.10.1038/s41583-018-0054-830194347
  40. 40. Mullane K, Williams M. Preclinical Models of Alzheimer’s Disease: Relevance and Translational Validity. Curr Protoc Pharmacol 2019;84:e57.10.1002/cpph.5730802363
  41. 41. Scearce-Levie K, Sanchez PE, Lewcock JW. Leveraging preclinical models for the development of Alzheimer disease therapeutics. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2020;19:447–462.10.1038/s41573-020-0065-932612262
  42. 42. Barker RA, Björklund A. Animal Models of Parkinson’s Disease: Are They Useful or Not? J Park Dis 2020;10:1335–1342.
  43. 43. Farshim PP, Bates GP. Mouse Models of Huntington’s Disease. In: Precious SV, Rosser AE, Dunnett SB (eds) Huntington’s Disease. New York, NY: Springer:97–120.10.1007/978-1-4939-7825-0_629856016
  44. 44. Menalled L, Brunner D. Animal models of Huntington’s disease for translation to the clinic: best practices. Mov Disord Off J Mov Disord Soc 2014;29:1375–1390.10.1002/mds.2600625216369
  45. 45. Lutz C. Mouse models of ALS: Past, present and future. Brain Res 2018;1693:1–10.10.1016/j.brainres.2018.03.02429577886
  46. 46. Kin K, Yasuhara T, Kameda M, et al. Animal Models for Parkinson’s Disease Research: Trends in the 2000s. Int J Mol Sci 2019;20:E5402.10.3390/ijms20215402686202331671557
  47. 47. Pingale T, Gupta GL. Classic and evolving animal models in Parkinson’s disease. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2020;199:173060.10.1016/j.pbb.2020.17306033091373
  48. 48. Abboud C, Duveau A, Bouali-Benazzouz R, et al. Animal models of pain: Diversity and benefits. J Neurosci Methods 2021;348:108997.10.1016/j.jneumeth.2020.10899733188801
  49. 49. Brum ES, Becker G, Fialho MFP, et al. Animal models of fibromyalgia: What is the best choice? Pharmacol Ther 2022;230:107959.
  50. 50. Brookes E, Shi Y. Diverse epigenetic mechanisms of human disease. Annu Rev Genet 2014;48:237–268.10.1146/annurev-genet-120213-09251825195505
  51. 51. Heindel JJ. The developmental basis of disease: Update on environmental exposures and animal models. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2019;125 Suppl 3:5–13.10.1111/bcpt.1311830265444
  52. 52. Ong M-L, Lin X, Holbrook JD. Measuring epigenetics as the mediator of gene/environment interactions in DOHaD. J Dev Orig Health Dis 2015;6:10–16.10.1017/S204017441400050625315715
  53. 53. Phillips NLH, Roth TL. Animal Models and Their Contribution to Our Understanding of the Relationship Between Environments, Epigenetic Modifications, and Behavior. Genes 2019;10:E47.10.3390/genes10010047635718330650619
  54. 54. Heegaard PMH, Sturek M, Alloosh M, et al. Animal Models for COVID-19: More to the Picture Than ACE2, Rodents, Ferrets, and Non-human Primates. A Case for Porcine Respiratory Coronavirus and the Obese Ossabaw Pig. Front Microbiol 2020;11:573756.10.3389/fmicb.2020.573756754590433101246
  55. 55. Muñoz-Fontela C, Dowling WE, Funnell SGP, et al. Animal models for COVID-19. Nature 2020;586:509–515.10.1038/s41586-020-2787-6813686232967005
  56. 56. Pandey K, Acharya A, Mohan M, et al. Animal models for SARS-CoV-2 research: A comprehensive literature review. Transbound Emerg Dis 2021;68:1868–1885.10.1111/tbed.13907808518633128861
  57. 57. Singh A, Singh RS, Sarma P, et al. A Comprehensive Review of Animal Models for Coronaviruses: SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV. Virol Sin 2020;35:290–304.10.1007/s12250-020-00252-z732448532607866
  58. 58. Genzel L, Adan R, Berns A, et al. How the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the necessity of animal research. Curr Biol CB 2020;30:R1014–R1018.
  59. 59. Pechanova O. Why We Still Need Reliable Animal Models. Pathophysiology 2020;27:44–45.10.3390/pathophysiology27010006883046235366255
  60. 60. Walker A, Pottinger G, Scott A, et al. Anosmia and loss of smell in the era of covid-19. BMJ 2020;370:m2808.10.1136/bmj.m280832694187
  61. 61. Paolo G. Does COVID-19 cause permanent damage to olfactory and gustatory function? Med Hypotheses 2020;143:110086.
  62. 62. Jafari Z, Kolb BE, Mohajerani MH. Hearing Loss, Tinnitus, and Dizziness in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Can J Neurol Sci 2022; 49(2): 184–195.10.1017/cjn.2021.63826734333843530
  63. 63. Wu Y, Xu X, Chen Z, et al. Nervous system involvement after infection with COVID-19 and other coronaviruses. Brain Behav Immun 2020;87:18–22.10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.031714668932240762
  64. 64. Fotuhi M, Mian A, Meysami S, et al. Neurobiology of COVID-19. J Alzheimers Dis JAD 2020;76:3–19.10.3233/JAD-200581766099032538857
  65. 65. Iadecola C, Anrather J, Kamel H. Effects of COVID-19 on the Nervous System. Cell 2020;183:16-27.e1.10.1016/j.cell.2020.08.028743750132882182
  66. 66. Ghazavi A, Ganji A, Keshavarzian N, et al. Cytokine profile and disease severity in patients with COVID-19. Cytokine 2021;137:155323.10.1016/j.cyto.2020.155323752470833045526
  67. 67. Schultze JL, Aschenbrenner AC. COVID-19 and the human innate immune system. Cell 2021;184:1671–1692.10.1016/j.cell.2021.02.029788562633743212
  68. 68. Somasundaram NP, Ranathunga I, Ratnasamy V, et al. The Impact of SARS-Cov-2 Virus Infection on the Endocrine System. J Endocr Soc 2020;4:bvaa082.10.1210/jendso/bvaa082733783932728654
  69. 69. Raony Í, de Figueiredo CS, Pandolfo P, et al. Psycho-Neuroendocrine-Immune Interactions in COVID-19: Potential Impacts on Mental Health. Front Immunol 2020;11:1170.10.3389/fimmu.2020.01170726702532574266
  70. 70. Gurumurthy CB, Quadros RM, Richardson GP, et al. Genetically modified mouse models to help fight COVID-19. Nat Protoc 2020;15:3777–3787.10.1038/s41596-020-00403-2770493833106680
  71. 71. Ye W, Chen Q. Potential Applications and Perspectives of Humanized Mouse Models. Annu Rev Anim Biosci 2022;10:395–417.10.1146/annurev-animal-020420-03302934758273
  72. 72. Veenhuis RT, Zeiss CJ. Animal Models of COVID-19 II. Comparative Immunology. ILAR J 2021;ilab010.10.1093/ilar/ilab010813534033914873
  73. 73. Taft RA, Davisson M, Wiles MV. Know thy mouse. Trends Genet TIG 2006;22:649–653.10.1016/j.tig.2006.09.01017007958
  74. 74. Blake JA, Baldarelli R, Kadin JA, et al. Mouse Genome Database (MGD): Knowledgebase for mouse–human comparative biology. Nucleic Acids Res 2021;49:D981–D987.10.1093/nar/gkaa1083777903033231642
  75. 75. Bult CJ, Blake JA, Smith CL, et al. Mouse Genome Database (MGD) 2019. Nucleic Acids Res 2019;47:D801–D806.10.1093/nar/gky1056632392330407599
  76. 76. Ringwald M, Richardson JE, Baldarelli RM, et al. Mouse Genome Informatics (MGI): latest news from MGD and GXD. Mamm Genome 2022;33:4–18.10.1007/s00335-021-09921-0891353034698891
  77. 77. Bogue MA, Philip VM, Walton DO, et al. Mouse Phenome Database: a data repository and analysis suite for curated primary mouse phenotype data. Nucleic Acids Res 2020;48:D716–D723.10.1093/nar/gkz1032714561231696236
  78. 78. Chia R, Achilli F, Festing MFW, et al. The origins and uses of mouse outbred stocks. Nat Genet 2005;37:1181–1186.10.1038/ng166516254564
  79. 79. Tuttle AH, Philip VM, Chesler EJ, et al. Comparing phenotypic variation between inbred and outbred mice. Nat Methods 2018;15:994–996.10.1038/s41592-018-0224-7651839630504873
  80. 80. Tuttle AH, Philip VM, Chesler EJ, et al. Author Correction: Comparing phenotypic variation between inbred and outbred mice. Nat Methods 2019;16:206.10.1038/s41592-018-0298-230584248
  81. 81. Tuttle AH, Philip VM, Chesler EJ, et al. Author Correction: Comparing phenotypic variation between inbred and outbred mice. Nat Methods 2020;17:947.10.1038/s41592-020-0932-732728193
  82. 82. Saul MC, Philip VM, Reinholdt LG, et al. High-Diversity Mouse Populations for Complex Traits. Trends Genet 2019;35:501–514.10.1016/j.tig.2019.04.003657103131133439
  83. 83. Beck JA, Lloyd S, Hafezparast M, et al. Genealogies of mouse inbred strains. Nat Genet 2000;24:23–25.10.1038/7164110615122
  84. 84. Casellas J. Inbred mouse strains and genetic stability: a review. Anim Int J Anim Biosci 2011;5:1–7.10.1017/S175173111000166722440695
  85. 85. Simpson EM, Linder CC, Sargent EE, et al. Genetic variation among 129 substrains and its importance for targeted mutagenesis in mice. Nat Genet 1997;16:19–27.10.1038/ng0597-199140391
  86. 86. Threadgill DW, Yee D, Matin A, et al. Genealogy of the 129 inbred strains: 129/SvJ is a contaminated inbred strain. Mamm Genome Off J Int Mamm Genome Soc 1997;8:390–393.10.1007/s0033599004539166580
  87. 87. Mekada K, Yoshiki A. Substrains matter in phenotyping of C57BL/6 mice. Exp Anim 2021;70:145–160.10.1538/expanim.20-0158815024033441510
  88. 88. Fertan E, Wong AA, Purdon MK, et al. The effect of background strain on the behavioral phenotypes of the MDGA2+/- mouse model of autism spectrum disorder. Genes Brain Behav 2021;20:e12696.10.1111/gbb.1269632808443
  89. 89. Tam WY, Cheung K-K. Phenotypic characteristics of commonly used inbred mouse strains. J Mol Med 2020;98:1215–1234.10.1007/s00109-020-01953-432712726
  90. 90. Flaherty L, Bolivar V. Congenic and Consomic Strains. In: Byron C. Jones and Pierre Mormede (editors). Neurobehavioral Genetics: Methods and Applications, second edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press: 2006; 115-128.10.1201/9781420003567.ch8
  91. 91. Farkas C, Fuentes-Villalobos F, Rebolledo-Jaramillo B, et al. Streamlined computational pipeline for genetic background characterization of genetically engineered mice based on next generation sequencing data. BMC Genomics 2019;20:131.10.1186/s12864-019-5504-9637308230755158
  92. 92. Schellinck HM, Cyr DP, Brown RE. Chapter 7 - How Many Ways Can Mouse Behavioral Experiments Go Wrong? Confounding Variables in Mouse Models of Neurodegenerative Diseases and How to Control Them. In: Brockmann HJ, Roper TJ, Naguib M, et al. (eds) Advances in the Study of Behavior. Academic Press: 2010;41: 255–366.
