Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8834887›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy1996

Luciferase in vivo expression technology: use of recombinant mycobacterial reporter strains to evaluate antimycobacterial activity in mice.

M J Hickey, T M Arain, R M Shawar, D J Humble, M H Langhorne, J N Morgenroth, C K Stover

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A Fluorescent Probe for DetectingFrontiers in microbiology · 2016
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Lessons from seven decades of antituberculosis drug discovery.Current topics in medicinal chemistry · 2011
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

M J HickeyDepartment of Molecular Microbiology, PathoGenesis Corporation, Seattle, Washington 98119, USA.
T M Arain
R M Shawar
D J Humble
M H Langhorne
J N Morgenroth
C K Stover

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of new drugs and vaccines directed against Mycobacterium tuberculosis is severely impeded by the slow growth of this organism and the need to work under stringent biosafety conditions. These difficulties pose considerable obstacles when animal studies with M. tuberculosis are performed. We investigated whether a novel approach termed luciferase in vivo expression, using an enhanced luciferase-expressing mycobacterial strain, could be used to evaluate antimycobacterial activity in mice. Vectors that expressed firefly luciferase (lux gene) at high levels in the bacillus Calmette-Gu-erin (BCG) strain of Mycobacterium bovis were constructed for use in vivo. One recombinant BCG reporter strain (rBCG-lux) was selected for high-level expression of the lux gene product and for its ability to replicate in mice. Methodology to monitor in vivo growth of the rBCG-lux reporter strain in mice by direct assay of luciferase luminescence in organ homogenates was developed. The utility of this approach for assessing the in vivo efficacies of antimycobacterial compounds was evaluated. The activities of standard antimycobacterial drugs were directly apparent in mice infected with the rBCG-lux reporter strain by statistically significant reductions in spleen luminescence. In addition, antimycobacterial immunity was also evident in BCG-immunized mice, in which suppression of rBCG-lux growth in comparison with that in naive mice was clearly observed. The use of luciferase in vivo expression for the in vivo evaluation of antimycobacterial activity compared favorably with standard CFU determinations in terms of time, labor, expense, and statistical significance but permitted the evaluation of antimycobacterial drugs and immunity in mice in 7 days or less. Thus, the use of this technology can greatly accelerate the process of evaluation of antibiotics and immunogens in animal models for the slowly growing pathogenic mycobacteria.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntitubercular AgentsColony Count, MicrobialCyclophosphamideDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalElectroporationFemaleImmunosuppressive AgentsLuciferasesLuminescent MeasurementsMiceMice, Inbred BALB CMycobacterium bovisRecombinant ProteinsSpleenTransfectionAntitubercular AgentsCyclophosphamideImmunosuppressive AgentsLuciferasesRecombinant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID8834887
PMCPMC163123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.