Domestic pigs experimentally infected with <i>Mycobacterium bovis</i> and <i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i> exhibit different disease outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Domestic pigs share many similarities with humans in their pulmonary anatomy, physiology, and immunology. Accordingly, pigs have been shown to be valuable models to study human tuberculosis (TB). Here we examined the outcome of disease in domestic pigs challenged via two different routes with either the human-adapted TB bacillus Mycobacterium tuberculosis or the zoonotic bovine TB bacillus M. bovis in head-to-head comparisons. We found that pigs challenged intravenously with M. bovis AF2122/97 exhibited severe morbidity and rapid onset of mortality, accompanied by higher tissue bacterial burden and necrosis compared to pigs challenged similarly with M. tb Erdman. Concordantly, pigs challenged with aerosolized M. bovis AF2122/97 exhibited reduced weight gain and more severe pathology than pigs challenged similarly with M. tb Erdman. Moreover, pigs aerosol-challenged with M. bovis AF2122/97 exhibited a spectrum of granulomatous lesions ranging from small well-contained granulomas to caseous-necrotic lesions mimicking active TB disease in humans. In contrast, pigs aerosol-challenged with M. tb Erdman exhibited arrested granuloma development. Irrespective of challenge dose and pathological outcome however, peripheral IFN-γ responses were similar in both M. bovis AF2122/97 and M. tb Erdman challenged pigs. This study demonstrates domestic pigs can support infections with M. bovis and M. tb and develop pathology similar to what is observed in humans. And although M. bovis AF2122/97 appears to be more virulent than M. tb Erdman, both strains can be used to model TB in domestic pigs, depending on whether one wishes to recapitulate either acute and active TB or latent TB infections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".