4.6 Article

Wild mouse gut microbiota limits initial tuberculosis infection in BALB/c mice

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288290

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have shown that the gut microbiota of wild mice improves host fitness and disease resistance. This study examined whether the gut microbiota of wild mice affects the immune pathology of TB in BALB/c mice. The results showed that mice with the gut microbiota of wild mice controlled initial TB infection better than conventional lab mice.
Mouse models are critical tools in tuberculosis (TB) research. Recent studies have demonstrated that the wild mouse gut microbiota promotes host fitness and improves disease resistance. Here we examine whether the wild mouse gut microbiota alters the immunopathology of TB in BALB/c mice. Conventional BALB/c mice (LabC) and mice born to germ-free BALB/c mothers reconstituted with the wild mouse gut microbiota (WildR) were used in our studies. WildR mice controlled initial TB infection better than LabC mice. The microbial gut communities of LabC mice and WildR mice had similar richness but significantly different composition prior to infection. TB reduced the gut community richness in both cohorts while differences in community composition remained indicating a general TB-induced dysbiosis. The wild mouse gut microbiota did not alter the typical lung histopathology of TB in the BALB/c model that includes unstructured immune cell infiltrates with infected foamy macrophages invading alveolar spaces. Animals of both cohorts mounted robust T cell responses in lungs and spleen with lower absolute counts of CD4 and CD8 T cells in lungs of WildR mice during acute infection, corresponding with observed differences in pathogen load. In summary, LabC mice and WildR mice showed largely overlapping TB immunopathology and pathogen kinetics, with WildR mice controlling early acute infection better than LabC mice.

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