Table 1.

Comparison of animal models of cardiovascular disease.

	Fly	Fish	Mouse
Pros	Vast array of genetic tools including: - P-element insertion Mutants - Genomic deficiency mutants - siRNA transgenic stocks - chemically and radiation induced mutants Well developed bipartite Gal4/UAS transgene expression system Extremely well annotated genomic databases (flybase.org) and publically available fly stocks (Bloomington Collection) Low cost maintenance Short generation time	Two chambered heart with distinct atrium and ventricle Well developed genetic tools for generating transgenic mutants and knockdowns (morpholino) Heart has regenerative capacity Transgenic systems	Four chambered heart that is highly similar to the human heart Well developed transgenic tools Easily amenable to physiologic studies: - Transaortic banding/pressure overload; coronary artery ligation - Ischemic modeling, intracardiac hemodynamic measurements (pressure-volume loops) Amenable to QTL mapping and SNP analysis Publically available stocks (Jackson Labs) and several well-annotated databases (Ensembl, GFN Symatlas)
Cons	Single chamber heart Ultrastucturally similar to mammalian myocardium but has perforated Z-discs No coronary arteries	Difficulty imaging cardiac function (ventricle is highly trabeculated ventricle) Cost of maintaining stocks Difficulty mapping newly isolated mutants	Cost of maintaining stocks Breeding time
Best Use of Model	Genetic screens to identify genes and pathways that affect cardiac function	Genetic screens Model of regeneration after cardiac injury	Transgenic analysis and physiologic experiments