Comparative Pathology and Animal Model Development

Author(s):  
John Sundberg ◽  
Lloyd King
1983 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 649 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Mackenzie ◽  
Steven R. Gundry ◽  
Richard E. Burney ◽  
Malcolm Marks ◽  
Gerald Abrams

mBio ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lily E. Adams ◽  
Kenneth H. Dinnon ◽  
Yixuan J. Hou ◽  
Timothy P. Sheahan ◽  
Mark T. Heise ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT The angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor is a major severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) host range determinant, and understanding SARS-CoV-2-ACE2 interactions will provide important insights into COVID-19 pathogenesis and animal model development. SARS-CoV-2 cannot infect mice due to incompatibility between its receptor binding domain and the murine ACE2 receptor. Through molecular modeling and empirical in vitro validation, we identified 5 key amino acid differences between murine and human ACE2 that mediate SARS-CoV-2 infection, generating a chimeric humanized murine ACE2. Additionally, we examined the ability of the humanized murine ACE2 receptor to permit infection by an additional preemergent group 2B coronavirus, WIV-1, providing evidence for the potential pan-virus capabilities of this chimeric receptor. Finally, we predicted the ability of these determinants to inform host range identification of preemergent coronaviruses by evaluating hot spot contacts between SARS-CoV-2 and additional potential host receptors. Our results identify residue determinants that mediate coronavirus receptor usage and host range for application in SARS-CoV-2 and emerging coronavirus animal model development. IMPORTANCE SARS-CoV-2 (the causative agent of COVID-19) is a major public health threat and one of two related coronaviruses that have caused epidemics in modern history. A method of screening potential infectible hosts for preemergent and future emergent coronaviruses would aid in mounting rapid response and intervention strategies during future emergence events. Here, we evaluated determinants of SARS-CoV-2 receptor interactions, identifying key changes that enable or prevent infection. The analysis detailed in this study will aid in the development of model systems to screen emergent coronaviruses as well as treatments to counteract infections.


2020 ◽  
Vol 94 (23) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kumari G. Lokugamage ◽  
Adam Hage ◽  
Maren de Vries ◽  
Ana M. Valero-Jimenez ◽  
Craig Schindewolf ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT SARS-CoV-2, a novel coronavirus (CoV) that causes COVID-19, has recently emerged causing an ongoing outbreak of viral pneumonia around the world. While distinct from SARS-CoV, both group 2B CoVs share similar genome organization, origins to bat CoVs, and an arsenal of immune antagonists. In this report, we evaluate type I interferon (IFN-I) sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 relative to the original SARS-CoV. Our results indicate that while SARS-CoV-2 maintains similar viral replication to SARS-CoV, the novel CoV is much more sensitive to IFN-I. In Vero E6 and in Calu3 cells, SARS-CoV-2 is substantially attenuated in the context of IFN-I pretreatment, whereas SARS-CoV is not. In line with these findings, SARS-CoV-2 fails to counteract phosphorylation of STAT1 and expression of ISG proteins, while SARS-CoV is able to suppress both. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A virus in human airway epithelial cultures, we observe the absence of IFN-I stimulation by SARS-CoV-2 alone but detect the failure to counteract STAT1 phosphorylation upon IFN-I pretreatment, resulting in near ablation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Next, we evaluated IFN-I treatment postinfection and found that SARS-CoV-2 was sensitive even after establishing infection. Finally, we examined homology between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 in viral proteins shown to be interferon antagonists. The absence of an equivalent open reading frame 3b (ORF3b) and genetic differences versus ORF6 suggest that the two key IFN-I antagonists may not maintain equivalent function in SARS-CoV-2. Together, the results identify key differences in susceptibility to IFN-I responses between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 that may help inform disease progression, treatment options, and animal model development. IMPORTANCE With the ongoing outbreak of COVID-19, differences between SARS-CoV-2 and the original SARS-CoV could be leveraged to inform disease progression and eventual treatment options. In addition, these findings could have key implications for animal model development as well as further research into how SARS-CoV-2 modulates the type I IFN response early during infection.


2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (11) ◽  
pp. 953-957 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth L. Carney ◽  
J. Brian Clark ◽  
John L. Myers ◽  
Rebecca Peterson ◽  
Ronald P. Wilson ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 104 (3) ◽  
pp. 169-172
Author(s):  
M Welch ◽  
J Barratt ◽  
S Martin ◽  
C Wright

AbstractAimsTo assess the viability of a peripheral extremity amputation and haemorrhage model for testing topical haemostatic dressings, and secondarily to test whether a topical haemostatic dressing would arrest bleeding and maintain haemostasis without a tourniquet in this model.MethodsAn animal model was used during proof of principle model development. Bilateral through-elbow amputations were performed on a single swine under anaesthetic and treated with application of Celox Rapid topical haemostatic dressing (Celox gauze) to the stump after 30 seconds of free bleeding. Following initial haemostasis, the wound sites were bandaged using standard trauma dressings. Vital signs were monitored throughout the study.ResultsThe animal survived and, in both amputations, haemorrhage was successfully controlled. There was no evidence of re-bleeding during the 30 minutes post-injury or following removal of the packed Celox gauze from the wound sites.ConclusionTopical haemostatic dressings could be considered alongside tourniquets for use as a primary treatment of peripheral extremity haemorrhage due to traumatic amputation. It may be useful in prolonged field care where evacuation is delayed or where tourniquet alone does not provide adequate haemorrhage control.


ILAR Journal ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-50
Author(s):  
Sue E Knoblaugh ◽  
Tobias M Hohl ◽  
Krista M D La Perle

Abstract Over 60% of NIH extramural funding involves animal models, and approximately 80% to 90% of these are mouse models of human disease. It is critical to translational research that animal models are accurately characterized and validated as models of human disease. Pathology analysis, including histopathology, is essential to animal model studies by providing morphologic context to in vivo, molecular, and biochemical data; however, there are many considerations when incorporating pathology endpoints into an animal study. Mice, and in particular genetically modified models, present unique considerations because these modifications are affected by background strain genetics, husbandry, and experimental conditions. Comparative pathologists recognize normal pathobiology and unique phenotypes that animals, including genetically modified models, may present. Beyond pathology, comparative pathologists with research experience offer expertise in animal model development, experimental design, optimal specimen collection and handling, data interpretation, and reporting. Critical pathology considerations in the design and use of translational studies involving animals are discussed, with an emphasis on mouse models.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document