Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • "Best of" Collection
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • "Best of" Collection
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Review

Deploying Mouse Models of Pancreatic Cancer for Chemoprevention Studies

Paul J. Grippo and David A. Tuveson
Paul J. Grippo
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David A. Tuveson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-10-0258 Published November 2010
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

With the advent of mouse models that recapitulate the cellular and molecular pathology of pancreatic neoplasia and cancer, it is now feasible to recruit and deploy these models for the evaluation of various chemopreventive and/or anticancer regimens. The highly lethal nature of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) makes multiple areas of research a priority, including assessment of compounds that prevent or suppress the development of early lesions that can transform into PDAC. Currently, there are over a dozen models available, which range from homogeneous preneoplastic lesions with remarkable similarity to human pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasms to models with a more heterogeneous population of lesions including cystic papillary and mucinous lesions. The molecular features of these models may also vary in a manner comparable with the differences observed in lesion morphology, and so, navigating the route of model selection is not trivial. Yet, arming the community of cancer investigators with a repertoire of models and the guidance to select relevant models that fit their research themes promises to produce findings that will have clinical relevance. Cancer Prev Res; 3(11); 1382–7. ©2010 AACR.

Introduction

Pancreatic cancer develops insidiously, recurs quickly following surgical resection, and metastasizes widely, resulting in nearly uniform lethality. Although grim, these clinical characteristics nonetheless represent several opportunities to interrupt disease progression and improve the outcome for pancreatic cancer patients. Indeed, increased surveillance of individuals with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer has prompted the development of endoscopic, pathologic, and radiological methods that allow for highly beneficial prophylactic surgery (1). Furthermore, the limited but measurable benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy supports the premise that systemic treatments can also affect pancreatic cancer progression (2, 3); the challenge, though, is to identify the most effective systemic approaches for different stages of disease. The recent advent of genetically engineered mice that accurately develop early and advanced forms of the most common type of pancreatic cancer, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), may provide preclinical model systems to address these issues.

Mouse Models of Pancreatic Cancer for Potential Chemoprevention Studies

Persistent research has culminated in the generation of genetically engineered mouse models that represent different stages of human PDAC. These models are now available to investigate the basic and translational aspects of this malignancy (4, 5). Models of neoplasms such as murine pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (mPanIN), intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (mIPMN), and mucinous cystic neoplasia (mMCN) have all been described (although mIPMN and mMCN should be further characterized for a more complete validation). These genetically engineered mouse models may be appropriate for assessing the role of genes, environmental conditions such as tobacco exposure and diet, comorbidities including pancreatitis, and the influence of immunologic and pharmacologic interventions on the development of invasive PDAC, as highlighted in Table 1. Models of localized PDAC have also been reported and could be used for neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and anti-metastatic approaches to prevent relapse and dissemination. Most of the genetically engineered models include Pdx1-Cre/Lox-Stop-Lox (LSL)-Kras or p48Cre/LSL-Kras mice, which were further modified by conditional deletion or mutation of the p16/p19 (these mice also develop sarcomatoid lesions; ref. 6), p53 (7), smad4 (8, 9), or transforming growth factor β receptor II (TGFβRII) loci (10). The results of these combined genotypes were a multiplicity of preinvasive lesions of all grades, invasive adenocarcinoma, and metastasis to other organs, ultimately leading to significantly reduced median survival. The most robust murine models of preneoplasms (earlier-stage lesions, as opposed to later-stage lesions such as PanIN3) display complete penetrance (all mice with a gene mutation have phenotypic manifestation of that disease) and express an endogenous or transgenic oncogenic Kras allele in pancreatic exocrine and/or progenitor cells. When combined with various tumor suppressor mutations, these models oftentimes yield invasive and metastatic PDAC and related epithelial histologies (see Table 2 in ref. 5). Models using inducible alleles of Cre recombinase, such as estrogen receptor–Cre fusion genes (CreER or CreERT) and tetracycline-responsive Cre expression alleles (TRE-Cre), are capable of being temporally controlled and thus initiated selectively in adult pancreata, better reflecting the somatic acquisition of genetic mutations thought to occur in humans (11–15).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Phenotypic comparisons

Experimental Design/Strategies and Criteria for Evaluating Interventional Effects

The following pertinent parameters are included among those to consider for pancreatic cancer chemoprevention studies: (a) the optimal in vivo model system for the prevention of invasive cancer or metastasis; (b) criteria for assessing a significant response; and (c) targets of chemoprevention including the relevant molecular pathways, cell types, and environmental conditions promoting the progression of PanIN to PDAC.