  93. 93. Vanden Berghe T, Hulpiau P, Martens L, et al. Passenger Mutations Confound Interpretation of All Genetically Modified Congenic Mice. Immunity 2015;43:200–209.10.1016/j.immuni.2015.06.011480081126163370
  94. 94. Gurumurthy CB, Lloyd KCK. Generating mouse models for biomedical research: technological advances. Dis Model Mech 2019;12:dmm029462.10.1242/dmm.029462636115730626588
  95. 95. Fujiwara S. Humanized mice: A brief overview on their diverse applications in biomedical research. J Cell Physiol 2018;233:2889–2901.10.1002/jcp.2602228543438
  96. 96. Acevedo-Arozena A, Wells S, Potter P, et al. ENU mutagenesis, a way forward to understand gene function. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2008;9:49–69.10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.16422418949851
  97. 97. Simon MM, Moresco EMY, Bull KR, et al. Current strategies for mutation detection in phenotype-driven screens utilising next generation sequencing. Mamm Genome Off J Int Mamm Genome Soc 2015;26:486–500.10.1007/s00335-015-9603-x460206026449678
  98. 98. Fuchs H, Gailus-Durner V, Adler T, et al. Mouse phenotyping. Methods 2011;53:120–135.10.1016/j.ymeth.2010.08.00620708688
  99. 99. Lalonde R, Filali M, Strazielle C. SHIRPA as a Neurological Screening Battery in Mice. Curr Protoc 2021;1:e135.10.1002/cpz1.13534000103
  100. 100. Rogers DC, Fisher EM, Brown SD, et al. Behavioral and functional analysis of mouse phenotype: SHIRPA, a proposed protocol for comprehensive phenotype assessment. Mamm Genome Off J Int Mamm Genome Soc 1997;8:711–713.10.1007/s0033599005519321461
  101. 101. Crawley JN. What’s wrong with my mouse?: behavioral phenotyping of transgenic and knockout mice. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Interscience Available from: http://www.123library.org/book_details/?id=15036. 2007. Accessed March 8, 2022.
  102. 102. Garcia-Gomes MSA, Zanatto DA, Yamamoto PK, et al. A Simple and Fast Battery Test for Phenotypic Characterization of Mice. Bio-Protoc 2020;10:e3568.10.21769/BioProtoc.3568784262833659538
  103. 103. van der Staay FJ, Steckler T. Behavioural phenotyping of mouse mutants. Behav Brain Res 2001;125:3–12.10.1016/S0166-4328(01)00278-9
  104. 104. Wahlsten D. Mouse behavioral testing: how to use mice in behavioral neuroscience. 1st ed. London; Burlington, VT: Academic, 2011.
  105. 105. Jaisser F. Inducible gene expression and gene modification in transgenic mice. J Am Soc Nephrol JASN 2000;11 Suppl 16:S95–S100.10.1681/ASN.V11suppl_2s95
  106. 106. Si-Hoe SL, Wells S, Murphy D. Production of transgenic rodents by the microinjection of cloned DNA into fertilized one-cell eggs. Mol Biotechnol 2001;17:151–182.10.1385/MB:17:2:151
  107. 107. Doyle A, McGarry MP, Lee NA, et al. The construction of transgenic and gene knockout/knockin mouse models of human disease. Transgenic Res 2012;21:327–349.10.1007/s11248-011-9537-3
  108. 108. Hall B, Limaye A, Kulkarni AB. Overview: Generation of Gene Knockout Mice. Curr Protoc Cell Biol 2009;44:19.12.1-19.12.17.10.1002/0471143030.cb1912s44
  109. 109. Hamilton SM, Spencer CM, Harrison WR, et al. Multiple autism-like behaviors in a novel transgenic mouse model. Behav Brain Res 2011;218:29–41.10.1016/j.bbr.2010.11.026
  110. 110. Jacquot S, Chartoire N, Piguet F, et al. Optimizing PCR for Mouse Genotyping: Recommendations for Reliable, Rapid, Cost Effective, Robust and Adaptable to High-Throughput Genotyping Protocol for Any Type of Mutation. Curr Protoc Mouse Biol 2019;9:e65.10.1002/cpmo.65
  111. 111. Panneer SK, Arindkar SK, Nagarajan P. Mouse Genetics and Breeding. In: Nagarajan P, Gudde R, Srinivasan R (eds) Essentials of Laboratory Animal Science: Principles and Practices. Singapore: Springer: 2021;343–371.10.1007/978-981-16-0987-9_15
  112. 112. Vaisman BL. Genotyping of Transgenic Animals by Real-Time Quantitative PCR with TaqMan Probes. In: Freeman LA (ed) Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Disease: Methods and Protocols. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press:233–251.10.1007/978-1-60327-369-5_11
  113. 113. Delic S, Streif S, Deussing JM, et al. Genetic mouse models for behavioral analysis through transgenic RNAi technology. Genes Brain Behav 2008;7:821–830.10.1111/j.1601-183X.2008.00412.x
  114. 114. Mittal V. Improving the efficiency of RNA interference in mammals. Nat Rev Genet 2004;5:355–365.10.1038/nrg132315143318
  115. 115. Du P, Lou C, Zhao X, et al. CRISPR-Based Genetic Switches and Other Complex Circuits: Research and Application. Life 2021;11:1255.10.3390/life11111255862132134833131
  116. 116. Horii T, Arai Y, Yamazaki M, et al. Validation of microinjection methods for generating knockout mice by CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome engineering. Sci Rep 2014;4:4513.10.1038/srep04513538011024675426
  117. 117. Lanigan TM, Kopera HC, Saunders TL. Principles of Genetic Engineering. Genes 2020;11:291.10.3390/genes11030291714080832164255
  118. 118. Nakajima K, Kazuno A-A, Kelsoe J, et al. Exome sequencing in the knockin mice generated using the CRISPR/Cas system. Sci Rep 2016;6:34703.10.1038/srep34703504815027698470
  119. 119. Brehm MA, Shultz LD, Greiner DL. Humanized mouse models to study human diseases. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2010;17:120–125.10.1097/MED.0b013e328337282f289228420150806
  120. 120. Tian H, Lyu Y, Yang Y-G, et al. Humanized Rodent Models for Cancer Research. Front Oncol 2020;10:1696.10.3389/fonc.2020.01696751801533042811
  121. 121. Dash PK, Gorantla S, Poluektova L, et al. Humanized Mice for Infectious and Neurodegenerative disorders. Retrovirology 2021;18:13.10.1186/s12977-021-00557-1817971234090462
  122. 122. Devoy A, Bunton-Stasyshyn RKA, Tybulewicz VLJ, et al. Genomically humanized mice: technologies and promises. Nat Rev Genet 2012;13:14–20.10.1038/nrg3116478221722179716
  123. 123. Buffalo EA, Movshon JA, Wurtz RH. From basic brain research to treating human brain disorders. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2019;201919895.10.1073/pnas.1919895116693668431871205
  124. 124. Molnár Z, Clowry G. Cerebral cortical development in rodents and primates. Prog Brain Res 2012;195:45–70.10.1016/B978-0-444-53860-4.00003-922230622
  125. 125. Savolainen SM, Foley JF, Elmore SA. Histology atlas of the developing mouse heart with emphasis on E11.5 to E18.5. Toxicol Pathol 2009;37:395–414.10.1177/0192623309335060277344619359541
  126. 126. Gensollen T, Iyer SS, Kasper DL, et al. How colonization by microbiota in early life shapes the immune system. Science 2016;352:539–544.10.1126/science.aad9378505052427126036
  127. 127. Ackert-Bicknell CL, Anderson LC, Sheehan S, et al. Aging Research Using Mouse Models. Curr Protoc Mouse Biol 2015;5:95–133.10.1002/9780470942390.mo140195459077526069080
  128. 128. Vanhooren V, Libert C. The mouse as a model organism in aging research: usefulness, pitfalls and possibilities. Ageing Res Rev 2013;12:8–21.10.1016/j.arr.2012.03.01022543101
  129. 129. Ximerakis M, Lipnick SL, Innes BT, et al. Single-cell transcriptomic profiling of the aging mouse brain. Nat Neurosci 2019;22:1696–1708.10.1038/s41593-019-0491-331551601
  130. 130. Shimada A, Hasegawa-Ishii S. Senescence-accelerated Mice (SAMs) as a Model for Brain Aging and Immunosenescence. Aging Dis 2011;2:414–435.
