The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Experimental Keratomycosis in a Mouse Model
Abstract
PURPOSE: To establish a murine model of corneal candidiasis that permits molecular evaluation of fungal adherence and invasion. METHODS: Corneas of immunocompetent, methylprednisolone-treated, and cyclophosphamide-treated adult NIH Swiss and BALB/c mice were topically mock inoculated or inoculated with 10-fold increasing amounts between 100 and 100 million colony-forming units (CFU) of Candida albicans after unilateral corneal scarification. Mock-inoculated eyes served as the control. Eyes were scored daily on a 12-point scale to categorize corneal inflammation and were enucleated for quantitative fungal cultures, analysis by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and histopathologic examination. RESULTS: At least 100 CFU of C. albicans initiated measurable corneal infection, but 1 million or more colony-forming units were needed to induce consistent keratitis. Treatment with methylprednisolone increased disease severity in infected BALB/c mice and fungal persistence in both BALB/c and NIH Swiss mice. Treatment with cyclophosphamide increased disease severity and fungal persistence in both strains of mice. Infectious organisms were recovered by quantitative culture, and candidal DNA was detectable by PCR. C. albicans, inflammatory cells, and stromal necrosis were histologically evident within ocular tissue. CONCLUSIONS: Although mice are innately resistant to Candida infection after corneal inoculation, moderate to severe keratomycosis can be established in immunocompromised mice by the route of corneal scarification. Although differences between mouse strains and among immunosuppressive regimens remain to be explored, this murine model provides the basis for understanding the pathogenesis of fungal infections of the cornea.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A Hydrogel-Based Hybrid Theranostic Contact Lens for Fungal Keratitis
Huang, J.-F., Zhong, J., Chen, G.-P., Lin, Z.-T., Deng, Y., Liu, Y.-L., Cao, P.-Y., Wang, B., Wei, Y., Wu, T., et al. (2016) · ACS Nano · doi:10.1021/acsnano.6b00601 · Cited by 257
Self-citationCalcineurin controls drug tolerance, hyphal growth, and virulence in Candida dubliniensis
Chen, Y.-L., Brand, A., Morrison, E. L., Silao, F. G. S., Bigol, U. G., Malbas, F. F., Nett, J. E., Andes, D. R., Solis, N. V., Filler, S. G., et al. (2011) · Eukaryotic Cell · doi:10.1128/ec.00310-10 · Cited by 107
Molecular analysis of the pediatric ocular surface for fungi
Wu, T. G., Mitchell, B. M., Carothers, T. S., Coats, D. K., Brady-McCreery, K. M., Paysse, E. A., & Wilhelmus, K. R. (2003) · Current Eye Research · doi:10.1076/ceyr.26.1.33.14253 · Cited by 45
Self-citationJackson, B. E., Wilhelmus, K. R., & Mitchell, B. M. (2007) · Microbial Pathogenesis · doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2006.11.005 · Cited by 45
Self-citationChen, S. C.-A., Lewis, R. E., & Kontoyiannis, D. P. (2011) · Virulence · doi:10.4161/viru.2.4.16764 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Wu, T. G., Wilhelmus, K. R., & Mitchell, B. M.
- Venue
- Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
- Published
- 2003-01-01
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 210
- ISSN
- 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5783
- OpenAlex
- W2045996807
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Experimental Keratomycosis in a Mouse Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1167/iovs.02-0446
- The paper
- Wu, T. G., Wilhelmus, K. R., & Mitchell, B. M. (2003). Experimental Keratomycosis in a Mouse Model. Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.02-0446
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.