Considerations for model selection

Murine models of preneoplasms that progress to invasive PDAC and murine models of focal PDAC that progresses to metastatic disease allow distinct questions to be addressed for cancer prevention and therapy studies (see Table 4.1 in ref. 16). From the perspective of chemoprevention research, perhaps the most critical feature is activation of the target pathway, where the molecular profile of the model is identified before the preclinical trial. Timing of delivery may also be a key factor because late administration in models that progress to PDAC may yield only a modest, if any, response. The onset, penetrance, frequency, and latency of progression of these various models should be considered during the design of prevention studies. Some models have a very homogeneous population of neoplastic lesions that may create an ideal environment for studying a single species of lesions. Other models have a variety of lesions that may offer a broader platform for evaluation. Furthermore, the type of preneoplasms (e.g., mPanIN, mIPMN, and mMCN) that develop should be considered. These parameters will define the number of mice necessary to achieve adequate statistical power for the analysis, the length of the study, the cellular response, and an indication of the potential mechanisms involved. At times, it may be important to consider the background strain of the mice, the presence of cell surface antigens, and the source and type of oncogene mutation, particularly as it relates to immunologic studies. Other types of lesions and/or abnormalities in the parenchymal and mesenchymal compartment may also play a role, albeit smaller than that of the previously mentioned parameters, in choosing ideal models for preclinical chemoprevention trials and evaluations of the interplay between epithelial and stromal components.

Parameters for assessing response to treatment

A variety of approaches is often used to measure the efficacy of interventions. Direct evaluation of the neoplastic tissue, where onset, incidence, frequency, size, and proliferative/apoptotic indices are assessed, is normally the first point of analysis. This evaluation is often accompanied by molecular evaluations of certain cellular markers and/or factors involved in signaling pathways, especially targets of the chemopreventive agent under assessment. More complex evaluations can include surrogate biomarker investigations in the blood and radiological assessments of cellular/tissue response via small-animal imaging including high-resolution ultrasound and magnetic resonance (17). Such approaches will optimize meaningful analyses of response when done in tandem.

Targets for chemoprevention

Inflammation.

A pivotal question about cancer prevention study—for which mouse models are ideally suited—is whether the target is contained in the preneoplastic cells, the microenvironment, or both. This is particularly germane in pancreatic cancer because pancreatitis, which causes both the death of acinar cells and a reactive stromal fibrosis, promotes the development of PDAC in patients carrying the PRSS1 allele (18) and in mice treated with the secretagogue cerulein (12, 13, 19–21). Thus far, chemoprevention that suppresses inflammation has been somewhat limited, with a primary focus on elevated levels of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in mPanIN cells in Pdx1-Cre/LSL-KrasG12D mice (22). Treatment with the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) nimesulide inhibited COX-2 and led to reduced mPanINs, particularly later-stage lesions (mPanIN 3; ref. 23). Similar results were observed in K5-COX-2 transgenic mice (24). Furthermore, a successful preclinical trial of the selective COX-2–inhibiting NSAID celecoxib, a MUC1 peptide, and gemcitabine led to a complete lack of development of invasive disease and significant suppression of mPanIN2 and mPanIN3 in p48Cre/LSL-Kras/MUC1 mice, supporting COX-2 and MUC1 as cancer-chemopreventive targets in the mouse pancreas (25). Complementary genetic approaches to determine whether the elastase-driven (EL)–PRSS1 allele (19, 21) cooperates with oncogenic Kras in PanIN/PDAC progression, and conversely whether the conditional deletion of COX-2 (26) in pancreatic cells or surrounding stroma inhibits PanIN/PDAC formation, are technically feasible but hitherto unreported.

