Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2023454848> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W2023454848 endingPage "267" @default.
- W2023454848 startingPage "261" @default.
- W2023454848 abstract "ObjectiveTo review the use of animal models of osteoarthritis (OA) with regard to their utility for investigation of the mechanisms and regulation of structural pathology and pain.MethodsPubMed searches were conducted using separate clusters of terms to retrieve articles on (i) models of structural joint damage in genetically-modified (GM) mice, and (ii) models of OA joint pain. The papers were reviewed to investigate whether there was evidence that the research outcome was dependent on the model used.ResultsOut of a total of 109 separate GM mice strains identified in which an effect on OA was reported, 15 had been studied using more than one arthritis model. In 10/15 the same effect of the GM on arthritis was reported in at least two different models. In 5/15 the effect of the GM on arthritis structural pathology was different, and sometimes opposite, when comparing two or more induction methods. A total of 112 publications were retrieved in which pain/disability was examined in a model suggested to represent OA. The induction methods used most commonly to study “OA pain” were distinct from those most often used to investigate the pathophysiology and regulation of structural joint damage. Four papers directly comparing pain mechanisms in different models were identified, with 3/4 describing differences in nociceptive pathways.ConclusionsThe available data indicates that the molecular mechanisms of both joint structural damage and pain may be distinct in animal models of OA induced or initiated by different means. This suggests the need to continue using multiple OA animal models but that the subsequent interpretation of the data and its extrapolation to the human condition must be more precise. To review the use of animal models of osteoarthritis (OA) with regard to their utility for investigation of the mechanisms and regulation of structural pathology and pain. PubMed searches were conducted using separate clusters of terms to retrieve articles on (i) models of structural joint damage in genetically-modified (GM) mice, and (ii) models of OA joint pain. The papers were reviewed to investigate whether there was evidence that the research outcome was dependent on the model used. Out of a total of 109 separate GM mice strains identified in which an effect on OA was reported, 15 had been studied using more than one arthritis model. In 10/15 the same effect of the GM on arthritis was reported in at least two different models. In 5/15 the effect of the GM on arthritis structural pathology was different, and sometimes opposite, when comparing two or more induction methods. A total of 112 publications were retrieved in which pain/disability was examined in a model suggested to represent OA. The induction methods used most commonly to study “OA pain” were distinct from those most often used to investigate the pathophysiology and regulation of structural joint damage. Four papers directly comparing pain mechanisms in different models were identified, with 3/4 describing differences in nociceptive pathways. The available data indicates that the molecular mechanisms of both joint structural damage and pain may be distinct in animal models of OA induced or initiated by different means. This suggests the need to continue using multiple OA animal models but that the subsequent interpretation of the data and its extrapolation to the human condition must be more precise." @default.
- W2023454848 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W2023454848 creator A5023553044 @default.
- W2023454848 creator A5050525645 @default.
- W2023454848 date "2012-04-01" @default.
- W2023454848 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
- W2023454848 title "What constitutes an “animal model of osteoarthritis” – the need for consensus?" @default.
- W2023454848 cites W1580783963 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W1972426822 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W1972810913 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W1974165120 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W1980241739 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W1982018212 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W1982735238 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W1983227824 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W1983811609 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W1994841765 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W1995577585 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W1995627905 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W1998266256 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2004213014 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2011227409 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2019639349 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2032257487 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2036295147 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2038327322 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2039258159 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2044413297 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2046712927 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2052152970 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2061029035 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2062998718 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2065173081 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2067665631 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2068854110 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2072811404 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2074689848 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2076642520 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2078910654 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2088657142 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2089293788 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2090494381 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2093405242 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2094176583 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2095415569 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2097250275 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2108153267 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2108242700 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2108995593 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2117040516 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2123452676 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2128818253 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2131839286 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2133032095 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2134033828 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W2148313037 @default.
- W2023454848 cites W4296816736 @default.
- W2023454848 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2012.01.017" @default.
- W2023454848 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22321719" @default.
- W2023454848 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
- W2023454848 type Work @default.
- W2023454848 sameAs 2023454848 @default.
- W2023454848 citedByCount "132" @default.
- W2023454848 countsByYear W20234548482012 @default.
- W2023454848 countsByYear W20234548482013 @default.
- W2023454848 countsByYear W20234548482014 @default.
- W2023454848 countsByYear W20234548482015 @default.
- W2023454848 countsByYear W20234548482016 @default.
- W2023454848 countsByYear W20234548482017 @default.
- W2023454848 countsByYear W20234548482018 @default.
- W2023454848 countsByYear W20234548482019 @default.
- W2023454848 countsByYear W20234548482020 @default.
- W2023454848 countsByYear W20234548482021 @default.
- W2023454848 countsByYear W20234548482022 @default.
- W2023454848 countsByYear W20234548482023 @default.
- W2023454848 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2023454848 hasAuthorship W2023454848A5023553044 @default.
- W2023454848 hasAuthorship W2023454848A5050525645 @default.
- W2023454848 hasBestOaLocation W20234548481 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConcept C10162356 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConcept C15490471 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConcept C170493617 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConcept C2776164576 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConcept C2776237595 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConcept C2777077863 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConcept C2778117688 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConcept C60644358 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConceptScore W2023454848C10162356 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConceptScore W2023454848C126322002 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConceptScore W2023454848C142724271 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConceptScore W2023454848C15490471 @default.
- W2023454848 hasConceptScore W2023454848C170493617 @default.