4.7 Article

Clinical Evaluation of Highly Pathogenic Tick-Borne Flavivirus Infection in the Mouse Model

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY
Volume 81, Issue 7, Pages 1261-1269

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.21524

Keywords

RSSEV; OHFV; Russian spring-summer encephalitis virus; Omsk hemorrhagic fever virus

Categories

Funding

  1. Western Regional Center of Excellence Career Development award [U54 AI057156]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using clinical parameters to demonstrate disease progression and differentiate between Omsk hemorrhagic fever virus (OHFV) and Russian spring-summer encephalitis virus (RSSEV) infection in the mouse model. Adult C57BL/6 and balb/c mice were infected with either OHFV or RSSEV by footpad inoculation and their temperature, body weight, clinical signs complete blood count, and blood chemistries were evaluated for up to 15 days post-infection (dpi). Clinical evaluation showed that OHFV infection seriously affects balb/c mice, which had shorter average survival times (ASTs) than other groups. On the contrary, RSSEV infection of C57BL/6 mice was more severe than in balb/c mice. During these studies, the development of fever was not observed and the body weight of OHFV infected balb/c and C57BL/6 mice began to decline sharply starting from day 7 and 8, respectively, which correlated with disease onset. Peak increase of globulin and neutrophils was demonstrated after 9 dpi in OHFV infected mice; however, the lymphocyte number was not affected. Viremia was undetectable in these animals with either virus infection, but virus was found in most organs tested. These results indicate marked differences in the clinical signs, pathology, and immune response of mice infected with either OHFV or RSSEV and further validate the use of this mouse model system to evaluate human disease. J. Med. Virol. 81: 1261-1269, 2009. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available