Abstract
Objectives: Endometriosis is a common disease that affects about 10% - 15% of women in their reproductive years worldwide with no curative treatment. The most
common symptom of endometriosis is debilitating pelvic/abdominal pain. Current therapeutic options have limited insight into the disease mechanism and include drugs
and/or surgery, which may be ineffective over the long term with unwanted side effects. We aimed at establishing a translational rodent endometriosis model that can be
used to identify novel therapies. The validity of the model was confi rmed by investigating the effect of the clinically-used GnRH agonist, leuprolide.
Methods
Endometriosis was induced by a surgical procedure in adult non-pregnant female Sprague Dawley rats in the diestrus or estrus stage (cycle determination
by vaginal smear). One group of rats received a subcutaneous injection of leuprolide at 1mg/kg, every 4 weeks. Following the tr eatment period, we performed a direct
assessment of the endometriosis-induced abdominal pain using the Von-Frey method and spontaneous pain using the abdominal licki ng test. Then, the lesions were
excised and measured.
Results
Abdominal pain threshold was decreased by more than 2 fold in rats with surgically-induced endometriosis compared to sham rats. Leuprolide treatment
signifi cantly increased the threshold force required to elicit a behavioral withdrawal response in rats suffering from endometriosis. The observed pelvic fl oor mechanical
hyperalgesia has not been correlated to the growth of endometriosis lesions. The hormonal cycle at the surgery induction in fl uenced the endometriosis lesions growth.
Leuprolide signifi cantly inhibited the growth of endometriosis-like lesions.
Conclusions
we have established, based on previously reported rodent models, a model of endometriosis-associated pain that responds to clinically active drugs and
can, therefore, be used to identify novel therapies and investigate some of the pathophysiological mechanisms involved in endometriosis.
Research Article
Establishment and validation of
a rodent model of endometriosis
to evaluate the effect of new
therapeutic strategies
Rana Assaly1*, Sandrine Compagnie1, Laurine Allimonnier1,
Manon Bracconi1, Francois Giuliano2 and Delphine Behr-
Roussel1
1Pelvipharm, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France
2AP-HP, Neuro-Uro-Andrology, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Raymond Poincaré
hospital, Garches, France
Received: 06 October, 2022
Accepted: 28 October, 2022
Published: 29 October, 2022
*Corresponding author: Rana Assaly, : PharmD, PhD,
Pelvipharm, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France, Tel: +33 1
70 42 93 47; E-mail:
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9521-0956
Keywords
Endometriosis; Preclinical; Translational
model; In vivo; Pharmacology; Pain; GnRH agonist;
Treatment
Copyright License: © 2022 Assaly R, et al. This is an
open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are
credited.
https://www.peertechzpublications.com
Introduction
Endometriosis is the presence of ectopic endometrial tissue
outside the uterine cavity and is a common gynecological
disease reported in 10% - 15% of women during their
reproductive years in the world [1]. The most common
symptom of endometriosis is debilitating pelvic/abdominal
pain. In fact, up to 70% of women suffering from pelvic
pain are affected by endometriosis. Other symptoms include
dyspareunia, severe dysmenorrhea, and dysuria. Women with
the condition also suffer from co-occurring painful conditions,
including interstitial cystitis/painful bladder symptoms and
irritable bowel syndrome and 50% of these women suffer from
infertility [2].
The disease has a huge negative impact on women’s
quality of life, work productivity, sexual relationship and self-
esteem [3]. The most common theory proposed to explain
the pathophysiology of the endometriosis is retrograde
037
https://www.peertechzpublications.com/journals/journal-of-gynecological-research-and-obstetrics
Citation: Assaly R, Compagnie S, Allimonnier L, Bracconi M, Giuliano F, et al. (2022) Establishment and validation of a rodent model of e ndometriosis to evaluate the
effect of new therapeutic strategies. J Gynecol Res Obstet 8(3): 036-042. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17352/jgro.000114
menstruation hypothesis but also other hypotheses have been
discussed like in fl ammatory factors, dysregulated immunity,
hormones and genetic and epigenetic factors [4]. None of
these mechanisms could explain alone the different types and
symptoms of endometriosis. Current therapeutic options have
limited insight into the disease mechanisms and include drugs
and/or surgery to reduce symptoms and manage complications.
These available treatments provide short-term solutions but
tend to be ineffective over the long term with a high incidence
of unwanted side effects such as premature bone loss and
vaginal dryness. The most common medical treatment for
endometriosis is gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)
agonists and estrogen/progestin combinations [5,6]. In
recent years, the search for more effective and less invasive
therapeutic curative strategies to reduce years of suffering
in women with endometriosis is receiving increased research
attention. The development and validation of In vivo models
are necessary to allow the preclinical testing of the ef fi cacy of
potential new treatment options.
Non-human primates are considered the most
physiologically relevant model of endometriosis since these
animals develop spontaneous endometriosis [7]. However,
their use is limited by cost and ethical concerns. Thus, rodent
models of endometriosis [8] have been developed to investigate
the effect of the presence of endometriosis lesions on functional
outcomes and the extent of its reversal by new compounds.
