Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Preclinical Models of Brucellar Spondylodiscitis

Written By

Xiaoyu Cai, Tao Xu, Maierdan Maimaiti and Liang Gao

Submitted: March 25th, 2021 Reviewed: June 7th, 2021 Published: July 1st, 2021

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.98754

Chapter metrics overview

131 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Brucellar spondylodiscitis, the most prevalent and significant osteoarticular presentation of human Brucellosis, is difficult to diagnose and usually yields irreversible neurologic deficits and spinal deformities. Relevant aspects of Brucella pathogenesis have been intensively investigated in preclinical models. Mice, rats, rabbits, and sheep are representing available models to induce Brucellosis. Evaluation of Brucellar spondylodiscitis may be performed using a large variety of methods, including plain radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, histological analysis, blood test, and bacteria culture. This chapter focuses on these preclinical models of Brucellar spondylodiscitis. The requirements for preclinical models of Brucellar spondylodiscitis, pearls and pitfalls of the preclinical model establishment, and comprehensive analyses of Brucellar spondylodiscitis in animals are also depicted.


  • Animal models
  • Preclinical models
  • Brucellar spondylodiscitis
  • Brucellosis

1. Introduction

Brucellosis, an infectious disease caused by the Brucellabacteria in both humans and animals, leads to a significant impact on the public health and the animal industry [1]. Since 1950, comprehensive measures against Brucellosis were undertaken in China and a great number of achievements had been made in its prevention and control [2]. It, however, remains a serious public health issue, and much remains to be accomplished to reach the goal of controlling human and animal Brucellosis in China. As the most common and significant osteoarticular presentation of human Brucellosis, Brucellar spondylodiscitis has a variable course with a long latency between the onset of symptoms and the radiologic changes’ appearance with and unspecific clinical symptoms, hindering an early intervention to prevent irreversible neurologic deficits and spinal deformities (Figure 1) [4, 5]. It is an endemic disease in areas of sheep farming, which is also widespread among farmers, animal breeders, veterinarians, and veterinary technicians as an occupational disease [6, 7]. Due to the late-onset radiological findings, slow growth rate in blood cultures, and complexity of the serodiagnosis, timely and accurate diagnosis of Brucellar spondylodiscitis is still a challenge for clinicians [8, 9].

Figure 1.

A typical case of noncontiguous multiple-level Brucellar spondylodiscitis with an epidural abscess in a 57-year-old man with a 6-month history of low back pain, restricted range of motion, fever, chills, and night sweating. (A) the midsagittal magnetic resonance imaging revealed increased signal intensity (arrows) involving the T2-T3, T8–9, T11–12, and L4–5 disks and vertebral bodies. (B) Pathologic signal changes were identified, compatible with a 14 × 8-mm paraspinal abscess (L5), with low signal intensity on T1-weighted images, high signal intensity on T2-weighted images, and post-contrast peripheral enhancement (arrow) [3].

Preclinical models exhibiting symptoms comparable to those in humans are essential for the translation of preclinical findings into clinical practice [10, 11, 12, 13]. Relevant aspects of the Brucella pathogenesis have been intensively investigated in both in vitroand preclinical in vivomodels. Several preclinical models are available to mimic Brucellar spondylodiscitis and provide beneficial platforms allowing the management and exploration of translational investigations of medical device and novel therapeutics [14, 15, 16].

This chapter focuses on these preclinical models of Brucellar spondylodiscitis. The requirements for preclinical models of Brucellar spondylodiscitis, pearls and pitfalls of the preclinical model establishment, and comprehensive analyses of Brucellar spondylodiscitis in animal models are also deliberated.


2. Requirements for preclinical models of Brucellar spondylodiscitis

Investigators have previously established Brucellosis models in many diverse animals [15], however the animal candidates for stimulating in vivoBrucellar spondylodiscitis should be suitable for both the implantation of the Brucellabacteria and the convenience for the anatomical morphology research (Table 1). Common requirements for preclinical models of Brucellar spondylodiscitis are diverse, including but not limited to:

  1. The geometrical size and anatomical structure of the animal spine should be comparable to the human spine.

  2. The biomechanical properties of the animal spine should be close to the human spine.

  3. The model needs reflect the clinical nature of the Brucellar spondylodiscitis.

  4. The radiographic characteristics of Brucellar spondylodiscitis in specific animals should be analogous to the human setting.

  5. The generated preclinical data can be translated into the clinical situation and further benefit the clinical treatments.

SpeciesCharacteristics of spineReferences
MouseSignificantly smaller size than the human spine
Different mechanical loading from the human spine
Advantages of easy surgical manipulations
[17, 18]
RatNormalized disc height in rats higher than that in humans
Vertebral dimensions varying more in rats than in humans
Vertebrae slenderer in rats than in humans
[18, 19]
RabbitSeven lumbar vertebral segments in rabbit and the lowest segment connected to the sacrum (similar to humans)
Biomechanical behavior of the lumbar spine comparable with the human lumbar spine
[18, 20, 21]
SheepSpine size larger than humans (particularly in vertebral body height and pedicle height)
Similar increasing trend of spinal canal width and depth to humans

Table 1.

