Article Text

Download PDFPDF
A Review of Current Animal Models for the Study of Cervical Dysplasia and Cervical Carcinoma
  1. Luke I. Larmour, MBBS*,
  2. Tom W. Jobling, MBBS, MD, FRANZCOG, CGO and
  3. Caroline E. Gargett, PhD*
  1. *The Ritchie Centre, Hudson Institute of Medical Research and Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia; and
  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
  1. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Luke I. Larmour, MMBS, The Ritchie Centre, Hudson Institute of Medical Research, 27-31 Wright St, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia. E-mail:


Abstract Cancer research has long relied on animal models for the study of disease mechanisms and new therapeutics. Future cancer treatments are likely to rely heavily on patient-derived xenograft models to develop novel treatments and tailor regimens to individual patient needs. However, specific models for cervical cancer and cervical dysplasia are limited. Only 3 models have been described in the published literature. A transgenic model for cervical cancer has allowed for the study of the differential contributions of the human papillomavirus 16 proteins E6 and E7 during oncogenesis. This model has also shown dysplasia development, although this has received little attention. A patient-derived tumor xenograft model where cervical cancer tissue is transplanted to the subcutaneous and orthotopic sites has been described. Here we review the reported transgenic and xenograft models, their strengths and limitations, and highlight the potential for the development of improved models to study cervical neoplasia.

  • Cervical cancer
  • Cervical dysplasia
  • Animal models
  • Transgenic models
  • Xenograft models
  • Patient-derived xenograft models

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Authors roles: All authors contributed to the conception and design of this review, L.I.L. drafted the review, and T.W.J. and C.E.G. edited and revised the article for intellectual content, and all authors gave final approval of the submitted version.

  • Funding: This work was supported by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Mary Elizabeth Courier Research Scholarship to L.I.L., the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Senior Research Fellowship (1042298) to C.E.G., and the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program.

  • The authors declare no conflicts of interest.