Centre for In Vivo Modelling Service Core

At the Centre for In Vivo Modelling (CIVM), we combine advanced animal genetics and cutting-edge technologies to drive cancer research. Our multidisciplinary team specialises in the generation and maintenance of genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs), humanised mouse strains, and patient-derived models (xenografts and organoids), using innovations such as CRISPR gene editing, embryo manipulation, and in vivo genetic screening. We develop and cryopreserve new cancer models that closely replicate human disease, supporting translational studies that inform effective therapies. Our approach integrates rigorous scientific standards, ethical oversight, and collaborative expertise, aiming to accelerate progress in understanding cancer biology and developing better treatments for patients.

Our Centre is dedicated to driving innovation and excellence in cancer research through advanced in vivo modelling. We work in close collaboration with the ICR researchers and clinicians at The Royal Marsden to generate genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs) and patient-derived models, such as patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) and patient-derived organoids (PDOs) to interrogate cancer biology in its own ecosystem. By leveraging these sophisticated in vivo systems, the Centre aims to:

  • Develop innovative cancer models in collaboration with ICR researchers to advance cancer research and drug discovery.
  • Work in partnership with The Royal Marsden Hospital to obtain patient samples and generate new patient-derived cancer models for translational studies.
  • Foster close interdisciplinary collaboration with drug discovery teams to leverage these in vivo models in the creation and testing of next-generation anti-cancer therapies.
  • Continuously improve the sophistication and relevance of our cancer models, ensuring they more faithfully recapitulate the complexity of human disease and enhance the translational impact of our research.

 

Our services

Advantages of cryopreserving your strains:

  • Allows you to save space, by getting the mice you need, when you need;
  • Reduces your animal costs;
  • Reduces animal use;
  • Reduces risk from disasters (e.g. disease outbreaks, breeding cessation, equipment failures, genetic contamination, natural disasters, etc…).

 What can be cryopreserved?

  • Mouse Sperm
  • Mouse Embryos
  • Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells
  • Mouse Oocytes

 Sperm Cryopreservation:

Description: Sperm is retrieved from the epididymal tissues of 3 male mice and is cryopreserved in 20 to 30 straws that are stored in liquid-phase, liquid nitrogen across two tanks in two separate locations (SRD and CCDD), to ensure sample safety and mitigate risks associated to unexpected or uncontrollable events.

Material needed: 3 males, reproductively active, 12-25 weeks old

Timeline: 2-6 weeks (dependant on QC method of choice)

Considerations: this method of cryopreservation is rapid and cheap; however, it only preserves half of the genome. This method is only recommended for single mutations on a common inbred background.

Quality Control: we provide different levels of Quality Control (QC) for different price ranges.

  1. Test thaw QC: we will thaw 1 straw the day after cryopreservation and visually assess motility and viability of the recovered sperm
  2. IVF and culture to blastocyst QC: we highly recommend this QC step. In addition to test thaw, we will also perform IVF and culture embryos up to blastocyst stage. We will provide the investigator with a fertility rate (%) for the recovered sperm. We will charge an extra cost to cover the IVF procedure.
  3. IVF and embryo transfer QC: In addition to test thaw, we will perform IVF and transfer 2-cell embryos into up to 3 pseudopregnant females to generate viable embryos/live pups. We will charge an extra cost to cover the IVF and embryo transfer procedures.

    Please note that we require you to provide your genotyping protocol, as well as full detail of the genetic content of each strain that you submit for cryopreservation.

Diagram of Sperm Cryopreservation

Embryo Cryopreservation:

Description: Female mice are hormonally superovulated and oocytes are retrieved for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with sperm from donor male. Resulting embryos are placed in cryoprotectant and loaded into multiple straws, which are gradually cooled and stored in liquid-phase liquid nitrogen in two separate tanks.

Material needed: Donor male and 8-10 donor females

Timeline: 12-15 weeks

Diagram of Embryo Cryopreservation

Embryonic Stem Cells Cryopreservation:

Not available, yet.

Oocyte Cryopreservation:

Not available, yet.

