4.1 Article

Utility of the Citrobacter rodentium infection model in laboratory mice

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 32-37

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MOG.0b013e3282f2b0fb

关键词

acute diarrheal illness; Citrobacter freundii biotype 4280; colitis; Enterobacteriaceae infections; transmissible murine colonic hyperpiasia

资金

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P01CA026731] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [T32ES007020, P30ES002109] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NCI NIH HHS [P01 CA26731] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIEHS NIH HHS [T32 ES07020, P30 ES02109, P30 ES002109] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review There have been considerable advances in our understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli and enterohemorrhagic E coli infection. Given the difficulty of infecting laboratory mice with these diarrhea-causing pathogens, a growing number of studies have found the murine bacterial pathogen Citrobacter rodentium to provide a robust, relevant in-vivo model system. Recent findings All inbred strains and outbred stocks of laboratory mice studied to date have been found to be susceptible to C. rodentium infection. The natural course of disease ranges from subclinical epithelial hyperplasia in the colon, to clinical diarrhea and colitis, to fatal infection, depending on the age, genetic background, and health status of the host. Infection is self-limiting, leading to disease resolution and protective immunity. Here we review recent discoveries related to bacterial virulence determinants, epithelial hyperplasia, innate and adaptive immune responses, and mechanisms of diarrhea. Summary Infection of laboratory mice with C. rodentium provides a useful in-vivo model for studying the pathogenesis of infectious gastroenteritis and acute diarrheal illness, and for preclinical evaluation of candidate preventive and therapeutic agents.

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

4.1
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