The NF-κB pathway, a central mediator of inflammatory signaling in neoplastic and microenvironment cells, has been implicated in pancreatic cancer biology (27). Treatment with aspirin as a surrogate pharmacologic inhibitor of the NF-κB pathway inhibited orthotopic tumor formation in mice (28, 29). Therefore, more precise inhibition of NF-κB signaling with conditional knockout alleles or chemical inhibitors of IκB kinases is a logical next step to confirm the relevance of this pathway in PanIN/PDAC. Finally, 5-lipoxygenase (5-LOX) may also be a target akin to COX-2, as it is present in pancreatic preneoplasms (30). Indeed, 5-LOX inhibition can suppress proliferation (31) and induce apoptosis (32) in cell culture, and augment the efficacy of gemcitabine in vivo (33).

Diet/environment.

Obesity, fat and sugar intake, and tobacco exposure have all been implicated in PDAC development and should be evaluated in these neoplastic models. The size and metastatic spread of transplanted Pan02-derived cancers were enhanced in obese Lep(Ob) and Lep(db/db) mice, leading to a significant reduction in survival compared with wild-type mice (34, 35). These findings imply that the obese state may establish an environment conducive to cancer cell proliferation and dissemination, which may also hold true for preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions of the pancreas. Another study maintained p48Cre/LSL-Kras mice on a high-fat diet for up to 10 weeks and found greatly increased mPanIN formation that was associated with tumor necrosis factor receptor 1–dependent inflammation (36). A similar approach was used in the related EL-Kras model, where a diet rich in ω-3 fatty acid significantly reduced the incidence and frequency of pancreatic neoplasms (37). Additional reports propose that high caloric consumption (e.g., high-fructose corn syrup) and/or an increase in glycemic load can have a different means of promoting pancreatic cancer growth (38–40), although not without controversy (41). New avenues of research need to determine the molecular and signaling pathways that are influenced by these dietary components (particularly fatty acids and sugars) and may serve as chemoprevention targets. Finally, rather than merely denoting a diseased organ, new onset diabetes may also play a role in stimulating PDAC in patients (42).

An environmental factor that markedly increases the incidence of PDAC is cigarette smoking. In rodents, cigarette smoke and its constituents cause chronic pancreatic inflammation and exocrine damage (43), serving as a precursor of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. The contribution of cigarette carcinogens to the development of pancreatic preneoplasms and cancer has been highlighted in vivo, including in EL-IL-1β mice (44) and in a 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene–induced mouse model, where nicotine provided robust progression of mPanIN to PDAC (45). Identifying the specific molecular and cellular effects of these carcinogens and their accompanying genetic lesions with respect to pancreatic cancer development has not been fully addressed in vivo.

Developmental pathways.

Developmental pathways may also promote pancreatic cancer and thereby serve as targets for chemoprevention. Indeed, the coexpression of an active Notch allele (Rosa26NIC; ref. 11) cooperated with Kras-G12D to promote PanIN formation; conversely, the attenuation of the Notch pathway with a γ-secretase inhibitor mitigated mPanIN formation and PDAC formation in Kras; p53flox/+ mice (46). Also, deficiency of notch-2 prevents the development of mPanINs in p48Cre/LSL-Kras mice (47). Despite evidence that Notch is oncogenic, conditional loss of Notch in the pancreas of Pdx1-Cre/LSL-Kras mice showed that Notch may act as a tumor suppressor gene (48), which might be related to the context and/or timing of Notch expression. Likewise, TGFβ signals can have a similar dichotomous nature by serving tumor-promoting and tumor-suppressing functions (49, 50), which also may be dependent on context and/or timing. Loss of either smad4 or Tgfbr2 in p48Cre or Pdx1-Cre/LSL-Kras mice led to more aggressive disease (8–10), yet EL-Kras mice with haploinsufficient Tgfbr1 generated reduced incidence and frequency but greater size of preinvasive lesions (51). Therefore, inhibition of the Notch or TGFβ signaling pathway needs to be approached cautiously with regard to the cell type and disease stage being targeted.

The hedgehog (Hh) pathway effector Gli2 cooperates with KrasG12D in a cell-autonomous fashion to promote PanIN/PDAC (52), and Hh pathway inhibitors alone (53) or in combination with gemcitabine (54) were shown to increase survival and decrease metastasis in two models of advanced PDAC. The deletion of Smoothened, however, disrupts the recognition of extracellular Hh ligands without affecting PanIN/PDAC formation in mouse models, showing that Gli signaling is ligand independent in PanIN/PDAC, with a direct influence on the desmoplastic stroma (55). Terpenoids may also serve to inhibit the Hh (specifically sonic Hh) pathway (56). A more recent approach using triterpenoids and rexinoids alone and in combination showed strong efficacy, leading to greatly improved survival in Kras; p53flox/+ mice, as reported elsewhere in this issue of the journal (57). The potential of a similar approach in Kras cohorts with wild-type p53 yielding a potent chemopreventive effect against mPanIN formation would seem reasonable.

Receptor tyrosine kinase pathways known to be relevant for normal development have also been implicated as potential targets in PanIN/PDAC, with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor gefitinib causing reduced incidence of mPanIN1 and mPanIN2 as well as suppressing progression to invasive disease in p48Cre/LSL-Kras mice, as reported elsewhere in this issue of the journal (58). The recepteur d'origine nantais (RON) receptor also seems to play several roles, particularly in motility and invasiveness (59) and vascular endothelial growth factor production in pancreatic cancer cells (60), showing itself to be a target of inhibition before cancer dissemination. Recent findings indicate that RON signaling mediates cell survival and gemcitabine resistance in a human pancreatic cancer–derived xenograft system, where short hairpin RNA–induced suppression eventually led to compensatory mechanisms via the c-met and EGFR cascades (61).

Future targets.

Potential avenues of pursuit should be based on previous data collected from cell culture and/or xenograft models, which show significant efficacy at various targets. As mentioned above, Hh pathway inhibition altered the stromal composition and increased chemotherapy delivery and response (54). Therefore, individual and combinatorial approaches that alter other components of the pancreatic tumor microenvironment should also be considered as preventive strategies, such as those targeting cancer-associated fibroblasts (62), myeloid-derived suppressor cells, and T cells (63).

Food-derived polyphenols, such as quercetin and trans-resveratrol, have exhibited notable proapoptotic effects on pancreatic cancer cells in vitro and implanted in nude mice (64). Perillyl alcohol (65) has significant chemopreventive effects on cultured pancreatic cancer cells and, when coupled with adenovirus-mediated mda-7/interleukin-24 gene therapy in vivo, leads to nearly complete loss of human pancreatic cancer following xenograft implants in nude mice (66, 67). Expression of chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 12 (CXCL12) and CXC receptor 4 (CXCR4) is higher in PanIN3 (compared with normal ducts) in both humans and mice, and a dose-dependent increase in cell proliferation of mPanIN cells was observed in mice treated with CXCL12 (68). Both chemokines were partially dependent on mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling. Indeed, a host of other targets are currently being delineated for potential use in these genetically modified mice (69).

Conclusions

The stage is set to deploy various in vivo models of pancreatic neoplasia for evaluation of multiple chemoprevention strategies against a host of target types including inflammatory, epigenetic, and developmental targets. Both model and target should maintain some aspects of etiology observed in human pancreatic cancer. The challenge is to expand findings from culture and/or xenograft/orthotopic systems into genetically modified models while preparing to translate these results for future clinical investigation(73).

