Preclinical mouse models of multiple myeloma: a clinically oriented guide to model selection, validation, and translational application
Abstract
Multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable, and progress in drug development and understanding its pathogenesis relies on mouse models that replicate the patient’s disease course. Most existing reviews merely catalogue model phenotypes, rarely include post-2020 work, and provide no workable standards for model selection or cross-validation. Here, we summarize the MM mouse models developed or refined over the past five years and compare the advantages and limitations of the four main categories: syngeneic, xenograft, genetically engineered, and humanized. Given the frequency of false-positive preclinical efficacy signals, we propose a “2 + 1” cross-model validation framework in which any candidate therapy should be tested in at least two mechanistically distinct models, one of which must be immunocompetent. We also constructed a four-dimensional Clinical Translation Scoring System (CTSS) that rates each model based on genomic fidelity (25%), immune integrity (25%), bone disease reproducibility (20%), and disease course dynamics (30%). The CTSS is an exploratory tool developed by our team. Its weights can be calibrated to the central question of a given study, although it still requires validation in multicenter studies.
Related
- The Translational Value of Preclinical Research: Lessons from More Than Forty Years of Retinal Research
- Micronized Bone Marrow and Niche Preservation: Biological Rationale, Preclinical Evidence, Translational Potential and Limitations
- Phage therapy for multidrug-resistant Serratia marcescens infection: mechanisms, preclinical evidence, and translational challenges
- Integrative transcriptomic analysis and preclinical validation identify lansoprazole as a therapeutic candidate for preeclampsia
- Retrospective Computational and Immunoinformatics Validation of Clinically Evaluated Necator americanus Protein Vaccine Candidates: Na-APR-1, Na-GST-1, and Na-ASP-2
BibTeX
@article{shen2026preclinical,
title = {{Preclinical mouse models of multiple myeloma: a clinically oriented guide to model selection, validation, and translational application}},
author = {Chunxiu Shen and Yuqin Liu and Jiaowen Deng and Jin Deng and Xiangting Xie and Shuangnian Xu and Shuai Yang},
journal = {Frontiers in Immunology},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.3389/fimmu.2026.1952872},
url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2026.1952872},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Preclinical mouse models of multiple myeloma: a clinically oriented guide to model selection, validation, and translational application
AU - Chunxiu Shen
AU - Yuqin Liu
AU - Jiaowen Deng
AU - Jin Deng
AU - Xiangting Xie
AU - Shuangnian Xu
AU - Shuai Yang
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/04
JO - Frontiers in Immunology
DO - 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1952872
UR - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2026.1952872
AB - Multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable, and progress in drug development and understanding its pathogenesis relies on mouse models that replicate the patient’s disease course. Most existing reviews merely catalogue model phenotypes, rarely include post-2020 work, and provide no workable standards for model selection or cross-validation. Here, we summarize the MM mouse models developed or refined over the past five years and compare the advantages and limitations of the four main categories: syngeneic, xenograft, genetically engineered, and humanized. Given the frequency of false-positive preclinical efficacy signals, we propose a “2 + 1” cross-model validation framework in which any candidate therapy should be tested in at least two mechanistically distinct models, one of which must be immunocompetent. We also constructed a four-dimensional Clinical Translation Scoring System (CTSS) that rates each model based on genomic fidelity (25%), immune integrity (25%), bone disease reproducibility (20%), and disease course dynamics (30%). The CTSS is an exploratory tool developed by our team. Its weights can be calibrated to the central question of a given study, although it still requires validation in multicenter studies.
SN - 1664-3224
ER -