| Literature DB >> 30245803 |
Krzysztof Laudanski1, Michael Stentz2, Matthew DiMeglio3, William Furey3, Toby Steinberg1, Arpit Patel1.
Abstract
Humanized mice are a state-of-the-art tool used to study several diseases, helping to close the gap between mice and human immunology. This review focuses on the potential obstacles in the analysis of immune system performance between humans and humanized mice in the context of severe acute inflammation as seen in sepsis or other critical care illnesses. The extent to which the reconstituted human immune system in mice adequately compares to the performance of the human immune system in human hosts is still an evolving question. Although certain viral and protozoan infections can be replicated in humanized mice, whether a highly complex and dynamic systemic inflammation like sepsis can be accurately represented by current humanized mouse models in a clinically translatable manner is unclear. Humanized mice are xenotransplant animals in the most general terms. Several organs (e.g., bone marrow mesenchymal cells, endothelium) cannot interact with the grafted human leukocytes effectively due to species specificity. Also the interaction between mice gut flora and the human immune system may be paradoxical. Often, grafting is performed utilizing an identical batch of stem cells in highly inbred animals which fails to account for human heterogeneity. Limiting factors include the substantial cost and restricting supply of animals. Finally, humanized mice offer an opportunity to gain knowledge of human-like conditions, requiring careful data interpretation just as in nonhumanized animals.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30245803 PMCID: PMC6139216 DOI: 10.1155/2018/6563454
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Inflam ISSN: 2042-0099
Pitfalls of humanized models and the means to compensate them.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Increased susceptibility of the animals to infection, decreased immunity, | Creating a more realistic environment for housing | [ |
|
| |||
|
| Separation of the research outcome from clinical reality. | Developing more clinically relevant model by introducing fluid resuscitation and antibiotics, comparisons between humanized and non-humanized animals. | [ |
|
| |||
|
| Decrease robustness of the findings. | Increasing diversity, developing models with different strains, engaging in cross-species research, grafting with different stem cells. | |
|
| |||
|
| Incomplete or inefficient grafting, GVHD, the emergence of lymphomas | Development of more profoundly immunosuppressed hosts, eradication of the residual immune system, knock-out of SIRP- | [ |
|
| |||
|
| Inefficient grafting, inefficient cytokine network and immune system regulation | Supplementation of human cytokines via various means | [ |
|
| |||
|
| Incomplete restoration of the immune system, ineffective and clinically irrelevant responses | Introduction of HIS, BLT, MITGR models, supplementation of human cytokines via genetic engineering, | [ |
|
| |||
|
| Inability to mimic humoral responses | Development of human IL-6 producing mice, introduction of additional cytokine modification | [ |
|
| |||
|
| The inappropriate response, difficulties in translating | Supplementation of adequate cytokine environment, ex vivo cell maturation, and supplementation | [ |
|
| |||
|
| Difficulty mimicking complex interaction between organs in sepsis | Additional transplantation to better mimic inter-organ interaction in the autologous/allogeneic system, the introduction of human intestinal flora | [ |