4.6 Article

Characterization of the rat pneumonic plague model: infection kinetics following aerosolization of Yersinia pestis CO92

期刊

MICROBES AND INFECTION
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 205-214

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.micinf.2008.11.009

关键词

Yersinia pestis; Rat model of infection; Pneumonic plague

资金

  1. NIH/NIAID [N01-AI-30065, AI064389]
  2. NIAID T32 Emerging and Tropical Infectious Diseases and Biodefense [AI07526, AI060549]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Yersinia pestis, the causative agent of human bubonic and pneumonic plague, is spread during natural infection by the fleas of rodents. Historically associated with infected rat fleas, studies on the kinetics of infection in rats are surprisingly few, and these reports have focused mainly on bubonic plague. Although the natural route of primary infection results in bubonic plague in humans, it is commonly thought that aerosolized Y. pestis will be utilized during a biowarfare attack. Accordingly, based on our previous characterization of the mouse model of pneumonic plague, we sought to examine the progression of infection in rats exposed in a whole-body Madison chamber to aerosolized Y. pestis CO92. Following an 8.6 LD50 dose of Y. pestis, injury was apparent in the rat tissues based on histopathology, and chemokines and cytokines rose above control levels (I h post infection [p.i.]) in the sera and organ homogenates over a 72-h infection period. Bacteria disseminated from the lungs to peripheral organs, with the largest increases in the spleen, followed by the liver and blood at 72 h p.i. compared to the I h controls. Importantly, rats were as sensitive to pneumonic plague as mice, having a similar LD50 dose by the intranasal and aerosolized routes. Further, we showed direct transmission of plague bacteria from infected to uninfected rats. Taken together, the data allowed us to characterize for the first time a rat pneumonic plague model following aerosolization of Y. pestis. (C) 2008 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据