4.5 Review

Mouse models for the study of mucosal vaccination against otitis media

Journal

VACCINE
Volume 26, Issue 12, Pages 1501-1524

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.01.029

Keywords

otitis media; mucosal; vaccination; mouse; review

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI041715, R01 AI41715, R01 AI041715-10] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Otitis media (OM) is one of the most common infectious diseases in humans. The pathogenesis of OM involves nasopharyngeal (NP) colonization and retrograde ascension of the pathogen up the Eustachian tube into the middle ear (ME). Due to increasing rates of antibiotic resistance, there is an urgent need for vaccines to prevent infections caused by the most common causes of bacterial. OM, including nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Moraxella catarrhalis. Current vaccine strategies aim to diminish bacterial NP carriage, thereby reducing the Likelihood of developing acute OM. To be effective, vaccination should induce local mucosal immunity both in the ME and in the NP. Studies in animal models have demonstrated that the intranasal route of vaccination is particularly effective at inducing immune responses in the nasal passage and ME for protection against OM. The mouse is increasingly used in these models, because of the availability of murine reagents and the existence of technology to manipulate murine models of disease immunologically and genetically. Previous studies confirmed the suitability of the mouse as a model for inflammatory processes in acute OM. Here, we discuss various murine models of OM and review the applicability of these models to assess the efficacy of mucosal vaccination and the mechanisms responsible for protection. In addition, we discuss various mucosal vaccine antigens, mucosal adjuvants and mucosal delivery systems. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available