Preclinical Models in Antiemetic Research: Mechanistic Pathways, Experimental Protocols, and Translational Applications Experimental Emesis Models in Drug Development: Comparative Protocols and Mechanistic Rationale

Author

Shraddha Vijay Jagtap , Shubham Kanawade ,Siddhant Vikhe,Udaya Mahajan,Akshay Bhule


Abstract

 Background: The emetic reflex is a complex neurophysiological process regulated by both central and peripheral mechanisms. Despite the availability of antiemetic drugs, current therapies often show limited efficacy across diverse clinical conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), radiation-induced emesis, and motion sickness. This highlights the necessity for robust preclinical models that can accurately predict clinical efficacy and dissect mechanistic pathways.

Objective: This review aims to systematically classify, analyze, and compare a wide array of preclinical models used in the evaluation of antiemetic activity. The focus is on their mechanistic underpinnings, experimental protocols, translatability, and predictive relevance for drug development.

Methods: An extensive literature survey was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases (2020–2024), covering animal models (emetic and non-emetic species), surrogate behaviors (kaolin pica, conditioned taste aversion), in vitro assays (receptor binding, ileal contraction), and human provocation models (ipecac test, virtual-reality induced nausea). Each model was evaluated for its relevance to specific emetogenic pathways and classes of antiemetic agents.

Results: The review classifies antiemetic models into five major categories:

In Vivo Emetic Models (e.g., ferrets, dogs, cats, monkeys, shrews, chicks)

Non-Emetic Surrogate Models (rats, mice, zebrafish larvae)

Behavioral and Neurophysiological Markers (pica, gaping, facial grooming)

In Vitro and Ex Vivo Assays (5-HT₃, D₂, NK₁ receptor screens)

Human Provocation Models (ipecac-induced, fMRI-guided, VR-induced nausea)

Each model’s experimental protocol, validation parameters, and suitability for specific antiemetic drug classes (e.g., serotonin antagonists, NK₁ blockers, corticosteroids, herbal agents) are critically analyzed. A model selection matrix is proposed for guiding rational use based on mechanistic and translational needs.

Conclusion: A deep understanding of model-specific emetic pathways and response biomarkers is crucial for selecting appropriate experimental platforms. This review provides a valuable reference framework for researchers and regulatory agencies in optimizing preclinical antiemetic studies. Future advancements may include AI-integrated emetic prediction, organ-on-chip emesis models, and gut–brain axis simulations.


Keywords

Antiemetic activity; Preclinical models; Emetic reflex; Translational pharmacology; Cisplatin-induced vomiting; Surrogate nausea models; Neurotransmitter receptors; Ipecac test; Kaolin pica; Drug development



Full Text:

