| Literature DB >> 28102784 |
H M Sharon Goh1, M H Adeline Yong1, Kelvin Kian Long Chong1,2, Kimberly A Kline1.
Abstract
Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium are common inhabitants of the human gastrointestinal tract, as well as frequent opportunistic pathogens. Enterococci cause a range of infections including, most frequently, infections of the urinary tract, catheterized urinary tract, bloodstream, wounds and surgical sites, and heart valves in endocarditis. Enterococcal infections are often biofilm-associated, polymicrobial in nature, and resistant to antibiotics of last resort. Understanding Enterococcal mechanisms of colonization and pathogenesis are important for identifying new ways to manage and intervene with these infections. We review vertebrate and invertebrate model systems applied to study the most common E. faecalis and E. faecium infections, with emphasis on recent findings examining Enterococcal-host interactions using these models. We discuss strengths and shortcomings of each model, propose future animal models not yet applied to study mono- and polymicrobial infections involving E. faecalis and E. faecium, and comment on the significance of anti-virulence strategies derived from a fundamental understanding of host-pathogen interactions in model systems.Entities:
Keywords: Enterococcus faecalis; Enterococcus faecium; animal models; model hosts; polymicrobial infection; virulence factors
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28102784 PMCID: PMC5810481 DOI: 10.1080/21505594.2017.1279766
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Virulence ISSN: 2150-5594 Impact factor: 5.882
Figure 1.Eight common pathogens account for 83% of the reported HAIs in the United States. Data adapted from the summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011–2014.
Figure 2.Prevalence of E. faecalis and E. faecium in device-associated HAIs. Data adapted from the summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 2006-October 2007.
Advantages and disadvantages of animal models used for Enterococcal colonization and infection.
| Model system | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Vertebrates | ||
| Mouse | ||
| • Space saving (4–7 animals per cage, depending on cage size) | • Insufficient bacterial burden in an infected tissue, blood or foreign body may require pooling of multiple samples, leading to increased cost and number of animals required | |
| • Easy to maintain | ||
| • Inexpensive | • Small animal size limits the implementation of surgical procedures and use of foreign implants | |
| • Large number of animals can be used with reliable statistical evaluation | ||
| • Expression of TLR2, TLR3, TLR4 and TLR9 are different between humans and mice. | ||
| • Small quantities of antimicrobials required due to small size | ||
| • Share similarities with human immune systems, making it ideal for studying innate and adaptive immune responses | ||
| • Susceptible to most pathogens that cause human infections | ||
| • Germfree, gnotobiotic, immunodeficient, and genetically modified mice are more readily available compared with larger animals | ||
| • Diabetic or neutropenic condition can be induced using chemicals | ||
| • Survival after infection and bacterial burden in tissues can be assessed | ||
| • Bacterial burden and translocation can be determined quantitatively | ||
| • Infecting organism or infectious dose can be manipulated to compare intensity of the inflammatory response and its dynamics | ||
| • A single, overwhelming dose may not be relevant to clinical scenario where infection often starts with a low inoculum with progressive pathogenesis over time. | ||
| • Surgical or non-surgical infection protocols are available | ||
| • Simple to perform non-surgical procedure for infection | ||
| • Survival studies are possible | • Animals can only be used once to harvest organs or fluid for bacterial enumeration. | |
| • | ||
| • Lack of reproducibility compared with clinical scenario | ||
| • Poor surgical techniques may lead to post-surgical complications or reduced survival rates | ||
| • Antimicrobial efficiency can be evaluated | ||
| • | ||
| • Animal must be exsanguinated to collect large volumes of blood | ||
| • Reagents are readily available for immunologic studies in rodents | ||
| • Non-surgical procedure for infection, simple to perform | • Chemical injury to induce intestinal lesions in mice are different from lesions observed in IBD patients. | |
| • Intestinal development is similar to humans with similar immune responses | ||
| • Coprophagy can influence experimental outcome and interpretation of results. | ||
| • Human and murine intestinal bacterial communities share common diversity | ||
| • Ease of manipulation for administering inoculum or antibiotics supplemented in drinking water | ||
| • Non-surgical procedure for infection, simple to perform | • Overwhelming doses may not be clinically relevant | |
| • Sensitive to most uropathogens that cause human UTI | • Difficult to correlate treatment times with human infection as stage of disease when patient seeks treatment is unknown | |
| • Mice do not exhibit vesicoureteral reflux (VUR), are more representative of human UTI compared with rats | ||
| • Short lifespan of mice compared with humans limits stratification of age-related studies. | ||
| • Many bacteria agents that cause human UTI infect mice, making it an ideal model for studying ascending UTI and pyelonephritis | • Urine sampling is a common, non-invasive, but less reliable method of monitoring infection | |