  131. 131. Shirakabe A, Ikeda Y, Sciarretta S, et al. Aging and Autophagy in the Heart. Circ Res 2016;118:1563–1576.10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.307474486999927174950
  132. 132. Kaushal A, Wani WY, Anand R, et al. Spontaneous and induced nontransgenic animal models of AD: modeling AD using combinatorial approach. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 2013;28:318–326.10.1177/153331751348891423687185
  133. 133. Partridge B, Rossmeisl JH. Companion animal models of neurological disease. J Neurosci Methods 2020;331:108484.10.1016/j.jneumeth.2019.108484694221131733285
  134. 134. Cekanova M, Rathore K. Animal models and therapeutic molecular targets of cancer: utility and limitations. Drug Des Devel Ther 2014;8:1911–1921.10.2147/DDDT.S49584420619925342884
  135. 135. Vail DM, MacEwen EG. Spontaneously occurring tumors of companion animals as models for human cancer. Cancer Invest 2000;18:781–792.10.3109/0735790000901221011107448
  136. 136. Jackson JG, Lozano G. The mutant p53 mouse as a pre-clinical model. Oncogene 2013;32:4325–4330.10.1038/onc.2012.61023318424
  137. 137. Lampreht Tratar U, Horvat S, Cemazar M. Transgenic Mouse Models in Cancer Research. Front Oncol;2018;8.10.3389/fonc.2018.00268606259330079312
  138. 138. Reza Khorramizadeh M, Saadat F. Chapter 8 - Animal models for human disease. In: Verma AS, Singh A (eds) Animal Biotechnology (Second Edition). Boston: Academic Press:2020;153–171.10.1016/B978-0-12-811710-1.00008-2
  139. 139. Ruggeri BA, Camp F, Miknyoczki S. Animal models of disease: pre-clinical animal models of cancer and their applications and utility in drug discovery. Biochem Pharmacol 2014;87:150–161.10.1016/j.bcp.2013.06.02023817077
  140. 140. Rapoport B, Banuelos B, Aliesky HA, et al. Critical Differences between Induced and Spontaneous Mouse Models of Graves’ Disease with Implications for Antigen-Specific Immunotherapy in Humans. J Immunol 2016; 197(12): 4560–4568.10.4049/jimmunol.1601393513784127913646
  141. 141. Animals Behind Top Drugs. Foundation for Biomedical Research Available from: https://fbresearch.org/medical-advances/animal-research-achievements/animal-research-top-drugs/. 2021. Accessed February 28, 2022.
  142. 142. Mohs RC, Greig NH. Drug discovery and development: Role of basic biological research. Alzheimers Dement Transl Res Clin Interv 2017;3:651–657.10.1016/j.trci.2017.10.005572528429255791
  143. 143. Ireson CR, Alavijeh MS, Palmer AM, et al. The role of mouse tumour models in the discovery and development of anticancer drugs. Br J Cancer 2019;121:101–108.10.1038/s41416-019-0495-5673803731231121
  144. 144. Wege AK. Humanized Mouse Models for the Preclinical Assessment of Cancer Immunotherapy. BioDrugs Clin Immunother Biopharm Gene Ther 2018;32:245–266.10.1007/s40259-018-0275-429589229
  145. 145. Berry-Kravis EM, Lindemann L, Jønch AE, et al. Drug development for neurodevelopmental disorders: lessons learned from fragile X syndrome. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2018;17:280–299.10.1038/nrd.2017.221690422529217836
  146. 146. Chadman KK, Fernandes S, DiLiberto E, et al. Do animal models hold value in Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) drug discovery? Expert Opin Drug Discov 2019;14:727–734.
  147. 147. Díaz-Caneja CM, State MW, Hagerman RJ, et al. A white paper on a neurodevelopmental framework for drug discovery in autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol J Eur Coll Neuropsychopharmacol 2021;48:49–88.10.1016/j.euroneuro.2021.02.02033781629
  148. 148. Howe JR, Bear MF, Golshani P, et al. The mouse as a model for neuropsychiatric drug development. Curr Biol CB 2018;28:R909–R914.10.1016/j.cub.2018.07.046816302230205056
  149. 149. Tricklebank MD, Robbins TW, Simmons C, et al. Time to re-engage psychiatric drug discovery by strengthening confidence in preclinical psychopharmacology. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2021;238:1417–1436.10.1007/s00213-021-05787-x794597033694032
  150. 150. Cacabelos R, Carrera I, Martínez-Iglesias O, et al. What is the gold standard model for Alzheimer’s disease drug discovery and development? Expert Opin Drug Discov 2021;16:1415–1440.
  151. 151. Koprich JB, Kalia LV, Brotchie JM. Animal models of α-synucleinopathy for Parkinson disease drug development. Nat Rev Neurosci 2017;18:515–529.10.1038/nrn.2017.7528747776
  152. 152. Vitek MP, Araujo JA, Fossel M, et al. Translational animal models for Alzheimer’s disease: An Alzheimer’s Association Business Consortium Think Tank. Alzheimers Dement N Y N 2020;6:e12114.10.1002/trc2.12114779831033457489
  153. 153. Sun W, Zheng W, Simeonov A. Drug discovery and development for rare genetic disorders. Am J Med Genet A 2017;173:2307–2322.10.1002/ajmg.a.38326566212928731526
  154. 154. Singh VK, Seed TM. How necessary are animal models for modern drug discovery? Expert Opin Drug Discov 2021;16:1391–1397.
  155. 155. Jellinger KA. Towards a Biological Definition of Alzheimer Disease. Int J Neurol Neurother 2020; 7(1): 095.
  156. 156. Jellinger KA. Recent update on the heterogeneity of the Alzheimer’s disease spectrum. J Neural Transm 2022;129:1–24.10.1007/s00702-021-02449-234919190
  157. 157. Fereshtehnejad S-M, Postuma RB. Subtypes of Parkinson’s Disease: What Do They Tell Us About Disease Progression? Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2017;17:34.
  158. 158. Qian E, Huang Y. Subtyping of Parkinson’s Disease - Where Are We Up To? Aging Dis 2019;10:1130.
  159. 159. Agelink van Rentergem JA, Deserno MK, Geurts HM. Validation strategies for subtypes in psychiatry: A systematic review of research on autism spectrum disorder. Clin Psychol Rev 2021;87:102033.10.1016/j.cpr.2021.10203333962352
  160. 160. Easson AK, Fatima Z, McIntosh AR. Functional connectivity-based subtypes of individuals with and without autism spectrum disorder. Netw Neurosci 2019;3:344–362.10.1162/netn_a_00067637047430793086
  161. 161. Drummond E, Wisniewski T. Alzheimer’s disease: experimental models and reality. Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 2017;133:155–175.10.1007/s00401-016-1662-x525310928025715
  162. 162. Gurdon B, Kaczorowski C. Pursuit of precision medicine: Systems biology approaches in Alzheimer’s disease mouse models. Neurobiol Dis 2021;161:105558.10.1016/j.nbd.2021.10555834767943
  163. 163. Devi G, Scheltens P. Heterogeneity of Alzheimer’s disease: consequence for drug trials? Alzheimers Res Ther 2018;10:122.
  164. 164. Marras C, Chaudhuri KR, Titova N, et al. Therapy of Parkinson’s Disease Subtypes. Neurotherapeutics 2020;17:1366–1377.10.1007/s13311-020-00894-7785125332749651
  165. 165. Ringman JM, Goate A, Masters CL, et al. Genetic heterogeneity in Alzheimer disease and implications for treatment strategies. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2014;14:499.10.1007/s11910-014-0499-8416298725217249
  166. 166. Forloni G. Alzheimer’s disease: from basic science to precision medicine approach. BMJ Neurol Open 2020;2:e000079.10.1136/bmjno-2020-000079790316833681801
  167. 167. Galvin JE. Advancing personalized treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: a call for the N-of-1 trial design. Future Neurol 2018;13:151–160.10.2217/fnl-2018-0004
  168. 168. Ryden LE, Lewis SJG. Parkinson’s Disease in the Era of Personalised Medicine: One Size Does Not Fit All. Drugs Aging 2019;36:103–113.10.1007/s40266-018-0624-530556112
  169. 169. Bhardwaj S, Kesari KK, Rachamalla M, et al. CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing: New hope for Alzheimer’s disease therapeutics. J Adv Res. 2021.10.1016/j.jare.2021.07.001
  170. 170. Cring MR, Sheffield VC. Gene therapy and gene correction: targets, progress, and challenges for treating human diseases. Gene Ther 2022;29:3–12.10.1038/s41434-020-00197-833037407
  171. 171. Dunbar CE, High KA, Joung JK, et al. Gene therapy comes of age. Science 2018;359:eaan4672.10.1126/science.aan467229326244
  172. 172. Carrillo MA, Zhen A, Kitchen SG. The Use of the Humanized Mouse Model in Gene Therapy and Immunotherapy for HIV and Cancer. Front Immunol 2018;9:746.10.3389/fimmu.2018.00746593240029755454
  173. 173. Gopinath C, Nathar TJ, Ghosh A, et al. Contemporary Animal Models For Human Gene Therapy Applications. Curr Gene Ther 2015;15:531–540.10.2174/1566523215666150929110424770957126415576
  174. 174. Ingusci S, Verlengia G, Soukupova M, et al. Gene Therapy Tools for Brain Diseases. Front Pharmacol 2019;10:724.10.3389/fphar.2019.00724661349631312139
  175. 175. Park H, Oh J, Shim G, et al. In vivo neuronal gene editing via CRISPR–Cas9 amphiphilic nanocomplexes alleviates deficits in mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease. Nat Neurosci 2019;22:524–528.10.1038/s41593-019-0352-030858603
  176. 176. Stepanichev M. Gene Editing and Alzheimer’s Disease: Is There Light at the End of the Tunnel? Front Genome Ed 2020;2:4.
