4.5 Article

Differences in susceptibility to Mycobacterium chelonae in zebrafish (Danio rerio) lines commonly used in scientific research

Journal

JOURNAL OF FISH DISEASES
Volume 45, Issue 3, Pages 435-443

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jfd.13572

Keywords

Danio rerio; fish mycobacteriosis; genetic lines; Mycobacterium chelonae; zebrafish

Funding

  1. Office of Research Infrastructure Programs of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R24OD010998]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found differences in severity of Mycobacterium infections among four different zebrafish lines commonly used in research, but no significant differences in prevalence.
Mycobacteriosis is one of the most common diseases encountered in laboratory zebrafish. These infections can present a problem to researchers using zebrafish because they may introduce unknown experimental variables. Whilst differences in severity of infections between species of Mycobacterium infecting zebrafish have been well documented, little is known about differences in susceptibility between zebrafish lines. Previous surveys have found higher prevalence in the TU zebrafish line relative to other lines, suggesting that there may be underlying genetic differences in susceptibility. This study investigates Mycobacterium chelonae H1E2-GFP infections in four different zebrafish lines commonly used in research (AB, 5D, casper and TU). Fish were exposed to a labelled (green-fluorescent protein (GFP)) strain of M. chelonae by intraperitoneal injection, and infection status was evaluated after 10 weeks. Visualization of GFP in euthanized fish and histology were used as endpoints. In GFP images, severity was assessed by image analysis, and in histological sections, counts of granulomas containing acid-fast bacteria were used. Results indicated differences in severity of infections between lines, but no significant differences in prevalence.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available