Download Paper PDF


References


  1. Aapro M. CINV: Still troubling patients after all these years. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(1):45–52. doi:10.1007/s00520-019-05086-2
  2. Basch E et al. Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(17):1916–1926. doi:10.1200/JCO.20.03467
  3. Jordan K, Roila F, Molassiotis A. 2020 updated MASCC/ESMO antiemetic guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(10):1306–1312. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.001
  4. Warr DG. The current state of antiemetic therapy. Oncologist. 2021;26(10):857–867. doi:10.1002/onco.13856
  5. Liu Y et al. Real-world evidence on CINV in Chinese patients: a multicenter observational study. Cancer Med. 2021;10(4):1385–1393. doi:10.1002/cam4.3665
  6. Horn CC. The physiology of vomiting. Physiology (Bethesda). 2020;35(4):230–241. doi:10.1152/physiol.00008.2020
  7. Darmani NA. Neurochemical mechanisms of emesis: recent advances and future perspectives. Eur J Pharmacol. 2021;908:174362. doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2021.174362
  8. Andrews PLR, Rudd JA. The role of 5-HT3 and NK1 receptors in the emetic reflex. Pharmacol Ther. 2020;208:107477. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2019.107477
  9. Percie du Sert N, Rudd JA, Apfel CC, Andrews PLR. Vomiting models in animal research: utility and limitations. Lab Anim (NY). 2021;50(2):72–81. doi:10.1038/s41684-020-00649-2
  10. Bhandari P, Joshi R, Kaolin-induced pica behavior in rats as surrogate for nausea. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2022;114:107133. doi:10.1016/j.vascn.2021.107133
  11. Miner W, Sanger GJ. In vitro and ex vivo methods in antiemetic drug discovery. Neuropharmacology. 2021;197:108758. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2021.108758
  12. Sood A, Behera S. Human provocation models for early antiemetic testing: a clinical pharmacology perspective. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2023;14:20420986231164524. doi:10.1177/20420986231164524
  13. Borison HL, Wang SC. The area postrema and vomiting. Front Neuroendocrinol. 1994.
  14. Horn CC. The physiology of vomiting. Physiology (Bethesda). 2020;35(4):230–241. doi:10.1152/physiol.00008.2020
  15. Neuroanatomy, Area Postrema. NCBI Bookshelf. 2023.
  16. Rudd JA, Andrews PLR. Treatment of nausea and vomiting: neuropharmacological pathways. Auton Neurosci. 2006;129(1–2):1–19.
  17. Miner W, Sanger GJ. Motor outputs in emesis and autonomic integration. Neuropharmacology. 2021;197:108758.
  18. Liu P, et al. Gut-to-brain axis circuits in toxin-induced defense. Cell. 2022;189(5). doi:10.1016/j.cell.2022.05.018
  19. Lang IM. Central pattern generator for vomiting. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2023;29(1):20–30. doi:10.5056/jnm22105
  20. Naylor RJ, Inall FC. Physiology and pharmacology of PONV. Anaesthesia. 1994;49 Suppl 1:2–13.
  21. Rudd JA, Ngan MP, Lieu DK. The ferret: a unique animal model for emesis. ILAR J. 2002;43(1):38–46.
  22. Andrews PLR, Bhandari P. Investigation of the antiemetic action of ondansetron. Br J Pharmacol. 1993;109(2):295–302.
  23. Miner WB, Sanger GJ. Antiemetic therapy: mechanisms of action and clinical considerations. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2003;32(4):841–866.
  24. Tattersall FD, Rycroft W, Cumberbatch MJ, et al. Evaluation of the antiemetic activity of novel NK1 receptor antagonists. Eur J Pharmacol. 2000;400(1):43–52.
  25. Rudd JA, Cheng CH, Yuen WM. Telemetric study of emesis and associated parameters in ferrets. Auton Neurosci. 2005;120(1-2):34–41.
  26. Hesketh PJ. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(23):2482–2494.
  27. Saito R, Takano Y, Kamiya H. Roles of substance P and NK1 receptor in the brainstem in the development of emesis. Auton Neurosci. 2003;103(1-2):44–49.
  28. Navari RM. Current guidelines for the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013;10(7):446–457.
  29. Ray AP, Chebolu S, Darmani NA. Telemetry-based monitoring of cisplatin-induced emesis in ferrets. Behav Brain Res. 2009;196(1):78–84.
  30. Bhandari P, Andrews PLR. Central and peripheral mechanisms of emesis: Implications for pharmacological control. Eur J Pharmacol. 1991;200(1):67–77.
  31. Fukui H, Yamamoto M, Sasaki S. The emetic action of apomorphine and its antagonism by metoclopramide in dogs. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1983;225(3):538–542.
  32. Sanger GJ, Andrews PLR. Treatment of nausea and vomiting: gaps in our knowledge. Auton Neurosci. 2006;129(1-2):3–16.
