ReviewThe Yale journal of biology and medicine2017
Modeling a Superorganism - Considerations Regarding the Use of "Dirty" Mice in Biomedical Research .
Review in The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The mutant mouse resource and research center (MMRRC) consortium: the US-based public mouse repository system.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2024Review
- Sequential Early-Life Infections Alter Peripheral Blood Transcriptomics in Aging Female Mice but Not the Response to De Novo Infection with Influenza Virus or M. tuberculosis.ImmunoHorizons · 2023Article
- The role of gut microbiota in T cell immunity and immune mediated disorders.International journal of biological sciences · 2023Review
- The Mutant Mouse Resource and Research Center (MMRRC): the NIH-supported National Public Repository and Distribution Archive of Mutant Mouse Models in the USA.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2022Review
- Characterization of the Eukaryotic Virome of Mice from Different Sources.Microorganisms · 2021Article
- The microbiome and rodent models of immune mediated diseases.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2021Review
- The gut microbiome of laboratory mice: considerations and best practices for translational research.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2021Review
- Shared and distinctive features of the gut microbiome of C57BL/6 mice from different vendors and production sites, and in response to a new vivarium.Lab animal · 2021Article
- Mast Cells Are Identified in the Lung Parenchyma of Wild Mice, Which Can Be Recapitulated in Naturalized Laboratory Mice.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Article
- Host determinants of among-species variation in microbiome composition in drosophilid flies.The ISME journal · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An ever-expanding body of evidence in both humans and animal models demonstrates the influence of the resident gut microbiota on host health and disease susceptibility. However, as unwanted bacterial, viral, protozoal, and parasitic agents have gradually been eliminated from colonies of purpose-bred laboratory mice, the resident microbiota has lost richness and complexity. Recent studies have shown that the ultra-hygienic environment of traditional laboratory mice and lack of antigenic exposure during development results in mice with an immune system more akin to that of a neonate than an adult human. In contrast, wild mice or mice purchased from pet stores are exposed to much greater antigen burdens and their immune system reflects this with significantly greater numbers of memory T cells and more robust vaccine responses. The current review explores the use of alternative sources for research rodents, with an emphasis on the differences in resident gut microbiota and pathogen burden between wild mice, pet store-origin mice, and traditional laboratory mice. Specifically, the literature is compared and contrasted to our own data reflecting the endogenous gut microbiota and pathogen load of wild and pet store mice, as well as the changes in both during and after procedures intended to eliminate certain zoonotic agents present in pet store mice. These data demonstrate that, while alternative sources of research rodents will likely provide models that are more translatable to the human condition, there are also several real-world considerations for scientists including contamination of research facilities and human health risks such as zoonotic diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28955177PMC5612181What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.