Cargando…

Comprehensive comparison of three different animal models for systemic inflammation

BACKGROUND: To mimic systemic inflammation in humans, different animal models have been developed. Since these models are still discussed controversially, we aimed to comparatively evaluate the most widely used models with respect to the systemic effects, the influence on organ functions and to the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Seemann, Semjon, Zohles, Franziska, Lupp, Amelie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5569462/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28836970
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12929-017-0370-8
_version_ 1783258996070678528
author Seemann, Semjon
Zohles, Franziska
Lupp, Amelie
author_facet Seemann, Semjon
Zohles, Franziska
Lupp, Amelie
author_sort Seemann, Semjon
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To mimic systemic inflammation in humans, different animal models have been developed. Since these models are still discussed controversially, we aimed to comparatively evaluate the most widely used models with respect to the systemic effects, the influence on organ functions and to the underlying pathophysiological processes. METHODS: Systemic inflammation was induced in C57BL/6N mice with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) treatment, peritoneal contamination and infection (PCI), or cecal ligation and puncture (CLP). Blood glucose and circulating cytokine levels were evaluated at 0, 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after induction of inflammation. Additionally, oxidative stress in various organs and liver biotransformation capacity were determined. Markers for oxidative stress, apoptosis, infiltrating immune cells, as well as cytokine expression patterns, were assessed in liver and spleen tissue by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Treating mice with LPS and PCI induced a very similar course of inflammation; however, LPS treatment elicited a stronger response. In both models, serum pro-inflammatory cytokine levels rapidly increased whereas blood glucose decreased. Organs showed early signs of oxidative stress, and apoptosis was increased in splenic cells. In addition, liver biotransformation capacity was reduced and there was pronounced immune cell infiltration in both the liver and spleen. Mice exposed to either LPS or PCI recovered after 72 h. In contrast, CLP treatment induced comparatively fewer effects, but a more protracted course of inflammation. CONCLUSIONS: The LPS model of systemic inflammation revealed to be most suitable when being interested in the impact of new therapies for acute inflammation. When using the CLP model to mimic human sepsis more closely, a longer time course should be employed, as the treatment induces delayed development of systemic inflammation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12929-017-0370-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5569462
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55694622017-08-29 Comprehensive comparison of three different animal models for systemic inflammation Seemann, Semjon Zohles, Franziska Lupp, Amelie J Biomed Sci Research BACKGROUND: To mimic systemic inflammation in humans, different animal models have been developed. Since these models are still discussed controversially, we aimed to comparatively evaluate the most widely used models with respect to the systemic effects, the influence on organ functions and to the underlying pathophysiological processes. METHODS: Systemic inflammation was induced in C57BL/6N mice with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) treatment, peritoneal contamination and infection (PCI), or cecal ligation and puncture (CLP). Blood glucose and circulating cytokine levels were evaluated at 0, 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after induction of inflammation. Additionally, oxidative stress in various organs and liver biotransformation capacity were determined. Markers for oxidative stress, apoptosis, infiltrating immune cells, as well as cytokine expression patterns, were assessed in liver and spleen tissue by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Treating mice with LPS and PCI induced a very similar course of inflammation; however, LPS treatment elicited a stronger response. In both models, serum pro-inflammatory cytokine levels rapidly increased whereas blood glucose decreased. Organs showed early signs of oxidative stress, and apoptosis was increased in splenic cells. In addition, liver biotransformation capacity was reduced and there was pronounced immune cell infiltration in both the liver and spleen. Mice exposed to either LPS or PCI recovered after 72 h. In contrast, CLP treatment induced comparatively fewer effects, but a more protracted course of inflammation. CONCLUSIONS: The LPS model of systemic inflammation revealed to be most suitable when being interested in the impact of new therapies for acute inflammation. When using the CLP model to mimic human sepsis more closely, a longer time course should be employed, as the treatment induces delayed development of systemic inflammation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12929-017-0370-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5569462/ /pubmed/28836970 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12929-017-0370-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Seemann, Semjon
Zohles, Franziska
Lupp, Amelie
Comprehensive comparison of three different animal models for systemic inflammation
title Comprehensive comparison of three different animal models for systemic inflammation
title_full Comprehensive comparison of three different animal models for systemic inflammation
title_fullStr Comprehensive comparison of three different animal models for systemic inflammation
title_full_unstemmed Comprehensive comparison of three different animal models for systemic inflammation
title_short Comprehensive comparison of three different animal models for systemic inflammation
title_sort comprehensive comparison of three different animal models for systemic inflammation
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5569462/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28836970
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12929-017-0370-8
work_keys_str_mv AT seemannsemjon comprehensivecomparisonofthreedifferentanimalmodelsforsystemicinflammation
AT zohlesfranziska comprehensivecomparisonofthreedifferentanimalmodelsforsystemicinflammation
AT luppamelie comprehensivecomparisonofthreedifferentanimalmodelsforsystemicinflammation