  177. 177. Yoo TJ. Anti-Inflammatory Gene Therapy Improves Spatial Memory Performance in a Mouse Model of Alzheimer’s Disease. J Alzheimers Dis 2022; 85(3): 1001–1008.10.3233/JAD-215270892511834897091
  178. 178. Van Laar AD, Van Laar VS, San Sebastian W, et al. An Update on Gene Therapy Approaches for Parkinson’s Disease: Restoration of Dopaminergic Function. J Park Dis 2021;11:S173–S182.10.3233/JPD-212724854324334366374
  179. 179. Wu Z, Parry M, Hou X-Y, et al. Gene therapy conversion of striatal astrocytes into GABAergic neurons in mouse models of Huntington’s disease. Nat Commun 2020;11:1105.10.1038/s41467-020-14855-3704661332107381
  180. 180. Yang S, Chang R, Yang H, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing ameliorates neurotoxicity in mouse model of Huntington’s disease. J Clin Invest 2017;127:2719–2724.10.1172/JCI92087549074128628038
  181. 181. Davidsohn N, Pezone M, Vernet A, et al. A single combination gene therapy treats multiple age-related diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2019;116:23505–23511.10.1073/pnas.1910073116687621831685628
  182. 182. Blusztajn JK, Slack BE, Mellott TJ. Neuroprotective Actions of Dietary Choline. Nutrients 2017;9:E815.10.3390/nu9080815557960928788094
  183. 183. Zilkha N, Kuperman Y, Kimchi T. High-fat diet exacerbates cognitive rigidity and social deficiency in the BTBR mouse model of autism. Neuroscience 2017;345:142–154.10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.01.07026855190
  184. 184. Lilamand M, Porte B, Cognat E, et al. Are ketogenic diets promising for Alzheimer’s disease? A translational review. Alzheimers Res Ther 2020;12:42.10.1186/s13195-020-00615-4715813532290868
  185. 185. Lin K-H, Chiu C-H, Kuo W-W, et al. The preventive effects of edible folic acid on cardiomyocyte apoptosis and survival in early onset triple-transgenic Alzheimer’s disease model mice. Environ Toxicol 2018;33:83–92.10.1002/tox.2249829068127
  186. 186. Gao X, Sanderson SM, Dai Z, et al. Dietary methionine influences therapy in mouse cancer models and alters human metabolism. Nature 2019;572:397–401.10.1038/s41586-019-1437-3695102331367041
  187. 187. Abid MA, Abid MB. Commentary: Dietary methionine influences therapy in mouse cancer models and alters human metabolism. Front Oncol 2020; 10. 2020. Accessed April 3, 2022.
  188. 188. Wanders D, Hobson K, Ji X. Methionine Restriction and Cancer Biology. Nutrients 2020;12:684.10.3390/nu12030684714658932138282
  189. 189. Xu Y, Jiang C, Wu J, et al. Ketogenic diet ameliorates cognitive impairment and neuroinflammation in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. CNS Neurosci Ther 2022;28:580–592.10.1111/cns.13779892892034889516
  190. 190. Brady M, Beltramini A, Vaughan G, et al. Benefits of a ketogenic diet on repetitive motor behavior in mice. Behav Brain Res 2022;422:113748.10.1016/j.bbr.2022.11374835038463
  191. 191. Norwitz NG, Dalai SS, Palmer CM. Ketogenic diet as a metabolic treatment for mental illness. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2020;27:269–274.10.1097/MED.000000000000056432773571
  192. 192. Wu J, de Theije CGM, da Silva SL, et al. Dietary interventions that reduce mTOR activity rescue autistic-like behavioral deficits in mice. Brain Behav Immun 2017;59:273–287.10.1016/j.bbi.2016.09.01627640900
  193. 193. Chin EWM, Lim WM, Ma D, et al. Choline Rescues Behavioural Deficits in a Mouse Model of Rett Syndrome by Modulating Neuronal Plasticity. Mol Neurobiol 2019;56:3882–3896.10.1007/s12035-018-1345-9650551530220058
  194. 194. Vuillermot S, Luan W, Meyer U, et al. Vitamin D treatment during pregnancy prevents autism-related phenotypes in a mouse model of maternal immune activation. Mol Autism 2017;8:9.10.1186/s13229-017-0125-0535121228316773
  195. 195. Ribeiro MC, MacDonald JL. Vitamin D modulates cortical transcriptome and behavioral phenotypes in an Mecp2 heterozygous Rett syndrome mouse model. Neurobiol Dis 2022;165:105636.10.1016/j.nbd.2022.105636
  196. 196. Lu W-T, Sun S-Q, Li Y, et al. Curcumin Ameliorates Memory Deficits by Enhancing Lactate Content and MCT2 Expression in APP/PS1 Transgenic Mouse Model of Alzheimer’s Disease. Anat Rec 2019;302:332–338.10.1002/ar.23969
  197. 197. Reddy PH, Manczak M, Yin X, et al. Protective Effects of Indian Spice Curcumin Against Amyloid-β in Alzheimer’s Disease. J Alzheimers Dis 2018;61:843–866.10.3233/JAD-170512
  198. 198. De Filippis F, Vitaglione P, Cuomo R, et al. Dietary Interventions to Modulate the Gut Microbiome—How Far Away Are We From Precision Medicine. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2018;24:2142–2154.10.1093/ibd/izy080
  199. 199. Newell C, Bomhof MR, Reimer RA, et al. Ketogenic diet modifies the gut microbiota in a murine model of autism spectrum disorder. Mol Autism 2016;7:37.10.1186/s13229-016-0099-3
  200. 200. Cryan JF, O’Riordan KJ, Sandhu K, et al. The gut microbiome in neurological disorders. Lancet Neurol 2020;19:179–194.10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30356-4
  201. 201. Kraeuter A-K, Phillips R, Sarnyai Z. Ketogenic therapy in neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders: From mice to men. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2020;101:109913.10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.10991332151695
  202. 202. Zhang C, Franklin CL, Ericsson AC. Consideration of Gut Microbiome in Murine Models of Diseases. Microorganisms 2021;9:1062.10.3390/microorganisms9051062815671434068994
  203. 203. Rogers J, Renoir T, Hannan AJ. Gene-environment interactions informing therapeutic approaches to cognitive and affective disorders. Neuropharmacology 2019;145:37–48.10.1016/j.neuropharm.2017.12.03829277490
  204. 204. Eisinger BE, Zhao X. Identifying molecular mediators of environmentally enhanced neurogenesis. Cell Tissue Res 2018;371:7–21.10.1007/s00441-017-2718-5582658729127518
  205. 205. Garthe A, Roeder I, Kempermann G. Mice in an enriched environment learn more flexibly because of adult hippocampal neurogenesis. Hippocampus 2016;26:261–271.10.1002/hipo.22520504965426311488
  206. 206. Grońska-Pęski M, Gonçalves JT, Hébert JM. Enriched Environment Promotes Adult Hippocampal Neurogenesis through FGFRs. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci 2021;41:2899–2910.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2286-20.2021801888233637561
  207. 207. De Sousa RAL, Rodrigues CM, Mendes BF, et al. Physical exercise protocols in animal models of Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review. Metab Brain Dis 2021;36:85–95.10.1007/s11011-020-00633-z33095371
  208. 208. da Silva WAB, Ferreira Oliveira K, Caroline Vitorino L, et al. Physical exercise increases the production of tyrosine hydroxylase and CDNF in the spinal cord of a Parkinson’s disease mouse model. Neurosci Lett 2021;760:136089.10.1016/j.neulet.2021.13608934182056
  209. 209. Houdebine L, Gallelli CA, Rastelli M, et al. Effect of physical exercise on brain and lipid metabolism in mouse models of multiple sclerosis. Chem Phys Lipids 2017;207:127–134.10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2017.06.00228606714
  210. 210. Forbes TA, Goldstein EZ, Dupree JL, et al. Environmental enrichment ameliorates perinatal brain injury and promotes functional white matter recovery. Nat Commun 2020;11:964.10.1038/s41467-020-14762-7703123732075970
  211. 211. Livingston-Thomas J, Nelson P, Karthikeyan S, et al. Exercise and Environmental Enrichment as Enablers of Task-Specific Neuroplasticity and Stroke Recovery. Neurother J Am Soc Exp Neurother 2016;13:395–402.10.1007/s13311-016-0423-9482401626868018
  212. 212. Huang Y, Jiang H, Zheng Q, et al. Environmental enrichment or selective activation of parvalbumin-expressing interneurons ameliorates synaptic and behavioral deficits in animal models with schizophrenia-like behaviors during adolescence. Mol Psychiatry 2021;26:2533–2552.10.1038/s41380-020-01005-w33473150
  213. 213. Robison LS, Francis N, Popescu DL, et al. Environmental Enrichment: Disentangling the Influence of Novelty, Social, and Physical Activity on Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy in a Transgenic Mouse Model. Int J Mol Sci 2020;21:E843.10.3390/ijms21030843703818832012921
  214. 214. Gerdts V, Littel-van den Hurk S van D, Griebel PJ, et al. Use of animal models in the development of human vaccines. Future Microbiol 2007;2:667–675.10.2217/17460913.2.6.66718041907
  215. 215. Kiros TG, Levast B, Auray G, et al. The Importance of Animal Models in the Development of Vaccines. Innov Vaccinol 2012;251–264.10.1007/978-94-007-4543-8_11
  216. 216. Atlante S, Mongelli A, Barbi V, et al. The epigenetic implication in coronavirus infection and therapy. Clin Epigenetics 2020;12:156.10.1186/s13148-020-00946-x757697533087172
  217. 217. Nehme Z, Pasquereau S, Herbein G. Control of viral infections by epigenetic-targeted therapy. Clin Epigenetics 2019;11:55.10.1186/s13148-019-0654-9643795330917875
  218. 218. Hwang J-R, Park S-G. Mouse models for hepatitis B virus research. Lab Anim Res 2018;34:85–91.10.5625/lar.2018.34.3.85617022330310404
  219. 219. Krishnakumar V, Durairajan SSK, Alagarasu K, et al. Recent Updates on Mouse Models for Human Immunodeficiency, Influenza, and Dengue Viral Infections. Viruses 2019;11:252.10.3390/v11030252646616430871179