However, it is dif fi cult to develop a unique model that
replicates all symptoms and aspects of a complex disease such
as endometriosis. Indeed, endometriosis is a heterogeneous
disease with poorly known etiology and several phenotypes such
as ovarian endometrioma, super fi cial peritoneal disease and
deep infi ltrating endometriosis [4]. In addition, endometriosis
is multifactorial and has been associated with environmental,
genetic, immunological and hormonal factors [9]. Different
models have been developed in mice and rats and recently
reviewed by Bruner-Tran, et al. [8], each model emphasizing
one or several features to explore disease-related mechanisms,
to identify therapeutic targets and/or to provide insight into the
development of co-morbidities. Pain is considered a signifi cant
contributor to endometriosis morbidity and pelvic pain is one of
the most described symptoms [10], even though asymptomatic
cases are described [11], this study aimed at establishing a
rodent model of endometriosis to be a useful tool in evaluating
endometriosis-related pelvic pain. To that end, we developed
a rodent model of endometriosis in immunocompetent rats
based on surgically-induced endometriosis originally described
by Vermon and Wilson [12] to evaluate endometriosis-
induced pain by assessing speci fi cally pelvic pain while others
extensively evaluated generalized pain behavior. In addition,
endometriosis diagnosis is based on the analysis of the lesions
collected during laparoscopic surgery [13] and the American
Society of Reproductive Medicine classi fi ed the disease into
4 stages according to the evaluation of the endometriotic
lesions [14]. Thus, this study also described the proliferation of
endometriosis lesions being a major feature of endometriosis.
Even though the model described in this study is based on
previously published studies reviewed by others [8,15], very
few authors reported the impact of the estrous stage on
endometriosis-induced models in rodents. Hence, this study
was designed to investigate if any in fl uence of the estrous
stage at induction of endometriosis on both primary endpoints
i.e., pelvic pain and endometriosis lesions size. To validate the
translational value of this model, we tested the effect of one of
the most clinically used medical options, a GnRH agonist on
pelvic pain and lesions size.
Materials and methods
Endometriosis-induced surgery and treatment adminis-
tration
Adult non-pregnant female Sprague Dawley rats (Elevage
Janvier, Le Genest-St-Isle, France, 6-8 weeks old) were housed
at least 10 days prior to the beginning of the experiments with
free access to standard chow (Chow M20, 841201, SDS, UK)
and water and maintained on an inversed 12h dark/light cycle
(10:00/22:00). All procedures were approved by the local ethical
committee (CEE47) and performed in accordance with the
legislation on the use of laboratory animals (NIH publication
N° 85 - 23, revised 1996) and Animal Care Regulations in force
in France as of 1988 (authorization from competent French
Ministry of Agriculture - Agreement No. B78-423-1, July 2017).
After the acclimation period, the reproductive status was
determined by vaginal lavage using traditional nomenclature
for the 4 estrous stages (proestrus, estrus, metestrus and
diestrus). After the con fi rmation of one full cycle by daily
vaginal lavage, the rats were identi fi ed with a unique
identifi cation number; then using a random number table, they
were randomly allocated to different experimental groups (n =
12 rats per group): sham group (SHAM), endometriosis group
(ENDO) and treated group (ENDO+leuprolide).
When in the diestrus stage, all animals underwent either
sham the surgical procedure or endometriosis induction by a
surgical procedure based on the initial protocol described by
Vernon and Wilson in rats [12] and Cummings and Metcalf [16].
In addition, in order to evaluate the infl uence of the estrous
stage on pelvic pain and lesions size, a group of rats ( n = 12)
that underwent endometriosis induction when in the proestrus/
estrous stage was added to this study.
Whether surgical induction was conducted in the diestrus
or proestrus/estrus stage, the rats were anesthetized with
isofl urane (1% - 1.2%, Centravet, France) under aseptic
conditions and using a heating pad to maintain a body
temperature of the animal at 37 °C. A midline incision was
made through the skin and muscle layer to expose the pelvic
and abdominal organs. A segment of the mid-left uterine
horn was excised, six 2x2 pieces of the excised uterus were
prepared and each piece was sutured onto alternate mesenteric
arteries using 4.0 nylon sutures. The same surgical procedure
was applied for the sham group except for the step of suturing
uterine pieces. Then, the muscle layer and the skin were closed
using polyester suture (Vetsure© Bond) and the animal was
closely monitored during recovery. Following surgery, animals
were carefully monitored for health status and weighed twice
per week. One week after surgery, the rats allocated to the
038
https://www.peertechzpublications.com/journals/journal-of-gynecological-research-and-obstetrics
Citation: Assaly R, Compagnie S, Allimonnier L, Bracconi M, Giuliano F, et al. (2022) Establishment and validation of a rodent model of e ndometriosis to evaluate the
effect of new therapeutic strategies. J Gynecol Res Obstet 8(3): 036-042. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17352/jgro.000114
treated group received a single subcutaneous injection of the
GnRH agonist, leuprolide at 1mg/kg repeated once on day
28 [17]. All endpoints were reported 6 weeks post-surgical
procedure.