Comparison of the spine structure of animal models of brucellosis.


3. Preclinical models of Brucellar spondylodiscitis

Mice, rats, rabbits, and sheep represent the available candidates to induce Brucellosis [23, 24, 25, 26]. However, the preclinical model of Brucellar spondylodiscitis with a possible high translational efficiency has only been established in rabbits so far [14].

3.1 Mice

Mice are the most extensively used to investigate chronic infections of Brucella[15]. Enright and colleagues constructed the Brucellosis model with the mouse by intravenous injection of 5 × 104 colony forming units (CFU) of either Brucellaattenuated strain 19 or Brucella abortusstrain 2308 to confirm Brucella abortusproduces a chronic granulomatous response in mice, and extend earlier studies in demonstrating that prominent acute and subacute inflammatory responses also occur [27]. Steven et al.made the mouse model with the method of intraperitoneal injections of 105 CFU of Brucellastrain 2308 or 107 CFU of either strain 19 or RB51 [28]. Tobias’ Brucellosis mouse model was built by intraperitoneally infected with 106 CFU of Brucella abortusstrain 2308 [29]. The spleen is the most heavily colonized organ with voluminous histiocytic infiltrates and multifocal microgranulomas [27, 28, 29]. Besides the spleen, the liver is also a common site for colonization and replication of Brucellain the mice [27, 30, 31]. Mice infected with virulent strains of Brucellahave mild to moderate hepatitis characterized by neutrophilic infiltrate at early stages of the infection, followed by histiocytic infiltrate with epithelioid cells and microgranulomas at its chronic stages [27, 29]. It is noteworthy that Brucellainfection in mice results in lesions that mimic those described in chronic infections in humans, and patients with chronic Brucellosis may develop splenomegaly and hepatomegaly [32]. In addition, multifocal granulomas with epithelioid macrophages are also detected in the liver or spleen parenchyma of patients who were infected with Brucella[33, 34]. Chronic infection of the Brucellain humans may also yield osteoarticular alterations, including osteoarthritis and spondylodiscitis [35]. Rajashekara et al.reported that mice may develop bacterial colonization in periarticular tissues during the chronic stages of Brucella melitensisinfection [36]. In mice surviving over 45 days after intraperitoneal infection of Brucella melitensis, the bioluminescent Brucella melitensiswere detected in the vertebral joints of their tails, suggesting that the mice might be a useful model for the study of human osteoarticular diseases, including the Brucellar spondylodiscitis [16]. Comparisons of disease manifestations (e.g. timing of the disease onset, structural alterations of the spines, and definite localization of the bacterial foci) between animal and human Brucellar spondylodiscitis would be beneficial for evaluating its potential translational values and further recognizing specific histological, radiographic, and clinical signs, allowing for an early detection and intervention of human Brucellar spondylodiscitis.

The mouse model has been utilized for the evaluation of the efficiency of different pharmacotherapies for human Brucellosis [37, 38, 39]. Several lines of evidence suggest that mice treated with ciprofloxacin, by subcutaneous (40 mg/kg), digestive (200 mg/kg), or intraperitoneal (20 mg/kg) route, are not able to control the infection of Brucellamelitensis. In contrast, mice treated with doxycycline (40 mg/kg) at 24 hours after infection efficiently clear the infection [38, 39]. Shasha et al.showed that mice administered intraperitoneally with doxycycline (40 mg/kg/day) or rifampin (25 mg/kg/day) had high levels of antibiotics in the blood following 1-hour postinjection (doxycycline: 5.4 μg/ml and rifampin: 18 μg/ml, respectively) and were able to clear the infection. The treatment regimen of the usage of doxycycline and rifampin is consistent with the therapeutic protocols of human Brucellosis.

3.2 Rats

The rats, more resistant to Brucellainfection than the mice [15], can develop the persistent bacteremia, and do not have a spontaneous cure over the 1-month infection [23]. Therefore, rats can serve as a model candidate to evaluate the increased susceptibility to Brucellainfection, which mimics the chronic symptoms in patients. Yumuk et al. analyzed the rat model by intraperitoneal injection of 2 × 105 to 4 × 105 CFU of Brucella melitensisstrain 16 M [23]. Moreover, the rat model has also been used to analyze the efficacy of various antibiotics to treat Brucellosis [40, 41, 42] and to evaluate the pathological properties and clinical characters of Brucellainfection during the pregnancy [43]. Also, the similar morphology of the spine at the axial plane between rats and humans supports their application as an applicable candidate for the spine research [19, 44]. Since patients with Brucellar spondylodiscitis are commonly detected at the late phase of the disease, rats, as the potential model of chronic Brucellar spondylodiscitis, may be beneficial to assist to exam specific remedies against those chronic manifestations within a clinically relevant setting.

