Animals devoid of pulmonary system as infection models in the study of lung bacterial pathogens

Yamilã© Lã³Pez Hernã¡Ndez,Isidre Gibert,Daniel Yero,Juan M Pinos-Rodrã­Guez

doi:10.3389/fmicb.2015.00038

Abstract

Biological disease models can be difficult and costly to develop and use on a routine basis. Particularly, in vivo lung infection models performed to study lung pathologies use to be laborious, demand a great time and commonly are associated with ethical issues. When infections in experimental animals are used, they need to be refined, defined, and validated for their intended purpose. Therefore, alternative and easy to handle models of experimental infections are still needed to test the virulence of bacterial lung pathogens. Because non-mammalian models have less ethical and cost constraints as a subjects for experimentation, in some cases would be appropriated to include these models as valuable tools to explore host–pathogen interactions. Numerous scientific data have been argued to the more extensive use of several kinds of alternative models, such as, the vertebrate zebrafish (Danio rerio), and non-vertebrate insects and nematodes (e.g., Caenorhabditis elegans) in the study of diverse infectious agents that affect humans. Here, we review the use of these vertebrate and non-vertebrate models in the study of bacterial agents, which are considered the principal causes of lung injury. Curiously none of these animals have a respiratory system as in air-breathing vertebrates, where respiration takes place in lungs. Despite this fact, with the present review we sought to provide elements in favor of the use of these alternative animal models of infection to reveal the molecular signatures of host–pathogen interactions.

Highlights

A GOOD ANIMAL MODEL To study the pathology, host immune response and the complex interactions between host and pathogen, the use of animal models have been invaluable, but for many years, it have presented strong public, scientific concerns, as well as philosophical contradictions (Lipscomb et al, 2010)
From the great contributions of Luis Pasteur and Robert Koch in the use of animal models to decipher the causal agents of several diseases, including Bacillus anthracis, Mycobacterium tuberculosis or the rabies virus, concepts related to the animal use and handle and bioethics have arise (Baumans, 2004)
The present review summarizes, compare and discuss the published experience in classical animal models, such as mice, and alternative animal models, the zebrafish (Danio rerio), Caenorhabditis elegans and the insects Drosophila melanogaster and Galleria mellonella in the study of bacterial agents which are considered the principal causes of lung injury

Summary

INTRODUCTION

A GOOD ANIMAL MODEL To study the pathology, host immune response and the complex interactions between host and pathogen, the use of animal models have been invaluable, but for many years, it have presented strong public, scientific concerns, as well as philosophical contradictions (Lipscomb et al, 2010). Aerosol studies carry the greatest potential risk of infection with airborne pathogens (Chen et al, 2011), the inhaled dose varies considerably and the equipment to perform the infection is not always available in research laboratories Most of these routes may require anesthetize animals and sometimes post-administration of pain relief drugs. Despite the simplicity of their immune system, and their evolutionary distance to human, some non-mammalian models using small animals (fishes, nematodes, and insects) are characterized by their short generation time which redundance in the low cost of experiments. None of these animals have a respiratory system as in air-breathing vertebrates, where respiration takes place in lungs. Several bacteria and viruses have been studied in their ability to infect zebrafish (Martin and Renshaw, 2009)

Caenorhabditis elegans

Zebrafish embryos