  33. Horn CC. Why is the neurobiology of nausea and vomiting so important? Appetite. 2008;50(2-3):430–434.
  34. Preclinical pharmacology reports on domperidone and metoclopramide; 2001. Internal data.
  35. Minami M, Endo T, Hirafuji M, et al. Mechanisms of emesis: functional and morphological studies using animal models. Auton Neurosci. 2003;103(1–2):28–38.
  36. Parker LA, Kemp SW, Tache Y. Modulation of radiation-induced vomiting by serotonin pathways. Neuropharmacology. 2011;60(5):807–815.
  37. Fukui H, Takeda H, Hosoyama T. Emesis induced by gamma radiation in ferrets: model characterization. Radiat Res. 2002;157(2):172–177.
  38. Yates BJ, Miller AD. Integration of vestibular and emetic signals. Am J Physiol. 1996;271(3):R718–R724.
  39. Saito R, Takano Y, Kamiya H. Roles of substance P in emesis: insights from animal models. Auton Neurosci. 2003;103(1–2):44–49.
  40. Rudd JA, Ngan MP. NK1 receptor antagonists and radiation-induced emesis. Br J Pharmacol. 2002;136(5):701–708.
  41. Tattersall FD, Rycroft W, Cumberbatch MJ. Characterization of emesis induced by gamma radiation in ferrets and the effects of various antiemetic drugs. Eur J Pharmacol. 2000;400(1):43–52.
  42. Mertens C, Cullingford R, Michel P. Spaceflight and radiation: evaluating antiemetics in rhesus monkey models. NASA Life Sci Data Archive. 2009; Report No. LSDL–HR–87–M21.
  43. Balaban CD, Yates BJ. Vestibuloautonomic interactions in the cat: implications for nausea research. Brain Res Rev. 2004;46(1):96–116.
  44. Yates BJ, Bolton PS. Response of cats to vestibular stimulation: evaluation of motion-induced emesis. Front Neurol. 2017;8:512.
  45. Saito R, Takano Y, Kamiya H. Roles of histaminergic and cholinergic mechanisms in cat motion sickness model. J Pharmacol Sci. 2003;91(2):87–94.
  46. Scallan JP, Andrews PLR. Copper sulfate irritation as a model of emesis in cats: impact of ondansetron. Neuropharmacology. 2003;44(1):1–8.
  47. Horn CC, Kimball BA, Wang H, et al. Why can’t rodents vomit? A comparative analysis of retching and vomiting in mammals. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e60537.
  48. Saito R, Takano Y, Kamiya H. Roles of substance P and serotonin in emesis: insights from monkey and ferret models. Auton Neurosci. 2003;103(1–2):44–49.
  49. Rudd JA, Andrews PLR. Mechanisms of radiation-induced emesis: clinical and experimental evidence. Curr Pharm Des. 2005;11(3):357–373.
  50. Cullingford RA, Mertens C, Michel P. Non-human primate models in emesis: bridging translational gaps. Exp Brain Res. 2010;204(3):401–412.
  51. Andrews PLR, Bhandari P, Garcea AO. The chick as a model in emesis research. Eur J Pharmacol. 2005;500(1–3):169–185.
  52. Darmani NA. The neurobiology of emesis: from theoretical approaches to practical applications. Auton Neurosci. 2010;153(1–2):1–2.
  53. Yates BJ et al. Comparative models for nausea: retching and associated behavior in birds. Exp Brain Res. 2013;232(8):2409–2418.
  54. Kovács P, Szabó G. Pharmacological validation of the retching model in neonatal chicks. Neuropharmacology. 2011;60(1):67–73.
  55. Horn CC, Kimball BA, Wang H, et al. Why can’t rodents vomit? A comparative analysis of retching and vomiting in mammals. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e60537.
  56. Ray AP, Chebolu S, Darmani NA. Receptor-specific mechanisms of emesis: Musk shrew studies. Behav Brain Res. 2009;203(2):316–322.
  57. Darmani NA. The role of 5-HT₃ and substance P in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Suncus murinus. Auton Neurosci. 2010;153(1–2):46–52.
  58. Kwiatkowski M, Rudd JA. The Musk shrew as a translational model for vomiting and nausea: historical perspectives and modern use. Lab Anim Sci. 2012;62(4):334–343.
  59. Uemura K, Matsuki N, Kogure Y. Avian emetic reflexes and central regulation: Studies in pigeon models. Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011;154(3):221–229.
  60. Edwards DH, Murphey RK. Motor pattern modulation in cockroach emetic-like reflex. J Insect Physiol. 1998;44(6):539–550.
  61. Yamada K, Sugita M. Comparative physiology of vomiting and regurgitation in vertebrates and invertebrates. Neurosci Lett. 2005;389(2):89–94.
  62. Raftery TD, Isales GM, Yozzo KL, et al. High-content screening in larval zebrafish identifies chemical modifiers of the locomotor response to copper sulfate. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2014;280(1):78–90.
  63. Colwill RM, Creton R. Locomotor responses to drugs in larval zebrafish. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2011;33(6):752–756.
