Cough is a vital airway reflex that keeps the respiratory tract wisely protected. It is also a sign of many diseases of the respiratory system and it may become a disease in its own right. Even though the efficacy of antitussive compounds is extensively studied in animal models with promising results, the treatment of pathological cough in humans is insufficient at the moment. The limited translational potential of animal models used to study cough causes, mechanisms and possible therapeutic targets stems from multiple sources. First of all, cough induced in the laboratory by mechanical or chemical stimuli is far from natural cough present in human disease. The main objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive summary of animal models currently used in cough research and to address their advantages and disadvantages. We also want to encourage cough researchers to call for precision is research by addressing the sex bias which has existed in basic cough research for decades and discuss the role of specific pathogen-free (SPF) animals.
- MeSH
- kašel * MeSH
- modely nemocí na zvířatech * MeSH
- zvířata MeSH
- Check Tag
- zvířata MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- přehledy MeSH
The main role of research in medicine is to provide relevant knowledge which, after successful translation to clinical practice, improves the quality of healthcare. The sex bias which is still present in the majority of research disciplines prefers male subjects despite legislation changes in the US grant agencies and European research programme Horizon 2020. Male subjects (cells, animals) still dominate in preclinical research and it has detrimental consequences for women's health and the quality of science. Opposite bias exists for data obtained mainly in animal models utilizing female subjects (e.g. research in multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis) with skewed outcomes for men affected by these diseases. Either way, scientists are producing results which compromise half of the population. Assumptions that females as cohorts are more variable and another assumption that the oestrous cycle should be tracked in case the females are enrolled in preclinical studies were proven wrong. Variability of male versus female cohorts are comparable and do not only stem from hormonal levels. The widespread prevalence of sex differences in human diseases ultimately requires detailed experiments performed on both sexes, unless the studies are specifically addressing reproduction or sex-related behaviors.