  220. 220. Sarkar S, Heise MT. Mouse Models as Resources for Studying Infectious Diseases. Clin Ther 2019;41:1912–1922.10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.08.010711255231540729
  221. 221. Ji W, Gong B, Jin H, et al. Recent Progress Towards Vaccines and Antibody-based Therapies Against Alzheimer’s Disease. Mini-Rev Med Chem 2021; 21(19): 3062–3072.10.2174/138955752166621080511092034353254
  222. 222. Carrera I, Etcheverría I, Fernández-Novoa L, et al. Vaccine Development to Treat Alzheimer’s Disease Neuropathology in APP/PS1 Transgenic Mice. Int J Alzheimers Dis 2012; 2012e376138.10.1155/2012/376138345767023024882
  223. 223. Cossu D, Ruberto S, Yokoyama K, et al. Efficacy of BCG vaccine in animal models of neurological disorders. Vaccine 2022;40:432–436.10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.12.00534906393
  224. 224. Herline K, Drummond E, Wisniewski T. Recent advancements toward therapeutic vaccines against Alzheimer’s disease. Expert Rev Vaccines 2018;17:707–721.10.1080/14760584.2018.150090530005578
  225. 225. Banik A, Brown RE, Bamburg J, et al. Translation of Pre-Clinical Studies into Successful Clinical Trials for Alzheimer’s Disease: What are the Roadblocks and How Can They Be Overcome? J Alzheimers Dis 2015; 47(4): 815–843.
  226. 226. Homberg JR, Kyzar EJ, Stewart AM, et al. Improving treatment of neurodevelopmental disorders: recommendations based on preclinical studies. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2016;11:11–25.10.1517/17460441.2016.111583426558752
  227. 227. Bockamp E, Maringer M, Spangenberg C, et al. Of mice and models: improved animal models for biomedical research. Physiol Genomics 2002;11:115–132.10.1152/physiolgenomics.00067.200212464688
  228. 228. Cibelli J, Emborg ME, Prockop DJ, et al. Strategies for improving animal models for regenerative medicine. Cell Stem Cell 2013;12:271–274.10.1016/j.stem.2013.01.004438328023472868
  229. 229. Stewart AM, Kalueff AV. Developing better and more valid animal models of brain disorders. Behav Brain Res 2015;276:28–31.10.1016/j.bbr.2013.12.02424384129
  230. 230. Lama J, Buhidma Y, Fletcher EJR, et al. Animal models of Parkinson’s disease: a guide to selecting the optimal model for your research. Neuronal Signal 2021;5:NS20210026.10.1042/NS20210026866150734956652
  231. 231. Reardon S. Frustrated Alzheimer’s researchers seek better lab mice. Nature 2018;563:611–612.10.1038/d41586-018-07484-w30482928
  232. 232. Li C, Briner A, Götz J. The search for improved animal models of Alzheimer’s disease and novel strategies for therapeutic intervention. Future Med Chem 2019;11:1853–1857.10.4155/fmc-2019-015031517531
  233. 233. Veening-Griffioen DH, Ferreira GS, van Meer PJK, et al. Are some animal models more equal than others? A case study on the translational value of animal models of efficacy for Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Pharmacol 2019;859:172524.10.1016/j.ejphar.2019.17252431291566
  234. 234. Tai LM, Maldonado Weng J, LaDu MJ, et al. Chapter One - Relevance of transgenic mouse models for Alzheimer’s disease. In: Teplow DB (ed) Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science. 2021;177: 1–48.
  235. 235. Nadeau JH, Auwerx J. The virtuous cycle of human genetics and mouse models in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2019;18:255–272.10.1038/s41573-018-0009-930679805
  236. 236. Mckean NE, Handley RR, Snell RG. A Review of the Current Mammalian Models of Alzheimer’s Disease and Challenges That Need to Be Overcome. Int J Mol Sci 2021;22:13168.10.3390/ijms222313168865812334884970
  237. 237. Rahi V, Kumar P. Animal models of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Int J Dev Neurosci Off J Int Soc Dev Neurosci 2021;81:107–124.10.1002/jdn.1008933428802
  238. 238. Espíndola SL, Damianich A, Alvarez RJ, et al. Modulation of Tau Isoforms Imbalance Precludes Tau Pathology and Cognitive Decline in a Mouse Model of Tauopathy. Cell Rep 2018;23:709–715.10.1016/j.celrep.2018.03.07929669277
  239. 239. Fung CW, Guo J, Fu H, et al. Atrophy associated with tau pathology precedes overt cell death in a mouse model of progressive tauopathy. Sci Adv 2020;6:eabc8098.10.1126/sciadv.abc8098756758433067235
  240. 240. Jankowsky JL, Zheng H. Practical considerations for choosing a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Mol Neurodegener 2017;12:89.10.1186/s13024-017-0231-7574195629273078
  241. 241. Kaye J, Reisine T, Finkbeiner S. Huntington’s disease mouse models: unraveling the pathology caused by CAG repeat expansion. Fac Rev 2021; 10(77).10.12703/r/10-77854659834746930
  242. 242. Gunn RK, Huentelman MJ, Brown RE. Are Sema5a mutant mice a good model of autism? A behavioral analysis of sensory systems, emotionality and cognition. Behav Brain Res 2011;225:142–150.10.1016/j.bbr.2011.07.008317044121777623
  243. 243. Verma V, Paul A, Amrapali Vishwanath A, et al. Understanding intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorders from common mouse models: synapses to behaviour. Open Biol 2019;9:180265.10.1098/rsob.180265659775731185809
  244. 244. Cortés N, Andrade V, Maccioni RB. Behavioral and Neuropsychiatric Disorders in Alzheimer’s Disease. J Alzheimers Dis JAD 2018;63:899–910.10.3233/JAD-18000529710717
  245. 245. Locci A, Orellana H, Rodriguez G, et al. Comparison of memory, affective behavior, and neuropathology in APPNLGF knock-in mice to 5xFAD and APP/PS1 mice. Behav Brain Res 2021;404:113192.10.1016/j.bbr.2021.113192798013133607163
  246. 246. Seo N-Y, Kim GH, Noh JE, et al. Selective Regional Loss of Cortical Synapses Lacking Presynaptic Mitochondria in the 5xFAD Mouse Model. Front Neuroanat 2021;15:690168.10.3389/fnana.2021.690168826706134248509
  247. 247. Whitesell JD, Buckley AR, Knox JE, et al. Whole brain imaging reveals distinct spatial patterns of amyloid beta deposition in three mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease. J Comp Neurol 2019;527:2122–2145.10.1002/cne.24555
  248. 248. Brown RE, Bolivar S. The importance of behavioural bioassays in neuroscience. J Neurosci Methods 2018;300:68–76.10.1016/j.jneumeth.2017.05.022
  249. 249. Puzzo D, Lee L, Palmeri A, et al. Behavioral assays with mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease: practical considerations and guidelines. Biochem Pharmacol 2014;88:450–467.10.1016/j.bcp.2014.01.011
  250. 250. Ameen-Ali KE, Wharton SB, Simpson JE, et al. Review: Neuropathology and behavioural features of transgenic murine models of Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 2017;43:553–570.10.1111/nan.12440
  251. 251. Belyaev ND, Kellett KAB, Beckett C, et al. The transcriptionally active amyloid precursor protein (APP) intracellular domain is preferentially produced from the 695 isosform of APP in a {beta}-secretase-dependent pathway. J Biol Chem 2010;285:41443–41454.10.1074/jbc.M110.141390
  252. 252. Andrä K, Abramowski D, Duke M, et al. Expression of APP in transgenic mice: a comparison of neuron-specific promoters. Neurobiol Aging 1996;17:183–190.10.1016/0197-4580(95)02066-7
  253. 253. Fontaine DA, Davis DB. Attention to Background Strain Is Essential for Metabolic Research: C57BL/6 and the International Knockout Mouse Consortium. Diabetes 2016;65:25–33.10.2337/db15-0982468694926696638
  254. 254. Bryant CD, Zhang NN, Sokoloff G, et al. Behavioral differences among C57BL/6 substrains: implications for transgenic and knockout studies. J Neurogenet 2008;22:315–331.10.1080/01677060802357388369782719085272
  255. 255. Doetschman T. Influence of genetic background on genetically engineered mouse phenotypes. Methods Mol Biol Clifton NJ 2009;530:423–433.10.1007/978-1-59745-471-1_23280584819266333
  256. 256. Reilly KM. The Effects of Genetic Background of Mouse Models of Cancer: Friend or Foe? Cold Spring Harb Protoc 2016;2016:pdb.top076273.10.1101/pdb.top076273670315626933251
  257. 257. Wong AA, Brown RE. Visual detection, pattern discrimination and visual acuity in 14 strains of mice. Genes Brain Behav 2006;5:389–403.10.1111/j.1601-183X.2005.00173.x16879633
  258. 258. Rae EA, Brown RE. The problem of genotype and sex differences in life expectancy in transgenic AD mice. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2015;57:238–251.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.09.00226348702
  259. 259. O’Leary TP, Mantolino HM, Stover KR, et al. Age-related deterioration of motor function in male and female 5xFAD mice from 3 to 16 months of age. Genes Brain Behav 2020;19:e12538.10.1111/gbb.1253830426678
  260. 260. O’Leary TP, Brown RE. Visuo-spatial learning and memory impairments in the 5xFAD mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease: Effects of age, sex, albinism, and motor impairments. Genes Brain Behav 2022;e12794.10.1111/gbb.1279435238473
  261. 261. Stevens LM, Brown RE. Reference and working memory deficits in the 3xTg-AD mouse between 2 and 15-months of age: a cross-sectional study. Behav Brain Res 2015;278:496–505.10.1016/j.bbr.2014.10.03325446812
  262. 262. Lau JC, Lerch JP, Sled JG, et al. Longitudinal neuroanatomical changes determined by deformation-based morphometry in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. NeuroImage 2008;42:19–27.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.04.25218547819
  263. 263. Foidl BM, Humpel C. Can mouse models mimic sporadic Alzheimer’s disease? Neural Regen Res 2020;15:401–406.