The usefulness of pharmacotherapy has been investigated in the treatment for Brucellosis in the rat model. Geyik et al. reported that rats were administered orally with rifampicin (50 mg/kg/day) and doxycycline (40 mg/kg/day), or spiramycin (50 mg/kg/day), or a combination of spiramycin and rifampicin at the same dose for 21 days [40]. All the rats were cured with the treatment results that the effectivities of spiramycin and rifampicin plus spiramycin were similar to rifampicin plus doxycycline. This result is helpful for the effective alternative in the treatment of human Brucellosis. Furthermore, Sezak and colleagues proposed that moxifloxacin might be an alternative choice in the treatment of Brucellosis [42]. Doxycycline (10 mg/kg/day) plus rifampicin (6 mg/kg/day) were administered intragastrically in Yumuk’s study [41]. In the experiment group, all the rats received a liquid diet containing ethanol. The cure rate was 64.71% in ethanol-fed and 100% in ethanol free group. The results suggest that ethanol ingestion diminishes the efficacy of doxycycline plus rifampicin combination therapy of rat Brucellosis model, which holds implications for the treatment programme for human Brucellosis.

3.3 Rabbits

Compared with other animals, rabbits are medium-sized animals which frequently used in spine research with various advantages [45]. The rabbit spine maintains considerable morphological and structural similarities to the human spine, and its body size allows for an adequate exposure during the surgical interventions [46, 47]. Furthermore, rabbits yield higher possibilities than rodents to successfully translate preclinical discoveries into humans [48, 49]. Similarly, compared with larger animals, radiographic analyses are largely convenient in rabbits particularly for in vivoexplorations [50].

Age is a critical issue to be considered when establishing a rabbit model of local restricted Brucellar spondylodiscitis. The significant variance of the innate immune response between young and adult rabbits against infections of foreign microbes should be recognized [14]. Virus related studies highlighted the significantly superior innate immune system in young rabbits (<4 weeks) over adult rabbits, which contributed to their distinct susceptibility to virus infections [51, 52, 53]. These data may partially explain the fact that adult rabbits are only partially susceptible to Brucellainfection [15], and about 20% of infected animals developed a very short and sporadic bacteremia [25]. In contrast, our previous experiment within young rabbits showed that 83.4% (10 out of 12) rabbits were successfully infected by the intraosseous injection of 3 × 107 CFU of Brucella melitensisstrain M5–90 [14]. Moreover, to mimic a local restricted inflammation without systemic dissemination of the microbes, studies via a local injection intervention with a reduced dose within young rabbits can avoid the unanticipated animal death due to the local or systematic administration with a relatively larger dosage within adult rabbits. Therefore, even with a relatively smaller size of the spine than adult rabbits, young rabbits may be more suitable to establish such a local restricted model of Brucellar spondylodiscitis.

Of note, despite the animal model for Brucellar spondylodiscitis has been established in rabbits, no studies about its treatments are available for the rabbit Brucellosis.

3.4 Sheep

Although Brucellaovis is one of the few classical Brucellaspecies that do not have zoonotic potential, this organism is considered a major cause of reproductive failure in sheep [54]. The attenuated vaccine strain Brucella melitensisRev.1, against Brucellainfection of sheep and goats, are still the most efficient ones available among living vaccines [55]. When the bacteria are administered by the classic subcutaneous method (109 – 2 × 109 CFU) in the sheep, a long-lasting serologic response is subsequently yielded. Primary manifestations of Brucellaovis infection in sheep are lesions of the epididymis and testis in males (e.g., epididymitis and orchitis), placentitis and abortion in ewes, and occasionally perinatal death in lambs [56], as well as arthritis [57]. The sheep spine is relatively larger than humans, particularly in vertebral body width, which would be advantageous for the easier surgical operation [22]. However, sheep are expensive to house and the operation requires special settings, which also hinder the widely accessibility of this model [58].

Oxytetracycline combined with streptomycin were evaluated for eliminating Brucella melitensisfrom naturally infected sheep. The following treatment regiments were equally effective in eliminating Brucellain the sheep: oxytetracycline (20 mg/kg/day) intravenously daily for 6 weeks combined with streptomycin (20 mg/kg/day) intramuscularly for 3 weeks; long-acting oxytetracycline 20 mg/kg intramuscularly every 3 days for 6 weeks plus streptomycin 20 mg/kg intramuscularly every 3 days for 3 weeks; long-acting oxytetracycline mg/kg intramuscularly every 3 days for 6 weeks combined with streptomycin 20 mg/kg intramuscularly every 3 days for 3 weeks [59]. The data indicated the most effective and practical regimen for eliminating Brucellain the sheep.


