| Literature DB >> 22417207 |
Karin Hoelzer1, Régis Pouillot, Sherri Dennis.
Abstract
Listeriosis is a leading cause of hospitalization and death due to foodborne illness in the industrialized world. Animal models have played fundamental roles in elucidating the pathophysiology and immunology of listeriosis, and will almost certainly continue to be integral components of the research on listeriosis. Data derived from animal studies helped for example characterize the importance of cell-mediated immunity in controlling infection, allowed evaluation of chemotherapeutic treatments for listeriosis, and contributed to quantitative assessments of the public health risk associated with L. monocytogenes contaminated food commodities. Nonetheless, a number of pivotal questions remain unresolved, including dose-response relationships, which represent essential components of risk assessments. Newly emerging data about species-specific differences have recently raised concern about the validity of most traditional animal models of listeriosis. However, considerable uncertainty about the best choice of animal model remains. Here we review the available data on traditional and potential new animal models to summarize currently recognized strengths and limitations of each model. This knowledge is instrumental for devising future studies and for interpreting current data. We deliberately chose a historical, comparative and cross-disciplinary approach, striving to reveal clues that may help predict the ultimate value of each animal model in spite of incomplete data.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22417207 PMCID: PMC3384455 DOI: 10.1186/1297-9716-43-18
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Res ISSN: 0928-4249 Impact factor: 3.683
Figure 1Physiological differences among laboratory animal species as well as humans and their importance in .
Susceptibility of some mouse strains used as models of non-pregnancy-associated L. monocytogenes infection, measured as median lethal dose (LD50)
| mouse strain | Recognized mouse phenotype | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| oral/intragastric | intravenous | intraperitonial | |||||
| Reference | Reference | Reference | |||||
| A/J | [ | [ | [ | susceptible | |||
| A/Tru × C57Bl/6 | [ | - | |||||
| A/Tru × C57Bl/64 | [ | - | |||||
| A/Tru × C57Bl/68 | [ | - | |||||
| A/WySn | [ | - | |||||
| BALB/c | [ | [ | susceptible | ||||
| [ | |||||||
| [ | |||||||
| B10.A | [ | resistant | |||||
| B10.D2/Sn | [ | resistant | |||||
| CBA | [ | susceptible | |||||
| C3HeB/FeJ | [ | susceptible | |||||
| C57BL/6 | [ | [ | resistant | ||||
| [ | [ | ||||||
| [ | [ | ||||||
| C57BL/6 × BALB/c | [ | intermediate | |||||
| [ | |||||||
| C57BL/6 × DBA/2 N | [ | [ | intermediate | ||||
| C57BL/10Sn | [ | resistant | |||||
| DBA/2 J | [ | susceptible | |||||
| ddY3 | [ | - | |||||
| ddY4 | [ | - | |||||
| ICR | [ | [ | intermediate | ||||
| [ | |||||||
| [ | |||||||
| Inbred white (Washington State University) | [ | - | |||||
| NCR1 | [ | [ | - | ||||
| NCR | [ | [ | - | ||||
| NMRI5 | [ | [ | - | ||||
| [ | (f,g,h,i) | ||||||
| Swiss | [ | - | |||||
| Swiss-Webster | [ | - | |||||
| [ | |||||||
| Swiss white | [ | - | |||||
| Porton | > | [ | - | ||||
| 129 Sv × C57BL/6 | [ | intermediate | |||||
| iFABP-hEcad2 | [ | transgenic | |||||
| E16PmEcad6 | n/a | transgenic | |||||
Animals represent non-pregnant adults unless stated otherwise.
1body weights ranging from 10 - 20 grams; 2(C57BL/6 J × SJL/J) background; 3suckling mice; adult mice; 5derived from swiss-type mouse; 6only competitive indexing experiments performed; juvenile mice; geriatric mice
L. monocytogenes strains:
(a) L.monocytogenes Scott A (serotype 4b); (b) L.monocytogenes EGD (serotype 1/2a); (c) L. monocytogenes 10403S (serotype 1/2a); (d) human clinical isolate; (e) food isolate; (f) L. monocytogenes 4b isolate; (g) L. monocytogenes 1b isolate; (h) L. monocytogenes 3a isolate; (i) other or not specified L. monocytogenes isolate.
Summary of benefits and limitations of the different animal models (see text for details and references)
| Non-pregnant animals | Pregnant animals | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mouse | high | moderate/high | - same as for non-pregnant animals | - mutation in receptor for InlA (Ecad)affects crossing of placental barrier | ||
| rat | moderate | - well characterized | - mutation in receptor for InlA (Ecad)affects entry into enterocytes | moderate | - same as for non-pregnant animals | - mutation in receptor for InlA (Ecad) affects crossing of placental barrier |
| rabbit | moderate/low | - well characterized | - InlB receptor (MET) polymorphism affects entry into cells such as hepatocytes | moderate/low | - same as for non-pregnant animals | - mutation in InlB receptor (MET) affects crossing of placental barrier |
| guinea pig | moderate | - well characterized | - InlB receptor (MET) polymorphism affects entry into cells such as hepatocytes | high | - same as for non-pregnant animals | - mutation in InlB receptor (MET) affects crossing of placental barrier |
| gerbil | increasing | - quite susceptible to infection | - not very well characterized | increasing | - same as for non-pregnant animals | - same as for non-pregnant animals |
| chinchilla | low | - highly susceptible | - not well characterized | low | - same as for non-pregnant animals | - same as for non-pregnant animals |
| hamster | low | - economical | - resistant to infection | low | - same as for non-pregnant animals | - same as for non-pregnant animals |
| primate | moderate | - close phylogenetic relationship to humans | - ethical and economic considerations | moderate | - same as for non-pregnant animals | - same as for non-pregnant animals |