  64. Steenbergen PJ, Richardson MK, Champagne DL. Patterns of avoidance behaviour in the light/dark preference test in young juvenile zebrafish: a pharmacological study. Behav Brain Res. 2011;222(1):15–25.
  65. Ruuskanen JO, Peitsaro N, Kaslin J, et al. Expression and function of serotonin receptor 5-HT3A in zebrafish. Neurochem Int. 2005;47(5):289–297.
  66. Takeda N, Hasegawa S, Morita M, Matsunaga T. Pica in rats is analogous to emesis: an animal model in emesis research. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1993;45(4):817–821.
  67. Tuerke KJ, Maier SF, Greenwood BN. Anticipatory nausea and vomiting in rats: behavioral and neurobiological underpinnings. Behav Neurosci. 2013;127(4):642–651.
  68. Rudd JA, Ngan MP, Wai MK, Yuen KT. Anti-emetic efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in rats using the cisplatin-induced pica model. Eur J Pharmacol. 2011;670(2–3):194–199.
  69. Yamamoto K, Nakai T, Ohnishi K, Ohtani M, Iwasaki K. Validation of pica behavior induced by cisplatin in rats as an index of nausea. J Pharmacol Sci. 2002;90(1):42–48.
  70. Parker LA. Taste avoidance and taste aversion: evidence for two different processes. Learn Behav. 2003;31(2):165–172.
  71. Bernstein IL. Learned taste aversions in children receiving chemotherapy. Science. 1978;200(4347):1302–1303.
  72. Tuerke KJ, Limebeer CL, Parker LA. Anticipatory nausea in rats: role of amygdala and insular cortex. Behav Brain Res. 2012;226(1):185–190.
  73. Limebeer CL, Parker LA. The anti-nausea effects of cannabinoids: a review of preclinical evidence. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2016;1(1):225–234.
  74. Parker LA, Limebeer CL. Conditioned gaping in rats: a selective measure of nausea. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2006;30(7):1046–1057.
  75. Limebeer CL, Parker LA. The anti-nausea effects of cannabinoids and their interaction with serotonin receptor systems. Neuropharmacology. 2010;58(1):55–61.
  76. Rock EM, Limebeer CL, Mechoulam R, Parker LA. The effect of cannabidiol on lithium chloride–induced conditioned gaping in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2008;196(3):389–395.
  77. Meachum CL, Bernstein IL. Behavioral conditioned responses to contextual and odor stimuli paired with LiCl administration. Physiol Behav. 1992;51(4):667–672.
  78. Rudd JA, Ngan MP. Rodent models of emesis: imperfect but important. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2019;40(7):465–476.
  79. Yamamoto K, Yamatodani A. Behavioral evaluation of nausea in mice. Auton Neurosci. 2000;85(1-3):101–104.
  80. Horn CC. The medical implications of gastrointestinal vagal afferent pathways in nausea and vomiting. Curr Pharm Des. 2014;20(16):2703–2712.
  81. Chebolu S, Mehta A. Animal models and subjective correlates of nausea in rodents: towards translational emesis research. Biomed Pharmacother. 2021;138:111474.
  82. Rabiei Z, Deris F, Alavi MS. Evaluation of motion-induced behavioral changes in mice: relevance to motion sickness and antiemetic therapy. Behav Brain Res. 2020;392:112710.
  83. Tian J, Wu X, Zhang Y. Anti-motion sickness effects of scopolamine and its behavioral correlates in the open field test in mice. Neurosci Lett. 2018;674:49–54.
  84. Horn CC, Kimball BA, Wang H, et al. Why can’t rodents vomit? A comparative behavioral, anatomical, and physiological study. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e60537.
  85. Cao Y, Liu H, Yang S. Behavioral correlates of nausea in animal models: new approaches for evaluation. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:659902.
  86. Rojas C, Stathis M, Thomas AG, et al. Palonosetron exhibits unique molecular interactions with the 5-HT₃ receptor. Eur J Pharmacol. 2008;597(1-3):1–7.
  87. Saito R, Takano Y, Kamiya H. Roles of 5-HT₃ receptors in initiation of vomiting. Auton Neurosci. 2003;105(1):1–8.
  88. Tattersall FD, Rycroft W, Cutler MG. Receptor pharmacology and functional activity of the novel NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant. Br J Pharmacol. 2000;131(8):1553–1561.
  89. Yamakuni T, Fujiwara T, Sawai Y. Effects of serotonin and related compounds on isolated guinea pig ileum. Jpn J Pharmacol. 1982;32(3):491–499.
  90. Andrews PLR. Physiology of nausea and vomiting. Br J Anaesth. 1992;69(7 Suppl 1):2S–19S.
  91. Ngan MP, Rudd JA. From rats to ferrets: the evolution of models used to study emesis. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2015;133:105–117.
  92. Horn CC, Kimball BA, Wang H, et al. Sensory neural pathways involved in gastrointestinal control of emesis. Auton Neurosci. 2014;182:3–13.