4. Pearls and pitfalls of the preclinical model establishment

The key to establish the preclinical model is to implant the Brucellainto the superior zone of the anterior column of lumbar vertebral body (Figure 2). In rabbits, to boost a localized inoculation into the vertebral body and minimize the vascular dissemination, the Brucellabacteria should be meticulously implanted within the superior zone of the anterior column of the L6 vertebral body of rabbits, where the direct vertebral body feeding capillaries scantily supplied [14]. During the procedure, the insertion site, direction, and drill depth of the Kirschner wire should be properly monitored. The open surgery is recommended to expose the target vertebrae for the intraosseous injection rather than the radiograph-guided percutaneous injection to ensure an accurate localization of the bacterial inoculation. Also, to avoid iatrogenic nerve injuries intraoperatively, the different patterns of the level of the nerve root origin and adjacent vertebra in animals from humans need to be recognized.

Figure 2.

Schematic of the experimental challenge injection withBrucella melitensisinto the 6th lumbar vertebrae (L6) of rabbits [14].


5. Comprehensive analyses of Brucellar spondylodiscitis in preclinical models

Several techniques can be applied for the evaluation of Brucellar spondylodiscitis in animals. To observe the targeted vertebral body and intervertebral disc postoperatively, in vivoplain radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) analyses should be performed under a general anesthesia. Specifically, the MRI findings were classified into five types, such as discitis type, spondylitis type, paraspinal/psoas abscess type, appendicitis type, and compound type, with a previously reported classification system (Table 2) [14]. Histological analysis for samples biopsied from the affected intervertebral disc, upper and lower end-plates, paravertebral soft tissue, psoas, and granulation tissue is highly recommended for identify the pathological pattern of the infection [60]. The pathological characteristics of Brucellar spondylodiscitis in rabbits are the massive inflammatory cell infiltration without evident bony erosions within the biopsied paravertebral structures, including lymphocytes, monocytes, and multinucleated giant cells (Figure 3) [61]. Blood test and bacteria culture can be done to further investigate the pathophysiological status of Brucellar spondylodiscitis.

ClassificationMRI characteristics
DiscitisRegional inflammation involving intervertebral disc
Disc space narrowing
Low signal on T1-weighted image mixing high signal on T2-weighted image
SpondylitisRegional inflammation involving adjacent vertebrae
Vertebrae diffuse marrow edema
Homogeneous or uneven low signal on T1-weighted image of vertebrae
Paraspinal/ psoas abscessRegional inflammation involving paraspinal or psoas
Paravertebral abscess
Psoas abscess
AppendicitisRegional inflammation involving appendicitis
Low signal on T1-weighted image
High signal on T2-weighted image
CompoundEndemic inflammation involving two or more parts of vertebral and paravertebral structures
T1-weighted image reveals incomplete heterogeneous hypointensity
T2-weighted image reveals hyperintensity

Table 2.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) classification of Brucellar spondylodiscitis adapted from [14].

Figure 3.

Histological descriptions of the paravertebral soft tissue of Brucellar spondylodiscitis model in rabbits [14]. Hematoxylin and eosin staining features predominant lymphocyte and monocytes infiltration with sparsely distributed epithelioid cells and multinucleated giant cells. Yellow arrows indicate multinucleated giant cells and red arrows specify epithelioid cells. Yellow arrowheads define lymphocytes and red arrowheads display monocytes (magnification: (left) × 40; (right) × 100).


6. Preclinical evaluation of therapeutic interventions and vaccines

Pharmacotherapy is the main therapeutic intervention for the treatment of human Brucellosis, including Brucellar spondylodiscitis. Ciprofloxacin, doxycycline, rifampin has been utilized for the evaluation of the efficiency of different pharmacotherapies for human Brucellosis [37, 38, 39]. Different combination of rifampicin, doxycycline, and spiramycin or moxifloxacin were analyzed in rat Brucellosis model for the potential therapeutic options [40, 42]. Oxytetracycline combined with streptomycin were evaluated in the sheep for the test of practical and cost-effective treatment regimen for Brucellosis [59]. Additionally, as a new antibiotic carrier, the microspheres have been used to test for a treatment effect of Brucellainfection [62]. Microspheres based on poly (lactide-co-glycolide) wherein gentamicin entrapped have been tested to target gentamicin to the cells of the monocyte–macrophage system to reduce drug toxicity and control its release over several days [63]. However, Prior and colleagues reported that mice infected with virulent strains of Brucellaand treated with three intraperitoneal doses of 100 μg gentamicin microspheres were not able to reduce bacterial load in the spleen after 1 and 3 weeks posttreatment [37].

Surgery should be performed to treat Brucellar spondylodiscitis if the pharmacotherapy is poorly done. The indications for surgery included the following: persistent pain due to spinal instability, severe or progressive neurologic dysfunction due to nerve root compression by inflammatory granuloma or epidural abscesses, and no response to antibiotic therapy [9, 64]. The preclinical model is critical for the research of the improvement of surgery protocols. However, the rabbit model was originally developed for the study of Brucellar spondylodiscitis. Future studies are needed to further refine the surgical procedures.