| • Different permutations for acute and chronic UTI and a protocol for CAUTI have been established, providing a well-studied model that offers comparison among different research groups | ||
| • Well characterized bladder immune response | ||
| • Protocols with or without foreign body implantation are available | • Overwhelming doses may not be clinically relevant | |
| • Poor surgical techniques may lead to post-surgical complications | ||
| • Multiple permutations available (surgical wounds can be created on the back, abdominal, thigh, or the shoulder region) | ||
| Rat | ||
| • Size is amenable for implanting foreign devices and surgical procedures | • Genetically modified animals are less common compared with mice | |
| • Allows acquisition of larger sample sizes and less need to pool tissue samples | • Higher cost compared with mice. | |
| • Blood and abscess fluid can be sampled over a time course without sacrificing animal | ||
| • Bacterial burden and translocation can be determined quantitatively | ||
| • Infecting organism or infectious dose can be manipulated to compare intensity of the inflammatory response and its dynamics | ||
| • Can be used to study bacterial virulence and response to antimicrobial agents | • Vegetations need to be artificially induced for bacterial infection, may not be clinically relevant | |
| • Represents a biofilm-associated infection in the presence of a catheter implant | • High-risk surgical procedure may be technically challenging, leading to reduced post-surgical survival rates | |
| • Data is reproducible | • Labor intensive | |
| • Surgical or non-surgical infection protocols are available | • Single application of a high bacterial dose results in a rapid clinical course, acute inflammatory response and sometimes, early death. | |
| • Non-surgical infections are simple to perform | ||
| • Ideal for studying polymicrobial peritonitis/sepsis from anastomotic leak or cecal ligation and puncture (surgical), with reproducible clinical manifestations of sepsis | • Poor surgical techniques may lead to post-surgical complications or reduced survival rates | |
| • Difficult to control amount of bowel leakage for anastomotic leak or cecal ligation and puncture studies, intestinal bacteria may differ among animals. | ||
| • Inoculum preparation is not required | ||
| • Larger animal allows application of urinary catheter | • Exhibits VUR. | |
| Rabbit | ||
| • Larger size is amenable for surgical procedures. | • Genetically modified animals are less common compared with mice | |
| • Blood and abscess fluid can be sampled over a time course without sacrificing animal | ||
| • High cost, labor intensive and ethical considerations. | ||
| • Rabbit pharmacokinetics of antimicrobial agents differ from humans. | ||
| • Bacterial burden and translocation can be determined quantitatively | • Antibiotic half-lives are shorter in rabbits compared with humans. | |
| • Infecting organism or infectious dose can be manipulated to compare intensity of the inflammatory response and its dynamics | ||
| • Appropriate for studying bacterial virulence and response to antimicrobial agents. | • Vegetations need to be artificially induced for bacterial infection, may not be clinically relevant | |
| • Represents a biofilm-associated infection in the presence of a catheter implant. | • High-risk surgical procedure may be technically challenging, leading to reduced post-surgical survival rates | |
| • Data is reproducible. | • Labor intensive | |
| • Large surface area for surgical procedure | • Requires significant surgical intervention | |
| • Poor surgical techniques may lead to post-surgical complications | ||
| • Bacterial burden and translocation can be determined quantitatively | • Requires significant surgical intervention | |
| • Poor surgical techniques may lead to post-surgical complications | ||
| • Reproducible data | ||
| Dog | ||
| • Larger size is amenable for surgical procedures. | • Requires significant surgical intervention | |
| • Blood can be sampled over a time course without sacrificing animal | • Ethical concerns about using companion animal species for research | |
| • Genetically modified animals are less common compared with mice | ||
| • Higher costs are associated with housing larger animals | ||
| • Acquisition of larger samples for analysis compared with smaller animals. | • Surgical procedures requires technical expertise | |
| Zebrafish | ||
| • Cheapest vertebrate organism | • Difficulties in translating host response to mammalian infections due to high degree of evolutionary divergence. | |
| • Amenability to scaling up | ||
| • Difficult to create truly inbred zebrafish lines | ||
| • Transparent body allows | ||
| Invertebrates | ||
| • Smallest in size (adults are ∼1mm) among the 3 invertebrates | • Lack cellular and humoral system | |
| • Low cost | • Lack of a fully sequenced genome | |
| • Rapid life cycle (∼3.5 days at 20°C) | • Infection cannot be performed at 37°C | |
| • Transparent body and genetic tractability | • Not as readily available as compared with | |
| • Easiest to maintain in large-scale quantity | ||
| • Excellent choice to investigate gut microbial-host infection | ||
| • Have cellular and humoral immune system | • Lack of a fully sequenced genome | |
| • Low cost | • Lack of molecular tools to genetically manipulate this organism | |
| • Readily available from commercial source | ||
| • Infections can be performed at 37°C | ||
| • Largest in size among the 3 invertebrates, allows direct injection of bacteria or drugs | ||
| • Allows exact quantification of experiment inoculum or drug dosage administered | ||
