4.2 Article

Animal models of Epstein Barr virus infection

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGICAL METHODS
Volume 410, Issue -, Pages 80-87

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2014.04.009

Keywords

Infectious mononucleosis; Dendritic cells; T cells; NK cells; Lymphoproliferative disease; Humanized mice

Funding

  1. Cancer Research Switzerland [KFS-3234-08-2013]
  2. Association for International Cancer Research [11-0516]
  3. KFSPMS of the University of Zurich
  4. Baugarten Foundation
  5. Sobek Foundation
  6. Fondation Acteria
  7. Swiss National Science Foundation [310030_143979, CRSII3_136241]
  8. KFSPHLD of the University of Zurich
  9. Worldwide Cancer Research [11-0516] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [310030_143979] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Epstein Barr virus (EBV) was the first human tumor virus to be identified. Despite 50 years of research on this oncogenic virus, no therapeutic or prophylactic vaccine is available against this pathogen. In part, the development of such a vaccine is hampered by the lack of in vivo models for EBV infection and immune control. However, with the advent of mice with reconstituted human immune system components (HIS mice), certain aspects of EBV associated diseases and immune responses can be modeled in vivo. In this review, we will discuss the insights that can be gained from these experiments, and how immune system components can be manipulated to interrogate their function during EBV infection. Finally, we will compare EBV immunobiology in HIS mice to infection by EBV-related viruses in monkeys, and we will outline the strengths and weaknesses of these two in vivo models of EBV infection. Both of these models show great promise as a platform for preclinical EBV vaccine testing. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available