  264. 264. Maciejewska K, Czarnecka K, Szymański P. A review of the mechanisms underlying selected comorbidities in Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacol Rep PR 2021;73:1565–1581.10.1007/s43440-021-00293-5859932034121170
  265. 265. Martini AC, Forner S, Trujillo-Estrada L, et al. Past to Future: What Animal Models Have Taught Us About Alzheimer’s Disease. J Alzheimers Dis 2018; 64(s1): S365–S378.10.3233/JAD-17991729504540
  266. 266. Wong AA, Brown RE. Prevention of vision loss protects against age-related impairment in learning and memory performance in DBA/2J mice. Front Aging Neurosci 2013;5:52.
  267. 267. Fakhoury M. Microglia and Astrocytes in Alzheimer’s Disease: Implications for Therapy. Curr Neuropharmacol 2018;16:508–518.10.2174/1570159X15666170720095240599786228730967
  268. 268. Li H, Wei C, Zhou R, et al. Mouse models in modeling aging and cancer. Exp Gerontol 2019;120:88–94.10.1016/j.exger.2019.03.00230876950
  269. 269. Bilkei-Gorzo A. Genetic mouse models of brain ageing and Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacol Ther 2014;142:244–257.10.1016/j.pharmthera.2013.12.00924362083
  270. 270. Boche D, Gordon MN. Diversity of transcriptomic microglial phenotypes in aging and Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2022;18:360–376.10.1002/alz.1238934223696
  271. 271. O’Leary TimothyP, Shin S, Fertan E, et al. Reduced acoustic startle response and peripheral hearing loss in the 5xFAD mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Genes Brain Behav 2017;16:554–563.10.1111/gbb.1237028133939
  272. 272. Blaney CE, Gunn RK, Stover KR, et al. Maternal genotype influences behavioral development of 3×Tg-AD mouse pups. Behav Brain Res 2013;252:40–48.10.1016/j.bbr.2013.05.03323711927
  273. 273. Weaver ICG, Cervoni N, Champagne FA, et al. Epigenetic programming by maternal behavior. Nat Neurosci 2004;7:847–854.10.1038/nn127615220929
  274. 274. Agarwal D, Kumari R, Ilyas A, et al. Crosstalk between epigenetics and mTOR as a gateway to new insights in pathophysiology and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Biol Macromol 2021;192:895–903.10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.10.02634662652
  275. 275. Griñán-Ferré C, Izquierdo V, Otero E, et al. Environmental Enrichment Improves Cognitive Deficits, AD Hallmarks and Epigenetic Alterations Presented in 5xFAD Mouse Model. Front Cell Neurosci 2018;12:224.10.3389/fncel.2018.00224610416430158856
  276. 276. Zhang X, Hong R, Chen W, et al. The role of long noncoding RNA in major human disease. Bioorganic Chem 2019;92:103214.10.1016/j.bioorg.2019.10321431499258
  277. 277. Jakovcevski M, Akbarian S. Epigenetic mechanisms in neurological disease. Nat Med 2012;18:1194–1204.10.1038/nm.2828359687622869198
  278. 278. Cholewa-Waclaw J, Bird A, Schimmelmann M von, et al. The Role of Epigenetic Mechanisms in the Regulation of Gene Expression in the Nervous System. J Neurosci 2016;36:11427–11434.10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2492-16.2016512521027911745
  279. 279. Banik A, Kandilya D, Ramya S, et al. Maternal Factors that Induce Epigenetic Changes Contribute to Neurological Disorders in Offspring. Genes 2017;8:E150.10.3390/genes8060150548551428538662
  280. 280. Bale TL. Epigenetic and transgenerational reprogramming of brain development. Nat Rev Neurosci 2015;16:332–344.10.1038/nrn3818706415525921815
  281. 281. Darwiche N. Epigenetic mechanisms and the hallmarks of cancer: an intimate affair. Am J Cancer Res 2020;10:1954–1978.
  282. 282. Herceg Z, Vaissière T. Epigenetic mechanisms and cancer: an interface between the environment and the genome. Epigenetics 2011;6:804–819.10.4161/epi.6.7.1626221758002
  283. 283. Zhang Q, Cao X. Epigenetic regulation of the innate immune response to infection. Nat Rev Immunol 2019;19:417–432.10.1038/s41577-019-0151-630918351
  284. 284. Lim TB, Foo SYR, Chen CK. The Role of Epigenetics in Congenital Heart Disease. Genes 2021;12:390.10.3390/genes12030390799856133803261
  285. 285. Saul D, Kosinsky RL. Epigenetics of Aging and Aging-Associated Diseases. Int J Mol Sci 2021;22:401.10.3390/ijms22010401779492633401659
  286. 286. Bertogliat MJ, Morris-Blanco KC, Vemuganti R. Epigenetic mechanisms of neurodegenerative diseases and acute brain injury. Neurochem Int 2020;133:104642.10.1016/j.neuint.2019.104642807440131838024
  287. 287. Deegan DF, Nigam P, Engel N. Sexual Dimorphism of the Heart: Genetics, Epigenetics, and Development. Front Cardiovasc Med 2021;8:668252.10.3389/fcvm.2021.668252818917634124200
  288. 288. McCarthy MM, Nugent BM. Epigenetic Contributions to Hormonally-Mediated Sexual Differentiation of the Brain. J Neuroendocrinol 2013;25:1133–1140.10.1111/jne.12072533067323919286
  289. 289. Yu YE, Xing Z, Do C, et al. Chapter 1 - Genetic and epigenetic pathways in Down syndrome: Insights to the brain and immune system from humans and mouse models. In: Dierssen M (ed) Progress in Brain Research. 2020;251:1–28.