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

  • Received September 27, 2010.
  • Accepted September 27, 2010.
  • ©2010 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Brand RE,
    2. Lerch MM,
    3. Rubinstein WS,
    4. et al
    . Advances in counselling and surveillance of patients at risk for pancreatic cancer. Gut 2007;56:1460–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Carter R,
    2. Stocken DD,
    3. Ghaneh P,
    4. et al
    . Longitudinal quality of life data can provide insights on the impact of adjuvant treatment for pancreatic cancer-Subset analysis of the ESPAC-1 data. Int J Cancer 2009;124:2960–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Neoptolemos JP,
    2. Stocken DD,
    3. Tudur Smith C,
    4. et al
    . Adjuvant 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid vs observation for pancreatic cancer: composite data from the ESPAC-1 and -3(v1) trials. Br J Cancer 2009;100:246–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Ding Y,
    2. Cravero JD,
    3. Adrian K,
    4. Grippo P
    . Modeling pancreatic cancer in vivo: from xenograft and carcinogen-induced systems to genetically engineered mice. Pancreas 2006;39:283–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. Hruban RH,
    2. Adsay NV,
    3. Albores-Saavedra J,
    4. et al
    . Pathology of genetically engineered mouse models of pancreatic exocrine cancer: consensus report and recommendations. Cancer Res 2006;66:95–106.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Aguirre AJ,
    2. Bardeesy N,
    3. Sinha M,
    4. et al
    . Activated Kras and Ink4a/Arf deficiency cooperate to produce metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Genes Dev 2003;17:3112–26.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Hingorani SR,
    2. Wang L,
    3. Multani AS,
    4. et al
    . Trp53R172H and KrasG12D cooperate to promote chromosomal instability and widely metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in mice. Cancer Cell 2005;7:469–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Izeradjene K,
    2. Combs C,
    3. Best M,
    4. et al
    . Kras(G12D) and Smad4/Dpc4 haploinsufficiency cooperate to induce mucinous cystic neoplasms and invasive adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Cancer Cell 2007;11:229–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Kojima K,
    2. Vickers SM,
    3. Adsay NV,
    4. et al
    . Inactivation of Smad4 accelerates Kras(G12D)-mediated pancreatic neoplasia. Cancer Res 2007;67:8121–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Ijichi H,
    2. Chytil A,
    3. Gorska AE,
    4. et al
    . Aggressive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in mice caused by pancreas-specific blockade of transforming growth factor-β signaling in cooperation with active Kras expression. Genes Dev 2006;20:3147–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. De La OJ,
    2. Emerson LL,
    3. Goodman JL,
    4. et al
    . Notch and Kras reprogram pancreatic acinar cells to ductal intraepithelial neoplasia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105:18907–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Gidekel Friedlander SY,
    2. Chu GC,
    3. Snyder EL,
    4. et al
    . Context-dependent transformation of adult pancreatic cells by oncogenic K-Ras. Cancer Cell 2009;16:379–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Guerra C,
    2. Schuhmacher AJ,
    3. Canamero M,
    4. et al
    . Chronic pancreatitis is essential for induction of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma by K-Ras oncogenes in adult mice. Cancer Cell 2007;11:291–302.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Habbe N,
    2. Shi G,
    3. Meguid RA,
    4. et al
    . Spontaneous induction of murine pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (mPanIN) by acinar cell targeting of oncogenic Kras in adult mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105:18913–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Ji B,
    2. Tsou L,
    3. Wang H,
    4. et al
    . Ras activity levels control the development of pancreatic diseases. Gastroenterology 2009;137:1072–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Hingorani SR
    . A new preclinical paradigm for pancreas cancer. pp. 73–93: Springer; 2010.
  17. ↵
    1. Olive KP,
    2. Tuveson DA
    . The use of targeted mouse models for preclinical testing of novel cancer therapeutics. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12:5277–87.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Whitcomb DC,
    2. Gorry MC,
    3. Preston RA,
    4. et al
    . Hereditary pancreatitis is caused by a mutation in the cationic trypsinogen gene. Nat Genet 1996;14:141–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Archer H,
    2. Jura N,
    3. Keller J,
    4. Jacobson M,
    5. Bar-Sagi D
    . A mouse model of hereditary pancreatitis generated by transgenic expression of R122H trypsinogen. Gastroenterology 2006;131:1844–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Carriere C,
    2. Young AL,
    3. Gunn JR,
    4. Longnecker DS,