Cryostorage:

If you have cryopreserved mouse sperm/embryo/oocytes at another institution, we can cryostorage your samples for an annual fee. We do require that the investigator takes charge of shipping costs into our facility, and that thawing and genotyping protocols are submitted to the CIVM.

The CIVM stores all samples in liquid-phase liquid nitrogen tanks (CryoPlus1, ThermoFisher Scientific). Material retrieved from each strain is split between 2 tanks, a main and a backup tank, for redundancy. For additional safety, these 2 tanks are located in two separate buildings at ICR Sutton. Both tanks are continuously monitored by T-scan alarm systems and undergo annual service, as well as daily visual inspections.


 

Sperm Cryorecovery:

Description: Frozen sperm is cryorecovered by IVF, followed by embryo transfer. We can purchase wild-type female oocyte donors of the same genetic background, or alternatively the investigator can provide homozygous oocyte donors of the same strain.

Material needed: straw with frozen sperm and 8 to 12 females for IVF, 7-16 weeks old.

Timeline: 12-15 weeks

Diagram of Sperm Cryorecovery

 

Embryo Cryorecovery:

Description: Frozen 2-cell embryos are thawed and transferred into pseudopregnant females.

Material needed: straw(s) with frozen 2-cell embryos

Timeline: 8-10 week


Oocyte Cryorecovery:

Not available, yet.

 

Mouse rederivation

Description: Mouse rederivation is a process used to produce pathogen-free mouse colonies by removing microbial contaminants from existing lines. The procedure can be performed either through natural mating or in vitro fertilization (IVF):

  • In natural mating, embryos are obtained from donor mice and transferred into pathogen-free recipient females.
  • In IVF-based rederivation, fertilized embryos are created in vitro using gametes from donor mice and then implanted into clean recipient females.

Both methods effectively eliminate pathogens, allowing safe importation of mouse strains from lower health-status facilities into the ICR BSU. Samples from both litter and recipient mother will be sent for Health Screening and the associated costs will be charged separately to the Investigator.

Material needed: For IVF-based rederivation we require the investigator to provide 2 males, reproductively active, 12-25 weeks old, and the CIVM will purchase wild-type female egg-donors. Alternatively, if maintaining homozygosity is essential, the investigator will need to provide additional 6-10 females, 7-16 weeks old.

Timeline: 12-15 week

Mouse Rederivation Mating Diagram

Mouse Rederivation IVF diagram

We are currently setting up CRISPR/Cas9-based gene editing protocols. Soon, you’ll be able to apply for projects that involve developing new alleles based on:

  • Knockout by indel formation
  • Knockout by precise deletion
  • Conditional knockout
  • Knock-in of point mutations
  • Knock-in of small tags
  • Large knock-in
  • Exon replacement

These alleles will be developed based on Electroporation of Microinjection of CRISPR/Cas9 system reagents.

We will collaborate with you to design the best strategy and help you generate the genetically engineered mice you need for your project. 

We also provide:

  • Development of humanised mouse strains
  • Development of Patient-derived xenografts (PDX) and organoid models

Latest ICR News

15/05/26

New research has endorsed a long‑standing idea explaining why acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) – the most common cancer in children – appears abruptly in early life, often in otherwise healthy individuals, with no obvious environmental trigger.

The new study, carried out by researchers at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, has provided some of the clearest experimental evidence yet that when children encounter everyday microbes may be just as important as whether they do.

Using a carefully designed mouse model, the researchers showed that delayed exposure to common, usually harmless infections can trigger leukaemia in genetically susceptible individuals. Crucially, early-life exposure to diverse microbes appears to protect against the disease, opening the door to potential strategies for prevention rather than treatment.

The research was supported by a Cancer Research UK programme grant, along with funding from The Children’s Cancer and Leukaemia Group, the Artemis Wood Fund, and Prevent ALL – a charity set up by the family of ALL survivor Tommy Edwards.

The findings, published in the journal Haematologica, lend strong support to the causal mechanism for childhood ALL first proposed many years ago by Professor Sir Mel Greaves, Group Leader of the Biology of Childhood Leukaemia Group at The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR).