  290. 290. Berdasco M, Esteller M. Genetic syndromes caused by mutations in epigenetic genes. Hum Genet 2013;132:359–383.10.1007/s00439-013-1271-x23370504
  291. 291. Jaenisch R, Bird A. Epigenetic regulation of gene expression: how the genome integrates intrinsic and environmental signals. Nat Genet 2003;33 Suppl:245–254.10.1038/ng108912610534
  292. 292. Zapata-Martín Del Campo CM, Martínez-Rosas M, Guarner-Lans V. Epigenetic Programming of Synthesis, Release, and/or Receptor Expression of Common Mediators Participating in the Risk/Resilience for Comorbid Stress-Related Disorders and Coronary Artery Disease. Int J Mol Sci 2018;19:E1224.10.3390/ijms19041224597950029670001
  293. 293. Zhang T-Y, Meaney MJ. Epigenetics and the Environmental Regulation of the Genome and Its Function. Annu Rev Psychol 2010;61:439–466.10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.16362519958180
  294. 294. Linnér A, Almgren M. Epigenetic programming-The important first 1000 days. Acta Paediatr Oslo Nor 1992 2020;109:443–452.10.1111/apa.1505031603247
  295. 295. Blewitt M, Whitelaw E. The Use of Mouse Models to Study Epigenetics. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 2013;5:a017939.10.1101/cshperspect.a017939380957924186070
  296. 296. Seki Y, Williams L, Vuguin PM, et al. Minireview: Epigenetic programming of diabetes and obesity: animal models. Endocrinology 2012;153:1031–1038.10.1210/en.2011-1805328153422253432
  297. 297. Bianco-Miotto T, Craig JM, Gasser YP, et al. Epigenetics and DOHaD: from basics to birth and beyond. J Dev Orig Health Dis 2017;8:513–519.10.1017/S204017441700073328889823
  298. 298. Kubota T, Miyake K, Hariya N, et al. Understanding the epigenetics of neurodevelopmental disorders and DOHaD. J Dev Orig Health Dis 2015;6:96–104.10.1017/S204017441500005725708304
  299. 299. Simeoni U, Armengaud J-B, Siddeek B, et al. Perinatal Origins of Adult Disease. Neonatology 2018;113:393–399.10.1159/00048761829852488
  300. 300. Bernstein BE, Meissner A, Lander ES. The mammalian epigenome. Cell 2007;128:669–681.10.1016/j.cell.2007.01.03317320505
  301. 301. Borrelli E, Nestler EJ, Allis CD, et al. Decoding the epigenetic language of neuronal plasticity. Neuron 2008;60:961–974.10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.012273747319109904
  302. 302. Bonifer C, Cockerill PN. Chromatin priming of genes in development: Concepts, mechanisms and consequences. Exp Hematol 2017;49:1–8.10.1016/j.exphem.2017.01.00328185904
  303. 303. Ernst C, Jefri M. Epigenetic priming in neurodevelopmental disorders. Trends Mol Med 2021;27:1106–1114.10.1016/j.molmed.2021.09.00534690045
  304. 304. Mastrototaro G, Zaghi M, Sessa A. Epigenetic Mistakes in Neurodevelopmental Disorders. J Mol Neurosci MN 2017;61:590–602.10.1007/s12031-017-0900-628255957
  305. 305. Gore AC, Krishnan K, Reilly MP. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: Effects on neuroendocrine systems and the neurobiology of social behavior. Horm Behav 2019;111:7–22.10.1016/j.yhbeh.2018.11.006652747230476496
  306. 306. León-Olea M, Martyniuk CJ, Orlando EF, et al. Current concepts in neuroendocrine disruption. Gen Comp Endocrinol 2014;203:158–173.10.1016/j.ygcen.2014.02.005413333724530523
  307. 307. Patisaul HB, Fenton SE, Aylor D. Animal models of endocrine disruption. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2018;32:283–297.10.1016/j.beem.2018.03.011602971029779582
  308. 308. Vicente-Dueñas C, Hauer J, Cobaleda C, et al. Epigenetic Priming in Cancer Initiation. Trends Cancer 2018;4:408–417.10.1016/j.trecan.2018.04.00729860985
  309. 309. Berson A, Nativio R, Berger SL, et al. Epigenetic Regulation in Neurodegenerative Diseases. Trends Neurosci 2018;41:587–598.10.1016/j.tins.2018.05.005617453229885742
  310. 310. Burns AM, Gräff J. Cognitive epigenetic priming: leveraging histone acetylation for memory amelioration. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2021;67:75–84.10.1016/j.conb.2020.08.01133120188
  311. 311. Qureshi IA, Mehler MF. Chapter 5 - Epigenetic mechanisms underlying nervous system diseases. In: Geschwind DH, Paulson HL, Klein C (eds) Handbook of Clinical Neurology. Elsevier:2018;43–58.10.1016/B978-0-444-63233-3.00005-1682239129325627
  312. 312. Takeshima H, Ushijima T. Accumulation of genetic and epigenetic alterations in normal cells and cancer risk. Npj Precis Oncol 2019;3:1–8.10.1038/s41698-019-0079-0640333930854468
  313. 313. Hoeijmakers L, Heinen Y, van Dam A-M, et al. Microglial Priming and Alzheimer’s Disease: A Possible Role for (Early) Immune Challenges and Epigenetics? Front Hum Neurosci 2016;10:398.
  314. 314. Martins-Ferreira R, Leal B, Costa PP, et al. Microglial innate memory and epigenetic reprogramming in neurological disorders. Prog Neurobiol 2021;200:101971.10.1016/j.pneurobio.2020.10197133309803
  315. 315. Perry VH, Holmes C. Microglial priming in neurodegenerative disease. Nat Rev Neurol 2014;10:217–224.10.1038/nrneurol.2014.3824638131
  316. 316. Ganesan A, Arimondo PB, Rots MG, et al. The timeline of epigenetic drug discovery: from reality to dreams. Clin Epigenetics 2019;11:174.10.1186/s13148-019-0776-0688892131791394
  317. 317. Good KV, Vincent JB, Ausió J. MeCP2: The Genetic Driver of Rett Syndrome Epigenetics. Front Genet 2021;12:620859.10.3389/fgene.2021.620859785952433552148
  318. 318. Vashi N, Justice MJ. Treating Rett syndrome: from mouse models to human therapies. Mamm Genome Off J Int Mamm Genome Soc 2019;30:90–110.10.1007/s00335-019-09793-5660666530820643
  319. 319. Mossink B, Negwer M, Schubert D, et al. The emerging role of chromatin remodelers in neurodevelopmental disorders: a developmental perspective. Cell Mol Life Sci CMLS 2021;78:2517–2563.10.1007/s00018-020-03714-5800449433263776
  320. 320. Bustos FJ, Ampuero E, Jury N, et al. Epigenetic editing of the Dlg4/PSD95 gene improves cognition in aged and Alzheimer’s disease mice. Brain J Neurol 2017;140:3252–3268.10.1093/brain/awx272584103529155979
  321. 321. Coppedè F. Epigenetic regulation in Alzheimer’s disease: is it a potential therapeutic target? Expert Opin Ther Targets 2021;25:283–298.
  322. 322. Ricq EL, Hooker JM, Haggarty SJ. Toward development of epigenetic drugs for central nervous system disorders: Modulating neuroplasticity via H3K4 methylation. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2016;70:536–550.10.1111/pcn.12426576416427485392
  323. 323. Hogg SJ, Beavis PA, Dawson MA, et al. Targeting the epigenetic regulation of antitumour immunity. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2020;19:776–800.10.1038/s41573-020-0077-532929243
  324. 324. Rugo HS, Jacobs I, Sharma S, et al. The Promise for Histone Methyltransferase Inhibitors for Epigenetic Therapy in Clinical Oncology: A Narrative Review. Adv Ther 2020;37:3059–3082.10.1007/s12325-020-01379-x746740932445185
  325. 325. Chen Z, Li S, Subramaniam S, et al. Epigenetic Regulation: A New Frontier for Biomedical Engineers. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2017;19:195–219.10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071516-04472028301736
  326. 326. Horii T, Morita S, Hino S, et al. Successful generation of epigenetic disease model mice by targeted demethylation of the epigenome. Genome Biol 2020;21:77.10.1186/s13059-020-01991-8711079332234052
  327. 327. Pajovic S, Siddaway R, Bridge T, et al. Epigenetic activation of a RAS/MYC axis in H3.3K27M-driven cancer. Nat Commun 2020;11:6216.10.1038/s41467-020-19972-7771827633277484
  328. 328. Lardenoije R, van den Hove DLA, Havermans M, et al. Age-related epigenetic changes in hippocampal subregions of four animal models of Alzheimer’s disease. Mol Cell Neurosci 2018;86:1–15.10.1016/j.mcn.2017.11.002686335529113959
  329. 329. Momoi T, Fujita E, Senoo H, et al. Genetic factors and epigenetic factors for autism: endoplasmic reticulum stress and impaired synaptic function. Cell Biol Int 2009;34:13–19.10.1042/CBI20090250
  330. 330. Schepici G, Cavalli E, Bramanti P, et al. Autism Spectrum Disorder and miRNA: An Overview of Experimental Models. Brain Sci 2019;9:E265.10.3390/brainsci9100265682702031623367
  331. 331. Schmitz RL, Weissbach J, Kleilein J, et al. Targeting HDACs in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor Models. Cells 2021;10:1408.10.3390/cells10061408822803334204116
  332. 332. Grayson DR, Guidotti A. DNA Methylation in Animal Models of Psychosis. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci 2018;157:105–132.10.1016/bs.pmbts.2017.12.012793913029933947
  333. 333. Monacelli F, Acquarone E, Giannotti C, et al. Vitamin C, Aging and Alzheimer’s Disease. Nutrients 2017;9:E670.10.3390/nu9070670553778528654021
  334. 334. Horsburgh S, Robson-Ansley P, Adams R, et al. Exercise and inflammation-related epigenetic modifications: focus on DNA methylation. Exerc Immunol Rev 2015;21:26–41.
  335. 335. Cabezudo D, Baekelandt V, Lobbestael E. Multiple-Hit Hypothesis in Parkinson’s Disease: LRRK2 and Inflammation. Front Neurosci 2020;14:376.10.3389/fnins.2020.00376719938432410948
  336. 336. Patrick KL, Bell SL, Weindel CG, et al. Exploring the “Multiple-Hit Hypothesis” of Neurodegenerative Disease: Bacterial Infection Comes Up to Bat. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2019;9:138.10.3389/fcimb.2019.00138654688531192157
  337. 337. Persico AM, Bourgeron T. Searching for ways out of the autism maze: genetic, epigenetic and environmental clues. Trends Neurosci 2006;29:349–358.10.1016/j.tins.2006.05.01016808981
  338. 338. Arnold AP, Chen X. What does the “four core genotypes” mouse model tell us about sex differences in the brain and other tissues? Front Neuroendocrinol 2009;30:1–9.
  339. 339. Arnold AP, McCarthy MM. Sexual Differentiation of the Brain and Behavior: A Primer. In: Pfaff DW, Volkow ND (eds) Neuroscience in the 21st Century: From Basic to Clinical. New York, NY: Springer:2016;2139–2168.10.1007/978-1-4939-3474-4_141
  340. 340. Walker DM, Gore AC. Epigenetic impacts of endocrine disruptors in the brain. Front Neuroendocrinol 2017;44:1–26.10.1016/j.yfrne.2016.09.002542981927663243
  341. 341. Schug TT, Blawas AM, Gray K, et al. Elucidating the Links Between Endocrine Disruptors and Neurodevelopment. Endocrinology 2015;156:1941–1951.10.1210/en.2014-1734539334025714811
  342. 342. Kuehner JN, Bruggeman EC, Wen Z, et al. Epigenetic Regulations in Neuropsychiatric Disorders. Front Genet 2019;10:268.10.3389/fgene.2019.00268645825131019524
  343. 343. Repouskou A, Papadopoulou A-K, Panagiotidou E, et al. Long term transcriptional and behavioral effects in mice developmentally exposed to a mixture of endocrine disruptors associated with delayed human neurodevelopment. Sci Rep 2020;10:9367.10.1038/s41598-020-66379-x728333132518293
  344. 344. Tan Q, Zoghbi HY. Mouse models as a tool for discovering new neurological diseases. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2019;165:106902.10.1016/j.nlm.2018.07.00630030131
  345. 345. Armstrong RA. What causes alzheimer’s disease? Folia Neuropathol 2013;51:169–188.