| • Genetically tractable | • Infection cannot be performed at 37°C | |
| • Fully sequenced genome | • Not as readily available as compared with | |
| • Availability genetic mutant libraries | ||
| • Low cost | ||
| • Easy to bred | ||
| • Rapid life cycle | ||
| Plants | ||
| • No ethical issues | • May not represent eukaryotic systems. | |
E. faecalis and E. faecium virulence factors studied in various host model systems.
| Pathogenesis/virulence assays: IE, peritonitis, bloodstream and systemic infection, GI infection and colitis, UTI, CAUTI, endophthalmitis, foreign body subdermal abscess, SSI, endodontic infection | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enterococcal virulence factors/ Experimental model | Rabbit | Rat | Mice | Zebrafish | ||||
| 63 | 71, 87, 160 | 71 | ||||||
| 60 | 60 | |||||||
| 38 | 38, 47 | 38 | ||||||
| 100 | ||||||||
| 46 | ||||||||
| 126 | 126 | |||||||
| 61 | ||||||||
| 58 | 83, 110, 120, 121 | |||||||
| 127 | ||||||||
| 65 | ||||||||
| 182 | ||||||||
| 182 | ||||||||
| 123 | 123 | |||||||
| 88 | 87, 90, 141 | 206, 209 | 222 | |||||
| 116,166 | ||||||||
| 62, 76 | 74, 76, 159, 160, 163, 174, 176 | |||||||
| 79 | ||||||||
| 47 | 38, 47 | 38 | ||||||
| 87, 91 | ||||||||
| 64 | 73 | |||||||
| 87 | ||||||||
| 86 | 86 | |||||||
| 118 | 118 | |||||||
| 221 | ||||||||
| 118 | 118 | |||||||
| 86 | ||||||||
| 82, 107 | ||||||||
| 108 | ||||||||
| 109 | ||||||||
| 84, 132, 158 | 186 | 132 | 132 | |||||
| 84 | ||||||||
| 109 | ||||||||
| 109 | ||||||||
| 140 | ||||||||
| 98 | ||||||||
| 67 | 128, 129, 139, 150, 161 | |||||||
| 66 | ||||||||
| 51, 87 | 51, 53 | 224 | ||||||
| 54, 55 | 56 | 51, 53, 87, 206 | 186 | 53, 206, 207 | 215 | 222,221 | 224 | |
| 51, 87 | 53 | 224 | ||||||
| 87 | ||||||||
| 40, 54, 55, 88 | 56, 133 | 51, 87 | 186 | 53, 209 | 215, 259 | 221 | 224 | |
| 87 | ||||||||
| 57 | 68 | |||||||
| 111 | ||||||||
| 70, 93 | ||||||||
| Heptapeptide pheromone | 147 | |||||||
| 7, 8 | ||||||||
| 99 | ||||||||
| 124 | ||||||||
| 132 | 132 | |||||||
| 221 | ||||||||
| 221 | ||||||||
| 95 | ||||||||
| 136 | ||||||||
| 260 | ||||||||
| 102 | 102 | |||||||
| 100 | ||||||||
| 84 | ||||||||
| 84 | ||||||||
| 116 | ||||||||
| 207 | 207 | |||||||
| 141 | 141 | |||||||
| 94 | ||||||||
| 106 | ||||||||
| 217 | ||||||||
| Phage03-like element | 209 | 209 | ||||||
| 207 | 207 | |||||||
| 216 | 216 | |||||||
| pPD1 conjugative plasmid (Bacteriocin 21) | 137 | |||||||
| 39, 41–44 | 87, 92, 167 | |||||||
| 138 | ||||||||
| 47 | ||||||||
| Prophage 5 | 119 | 119 | ||||||
| 142 | ||||||||
| 207 | 207 | |||||||
| 179 | ||||||||
| 179 | ||||||||
| 206, 207 | ||||||||
| 116 | ||||||||
| 122 | 122 | |||||||
| 40, 54, 55, 88 | 51, 56, 133 | 51 | 186 | 53 | 259 | 221 | 224 | |
| 101 | ||||||||
| 164, 171 | ||||||||
| 164 | ||||||||
| Tissue matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP9) | 133 | |||||||
| 100 | ||||||||
| 85 | ||||||||
| 75 | ||||||||
| 81 | ||||||||
Notes.
Denotes study describing virulence factor of E. faecalis;
denotes study describing virulence factor of E. faecium;
denotes study describing virulence factor from both E. faecalis and E. faecium.
Figure 3.In vivo systems for modeling E. faecalis and E. faecium virulence. Cartoon depiction of the different host model systems that have been used to study niche-specific Enterococcal diseases.
Figure 4.Role of E. faecalis and E. faecium virulence genes in pathogenesis. Cartoon depicting virulence factors involved during (A) systemic dissemination and infective endocarditis, (B) intestinal colonization, and (C) catheter-associated urinary tract infection and community-acquired urinary tract infection.