Usage Information
Abstract
Animal experiments have long been a cornerstone of advancements in biomedical research, particularly in developing novel therapeutic strategies for inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. However, these historically important approaches are now facing growing scrutiny for ethical reasons, concerns about translational limitations to human biology, and the rising availability of animal-free research methods. This shift raises a critical question: How relevant and effective are animal models for driving future advancements in today’s research landscape? This Review aims to explore this question within the field of biomedical research on the complement system, critically evaluating the contribution of animal models to the recent advancements and clinical successes of complement-targeted therapies. Specifically, we assess areas where animal studies have been indispensable for elucidating disease mechanisms and conducting preclinical evaluations, alongside instances where findings from animal models failed to translate successfully to human trials. Furthermore, we discuss similarities and differences in the complement system between animals and humans and explore innovations in animal research designed to improve translatability to human biology. By assessing the contributions of animal studies to complement therapeutics, this Review aims to provide insights into animal models’ strengths, limitations, and evolving role in complement research.
Authors
Felix Poppelaars, V. Michael Holers, Joshua M. Thurman
Usage data is cumulative from June 2025 through January 2026.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 3,053 | 190 |
| 1,098 | 65 | |
| Figure | 797 | 0 |
| Table | 400 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 123 | 0 |
| Citation downloads | 136 | 0 |
| Totals | 5,607 | 255 |
| Total Views | 5,862 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
Copyright © 2025 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)