Modelling menstruation in the common mouse: a narrative review

Laura M Rogers, L. M. Rogers, Gendie E. Lash, Greg M. Anderson, Jane E. Girling
Reproduction, fertility, and development · 2025 · vol. 37(13) · doi:10.1071/rd25055 · PMID:40977194 · W4412878972
Review OA: hybrid CC0 ⤵ 1 in-corpus citation
📄 Open PDF View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This review examines mouse models of induced menstruation, detailing methods, variations in endometrial breakdown, and highlighting gaps in understanding uterine repair and breakdown mechanisms.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Despite occurring in up to 50% of the human population, menstruation is a fundamentally understudied process with limited treatment options when menstrual pathologies arise. Reasons for this deficit include the inherent ethical and technical constraints associated with researching menstruation. The multifactorial nature of many menstrual-related pathologies means in vivo research is necessary; however, this type of research is difficult in humans, and non-human species that menstruate naturally are often not suitable as research models. Consequently, most menstrual research relies on an artificially induced menstrual-like process in the non-menstruating laboratory mouse. This review investigates mouse models of menstruation and how specific technical variables are used to produce or modulate a menstrual-like process. The review describes two key categories of models, those that are ovariectomy-based versus those that are pseudopregnancy-based. The menstrual-like process occurring in these models varied slightly;the underlying reason for the variation is likely to be the method of progesterone withdrawal. Models that withdrew progesterone specifically had a far less rapid endometrial breakdown in comparison to those that withdrew all ovarian input. These outcomes suggest that a loss of ovarian factors other than progesterone is likely impacting the breakdown process. The review highlights the gaps in our understanding of the mechanisms of endometrial breakdown and repair in these proxies for menstruation and the subsequent impacts on any conclusions drawn from these models.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

MeSH descriptors

Endometrium Endometrium Menstruation Menstruation Models, Animal Animals Disease Models, Animal Female Humans Mice Ovariectomy Progesterone Pseudopregnancy Pseudopregnancy

Citation neighborhood (2-hop)

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. Outer rings show 2-hop neighbours — papers reached through the immediate citers/citees. [ collapse to 1-hop ]

References (94)

Cited by (1)

SciLite annotations

organisms 6
transgenic mice human humans human transgenic mice transgenic mice
chemicals 3
progesterone progesterone progesterone

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-08T21:51:36.850623+00:00
scilite
last seen: 2026-05-18T04:57:49.680383+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK