4.2 Article

Direct comparison of low-dose and Cornell-like models of chronic and reactivation tuberculosis in genetically susceptible I/St and resistant B6 mice

期刊

TUBERCULOSIS
卷 85, 期 1-2, 页码 65-72

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.tube.2004.09.014

关键词

mouse TB models; chronic infection; reactivation; genetic control

资金

  1. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL068532] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL 68532-02] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We applied the low-dose challenge (chronic) and reactivation following chemotherapy withdrawal (Cornell-like) TB models to mouse strains with genetically different susceptibility to and severity of Mycobacterium tuberculosis-triggered disease. Systemic infection caused by intravenous (i.v.) administration of similar to70 cfus of M. tuberculosis H37Rv lead to chronic, persistent, non-lethal disease in genetically resistant B6 mice, but resulted in a fatal pathological process in the lungs of susceptible I/St animals. Thus, application of the identical experimental approach to genetically different murine hosts allows investigating both slowly progressive disease with the fatal outcome (I/St) and chronic life-span disease (B6). Under Cornell-like model conditions' both temporary eradication of cultivable bacilli from lungs and spleens due to chemotherapy and their re-appearance in organs following its withdrawal were demonstrated in mice of both strains. However, (i) reactivation occurred significantly earlier in I/St than in B6 mice; (ii) I/St mice survived not more than 6 month following chemotherapy withdrawal and demonstrated 100% TB relapse, whereas in B6 mice mortality did not exceed 50%, and no mycobacteria were recovered from some animals. I/St mice, with their genetically determined high TB severity, provide a more reliable tool for modeling TB relapse after chemotherapy withdrawal than mice of more resistant strains. (C) 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.2
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