    5. Korc M
    . Acute pancreatitis markedly accelerates pancreatic cancer progression in mice expressing oncogenic Kras. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2009;382:561–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Selig L,
    2. Sack U,
    3. Gaiser S,
    4. et al
    . Characterisation of a transgenic mouse expressing R122H human cationic trypsinogen. BMC Gastroenterol 2006;6:30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Hingorani SR,
    2. Petricoin EF,
    3. Maitra A,
    4. et al
    . Preinvasive and invasive ductal pancreatic cancer and its early detection in the mouse. Cancer Cell 2003;4:437–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Funahashi H,
    2. Satake M,
    3. Dawson D,
    4. et al
    . Delayed progression of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia in a conditional Kras(G12D) mouse model by a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor. Cancer Res 2007;67:7068–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Colby JK,
    2. Klein RD,
    3. McArthur MJ,
    4. et al
    . Progressive metaplastic and dysplastic changes in mouse pancreas induced by cyclooxygenase-2 overexpression. Neoplasia 2008;10:782–96.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Mukherjee P,
    2. Basu GD,
    3. Tinder TL,
    4. et al
    . Progression of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is significantly impeded with a combination of vaccine and COX-2 inhibition. J Immunol 2009;182:216–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Ishikawa TO,
    2. Herschman HR
    . Conditional knockout mouse for tissue-specific disruption of the cyclooxygenase-2 (Cox-2) gene. Genesis 2006;44:143–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Fujioka S,
    2. Sclabas GM,
    3. Schmidt C,
    4. et al
    . Function of nuclear factor κB in pancreatic cancer metastasis. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:346–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Sclabas GM,
    2. Uwagawa T,
    3. Schmidt C,
    4. et al
    . Nuclear factor κB activation is a potential target for preventing pancreatic carcinoma by aspirin. Cancer 2005;103:2485–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Zhang Z,
    2. Rigas B
    . NF-κB, inflammation and pancreatic carcinogenesis: NF-κB as a chemoprevention target (review). Int J Oncol 2006;29:185–92.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Hennig R,
    2. Grippo P,
    3. Ding XZ,
    4. et al
    . 5-Lipoxygenase, a marker for early pancreatic intraepithelial neoplastic lesions. Cancer Res 2005;65:6011–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Tong WG,
    2. Ding XZ,
    3. Hennig R,
    4. et al
    . Leukotriene B4 receptor antagonist LY293111 inhibits proliferation and induces apoptosis in human pancreatic cancer cells. Clin Cancer Res 2002;8:3232–42.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Tong WG,
    2. Ding XZ,
    3. Talamonti MS,
    4. Bell RH,
    5. Adrian TE
    . Leukotriene B4 receptor antagonist LY293111 induces S-phase cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in human pancreatic cancer cells. Anticancer Drugs 2007;18:535–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Hennig R,
    2. Ventura J,
    3. Segersvard R,
    4. et al
    . LY293111 improves efficacy of gemcitabine therapy on pancreatic cancer in a fluorescent orthotopic model in athymic mice. Neoplasia 2005;7:417–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Zyromski NJ,
    2. Mathur A,
    3. Gowda GA,
    4. et al
    . Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy-based metabolomics of the fatty pancreas: implicating fat in pancreatic pathology. Pancreatology 2009;9:410–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Zyromski NJ,
    2. Mathur A,
    3. Pitt HA,
    4. et al
    . Obesity potentiates the growth and dissemination of pancreatic cancer. Surgery 2009;146:258–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Khasawneh J,
    2. Schulz MD,
    3. Walch A,
    4. et al
    . Inflammation and mitochondrial fatty acid β-oxidation link obesity to early tumor promotion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009;106:3354–59.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Strouch MJ,
    2. Ding Y,
    3. Salabat MR,
    4. et al
    . A high ω-3 fatty acid diet mitigates murine pancreatic precancer development. J Surg Res 2009.
  37. ↵
    1. Liu H,
    2. Huang D,
    3. McArthur DL,
    4. Boros LG,
    5. Nissen N,
    6. Heaney AP
    . Fructose induces transketolase flux to promote pancreatic cancer growth. Cancer Res 2010;70:6368–76.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Mueller NT,
    2. Odegaard A,
    3. Anderson K,
    4. et al
    . Soft drink and juice consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer: the Singapore Chinese Health Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:447–55.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Rossi M,
    2. Lipworth L,
    3. Polesel J,
    4. et al
    . Dietary glycemic index and glycemic load and risk of pancreatic cancer: a case-control study. Ann Epidemiol 2010;20:460–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Simon MS,