By far, the quality of live vaccines that are commercially used for preventing animal Brucellosis is evaluated in mouse models. Live Brucella abortus(strain S19), which is the most widely used vaccine in cattle, has been tested in mice. The mice were previously treated with 105 CFU of Brucella reference strain S19 vaccine [15]. All mice were injected intraperitoneally with 105 CFU of Brucella30 days after the vaccination. The commercial vaccine is considered efficient when mice have a significantly lower bacterial load than the unvaccinated control group and when the vaccinated group has similar immunogenicity value to the mice group vaccinated with S19 reference strain [15]. Recently, a new candidate vector vaccine against human Brucellosis based on recombinant influenza viral vectors subtypes H5N1 expressing Brucellaouter membrane protein (Omp) 16, L7/L12, Omp19 or copper/zinc superoxide dismutase proteins has been developed [65]. The effectiveness of the new anti-Brucellosis vector vaccine was determined by studying its protective effect after conjunctival, intranasal and sublingual administration in doses 105 50% egg infective dose (EID50), 106 EID50 and 107 EID50 during prime and boost vaccinations of animals, followed by challenge with virulent strains of Brucellainfection. Double intranasal immunization of guinea pigs at a dose of 106 EID50, which provided 80% protection of guinea pigs from Brucellainfection [65]. The proposed vaccine has achieved the best level of protection, which in turn provides a basis for its further promotion.


7. Challenges and outlooks

During the past decades, significant progresses to diagnose and treat the Brucellar spondylodiscitis have been achieved [66, 67, 68, 69]. However, many obstacles still exist to be overcome in order to employ and utilize new strategies to refine early detection, diagnosis, therapy [70, 71]. Regarding the basic research, no appropriate vaccines exist due to an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms of human Brucellosis, including Brucellar spondylodiscitis. Clinically, the early and differential diagnosis of the Brucellar spondylodiscitis is challenging, especially in the early phases of the disease. Also, pharmacotherapy is the main clinical therapeutic modality for Brucellar spondylodiscitis and should be individually tailored; however, medication selection, administration, dosage, and duration are still largely debatable.

The ideal preclinical models should reflect the precise clinical characteristics of the human Brucellar spondylodiscitis and serve as a platform to explore the potential vaccines, examine novel diagnostic methods, and preselect innovative therapeutics [72, 73, 74]. More investigations in the future are still required to determine the optimal clinically relevant large preclinical model, to identify the efficacy-associated factors (e.g. age, joint size, gender, and dosage), to compare possible dissimilarities between models with local contained lesions or systematic spreading.


8. Conclusions

The pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment approach of Brucellar spondylodiscitis has recently become a clinical and research focus. Brucellar spondylodiscitis with highly variable clinical manifestations are practically challenging to be mimicked with laboratory preclinical models. More human-relevant preclinical models should be established to provide better insights into the sophisticated mechanism of human Brucellosis and early interventions of Brucellar spondylodiscitis.


