Table 2 Summary of benefits and limitations of the different animal models (see text for details and references)
| Non-pregnant animals | Pregnant animals | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | Popularity | Benefits | Limitations | Popularity | Benefits | Limitations |
| mouse | high |
- very well characterized - economical - large sample size possible - inbred strains available - immune reagents available - proven ability to model bacterial strain variability |
- mutation in receptor for InlA (Ecad) affects entry into enterocytes - susceptibility to infection differs by mouse strain - body size limits some manipulations | moderate/high |
- same as for non-pregnant animals - similarities to human - placentation well characterized |
- mutation in receptor for InlA (Ecad)affects crossing of placental barrier - small body size |
| rat | moderate |
- well characterized - economical - large sample size possible - inbred strains available - immune reagents available - body size optimal for certain manipulations - proven ability to model bacterial strain variability |
- mutation in receptor for InlA (Ecad)affects entry into enterocytes - quite resistant to infection | moderate |
- same as for non-pregnant animals - similarities to human placentation - body size optimal for certain manipulations |
- mutation in receptor for InlA (Ecad) affects crossing of placental barrier - quite resistant to infection |
| rabbit | moderate/low |
- well characterized - economical - large sample size possible - commonly used to generate antibodies - quite susceptible to infection | - InlB receptor (MET) polymorphism affects entry into cells such as hepatocytes | moderate/low |
- same as for non-pregnant animals - similarities to human placentation - body size optimal for certain manipulations | - mutation in InlB receptor (MET) affects crossing of placental barrier |
| guinea pig | moderate |
- well characterized - economical - large sample size possible - body size optimal for certain manipulations - ability to model bacterial strain variability |
- InlB receptor (MET) polymorphism affects entry into cells such as hepatocytes - quite resistant to infection - pathological lesions often limited to myocardium | high |
- same as for non-pregnant animals - similarities to human placentation - body size optimal for certain manipulations |
- mutation in InlB receptor (MET) affects crossing of placental barrier - quite resistant to infection |
| gerbil | increasing |
- quite susceptible to infection - functional receptors for InlA (Ecad) and InlB (MET) |
- not very well characterized - no immune reagents - small body size less economical | increasing | - same as for non-pregnant animals | - same as for non-pregnant animals |
| chinchilla | low | - highly susceptible |
- not well characterized - inlA &inlB receptor sequences unknown - no immune reagents less - economical | low | - same as for non-pregnant animals | - same as for non-pregnant animals |
| hamster | low | - economical |
- resistant to infection - inlA &inlB receptor sequences unknown small body size | low | - same as for non-pregnant animals | - same as for non-pregnant animals |
| primate | moderate | - close phylogenetic relationship to humans |
- ethical and economic considerations - limited sample size - no immune reagents | moderate | - same as for non-pregnant animals | - same as for non-pregnant animals |