    2. Shikany JM,
    3. Neuhouser ML,
    4. et al
    . Glycemic index, glycemic load, and the risk of pancreatic cancer among postmenopausal women in the women's health initiative observational study and clinical trial. Cancer Causes Control 2010.
  40. ↵
    1. Pannala R,
    2. Basu A,
    3. Petersen GM,
    4. Chari ST
    . New-onset diabetes: a potential clue to the early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:88–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Wittel UA,
    2. Hopt UT,
    3. Batra SK
    . Cigarette smoke-induced pancreatic damage: experimental data. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2008;393:581–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Song Z,
    2. Bhagat G,
    3. Quante M,
    4. et al
    . Potential carcinogenic effects of cigarette smoke and Swedish moist snuff on pancreas: a study using a transgenic mouse model of chronic pancreatitis. Lab Invest 2009;90:426–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. ↵
    1. Bersch VP,
    2. Osvaldt AB,
    3. Edelweiss MI,
    4. et al
    . Effect of nicotine and cigarette smoke on an experimental model of intraepithelial lesions and pancreatic adenocarcinoma induced by 7,12-dimethylbenzanthracene in mice. Pancreas 2009;38:65–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Plentz R,
    2. Park JS,
    3. Rhim AD,
    4. et al
    . Inhibition of γ-secretase activity inhibits tumor progression in a mouse model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Gastroenterology 2009;136:1741–9.e6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Mazur PK,
    2. Einwächter H,
    3. Lee M,
    4. et al
    . Notch2 is required for progression of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and development of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. PNAS 2010;107:13438–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Hanlon L,
    2. Avila JL,
    3. Demarest RM,
    4. et al
    . Notch1 functions as a tumor suppressor in a model of K-ras-induced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res 2001;70:4280–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. ↵
    1. Derynck R,
    2. Akhurst RJ,
    3. Balmain A
    . TGF-β signaling in tumor suppression and cancer progression. Nat Genet 2001;29:117–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Schniewind B,
    2. Groth S,
    3. Sebens Muerkoster S,
    4. et al
    . Dissecting the role of TGF-β type I receptor/ALK5 in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Smad activation is crucial for both the tumor suppressive and prometastatic function. Oncogene 2007;26:4850–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Adrian K,
    2. Strouch MJ,
    3. Zeng Q,
    4. et al
    . Tgfbr1 haploinsufficiency inhibits the development of murine mutant Kras-induced pancreatic precancer. Cancer Res 2009;69:9169–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Pasca di Magliano M,
    2. Sekine S,
    3. Ermilov A,
    4. Ferris J,
    5. Dlugosz AA,
    6. Hebrok M
    . Hedgehog/Ras interactions regulate early stages of pancreatic cancer. Genes Dev 2006;20:3161–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Feldmann G,
    2. Habbe N,
    3. Dhara S,
    4. et al
    . Hedgehog inhibition prolongs survival in a genetically engineered mouse model of pancreatic cancer. Gut 2008;57:1420–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Olive KP,
    2. Jacobetz MA,
    3. Davidson CJ,
    4. et al
    . Inhibition of Hedgehog signaling enhances delivery of chemotherapy in a mouse model of pancreatic cancer. Science 2009;324:1457–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    1. Nolan-Stevaux O,
    2. Lau J,
    3. Truitt ML,
    4. et al
    . GLI1 is regulated through Smoothened-independent mechanisms in neoplastic pancreatic ducts and mediates PDAC cell survival and transformation. Genes Dev 2009;23:24–36.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. ↵
    1. Rifai Y,
    2. Arai MA,
    3. Koyano T,
    4. Kowithayakorn T,
    5. Ishibashi M
    . Terpenoids and a flavonoid glycoside from Acacia pennata leaves as hedgehog/GLI-mediated transcriptional inhibitors. J Nat Prod 2008;73:995–7.
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    1. Liby K,
    2. R. D.,
    3. Risingsong R,
    4. et al
    . Synthetic triterpenoids prolong survival in a transgenic mouse model of pancreatic cancer. Cancer Prev Res 2010;3:1427–34.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. ↵
    1. Mohammed A,
    2. J N,
    3. Li Q,
    4. et al
    . EGFR inhibitor gefitinib prevents progression of pancreatic lesions to carcinoma in a conditional LSL-KrasG12D/+ transgenic mouse model. Cancer Prev Res 2010;3:xxx.
    OpenUrl
  57. ↵
    1. Zhao S,
    2. Ammanamanchi S,
    3. Brattain M,
    4. et al
    . Smad4-dependent TGF-β signaling suppresses RON receptor tyrosine kinase-dependent motility and invasion of pancreatic cancer cells. J Biol Chem 2008;283:11293–301.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Thomas RM,