  1. 1. Nicoletti P. Brucellosis: past, present and future. Prilozi. 2010;31(1):21-32
  2. 2. Yang H, Zhang S, Wang T, Zhao C, Zhang X, Hu J, et al. Epidemiological Characteristics and Spatiotemporal Trend Analysis of Human Brucellosis in China, 1950-2018. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(7)
  3. 3. Tekin R, Cevik R, Nas K. Noncontiguous multiple-level brucellar spondylodiscitis with an epidural abscess. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2015;48(5):638
  4. 4. Turgut M, Turgut AT, Koşar U. Spinal brucellosis: Turkish experience based on 452 cases published during the last century. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2006;148(10):1033-1044; discussion 44
  5. 5. Bozgeyik Z, Ozdemir H, Demirdag K, Ozden M, Sonmezgoz F, Ozgocmen S. Clinical and MRI findings of brucellar spondylodiscitis. Eur J Radiol. 2008;67(1):153-158
  6. 6. Zileli M, Ebeoglu A. Brucellar spondylodiscitis. ArgoSpine News & Journal. 2011;23(3):99-104
  7. 7. Kutlu M, Ergonul O, Sayın Kutlu S, Guven T, Ustun C, Alp S, et al. Risk factors for occupational brucellosis among veterinary personnel in Turkey. Preventive veterinary medicine. 2014;117
  8. 8. Araj GF. Update on laboratory diagnosis of human brucellosis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010;36 Suppl 1:S12-S17
  9. 9. Abulizi Y, Cai X, Xu T, Xun C, Sheng W, Gao L, Maimaiti M. Diagnosis and Surgical Treatment of Human Brucellar Spondylodiscitis. J Vis Exp. 2021:e61840
  10. 10. Gao L, Guo R, Han Z, Liu J, Chen X. Clinical trial reporting. Lancet. 2020;396(10261):1488-1489
  11. 11. Guo R, Gao L, Xu B. Current Evidence of Adult Stem Cells to Enhance Anterior Cruciate Ligament Treatment: A Systematic Review of Animal Trials. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(1):331-40.e2
  12. 12. Cai X, Gao L, Cucchiarini M, Madry H. Association of Nicotine with Osteochondrogenesis and Osteoarthritis Development: The State of the Art of Preclinical Research. J Clin Med. 2019;8(10)
  13. 13. Gao L, Goebel LKH, Orth P, Cucchiarini M, Madry H. Subchondral drilling for articular cartilage repair: a systematic review of translational research. Dis Model Mech. 2018;11(6)
  14. 14. Cai X, Xu T, Xun C, Abulizi Y, Liu Q, Sheng W, et al. Establishment and Initial Testing of a Medium-Sized, Surgically Feasible Animal Model for Brucellar Spondylodiscitis: A Preliminary Study. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:7368627
  15. 15. Silva TMA, Costa EA, Paixão TA, Tsolis RM, Santos RL. Laboratory Animal Models for Brucellosis Research. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology. 2011;2011:518323
  16. 16. Rajashekara G, Glover DA, Banai M, O'Callaghan D, Splitter GA. Attenuated bioluminescent Brucella melitensis mutants GR019 (virB4), GR024 (galE), and GR026 (BMEI1090-BMEI1091) confer protection in mice. Infect Immun. 2006;74(5):2925-2936
  17. 17. Daly C, Ghosh P, Jenkin G, Oehme D, Goldschlager T. A Review of Animal Models of Intervertebral Disc Degeneration: Pathophysiology, Regeneration, and Translation to the Clinic. BioMed Research International. 2016;2016:5952165
  18. 18. O'Connell GD, Vresilovic Ej Fau - Elliott DM, Elliott DM. Comparison of animals used in disc research to human lumbar disc geometry. (1528-1159 (Electronic))
  19. 19. Jaumard NV, Leung J Fau - Gokhale AJ, Gokhale Aj Fau - Guarino BB, Guarino Bb Fau - Welch WC, Welch Wc Fau - Winkelstein BA, Winkelstein BA. Relevant Anatomic and Morphological Measurements of the Rat Spine: Considerations for Rodent Models of Human Spine Trauma. (1528-1159 (Electronic))
  20. 20. Wu J, Xue J, Huang R, Zheng C, Cui Y, Rao S. A rabbit model of lumbar distraction spinal cord injury. (1878-1632 (Electronic))
  21. 21. Kroeber MW, Unglaub F Fau - Wang H, Wang H Fau - Schmid C, Schmid C Fau - Thomsen M, Thomsen M Fau - Nerlich A, Nerlich A Fau - Richter W, et al. New in vivo animal model to create intervertebral disc degeneration and to investigate the effects of therapeutic strategies to stimulate disc regeneration. (1528-1159 (Electronic))
  22. 22. Wilke HJ, Kettler A Fau - Wenger KH, Wenger Kh Fau - Claes LE, Claes LE. Anatomy of the sheep spine and its comparison to the human spine. (0003-276X (Print))
  23. 23. Yumuk Z, Küçükbasmaci Ö, Büyükbaba Boral Ö, Küçüker Anğ M, Dundar V. The effects of streptozotocin-induced diabetes on brucellosis of rats. FEMS Immunology & Medical Microbiology. 2003;39(3):275-278
  24. 24. If T, Na R. Comparative study of the susceptibility and infectious sensitivity of laboratory animals and sheep to different species of the causative agent of brucellosis. Zhurnal mikrobiologii epidemiologii i immunobiologii. 1971;48:97-101
  25. 25. Thorpe BD, Sidwell RW, Lundgren DL. Experimental studies with four species of Brucella in selected wildlife, laboratory, and domestic animals. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1967;16(5):665-674
