Genetically Engineered Mouse

Abstract: Somatic mutations that activate phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) have been identified in the p110-alpha catalytic subunit (encoded by PIK3CA). They are most frequently observed in two hotspots: the helical domain (E545K and E542K) and the kinase domain (H1047R). Although the p110-alpha mutants are transforming in vitro, their oncogenic potential has not been assessed in genetically engineered mouse models. Furthermore, clinical trials with PI3K inhibitors have recently been initiated, and it is unknown if their efficacy will be restricted to specific, genetically defined malignancies. In this study, we engineered a mouse model of lung adenocarcinomas initiated and maintained by expression of p110-alpha H1047R. Treatment of these tumors with NVP-BEZ235, a dual pan-PI3K and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor in clinical development, led to marked tumor regression as shown by positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and microscopic examination. In contrast, mouse lung cancers driven by mutant Kras did not substantially respond to single-agent NVP-BEZ235. However, when NVP-BEZ235 was combined with a mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitor, ARRY-142886, there was marked synergy in shrinking these Kras-mutant cancers. These in vivo studies suggest that inhibitors of the PI3K-mTOR pathway may be active in cancers with PIK3CA mutations and, when combined with MEK inhibitors, may effectively treat KRAS mutated lung cancers.

Abstract: Deficiencies in the standard preclinical methods for evaluating potential anticancer drugs,such as xenograft mouse models, have been highlighted as a key obstacle in the translation of the major advances in basic cancer research into meaningful clinical benefits. In this article, we discuss the established uses and limitations of xenograft mouse models for cancer drug development, and then describe the opportunities and challenges in the application of novel genetically engineered mouse models that more faithfully mimic the genetic and biological evolution of human cancers. Greater use of such models in target validation, assessment of tumour response, investigation of pharmacodynamic markers of drug action, modelling resistance and understanding toxicity has the potential to markedly improve the success of cancer drug development.

Abstract: Several diverse genetically engineered mouse models of pancreatic exocrine neoplasia have been developed. These mouse models have a spectrum of pathologic changes; however, until now, there has been no uniform nomenclature to characterize these changes. An international workshop, sponsored by The National Cancer Institute and the University of Pennsylvania, was held from December 1 to 3, 2004 with the goal of establishing an internationally accepted uniform nomenclature for the pathology of genetically engineered mouse models of pancreatic exocrine neoplasia. The pancreatic pathology in 12 existing mouse models of pancreatic neoplasia was reviewed at this workshop, and a standardized nomenclature with definitions and associated images was developed. It is our intention that this nomenclature will standardize the reporting of genetically engineered mouse models of pancreatic exocrine neoplasia, that it will facilitate comparisons between genetically engineered mouse models and human pancreatic disease, and that it will be broad enough to accommodate newly emerging mouse models of pancreatic neoplasia.

Abstract: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is behaviorally identified by progressive memory impairment and pathologically characterized by the triad of β-amyloid plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and neurodegeneration. Genetic mutations and risk factors have been identified that are either causal or modify the disease progression. These genetic and pathological features serve as basis for the creation and validation of mouse models of AD. Efforts made in the past quarter-century have produced over 100 genetically engineered mouse lines that recapitulate some aspects of AD clinicopathology. These models have been valuable resources for understanding genetic interactions that contribute to disease and cellular reactions that are engaged in response. Here we focus on mouse models that have been widely used stalwarts of the field or that are recently developed bellwethers of the future. Rather than providing a summary of each model, we endeavor to compare and contrast the genetic approaches employed and to discuss their respective advantages and limitations. We offer a critical account of the variables which may contribute to inconsistent findings and the factors that should be considered when choosing a model and interpreting the results. We hope to present an insightful review of current AD mouse models and to provide a practical guide for selecting models best matched to the experimental question at hand.