  346. 346. Armstrong RA. Risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease. Folia Neuropathol 2019;57:87–105.10.5114/fn.2019.8592931556570
  347. 347. Adams JD. Probable Causes of Alzheimer’s Disease. Sci 2021;3:16.10.3390/sci3010016
  348. 348. Fertan E, Stover KRJ, Brant MG, et al. Effects of the Novel IDO Inhibitor DWG-1036 on the Behavior of Male and Female 3xTg-AD Mice. Front Pharmacol 2019;10:1044.10.3389/fphar.2019.01044677397931607909
  349. 349. Sorgdrager FJH, Vermeiren Y, Van Faassen M, et al. Age- and disease-specific changes of the kynurenine pathway in Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurochem 2019;151:656–668.10.1111/jnc.14843689986231376341
  350. 350. Willette AA, Pappas C, Hoth N, et al. Inflammation, negative affect, and amyloid burden in Alzheimer’s disease: Insights from the kynurenine pathway. Brain Behav Immun 2021;95:216–225.10.1016/j.bbi.2021.03.019818728333775832
  351. 351. Sharma VK, Singh TG, Prabhakar NK, et al. Kynurenine Metabolism and Alzheimer’s Disease: The Potential Targets and Approaches. Neurochem Res. Epub ahead of print February 8, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s11064-022-03546-8.10.1007/s11064-022-03546-835133568
  352. 352. Breijyeh Z, Karaman R. Comprehensive Review on Alzheimer’s Disease: Causes and Treatment. Mol Basel Switz 2020;25:E5789.10.3390/molecules25245789776410633302541
  353. 353. Fertan E, Rodrigues GJ, Wheeler RV, et al. Cognitive Decline, Cerebral-Spleen Tryptophan Metabolism, Oxidative Stress, Cytokine Production, and Regulation of the Txnip Gene in a Triple Transgenic Mouse Model of Alzheimer Disease. Am J Pathol 2019;189:1435–1450.10.1016/j.ajpath.2019.03.00630980800
  354. 354. Tsubaki H, Tooyama I, Walker DG. Thioredoxin-Interacting Protein (TXNIP) with Focus on Brain and Neurodegenerative Diseases. Int J Mol Sci 2020;21:E9357.10.3390/ijms21249357776458033302545
  355. 355. Oblak AL, Forner S, Territo PR, et al. Model organism development and evaluation for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease: MODEL-AD. Alzheimers Dement N Y N 2020;6:e12110.10.1002/trc2.12110768395833283040
  356. 356. Baglietto-Vargas D, Forner S, Cai L, et al. Generation of a humanized Aβ expressing mouse demonstrating aspects of Alzheimer’s disease-like pathology. Nat Commun 2021;12:2421.10.1038/s41467-021-22624-z806516233893290
  357. 357. Kotredes KP, Oblak A, Pandey RS, et al. APOEe4.Trem2*R47H Mice Show Changes in Alzheimer’s Disease-Relevant Processes in the Absence of Amyloid Plaques. 2021; DOI:10.21203/rs.3.rs-580913/v1.10.21203/rs.3.rs-580913/v1
  358. 358. Mehder RH, Bennett BM, Andrew RD. Morphometric Analysis of Hippocampal and Neocortical Pyramidal Neurons in a Mouse Model of Late Onset Alzheimer’s Disease. J Alzheimers Dis JAD 2020;74:1069–1083.10.3233/JAD-191067724283832144984
  359. 359. Ochiishi T, Kaku M, Kiyosue K, et al. New Alzheimer’s disease model mouse specialized for analyzing the function and toxicity of intraneuronal Amyloid β oligomers. Sci Rep 2019;9:17368.10.1038/s41598-019-53415-8687455631757975
  360. 360. Wong P, Ho WY, Yen Y-C, et al. The vulnerability of motor and frontal cortex-dependent behaviors in mice expressing ALS-linked mutation in TDP-43. Neurobiol Aging 2020;92:43–60.10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2020.03.01932422502
  361. 361. Murava AL, Meadows S, Palaguachi F, et al. Dementia-linked TDP-43 dysregulation in astrocytes impairs memory, antiviral signaling, and chemokine-mediated astrocytic-neuronal interactions. Alzheimers Dement 2021;17:e058562.10.1002/alz.058562
  362. 362. Nackenoff AG, Hohman TJ, Neuner SM, et al. PLD3 is a neuronal lysosomal phospholipase D associated with β-amyloid plaques and cognitive function in Alzheimer’s disease. PLoS Genet 2021;17:e1009406.10.1371/journal.pgen.1009406803139633830999
  363. 363. Rosene MJ, Hsu S, Martinez R, et al. Defining the role of PLD3 in Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Alzheimers Dement 2021;17:e058730.10.1002/alz.058730
  364. 364. Nagu P, Parashar A, Behl T, et al. Gut Microbiota Composition and Epigenetic Molecular Changes Connected to the Pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease. J Mol Neurosci 2021;71:1436–1455.10.1007/s12031-021-01829-333829390
  365. 365. Shen G, Hu S, Zhao Z, et al. Antenatal Hypoxia Accelerates the Onset of Alzheimer’s Disease Pathology in 5xFAD Mouse Model. Front Aging Neurosci 2020;12:251.10.3389/fnagi.2020.00251747263932973487
  366. 366. Wang M, Lv J, Huang X, et al. High-fat diet-induced atherosclerosis promotes neurodegeneration in the triple transgenic (3 × Tg) mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease associated with chronic platelet activation. Alzheimers Res Ther 2021;13:144.10.1186/s13195-021-00890-9840341834454596
  367. 367. Peterman JL, White JD, Calcagno A, et al. Prolonged isolation stress accelerates the onset of Alzheimer’s disease-related pathology in 5xFAD mice despite running wheels and environmental enrichment. Behav Brain Res 2020;379:112366.10.1016/j.bbr.2019.11236631743728
  368. 368. Liang F, Yang S, Zhang Y, et al. Social housing promotes cognitive function through enhancing synaptic plasticity in APP/PS1 mice. Behav Brain Res 2019;368:111910.10.1016/j.bbr.2019.11191031034995
  369. 369. Zhu X, Lee H, Perry G, et al. Alzheimer disease, the two-hit hypothesis: an update. Biochim Biophys Acta 2007;1772:494–502.10.1016/j.bbadis.2006.10.01417142016
  370. 370. Hawkes CH, Del Tredici K, Braak H. Parkinson’s disease: a dual-hit hypothesis. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 2007;33:599–614.10.1111/j.1365-2990.2007.00874.x719430817961138
  371. 371. Feigenson KA, Kusnecov AW, Silverstein SM. Inflammation and the two-hit hypothesis of schizophrenia. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2014;38:72–93.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.11.006389692224247023
  372. 372. Fang Y-L, Chen H, Wang C-L, et al. Pathogenesis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in children and adolescence: From “two hit theory” to “multiple hit model.” World J Gastroenterol 2018;24:2974–2983.10.3748/wjg.v24.i27.2974605495030038464
  373. 373. Bouayed J, Bohn T. The link between microglia and the severity of COVID-19: The “two-hit” hypothesis. J Med Virol 2021;93:4111–4113.10.1002/jmv.26984825088633788265
  374. 374. Baranov SV, Jauhari A, Carlisle DL, et al. Two hit mitochondrial-driven model of synapse loss in neurodegeneration. Neurobiol Dis 2021;158:105451.10.1016/j.nbd.2021.10545134298088
  375. 375. Möller M, Swanepoel T, Harvey BH. Neurodevelopmental Animal Models Reveal the Convergent Role of Neurotransmitter Systems, Inflammation, and Oxidative Stress as Biomarkers of Schizophrenia: Implications for Novel Drug Development. ACS Chem Neurosci 2015;6:987–1016.10.1021/cn500336825794269
  376. 376. Bouet V, Percelay S, Leroux E, et al. A new 3-hit mouse model of schizophrenia built on genetic, early and late factors. Schizophr Res 2021;228:519–528.10.1016/j.schres.2020.11.04333298334
  377. 377. Hansen J, Baum A, Pascal KE, et al. Studies in humanized mice and convalescent humans yield a SARS-CoV-2 antibody cocktail. Science 2020;369:1010–1014.10.1126/science.abd0827729928432540901
  378. 378. Netland J, Meyerholz DK, Moore S, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection causes neuronal death in the absence of encephalitis in mice transgenic for human ACE2. J Virol 2008;82:7264–7275.10.1128/JVI.00737-08249332618495771
  379. 379. Sefik E, Israelow B, Mirza H, et al. A humanized mouse model of chronic COVID-19. Nat Biotechnol 2021;1–15.10.1038/s41587-021-01155-434921308
Language: English
Page range: 61 - 88
Published on: Apr 30, 2022
Published by: European Biotechnology Thematic Network Association
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2022 Richard E. Brown, published by European Biotechnology Thematic Network Association
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.