A two‑step origin for childhood ALL

Childhood ALL – particularly the most common subtype, B cell precursor ALL – begins before birth when the baby is in the womb. Professor Greaves and his team have previously found that children who later develop ALL already carry the first genetic ‘hit’ before they are born. These initiating lesions most often take the form of a gene fusion called ETV6::RUNX1 or an abnormal number of chromosomes, known as hyperdiploidy.

On their own, however, these genetic changes are not enough to cause cancer, and most children who are born with them never have a leukaemia diagnosis. A second step is required after birth: an additional genetic change or mutation in developing immune cells, usually involving deletions in genes that control normal B‑cell development. These secondary changes are frequently driven by enzymes known as RAG1 and RAG2, which can inadvertently mutate DNA in the process of helping immune cells generate diverse antibodies.

Epidemiological studies have long suggested a link between early-life microbial infection and this second step. Children who are born by sterile C-section, are primarily formula-fed or have low social contact during the first year of life have a higher risk of ALL. The theory proposes that a lack of early immune ‘training’ leaves the immune system prone to exaggerated or poorly regulated inflammatory responses when it later – for example, at primary school – encounters common infections, increasing the chance of cancer‑promoting genetic mistakes.

Until now, however, this idea had not been directly tested in an experimental model.

Exploiting a serendipitous scenario

To address this, the research team turned to mice genetically engineered to carry the ETV6::RUNX1 fusion – the same initiating lesion found in many children with ALL. On their own, these mice rarely develop leukaemia, closely mirroring the human condition.

What made the experiment possible was an unexpected difference between two mouse facilities run by the ICR before the Covid‑19 pandemic. Both facilities were officially designated SPF (specific pathogen free), meaning that they excluded known disease‑causing pathogens. But, in practice, they differed markedly. One site had an ultra‑clean environment with virtually no endemic microbes, while the other harboured about 10 persistent and other occasional non‑harmful microbes, including bacteria, viruses and unicellular parasites.

The researchers transferred genetically susceptible mice shortly after weaning from the ultra‑clean facility into the microbially richer one. The result was striking. Close to a quarter of these mice went on to develop ALL.

In contrast, mice born and raised entirely in either environment did not develop the disease. Nor did mice transferred into the ‘dirty’ facility after it had been fumigated during the pandemic, which eliminated the endemic microbes. The disease appeared only when genetically susceptible mice encountered common infections late, rather than from birth.

Analysis of the animals’ gut microbiomes helped explain why. Mice in the microbially richer facility had greater bacterial diversity and higher levels of bacteria known to support immune system development.

Together, the findings show that common infections can indeed trigger leukaemia, but only if the immune system has not been properly primed in early life.

Future prevention in children

The study provides powerful experimental backing for the idea that there is a critical window in infancy, from birth to the end of weaning, when exposure to a broad range of microbes helps calibrate the immune system. If this window is missed, later infections may provoke abnormal immune responses that increase cancer risk in those already carrying pre‑malignant cells.

Although no one is recommending deliberate exposure to potentially dangerous infections, the findings add to growing concerns that modern lifestyles with greatly reduced microbial exposures may have unintended consequences as well as benefits. They also raise the possibility that carefully designed interventions – such as microbiome‑supporting diets or probiotics in infancy – could one day reduce the risk of a common childhood cancer.

Senior author Professor Greaves said: “These mouse data provide endorsement of our causation model for childhood ALL and encourage the notion that ALL might be preventable by early-life microbiome enrichment – possibly by oral probiotics. Decades after I first proposed the two-step delayed infection model, these results support the idea that timing – not just genes and not just germs – may be the missing piece in understanding childhood leukaemia.”

Joint first author Elham (Ely) Shamsaei, Higher Scientific Officer in the Division of Cancer Biology at the ICR, said:

“For families affected by ALL, this study does not change current clinical advice or treatments. But it does point towards a future in which preventing the disease might be possible, not through anti-cancer medications, but by restoring a more natural relationship between the developing immune system and the microbial world.”

Image credit: Gerd Altmann from Pixabay (modified)