4.6 Article

Intrauterine inoculation of minipigs with Chlamydia trachomatis during diestrus establishes a longer lasting infection compared to vaginal inoculation during estrus

期刊

MICROBES AND INFECTION
卷 19, 期 6, 页码 334-342

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.micinf.2017.01.008

关键词

Minipig model; Chlamydia trachomatis; Sexually transmitted disease

资金

  1. Minitub GmbH (Tiefenbach, Germany)
  2. Innovation Fund Denmark through the project GeniVac [069-2011-1]
  3. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Advanced animal models, such as minipigs, are needed for the development of a globally requested human Chlamydia vaccine. Previous studies have shown that vaginal inoculation of sexually mature Gottingen minipigs with Chlamydia trachomatis resulted in an infection lasting only 3-5 days. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of targeting the upper porcine genital tract by transcervical and transabdominal intrauterine inoculation, compared to previously performed vaginal inoculation. Furthermore, we investigated the effect of the hormonal cycle, estrus vs. diestrus, on the establishment of a C. trachomatis infection in the minipig. Targeting the upper genital tract (transcervical inoculation) resulted in a longer lasting infection (at least 7 days) compared to vaginal inoculation (3-5 days). When comparing intrauterine inoculation during estrus and diestrus, inoculation during diestrus resulted in a longer lasting infection (at least 10 days) compared to estrus (3-5 days). Furthermore, we found a significant C. trachomatis specific IFN-y response in pigs inoculated during estrus correlating with the accelerated clearance of infection in these pigs. These findings suggest that for implementation of an optimal model of C. trachomatis in minipigs, inoculation should bypass the cervix and preferable be performed during diestrus. (C) 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS on behalf of Institut Pasteur.

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

4.6
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