Pelvic pain assessments
A vaginal cytology smear was performed to determine the
estrous stage at the time of pain assessment.
A widely accepted method to evaluate mechanical
hyperalgesia in conscious animals is the Von Frey fi laments.
This method is based on behavioral observations of animal
response to mechanical stimuli of increasing forces applied to
the plantar area by means of fi laments with grading forces and
consists of determining the hind paw withdrawal threshold
as a referred pain-associated behavior. In this study, we
adapted the Von Frey method to apply to the pelvic area and
to determine a pelvic pain nociception threshold. Briefl y, a few
days before the Von Frey experiments, the rat abdomen was
shaved under light iso fl urane anesthesia (Centravet, France).
On the day of assessment, the rat bladder was emptied by
manual compression and the rat was placed in a metabolic
cage for a minimum 30-minute acclimatization period before
evaluation.
Monofi laments of differing forces ranging from 0.008 to
4g (Bioseb, Vitrolles, France) were applied in increasing order
of force and rat behavior was recorded according to a pain
behavior rating scale (score 1 to 4). The forces of the von Frey
fi bers used in this study were determined in a preliminary test
based on the modifi ed up-and-down method [18]. Five repeated
stimulations per fi lament with 5 - second intervals were
performed, followed by 3-minute intervals before applying
the next higher force fi lament. Care was taken to stimulate
different areas within the lower abdominal region to avoid
desensitization. The pain threshold was determined by the
lower force evoking a pain reaction of the rat characterized by
abrupt retraction of the abdomen, jumping, and/or immediate
licking of the site of application (score 3 and above).
Also, spontaneous pain was evaluated by the abdominal
licking test which is used as an indicator of abdominal
discomfort in various pelvic pain models [19,20]. This test
was performed in an open- fi eld home cage and consists of
observing, after allowing the rat to acclimate to the cage, the
number of times the rat licked the abdominal region [21]. The
average number of abdominally-directed licking was recorded
over two 10 min periods by an experimenter blinded to the
groups.
Lesions measurement
Following behavioral assessments, the rats were
anesthetized and then euthanized by an intracardiac injection
of pentobarbital (Eutasol®, Centravet, France), the abdominal
cavity opened and the lesions measured by an in-house
developed method adapted from a described method by Becker,
et al. [22]. Briefl y, the harvested lesions were aligned on graph
paper, and the image was captured and analyzed using Image
J software by measuring for each lesion two perpendicular
diameters (D1 and D2) and calculating a cross-sectional area
(CSA) using the formula for an ellipse: (D1xD2x π/4). Then,
the CSA of the lesions harvested from the same animal was
averaged to calculate a mean CSA for each animal and fi nally
to compute the average CSA per experimental group for
comparison between groups.
Statistical analysis
All results are presented as mean ± SEM: Some rats were
excluded if the endometriosis-like lesions were not present at
harvesting or if the behavior of the rat during pain evaluation
was agitated not allowing assessment. A fi nal n = 10 rats/group
was included in the fi nal analysis.
Student’s t-test or one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s
multiple comparisons post-test were used when appropriate
to compare the means of two groups. Statistical analysis was
performed with GraphPad Prism® 6.05 software. p values <
0.05 were considered signifi cant.
Results
Infl uence of estrous cycle on pelvic pain and lesions size
Pelvic pain threshold determined by Von Frey fi laments
in endometriosis rats signi fi cantly decreased by 2 fold
compared to the SHAM group 6 weeks post-induction surgery
independently of the estrous stage at the time of endometriosis
induction (Figure 1).
However, the mean cross-sectional lesion area was
signifi cantly larger compared with the mean area of the lesions
at the time of the surgical induction of endometriosis (3.8 ± 0.8
mm
2 vs. 2.2 ± 0.1 mm2, respectively, Figure 2) when the surgical
induction of endometriosis was achieved in diestrus stage but
not in proestrus/estrus stage. In fact, when the surgery was
conducted in the proestrus/estrus stage, the mean cross-
sectional lesion area was smaller compared with the mean area
of the lesions at the time of the surgery (1.7 ± 0.2 mm
2 vs. 3.0 ±
0.1 mm2, respectively, Figure 2).
SH
AM
END
O
die
strus
ENDO
pr
o/estr
us
Pain threshold (g)
Figure 1: Effect of estrous cycle on pelvic pain threshold determined by Von Frey
experiments. Von Frey experiments were performed 6 weeks post sham surgery
(SHAM, n = 10) or endometriosis induction surgery when rats were at diestrus stage
(ENDO diestrus, n = 10) or estrus stage (ENDO pro/estrus, n = 10). Data are mean ±
s.e.m *p < 0.05, Dunnett’s multiple post-test vs. SHAM.
039
https://www.peertechzpublications.com/journals/journal-of-gynecological-research-and-obstetrics
Citation: Assaly R, Compagnie S, Allimonnier L, Bracconi M, Giuliano F, et al. (2022) Establishment and validation of a rodent model of e ndometriosis to evaluate the
effect of new therapeutic strategies. J Gynecol Res Obstet 8(3): 036-042. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17352/jgro.000114
Of note, the lesions prepared from the uterus when the rat
was in the estrus/proestrus stage were larger than the lesions
prepared when the rat was in the diestrus stage.