  26. 26. Huddleson IF, Hallman ET. The Pathogenicity of the Species of the Genus Brucella for Monkeys. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1929;45(4):293-303
  27. 27. Enright FM, Araya Ln Fau - Elzer PH, Elzer Ph Fau - Rowe GE, Rowe Ge Fau - Winter AJ, Winter AJ. Comparative histopathology in BALB/c mice infected with virulent and attenuated strains ofBrucella abortus. (0165-2427 (Print))
  28. 28. Stevens MG, Olsen SC, Pugh GW, Jr., Palmer MV. Immune and pathologic responses in mice infected with Brucella abortus 19, RB51, or 2308. Infection and immunity. 1994;62(8):3206-3212
  29. 29. Tobias L, Cordes Do Fau - Schurig GG, Schurig GG. Placental pathology of the pregnant mouse inoculated withBrucella abortusstrain 2308. (0300-9858 (Print))
  30. 30. Izadjoo MJ, Mense Mg Fau - Bhattacharjee AK, Bhattacharjee Ak Fau - Hadfield TL, Hadfield Tl Fau - Crawford RM, Crawford Rm Fau - Hoover DL, Hoover DL. A study on the use of male animal models for developing a live vaccine for brucellosis. (1865-1674 (Print))
  31. 31. Kahl-McDonagh MM, Arenas-Gamboa Am Fau - Ficht TA, Ficht TA. Aerosol infection of BALB/c mice with Brucella melitensis andBrucella abortusand protective efficacy against aerosol challenge. (0019-9567 (Print))
  32. 32. Young JD. Brucellosis with hepatomegaly and splenomegaly
  33. 33. Colmenero Jde D, Queipo-Ortuño Mi Fau - Maria Reguera J, Maria Reguera J Fau - Angel Suarez-Muñoz M, Angel Suarez-Muñoz M Fau - Martín-Carballino S, Martín-Carballino S Fau - Morata P, Morata P. Chronic hepatosplenic abscesses in Brucellosis. Clinico-therapeutic features and molecular diagnostic approach. (0732-8893 (Print))
  34. 34. Akritidis N, Tzivras M, Delladetsima I, Stefanaki S, Moutsopoulos HM, Pappas G. The Liver in Brucellosis. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2007;5(9):1109-1112
  35. 35. Franco MP, Mulder M Fau - Gilman RH, Gilman Rh Fau - Smits HL, Smits HL. Human brucellosis. (1473-3099 (Print))
  36. 36. Rajashekara G, Glover Da Fau - Krepps M, Krepps M Fau - Splitter GA, Splitter GA. Temporal analysis of pathogenic events in virulent and avirulent Brucella melitensis infections. (1462-5814 (Print))
  37. 37. Prior S, Gander B, Irache JM, Gamazo C. Gentamicin-loaded microspheres for treatment of experimental Brucella abortus infection in mice. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;55(6):1032-1036
  38. 38. Shasha B, Lang R, Rubinstein E. Therapy of experimental murine brucellosis with streptomycin, co-trimoxazole, ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, pefloxacin, doxycycline, and rifampin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1992;36(5):973-976
  39. 39. Arda B, Tunçel M, Yaimazhan T, Gökengin D, Gürel O. Efficacy of oral levofloxacin and dirithromycin alone and in combination with rifampicin in the treatment of experimental murine Brucella abortus infection. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2004;23(2):204-207
  40. 40. Geyik MF, Dikici B Fau - Kokoglu OF, Kokoglu Of Fau - Bosnak M, Bosnak M Fau - Celen MK, Celen Mk Fau - Hosoglu S, Hosoglu S Fau - Ayaz C, et al. Therapeutic effect of spiramycin in brucellosis. (1328-8067 (Print))
  41. 41. Yumuk Z, Dundar V. The effect of long-term ethanol feeding on efficacy of doxycycline plus rifampicin in the treatment of experimental brucellosis caused by Brucella melitensis in rats. (1120-009X (Print))
  42. 42. Sezak N, Kuruuzum Z Fau - Cakir N, Cakir N Fau - Yuce A, Yuce A. Comparison of rifampicin and moxifloxacin efficacy in an experimental model of animal brucellosis. (1973-9478 (Electronic))
  43. 43. Siddiqur RM, Kirl BB. Clinical and pathological findings in experimental brucellosis in pregnant rats. (1972-2680 (Electronic))
  44. 44. Oláh T, Michaelis JC, Cai X, Cucchiarini M, Madry H. Comparative anatomy and morphology of the knee in translational models for articular cartilage disorders. Part II: Small animals. Ann Anat. 2021;234:151630
  45. 45. Subbian S, Bandyopadhyay N, Tsenova L, O'Brien P, Khetani V, Kushner NL, et al. Early innate immunity determines outcome of Mycobacterium tuberculosis pulmonary infection in rabbits. Cell Commun Signal. 2013;11:60
  46. 46. Wu J, Xue J, Huang R, Zheng C, Cui Y, Rao S. A rabbit model of lumbar distraction spinal cord injury. Spine J. 2016;16(5):643-658
  47. 47. Grilló MJ, Blasco JM, Gorvel JP, Moriyón I, Moreno E. What have we learned from brucellosis in the mouse model? Vet Res. 2012;43(1):29
  48. 48. Denayer T, Stöhr T, Van Roy M. Animal models in translational medicine: Validation and prediction. New Horizons in Translational Medicine. 2014;2(1):5-11
  49. 49. Mak IW, Evaniew N, Ghert M. Lost in translation: animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment. (1943-8141 (Print))
