Cited by 36Tuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyInfectious Diseases and TuberculosisMycobacterium research and diagnosis

Direct comparison of low-dose and Cornell-like models of chronic and reactivation tuberculosis in genetically susceptible I/St and resistant B6 mice

Radaeva, T.V., Nikonenko, B.V., Mischenko, V.V., Averbakh, M.M., Apt, A.S.·2005·Tuberculosis

Abstract

We applied the low-dose challenge (chronic) and reactivation following chemotherapy withdrawal (Cornell-like) TB models to mouse strains with genetically different susceptibility to and severity of Mycobacterium tuberculosis-triggered disease. Systemic infection caused by intravenous (i.v.) administration of approximately 70 cfus of M. tuberculosis H37Rv lead to chronic, persistent, non-lethal disease in genetically resistant B6 mice, but resulted in a fatal pathological process in the lungs of susceptible I/St animals. Thus, application of the identical experimental approach to genetically different murine hosts allows investigating both slowly progressive disease with the fatal outcome (I/St) and chronic life-span disease (B6). Under Cornell-like model conditions, both temporary eradication of cultivable bacilli from lungs and spleens due to chemotherapy and their re-appearance in organs following its withdrawal were demonstrated in mice of both strains. However, (i) reactivation occurred significantly earlier in I/St than in B6 mice; (ii) I/St mice survived not more than 6 month following chemotherapy withdrawal and demonstrated 100% TB relapse, whereas in B6 mice mortality did not exceed 50%, and no mycobacteria were recovered from some animals. I/St mice, with their genetically determined high TB severity, provide a more reliable tool for modeling TB relapse after chemotherapy withdrawal than mice of more resistant strains.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tube.2004.09.014

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Radaeva, T. V., Nikonenko, B. V., Mischenko, V. V., Averbakh, M. M., & Apt, A. S.
Affiliations
  • Central Scientific Research Institute of Tuberculosis Russian Academy of Medical Sciences (RU)
  • Sequella (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Apt, A.S.
Venue
Tuberculosis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-01
Volume
85
Issue
1-2
Pages
65-72
ISSN
1472-9792 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2041996396
Cited by
36
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Tuberculosis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL068532, R01 HL 68532-02)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Tuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Infectious Diseases and Tuberculosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Mycobacterium research and diagnosis
Keywords
Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv, chronic tuberculosis, tuberculosis reactivation, tuberculosis relapse, C57BL/6 mice, mouse strain differences, intravenous challenge, disease severity
MeSH terms
Animals, Antibodies, Bacterial, Antitubercular Agents, Chronic Disease, Disease Models, Animal, Female, Immunity, Innate, Lung, Mice, Inbred Strains, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Species Specificity, Spleen, Tuberculosis, Colony Count, Microbial, Cytokines, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review