Consequently, the establishment and validation of the
model were continued using rats in the diestrus stage at the
induction of endometriosis and presented here.
Body weight evolution
The body weight progressively increased, starting from
the fi rst-week post-surgery until the end of the experimental
period for all groups of rats. The rats in the ENDO group
showed the same body weight evolution compared to sham-
operated rats. However, the leuprolide-treated endometriosis
rats (ENDO+leuprolide) showed signi fi cantly higher body
weight evolution than ENDO rats (Figure 3). Indeed, the rats
that received leuprolide showed a sharp increase in body weight
gain the fi rst 2 weeks after treatment administration compared
to the day of starting the treatment (12 ± 1% the fi rst week and
the second week) compared to the ENDO group (5 ± 1% the fi rst
week and the second week)
Of note, the body weights, before starting the treatment
period, were comparable between all groups of rats (232 ± 9 g,
226 ± 3 g, and 224 ± 4 g for SHAM, ENDO and ENDO+leuprolide
groups, respectively; One-Way ANOVA, ns, p > 0.05).
Pelvic pain assessments
As mentioned earlier, pelvic pain threshold in the ENDO
group was signi fi cantly decreased by more than 2 fold
compared to the SHAM group 6 weeks post-induction surgery
(Figure 1). Leuprolide at 1mg/kg administered subcutaneously
once every 28 days shifted pain responses towards higher
forces indicating that rats in the ENDO+leuprolide group are
less sensitive to pain compared to rats from ENDO group. Thus,
the GnRH agonist leuprolide decreased abdominal hyperalgesia
induced by endometriosis surgery by signi fi cantly increasing
the pain threshold (Figure 4).
Licking behavior remained almost unchanged in SHAM
rats before and after surgery (+5%) while a slight increase in
abdominal-directed licking was observed in ENDO rats after
surgery (+15%), however, this increase did not reach statistical
signifi cance (Student’s t-test, ns, p > 0.05). Consequently, the
abdominal-directed licking behavior assessment design should
be reconsidered with some modi fi cations to the experimental
conditions to allow the evaluation of the effect of potential
therapies. Indeed, some authors reported abdominal direct
licking behavior in mice and rats using different conditions
compared to the ones used in this study such as increasing the
number of animals [21], increasing the observation window
[19] and taking into account abdominal directed licking when
part of the normal grooming behavior [20].
Lesions measurement
The presence of lesions was con fi rmed in 90% of
endometriosis rats (ENDO and ENDO+leuprolide groups).
The mean cross-sectional lesion area was signi fi cantly larger
compared with the mean area of the lesions at the time of the
surgical induction of endometriosis (3.8 ± 0.8 mm
2 vs. 2.2 ±
0.1 mm2, respectively). Treatment with leuprolide suppressed
by 60% the growth of endometriosis-like lesions ( p < 0.05,
Student’s t-test).
Figure 2: Representative pictures of the different range of lesions at induction of
endometriosis and day of harvesting when rat was in estrus (A and B) or disterus
(C, D and E).
Body weight (g)
****
Figure 3: Evolution of body weight post-surgery and during the treatment period.
Rats underwent either sham surgery (SHAM, n = 10), endometriosis induction
surgery (ENDO, n = 10) or endometriosis induction surgery and tretad with leuprolide
(ENDO+leuprolide, n = 10). Data are mean ± s.e.m ****p < 0.01, two-way ANOVA test.
SHAM
EN
DO
ENDO
+ leuprolide
Pain threshold (g)
Figure 4: Effect of subcutaneous leuprolide at 1mg/kg on pelvic pain threshold
determined by Von Frey experiments. Von Frey experiments were performed 6
weeks post sham surgery (SHAM, n = 10) or endometriosis induction (ENDO, n =
10) or endometriosis induction and treatment with leuprolide 1lmg/kg once every
4 weeks (ENDO +leurpolide, n = 10). Data are mean ± s.e.m * p < 0.05, Dunnett’s
multiple post-test vs. SHAM, & p < 0.05, Dunnett’s multiple post-test vs. ENDO.
040
https://www.peertechzpublications.com/journals/journal-of-gynecological-research-and-obstetrics
Citation: Assaly R, Compagnie S, Allimonnier L, Bracconi M, Giuliano F, et al. (2022) Establishment and validation of a rodent model of e ndometriosis to evaluate the
effect of new therapeutic strategies. J Gynecol Res Obstet 8(3): 036-042. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17352/jgro.000114
Discussion
This study described a translational rat model of
endometriosis-associated pain. The validity of the model was
confi rmed by investigating the effect of the clinically-used
GnRH agonist, leuprolide.
First, this study investigated the potential in fl uence of the
hormonal cycle on the growth of endometriosis lesions. Some
authors used uterine tissues at the proestrus/estrus phase
[12,23] since the endometrium is thicker compared to other
stages providing enough tissue for suturing in line with our
observations. However, a correlation between the volume of
endometriosis lesions and the estrous cycle has been described
[24] while others reported that lesion size is independent of
the estrous stages [25]. Thus, the fi rst aim of this study was to
examine the infl uence of the estrous stage and to set the stage
to be used in subsequent experiments.
Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent and dynamic
disorder. Indeed, endometriosis lesions’ appearance and
progression/regression are dependent on hormonal levels.
It has been reported that endometriosis lesions growth is
triggered by high estrogen levels while low estrogen levels lead
to lesions regression [26]. Besides, it is known that estrogen
level starts to decrease at late proestrus corresponding to the
follicular phase in women that is characterized by the release
of luteinizing hormone and follicular-stimulating hormone
[27]. The increase in follicular stimulating hormone induces
ovulation matching the estrus stage of the cycle in rodents
during which the estrogen levels decrease and prolactin levels
peak. During the metestrus/diestrus stage, progesterone
levels increase, corresponding to the luteal phase in women,
followed by a peak in estrogen levels during the late luteal
phase, a decline in progesterone levels, and regression of the
corpus luteum, leading to menstruation in women. The late
luteal phase and the regression of the corpus luteum phase
correspond to the diestrus stage in rodents [28,29].
Taken together, it is plausible to suggest that the diestrus
stage in rodents is comparable to the menstrual phase in women
and the changes in estrogen/progesterone levels during the
estrous cycle may infl uence the endometriosis lesions growth.
Accordingly, this study is to our best knowledge among the few
studies showing by direct comparison that the estrous cycle
signifi cantly affected the size and the macroscopic growth of
endometriosis lesions using an autologous endometriosis rat
model without ovariectomy. Indeed, signi fi cant growth of
endometriosis lesions was observed when the preparation of
the lesions and the induction of the surgery was done when the
rats were in the diestrus stage but not when in the proestrus/
estrus stage.
If the main characteristic of endometriosis is the presence of
tissue lesions containing stromal, epithelial and infl ammatory
cells, the main clinical sign of endometriosis is pain, even though
asymptomatic endometriosis has been reported [4,6]. Women
suffering from endometriosis described different intensities
and types of pains ranging from severe dysmenorrhea to
chronic pelvic pain accompanied or not with other comorbid
pain conditions leading to a signi fi cant impact on the quality
of life of patients [30]. Recent studies have illustrated that
women with endometriosis develop signi fi cant sensitivity
to any stimuli as a consequence of central sensitization [31].
Thus, the development of new and effective therapies is a
research priority that requires the development of appropriate
pre-clinical models of pain-associated endometriosis and
validated tools for pain assessment which can advance our
understanding of this condition of central sensitization.
The fi rst publications describing surgically induced rodent
models of endometriosis focused mainly on lesion description
[12,16,22,32]. More recently, investigators developing rodent
models of endometriosis models have given more focus on pain
endpoint but not specifi cally pelvic pain and rather generalized
pain by performing paw withdrawal behavioral tests as an
indicator of stimulus-evoked pain [21,33,34]. Indeed, only a
minority of studies measured pelvic pain [20,35-37]. Thus, we
aimed in this study to set up a speci fi c pelvic-pain-associated
endometriosis model to allow in the future to understand the
related mechanisms. Thus, we investigated both phenotypes
of pain, the stimulus evoked pelvic pain response and the
spontaneous pain as indicators of chronic intermittent pain
reported by patients suffering from endometriosis.
Indeed, this study showed a signi fi cant increase in pain
perception in rats suffering from endometriosis. Measurement
of pain was performed by evaluation of behavioural responses
stimulus- dependent using Von Frey fi laments. Furthermore,
rats suffering from endometriosis showed exacerbated
spontaneous pain behavior compared to sham rats, even
though the design of this study did not allow to reach a
statistical signi fi cance in the number of times the rat licked
the abdominal region, and thus it needs to be fi ne-tuned in
the future experiments. In fact, very few authors reported
both phenotypes of pain in a rodent model. Indeed, pelvic and
spontaneous pain was recently reported in a non-surgical mice
model [36] but not yet in a rat model of endometriosis.
It is now well established that the association between the
severity of pelvic pain and the endometriosis lesions growth is
inconsistent [38]. Stratton and Berkley [39] have shown that
a major contributing factor to endometriosis-associated pain
is not the ectopic lesions growth but rather the development
of nerve supply creating a direct interaction between lesions
and the central nervous system. Another feature that has
been associated with the severity of endometriosis pain is the
vascularity of the lesions and the development of new blood
vessels. This coordinated growth of blood vessels and nerves
has been termed “neuroangiogenesis” [40]. In line with these
suggestions, the model described in this study mimics pain-
associated endometriosis and the non-correlation between the
severity of pelvic pain and the growth of the endometriosis
lesions.