  50. 50. Sobajima S, Kompel Jf Fau - Kim JS, Kim Js Fau - Wallach CJ, Wallach Cj Fau - Robertson DD, Robertson Dd Fau - Vogt MT, Vogt Mt Fau - Kang JD, et al. A slowly progressive and reproducible animal model of intervertebral disc degeneration characterized by MRI, X-ray, and histology. (1528-1159 (Electronic))
  51. 51. Marques RM, Teixeira L Fau - Aguas AP, Aguas Ap Fau - Ribeiro JC, Ribeiro Jc Fau - Costa-e-Silva A, Costa-e-Silva A Fau - Ferreira PG, Ferreira PG. Immunosuppression abrogates resistance of young rabbits to Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease (RHD). (1297-9716 (Electronic))
  52. 52. Neave MJ, Hall RA-O, Huang N, McColl KA, Kerr P, Hoehn M, et al. Robust Innate Immunity of Young Rabbits Mediates Resistance to Rabbit Hemorrhagic Disease Caused by Lagovirus Europaeus GI.1 But Not GI.2. LID - 10.3390/v10090512 [doi] LID - 512. (1999-4915 (Electronic))
  53. 53. Trzeciak-Ryczek A, Tokarz-Deptuła B, Deptuła W. Expression of IL-1β, IL-2, IL-10, TNF-β and GM-CSF in peripheral blood leukocytes of rabbits experimentally infected with rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus. (1873-2542 (Electronic))
  54. 54. Blasco JM. Brucella ovis. Animal brucellosis. 1990;8:9-12
  55. 55. Blasco JM, Molina-Flores B. Control and eradication of Brucella melitensis infection in sheep and goats. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2011;27(1):95-104
  56. 56. Garin-Bastuji B, Blasco JM, Marín C, Albert D. The diagnosis of brucellosis in sheep and goats, old and new tools. Small Ruminant Research. 2006;62(1):63-70
  57. 57. Alhamada AG, Habib I, Barnes A, Robertson I. Risk Factors Associated with Brucella Seropositivity in Sheep and Goats in Duhok Province, Iraq. Veterinary sciences. 2017;4(4):65
  58. 58. Oláh T, Cai X, Michaelis JC, Madry H. Comparative anatomy and morphology of the knee in translational models for articular cartilage disorders. Part I: Large animals. Ann Anat. 2021;235:151680
  59. 59. Radwan AI, Bekairi SI, Mukayel AA. Treatment of Brucella melitensis infection in sheep and goats with oxytetracycline combined with streptomycin. Rev Sci Tech. 1992;11(3):845-857
  60. 60. Wang F, Ni B, Zhu Z, Liu F, Zhu YZ, Liu J. Intra-discal vancomycin-loaded PLGA microsphere injection for MRSA discitis: an experimental study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131(1):111-119
  61. 61. Hull NC, Schumaker BA. Comparisons of brucellosis between human and veterinary medicine. Infect Ecol Epidemiol. 2018;8(1):1500846
  62. 62. Prior S, Gander B, Lecároz C, Irache JM, Gamazo C. Gentamicin-loaded microspheres for reducing the intracellular Brucella abortus load in infected monocytes. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004;53(6):981-988
  63. 63. Prior S, Gander B, Blarer N, Merkle HP, Subirá ML, Irache JM, et al. In vitro phagocytosis and monocyte-macrophage activation with poly(lactide) and poly(lactide-co-glycolide) microspheres. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2002;15(2):197-207
  64. 64. Katonis P, Tzermiadianos M, Gikas A, Papagelopoulos P, Hadjipavlou A. Surgical treatment of spinal brucellosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;444:66-72
  65. 65. Bugybayeva D, Kydyrbayev Z, Zinina N, Assanzhanova N, Yespembetov B, Kozhamkulov Y, et al. A new candidate vaccine for human brucellosis based on influenza viral vectors: a preliminary investigation for the development of an immunization schedule in a guinea pig model. Infect Dis Poverty. 2021;10(1):13
  66. 66. Hammami F, Koubaa M, Feki W, Chakroun A, Rekik K, Smaoui F, et al. Tuberculous and Brucellar Spondylodiscitis: Comparative Analysis of Clinical, Laboratory, and Radiological Features. Asian Spine J. 2020
  67. 67. Unuvar GK, Kilic AU, Doganay M. Current therapeutic strategy in osteoarticular brucellosis. North Clin Istanb. 2019;6(4):415-420
  68. 68. Liang C, Wei W, Liang X, De E, Zheng B. Spinal brucellosis in Hulunbuir, China, 2011-2016. Infect Drug Resist. 2019;12:1565-1571
  69. 69. Zhang Y, Zhang Q, Zeng Z. Histopathological findings of nucleus pulposus in lumbar brucellar spondylodiscitis. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2019;52:e20180108
  70. 70. Lee H, Hur J, Lee J, Lee S. Brucellar Spondylitis. Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society. 2008;44:277-279
  71. 71. Zileli M, Ebeoglu A. Brucellar spondylodiscitis. ArgoSpine News & Journal. 2011;23
  72. 72. Zhang N, Fang M, Chen H, Gou F, Ding M. Evaluation of spinal cord injury animal models. Neural Regen Res. 2014;9(22):2008-2012
  73. 73. Sheng SR, Wang XY, Xu HZ, Zhu GQ, Zhou YF. Anatomy of large animal spines and its comparison to the human spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(1):46-56
  74. 74. Zhang Y. Animal models of inflammatory spinal and sacroiliac joint diseases. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2003;29(3):631-645

Written By

Xiaoyu Cai, Tao Xu, Maierdan Maimaiti and Liang Gao

Submitted: March 25th, 2021 Reviewed: June 7th, 2021 Published: July 1st, 2021