Single dose of synthetic microRNA-199a or microRNA-149 mimic does not improve cardiac function in a murine model of myocardial infarction

Modelling the Tumour Microenvironment, but What Exactly Do We Mean by "Model"?

The Oxford English Dictionary includes 17 definitions for the word "model" as a noun and another 11 as a verb. Therefore, context is necessary to understand the meaning of the word model. For instance, "model railways" refer to replicas of railways and trains at a smaller scale and a "model student" refers to an exemplary individual. In some cases, a specific context, like cancer research, may not be sufficient to provide one specific meaning for model. Even if the context is narrowed, specifically, to research related to the tumour microenvironment, "model" can be understood in a wide variety of ways, from an animal model to a mathematical expression. This paper presents a review of different "models" of the tumour microenvironment, as grouped by different definitions of the word into four categories: model organisms, in vitro models, mathematical models and computational models. Then, the frequencies of different meanings of the word "model" related to the tumour microenvironment are measured from numbers of entries in the MEDLINE database of the United States National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health. The frequencies of the main components of the microenvironment and the organ-related cancers modelled are also assessed quantitatively with specific keywords. Whilst animal models, particularly xenografts and mouse models, are the most commonly used "models", the number of these entries has been slowly decreasing. Mathematical models, as well as prognostic and risk models, follow in frequency, and these have been growing in use.

PU.1 inhibition does not attenuate cardiac function deterioration or fibrosis in a murine model of myocardial infarction

Activated cardiac fibroblasts are involved in both reparative wound healing and maladaptive cardiac fibrosis after myocardial infarction (MI). Recent evidence suggests that PU.1 inhibition can enable reprogramming of profibrotic fibroblasts to quiescent fibroblasts, leading to attenuation of pathologic fibrosis in several fibrosis models. The role of PU.1 in acute MI has not been tested. We designed a randomized, blinded study to evaluate whether DB1976, a PU.1 inhibitor, attenuates cardiac function deterioration and fibrosis in a murine model of MI. A total of 44 Ai9 periostin-Cre transgenic mice were subjected to 60 min of coronary occlusion followed by reperfusion. At 7 days after MI, 37 mice were randomly assigned to control (vehicle) or DB1976 treatment and followed for 2 weeks. Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), assessed by echocardiography, did not differ between the two groups before or after treatment (final EF, 33.3 ± 1.0% in control group and 31.2 ± 1.3% in DB1976 group). Subgroup analysis of female and male mice showed the same results. There were no differences in cardiac scar (trichrome stain) and fibrosis (interstitial/perivascular collagen; picrosirius stain) between groups. Results from the per-protocol dataset (including mice with pre-treatment EF < 35% only) were consistent with the full dataset. In conclusion, this randomized, blinded study demonstrates that DB1976, a PU.1 inhibitor, does not attenuate cardiac functional deterioration or cardiac fibrosis in a mouse model of MI caused by coronary occlusion/reperfusion.