    2. Jaquish DV,
    3. French RP,
    4. Lowy AM
    . The RON tyrosine kinase receptor regulates vascular endothelial growth factor production in pancreatic cancer cells. Pancreas 2002;39:301–7.
    OpenUrl
  59. ↵
    1. Logan-Collins J,
    2. Thomas RM,
    3. Yu P,
    4. et al
    . Silencing of RON receptor signaling promotes apoptosis and gemcitabine sensitivity in pancreatic cancers. Cancer Res 2010;70:1130–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Erez N,
    2. Truitt M,
    3. Olson P,
    4. Arron ST,
    5. Hanahan D
    . Cancer-associated fibroblasts are activated in incipient neoplasia to orchestrate tumor-promoting inflammation in an NF-κB-dependent manner. Cancer Cell 2010;17:135–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Tseng WW,
    2. Winer D,
    3. Kenkel JA,
    4. et al
    . Development of an orthotopic model of invasive pancreatic cancer in an immunocompetent murine host. Clin Cancer Res 16:3684–95.
  62. ↵
    1. Mouria M,
    2. Gukovskaya AS,
    3. Jung Y,
    4. et al
    . Food-derived polyphenols inhibit pancreatic cancer growth through mitochondrial cytochrome C release and apoptosis. Int J Cancer 2002;98:761–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Muller-Decker K,
    2. Furstenberger G,
    3. Annan N,
    4. et al
    . Preinvasive duct-derived neoplasms in pancreas of keratin 5-promoter cyclooxygenase-2 transgenic mice. Gastroenterology 2006;130:2165–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Burke YD,
    2. Ayoubi AS,
    3. Werner SR,
    4. et al
    . Effects of the isoprenoids perillyl alcohol and farnesol on apoptosis biomarkers in pancreatic cancer chemoprevention. Anticancer Res 2002;22:3127–34.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Lebedeva IV,
    2. Su ZZ,
    3. Vozhilla N,
    4. et al
    . Chemoprevention by perillyl alcohol coupled with viral gene therapy reduces pancreatic cancer pathogenesis. Mol Cancer Ther 2008;7:2042–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. ↵
    1. Thomas RM,
    2. Kim J,
    3. Revelo-Penafiel MP,
    4. Angel R,
    5. Dawson DW,
    6. Lowy AM
    . The chemokine receptor CXCR4 is expressed in pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Gut 2008;57:1555–60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. ↵
    1. Stan SD,
    2. Singh SV,
    3. Brand RE
    . Chemoprevention strategies for pancreatic cancer. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;7:347–56.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Grippo PJ,
    2. Nowlin PS,
    3. Demeure MJ,
    4. Longnecker DS,
    5. Sandgren EP
    . Preinvasive pancreatic neoplasia of ductal phenotype induced by acinar cell targeting of mutant Kras in transgenic mice. Cancer Res 2003;63:2016–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  69. ↵
    1. Tuveson DA,
    2. Zhu L,
    3. Gopinathan A,
    4. et al
    . Mist1-KrasG12D knock-in mice develop mixed differentiation metastatic exocrine pancreatic carcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Res 2006;66:242–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. ↵
    1. Carriere C,
    2. Seeley ES,
    3. Goetze T,
    4. Longnecker DS,
    5. Korc M
    . The Nestin progenitor lineage is the compartment of origin for pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007;104:4437–42.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    1. Logsdon CD,
    2. Abbruzzese JL
    . Chemoprevention of pancreatic cancer: ready for the clinic? Cancer Prev Res 2010;3:1375–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Prevention Research: 3 (11)
November 2010
Volume 3, Issue 11
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Prevention Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Deploying Mouse Models of Pancreatic Cancer for Chemoprevention Studies
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Prevention Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Prevention Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Deploying Mouse Models of Pancreatic Cancer for Chemoprevention Studies
Paul J. Grippo and David A. Tuveson
Cancer Prev Res November 1 2010 (3) (11) 1382-1387; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-10-0258

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Deploying Mouse Models of Pancreatic Cancer for Chemoprevention Studies
Paul J. Grippo and David A. Tuveson
Cancer Prev Res November 1 2010 (3) (11) 1382-1387; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-10-0258
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Mouse Models of Pancreatic Cancer for Potential Chemoprevention Studies
    • Experimental Design/Strategies and Criteria for Evaluating Interventional Effects
    • Conclusions
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Immune Responses and Triple-negative Breast Cancer
  • Anticancer Pharmacology of WA in Breast Cancer
  • OPSCC Is Now the Most Common HPV-associated Cancer
Show more Review
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Prevention Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Prevention Research
eISSN: 1940-6215
ISSN: 1940-6207

Advertisement