Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28955177›Full record

ReviewThe Yale journal of biology and medicine2017

Modeling a Superorganism - Considerations Regarding the Use of "Dirty" Mice in Biomedical Research
.

Aaron C Ericsson, Daniel R Montonye, Cierra R Smith, Craig L Franklin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2024
    Review
  2. Article
  3. The role of gut microbiota in T cell immunity and immune mediated disorders.International journal of biological sciences · 2023
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The microbiome and rodent models of immune mediated diseases.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2021
    Review
  7. The gut microbiome of laboratory mice: considerations and best practices for translational research.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Aaron C EricssonUniversity of Missouri Metagenomics Center (MUMC), Columbia, MO.
Daniel R MontonyeDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
Cierra R SmithDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
Craig L FranklinUniversity of Missouri Metagenomics Center (MUMC), Columbia, MO.

Funding

The Mutant Mouse Resource and Research Center at the University of Missouri - ResourceU42OD010918 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI Bret Daniel Ulery · 2012 to 2026
$25.1M
Impact of gut microbiota and segmented filamentous bacteria on colitis-associated colorectal cancerK01OD019924 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI ERICSSON, AARON · 2016 to 2020
$573k
NIH HHS K01 OD019924NIH HHS U42 OD010918
6 · The paper itself

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

AnimalsBiomedical ResearchGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansMicrobiotaT-Lymphocytescomparative medicinemicrobiomemicrobiotamousetranslatability

Identifiers

PMID28955177
PMCPMC5612181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.