The validation of the translational value of this model
was con fi rmed by testing one of the most clinically-used
compounds, leuprolide, a GnRH agonist. Subcutaneous
leuprolide administered in a dosage regimen similar to its
clinical use signi fi cantly decreased pain sensation in rats
suffering from endometriosis as well as the endometriosis
041
https://www.peertechzpublications.com/journals/journal-of-gynecological-research-and-obstetrics
Citation: Assaly R, Compagnie S, Allimonnier L, Bracconi M, Giuliano F, et al. (2022) Establishment and validation of a rodent model of e ndometriosis to evaluate the
effect of new therapeutic strategies. J Gynecol Res Obstet 8(3): 036-042. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17352/jgro.000114
lesions growth. Indeed, in clinical practice, leuprolide and
more broadly the GnRH agonist are prescribed as second-line
therapy in endometriosis-related pain with a satisfactory result
on pain and on decreasing lesions volume when the fi rst-line
such as combined oral contraceptives and progestin fail or due
to intolerance or contraindications which represent 1/4 to 1/3 of
patients [41]. However, the GnRH agonists induce an arti fi cial
menopause state and thus add-on therapy is needed to limit
some related risks such as premature bone mass density loss.
Moreover, this type of treatment can only be prescribed to
patients who do not wish to become pregnant [4].
In conclusion, there is a need to develop more effective
therapeutic and curative strategies with fewer unwanted
effects. To this end, it is necessary to establish a reliable and
standardized animal model of endometriosis. In this study, we
have established a model of endometriosis-associated pain
that responds to clinically active drugs and can, therefore, be
used to identify novel therapies. It should be noted, however;
no model is expected to mimic all aspects of the women’s
disorder and it is probable that the new therapies have to be
tested in several models, each replicating some features of the
disease to improve the transitional value and to increase the
success rate in clinical trials.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by a restricted grant from the «
Plan France 2030 » National Program.
References
1. Parasar P, Ozcan P, Terry KL. Endometriosis: Epidemiology, Diagnosis and
Clinical Management. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2017 Mar;6(1):34-41. doi:
10.1007/s13669-017-0187-1. Epub 2017 Jan 27. PMID: 29276652; PMCID:
PMC5737931.
2. Bulletti C, Coccia ME, Battistoni S, Borini A. Endometriosis and infertility. J
Assist Reprod Genet. 2010 Aug;27(8):441-7. doi: 10.1007/s10815-010-9436-1.
Epub 2010 Jun 25. PMID: 20574791; PMCID: PMC2941592.
3. Simoens S, Dunselman G, Dirksen C, Hummelshoj L, Bokor A, Brandes I,
Brodszky V, Canis M, Colombo GL, DeLeire T, Falcone T, Graham B, Halis
G, Horne A, Kanj O, Kjer JJ, Kristensen J, Lebovic D, Mueller M, Vigano P,
Wullschleger M, D’Hooghe T. The burden of endometriosis: costs and quality
of life of women with endometriosis and treated in referral centres. Hum
Reprod. 2012 May;27(5):1292-9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des073. Epub 2012
Mar 14. Erratum in: Hum Reprod. 2014 Sep;29(9):2073. PMID: 22422778.
4. Chapron C, Marcellin L, Borghese B, Santulli P. Rethinking mechanisms,
diagnosis and management of endometriosis. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2019
Nov;15(11):666-682. doi: 10.1038/s41574-019-0245-z. Epub 2019 Sep 5.
PMID: 31488888.
5. Greene AD, Lang SA, Kendziorski JA, Sroga-Rios JM, Herzog TJ, Burns KA.
Endometriosis: where are we and where are we going? Reproduction. 2016
Sep;152(3):R63-78. doi: 10.1530/REP-16-0052. Epub 2016 May 10. PMID:
27165051; PMCID: PMC4958554.
6. Zondervan KT, Becker CM, Koga K, Missmer SA, Taylor RN, Viganò P.
Endometriosis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018 Jul 19;4(1):9. doi: 10.1038/s41572-
018-0008-5. PMID: 30026507.
7. Simitsidellis I, Gibson DA, Saunders PTK. Animal models of endometriosis:
Replicating the aetiology and symptoms of the human disorder. Best
Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018 Jun;32(3):257-269. doi: 10.1016/j.
beem.2018.03.004. Epub 2018 Apr 6. PMID: 29779580.
8. Bruner-Tran KL, Mokshagundam S, Herington JL, Ding T, Osteen KG. Rodent
Models of Experimental Endometriosis: Identifying Mechanisms of Disease
and Therapeutic Targets. Curr Womens Health Rev. 2018 Jun;14(2):173-
188. doi: 10.2174/1573404813666170921162041. PMID: 29861705; PMCID:
PMC5925870.
9. Malvezzi H, Marengo EB, Podgaec S, Piccinato CA. Endometriosis: current
challenges in modeling a multifactorial disease of unknown etiology. J Transl
Med. 2020 Aug 12;18(1):311. doi: 10.1186/s12967-020-02471-0. PMID:
32787880; PMCID: PMC7425005.
10. Berkley KJ, Rapkin AJ, Papka RE. The pains of endometriosis. Science. 2005
Jun 10;308(5728):1587-9. doi: 10.1126/science.1111445. PMID: 15947176.
