4.5 Article

Amphibian Hymenochirus boettgeri as an experimental model for infection studies with the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis

期刊

VIRULENCE
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/21505594.2023.2270252

关键词

Model organism; Hymenochirus boettgeri; Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis; virulence; amphibians; husbandry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Model organisms are crucial in research, providing important insights for other species. This study suggests using the amphibian species Hymenochirus boettgeri as a model organism for the study of chytridiomycosis and demonstrates its dose- and genotype-dependent response, as well as reproducibility in experimental conditions.
Model organisms are crucial in research as they can provide key insights applicable to other species. This study proposes the use of the amphibian species Hymenochirus boettgeri, widely available through the aquarium trade, as a model organism for the study of chytridiomycosis, a disease caused by the fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) and linked to amphibian decline and extinction globally. Currently, no model organisms are used in the study of chytridiomycosis, particularly because of the lack of availability and nonstandardized methods. Thus, laboratories around the world use wild local species to conduct Bd infection experiments, which prevents comparisons between studies and reduces reproducibility. Here, we performed a series of Bd infection assays that showed that H. boettgeri has a dose- and genotype-dependent response, can generalize previous findings on virulence estimates in other species, and can generate reproducible results in replicated experimental conditions. We also provided valuable information regarding H. boettgeri husbandry, including care, housing, reproduction, and heat treatment to eliminate previous Bd infections. Together, our results indicate that H. boettgeri is a powerful and low-ecological-impact system for studying Bd pathogenicity and virulence.

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

4.5
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