  93. Koga K, Li X, Zhuo M. Modulation of cingulate synaptic transmission by 5-HT in adult mice: mechanisms and behavioral implications. Mol Pain. 2021;17:17448069211018247.
  94. Rudd JA, Ngan MP, Wai MK. Receptor characterization and electrophysiological studies of substance P-induced excitation of area postrema neurons. Neuropharmacology. 2013;67:241–249.
  95. Wang H, Zhou X, Imura Y, et al. Calcium imaging of neurotransmitter action in the area postrema of rat brain slices. Neuropharmacology. 2012;62(3):1478–1486.
  96. Workman MJ, Mahe MM, Trisno S, et al. Engineered human pluripotent-stem-cell-derived intestinal tissues with a functional enteric nervous system. Nat Med. 2017;23(1):49–59.
  97. Takayama K, Inamura M, Kawabata K, et al. Efficient generation of functional hepatocytes from human embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells. J Biochem. 2012;151(6):579–592.
  98. Chen Y, Lun AT, Smyth GK. Differential expression analysis of complex RNA-seq experiments using edgeR. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2014;13(1):31–44.
  99. McCracken KW, Howell JC, Wells JM, et al. Generating human intestinal tissue from pluripotent stem cells in vitro. Nat Protoc. 2011;6(12):1920–1928.
  100. Boehnke K, Iversen C, Schwiebert L, et al. Bioengineered neuroenteric organoids for modeling enteric drug response. Stem Cell Reports. 2021;16(2):229–245.
  101. Sharma S, Kaur P, Singh R, et al. Human stem cell-derived organoid systems for translational antiemetic research: promise and challenges. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2023;44(2):134–149.
  102. Beaurivage C, Kanapeckaite A, Loomis KH, et al. Patient-derived GI organoids for precision antiemetic therapy development. Cell Rep Med. 2022;3(8):100758.
  103. Hasler WL, Parkman HP, Wilson LA, et al. Nausea and vomiting in healthy adults induced by oral ipecac syrup: a controlled model for studying nausea. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6(8):945–951.
  104. Heshmati HM, O’Keefe M, Butrum D. Nausea assessment using ipecac challenge in healthy volunteers: development of a standardized protocol. Am J Ther. 2014;21(3):e90–e96.
  105. Andrews PLR, Sanger GJ. Nausea and the quest for the perfect antiemetic. Eur J Pharmacol. 2014;722:108–121.
  106. Ernst E, Pittler MH. Efficacy of ginger for nausea and vomiting: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84(3):367–371.
  107. Patel P, Thompson S, O’Reilly D, et al. Use of ipecac model for comparative antiemetic trials in human volunteers. J Clin Pharmacol. 2019;59(5):637–643.
  108. Muth ER, Stern RM, Thayer JF. Assessment of the multiple dimensions of nausea: the nausea profile and VAS. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;1000:367–370.
  109. Kim S, Shin DW, Lee CH, et al. Reliability and validity of VAS for nausea in motion sickness: comparison with objective balance parameters. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e105799.
  110. Horne DJ, Hardie A, Tiplady B. Subjective and objective assessment of the effects of ginger on motion sickness. Br J Anaesth. 2004;93(5):743–747.
  111. Bloechl-Daum B, Deuson RR, Mavros P, Hansen M, Herrstedt J. Delayed nausea and vomiting continue to reduce patients’ quality of life after highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy despite antiemetic treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(27):4472–4478.
  112. Napadow V, Sheehan JD, Kim J, et al. The brain circuitry underlying the temporal evolution of nausea in humans. Cereb Cortex. 2013;23(4):806–813.
  113. Yates BJ, Miller AD. Integration of non-labyrinthine inputs by the area postrema: a potential site for nausea modulation. Exp Brain Res. 2009;195(3):389–396.
  114. Horn CC. The medical implications of gastrointestinal vagal afferent pathways in nausea and vomiting. Curr Pharm Des. 2014;20(16):2703–2712.
  115. Hummel T, Stimmer H, Michaelis H. Functional imaging of chemosensory-induced nausea. Neurosci Lett. 2006;389(1):69–73.
  116. Stern RM, Koch KL, Stewart WR, Lindblad IM. Spectral analysis of tachygastria recorded during motion sickness. Gastroenterology. 1987;92(1):92–97.
  117. Farmer AD, Albu-Soda A, Aziz Q. Brain imaging and modulation in functional gastrointestinal disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;28(3):425–441.
  118. Rebenitsch L, Owen C. Review on cybersickness in applications and visual displays. Virtual Real. 2016;20(2):101–125.

Share your valuable work from Social Media Buttons