ESP-31015

Selecting a suitable non-mouse animal model is a structured decision based on the research question, required anatomy or physiology, disease mechanism, endpoint feasibility, translational relevance, and ethical justification. Non-mouse models are preferred when mice cannot reproduce key human-relevant features, such as organ size, surgical anatomy, cardiovascular physiology, neuroanatomy, immune features, pharmacology, toxicology, or long-term clinical procedures. Candidate species may include rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, ferrets, zebrafish, pigs, sheep, goats, dogs, cats, horses, and non-human primates, but each species must be justified by its specific scientific advantage rather than convenience or tradition. Unresolved questions include how to quantify translational superiority across species, how to balance increased biological relevance against higher ethical burden, and when human-derived systems or new approach methodologies should replace animal use.

Cardiovascular disease can be modeled as maladaptive cardiac remodeling, where ischemic injury or pressure overload activates inflammatory signaling, fibroblast activation, extracellular-matrix deposition, cardiomyocyte hypertrophy, vascular remodeling, and progressive ventricular dysfunction. The TGF-β/SMAD axis is a central profibrotic pathway after myocardial injury and pressure overload, while innate immune and cytokine pathways regulate leukocyte recruitment, scar formation, and adverse remodeling. Key unresolved questions include which inflammatory signals are reparative versus harmful, when fibrosis is protective versus maladaptive, and whether pathway inhibition improves function without weakening necessary infarct healing or compensatory remodeling.

Choosing the right model animal is a validity-driven decision in which the species, strain, sex, age, genetic background, disease-induction method, outcome measures, and welfare burden must match the scientific question rather than laboratory tradition or convenience. A model should be selected by judging face validity, construct validity, and predictive validity: whether it resembles the human phenotype, whether it reproduces relevant mechanisms, and whether results are likely to predict human biology or treatment response. Animal studies often fail to translate because of species differences, weak disease resemblance, poor experimental design, inadequate reporting, publication bias, and underuse of randomization, blinding, and sample-size justification. Unresolved questions include how to rank competing models objectively, how much human-disease complexity must be reproduced for a given objective, and when non-animal systems such as organoids, ex vivo tissue, or computational models