11. Coxon L, Horne AW, Vincent K. Pathophysiology of endometriosis-associated
pain: A review of pelvic and central nervous system mechanisms. Best
Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Aug;51:53-67. doi: 10.1016/j.
bpobgyn.2018.01.014. Epub 2018 Feb 15. PMID: 29525437.
12. Vernon MW, Wilson EA. Studies on the surgical induction of endometriosis in
the rat. Fertil Steril. 1985 Nov;44(5):684-94. PMID: 4054348.
13. Kennedy S, Bergqvist A, Chapron C, D’Hooghe T, Dunselman G, Greb R,
Hummelshoj L, Prentice A, Saridogan E; ESHRE Special Interest Group for
Endometriosis and Endometrium Guideline Development Group. ESHRE
guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis. Hum Reprod.
2005 Oct;20(10):2698-704. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dei135. Epub 2005 Jun 24.
PMID: 15980014.
14. Revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine classi fi cation of
endometriosis: 1996. Fertil Steril. 1997 May;67(5):817-21. doi: 10.1016/
s0015-0282(97)81391-x. PMID: 9130884.
15. Greaves E, Critchley HOD, Horne AW, Saunders PTK. Relevant human tissue
resources and laboratory models for use in endometriosis research. Acta
Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 Jun;96(6):644-658. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13119.
Epub 2017 Apr 5. PMID: 28233896; PMCID: PMC5485163.
16. Cummings AM, Metcalf JL. Induction of endometriosis in mice: a new
model sensitive to estrogen. Reprod Toxicol. 1995 May-Jun;9(3):233-8. doi:
10.1016/0890-6238(95)00004-t. PMID: 7579907.
17. Ercan CM, Kayaalp O, Cengiz M, Keskin U, Yumusak N, Aydogan U, Ide T, Ergun
A. Comparison of effi cacy of bromocriptine and cabergoline to GnRH agonist
in a rat endometriosis model. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015 May;291(5):1103-11.
doi: 10.1007/s00404-014-3524-x. Epub 2014 Nov 4. PMID: 25367601.
18. Chaplan SR, Bach FW, Pogrel JW, Chung JM, Yaksh TL. Quantitative
assessment of tactile allodynia in the rat paw. J Neurosci Methods. 1994
Jul;53(1):55-63. doi: 10.1016/0165-0270(94)90144-9. PMID: 7990513.
19. Craft RM, Carlisi VJ, Mattia A, Herman RM, Porreca F. Behavioral
characterization of the excitatory and desensitizing effects of intravesical
capsaicin and resiniferatoxin in the rat. Pain. 1993 Nov;55(2):205-215. doi:
10.1016/0304-3959(93)90149-J. PMID: 7508591.
20. Greaves E, Horne AW, Jerina H, Mikolajczak M, Hilferty L, Mitchell R, Fleetwood-
Walker SM, Saunders PT. EP
2 receptor antagonism reduces peripheral and
central hyperalgesia in a preclinical mouse model of endometriosis. Sci Rep.
2017 Mar 10;7:44169. doi: 10.1038/srep44169. PMID: 28281561; PMCID:
PMC5345039.
21. McAllister SL, Sinharoy P, Vasu M, Gross ER. Aberrant reactive aldehyde
detoxifi cation by aldehyde dehydrogenase-2 in fl uences endometriosis
development and pain-associated behaviors. Pain. 2021 Jan;162(1):71-83. doi:
10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001949. PMID: 32541390; PMCID: PMC7718385.
22. Becker CM, Rohwer N, Funakoshi T, Cramer T, Bernhardt W, Birsner A, Folkman
J, D’Amato RJ. 2-methoxyestradiol inhibits hypoxia-inducible factor-1{alpha}
and suppresses growth of lesions in a mouse model of endometriosis. Am
J Pathol. 2008 Feb;172(2):534-44. doi: 10.2353/ajpath.2008.061244. Epub
2008 Jan 17. PMID: 18202195; PMCID: PMC2312351.
042
https://www.peertechzpublications.com/journals/journal-of-gynecological-research-and-obstetrics
Citation: Assaly R, Compagnie S, Allimonnier L, Bracconi M, Giuliano F, et al. (2022) Establishment and validation of a rodent model of e ndometriosis to evaluate the
effect of new therapeutic strategies. J Gynecol Res Obstet 8(3): 036-042. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17352/jgro.000114
23. Rudzitis-Auth J, Körbel C, Scheuer C, Menger MD, Laschke MW. Xanthohumol
inhibits growth and vascularization of developing endometriotic lesions. Hum
Reprod. 2012 Jun;27(6):1735-44. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des095. Epub 2012
Mar 23. PMID: 22447626.
24. Uchida M, Kobayashi O. Sequential observation of implanted endometriosis by
laparoscopy in rats: correlation between the prevalence rate and the estrous
cycle. J Pharmacol Sci. 2013;121(4):299-304. doi: 10.1254/jphs.12180fp.
Epub 2013 Mar 29. PMID: 23538674.
25. Kiani K, Movahedin M, Malekafzali H, Mirfasihi F, Sadati SN, Moini A, Ostad S,
Afl atoonian R. Effect of the estrus cycle stage on the establishment of murine
endometriosis lesions. Int J Reprod Biomed. 2018 May;16(5):305-314. PMID:
30027146; PMCID: PMC6046203.
26. Cason AM, Samuelsen CL, Berkley KJ. Estrous changes in vaginal nociception
in a rat model of endometriosis. Horm Behav. 2003 Aug;44(2):123-31. doi:
10.1016/s0018-506x(03)00121-1. PMID: 13129484.
27. Hawkins SM, Matzuk MM. The menstrual cycle: basic biology. Ann N Y Acad
Sci. 2008;1135:10-8. doi: 10.1196/annals.1429.018. PMID: 18574203; PMCID:
PMC2913133.
28. Mihm M, Gangooly S, Muttukrishna S. The normal menstrual cycle in
women. Anim Reprod Sci. 2011 Apr;124(3-4):229-36. doi: 10.1016/j.
anireprosci.2010.08.030. Epub 2010 Sep 3. PMID: 20869180.
29. Rudolph M, Döcke WD, Müller A, Menning A, Röse L, Zollner TM, Gashaw I.
Induction of overt menstruation in intact mice. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e32922.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032922. Epub 2012 Mar 7. PMID: 22412950;
PMCID: PMC3296749.
30. Maddern J, Grundy L, Castro J, Brierley SM. Pain in Endometriosis. Front Cell
Neurosci. 2020 Oct 6;14:590823. doi: 10.3389/fncel.2020.590823. PMID:
33132854; PMCID: PMC7573391.
31. McKinnon BD, Bertschi D, Bersinger NA, Mueller MD. In fl ammation and
nerve fi ber interaction in endometriotic pain. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2015
Jan;26(1):1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2014.10.003. Epub 2014 Nov 19. PMID:
25465987.
32. Zhang G, Dmitrieva N, Liu Y, McGinty KA, Berkley KJ. Endometriosis as a
neurovascular condition: estrous variations in innervation, vascularization,
and growth factor content of ectopic endometrial cysts in the rat. Am J Physiol
Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2008; 294:R162-R171.
33. Ge P, Ren J, Harrington AM, Grundy L, Castro J, Brierley SM, Hannig G.
Linaclotide treatment reduces endometriosis-associated vaginal hyperalgesia
and mechanical allodynia through viscerovisceral cross-talk. Pain. 2019
Nov;160(11):2566-2579. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001657. PMID:
31335750.
34. Davenport AJ, Neagoe I, Bräuer N, Koch M, Rotgeri A, Nagel J, Laux-Biehlmann
A, Machet F, Coelho AM, Boyce S, Carty N, Gemkow MJ, Hess SD, Zollner
TM, Fischer OM. Eliapixant is a selective P2X3 receptor antagonist for the
treatment of disorders associated with hypersensitive nerve fi bers. Sci Rep.
2021 Oct 6;11(1):19877. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-99177-0. PMID: 34615939;
PMCID: PMC8494816.
35. Escudero-Lara A, Cabañero D, Maldonado R. Kappa opioid receptor
modulation of endometriosis pain in mice. Neuropharmacology. 2021 Sep
1;195:108677. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2021.108677. Epub 2021 Jun 19.
PMID: 34153313.
36. Fattori V, Franklin NS, Gonzalez-Cano R, Peterse D, Ghalali A, Madrian E,
Verri WA Jr, Andrews N, Woolf CJ, Rogers MS. Nonsurgical mouse model of
endometriosis-associated pain that responds to clinically active drugs. Pain.
2020 Jun;161(6):1321-1331. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001832. PMID:
32132396.
37. Arosh JA, Lee J, Balasubbramanian D, Stanley JA, Long CR, Meagher MW,
Osteen KG, Bruner-Tran KL, Burghardt RC, Starzinski-Powitz A, Banu SK.
Molecular and preclinical basis to inhibit PGE2 receptors EP2 and EP4 as a
novel nonsteroidal therapy for endometriosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015
Aug 4;112(31):9716-21. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1507931112. Epub 2015 Jul 21.
PMID: 26199416; PMCID: PMC4534219.
38. Vercellini P, Trespidi L, De Giorgi O, Cortesi I, Parazzini F, Crosignani PG.
Endometriosis and pelvic pain: relation to disease stage and localization. Fertil
Steril. 1996 Feb;65(2):299-304. PMID: 8566252.
39. Stratton P, Berkley KJ. Chronic pelvic pain and endometriosis: translational
evidence of the relationship and implications. Hum Reprod Update. 2011 May-
Jun;17(3):327-46. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmq050. Epub 2010 Nov 23. PMID:
21106492; PMCID: PMC3072022.
40. Asante A, Taylor RN. Endometriosis: the role of neuroangiogenesis. Annu
Rev Physiol. 2011;73:163-82. doi: 10.1146/annurev-physiol-012110-142158.
PMID: 21054165.
41. Ferrero S, Evangelisti G, Barra F. Current and emerging treatment options for
endometriosis. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2018 Jul;19(10):1109-1125. doi:
10.1080/14656566.2018.1494154. Epub 2018 Jul 5. PMID: 29975553.
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.