Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. Sao Paulo
56(1):1-11, January-February, 2014
doi: 10.1590/S0036-46652014000100001
REVIEW
ANIMAL MODELS FOR THE STUDY OF LEISHMANIASIS IMMUNOLOGY
Elsy Nalleli LORÍA-CERVERA & Fernando José ANDRADE-NARVÁEZ
SUMMARY
Leishmaniasis remains a major public health problem worldwide and is classified as Category I by the TDR/WHO, mainly due to
the absence of control. Many experimental models like rodents, dogs and monkeys have been developed, each with specific features,
in order to characterize the immune response to Leishmania species, but none reproduces the pathology observed in human disease.
Conflicting data may arise in part because different parasite strains or species are being examined, different tissue targets (mice
footpad, ear, or base of tail) are being infected, and different numbers (“low” 1x102 and “high” 1x106) of metacyclic promastigotes
have been inoculated. Recently, new approaches have been proposed to provide more meaningful data regarding the host response
and pathogenesis that parallels human disease. The use of sand fly saliva and low numbers of parasites in experimental infections
has led to mimic natural transmission and find new molecules and immune mechanisms which should be considered when designing
vaccines and control strategies. Moreover, the use of wild rodents as experimental models has been proposed as a good alternative
for studying the host-pathogen relationships and for testing candidate vaccines. To date, using natural reservoirs to study Leishmania
infection has been challenging because immunologic reagents for use in wild rodents are lacking. This review discusses the principal
immunological findings against Leishmania infection in different animal models highlighting the importance of using experimental
conditions similar to natural transmission and reservoir species as experimental models to study the immunopathology of the disease.
KEYWORDS: Animal models; Leishmania; Immune response.
INTRODUCTION
Leishmaniasis encompasses a group of diseases which are caused by
infection with protozoan parasites of the Leishmania (Kinetoplastida:
Trypanosomatidae) genus. They are still a major worldwide public
health problem considering they are endemic in 98 countries or
territories, with more than 350 million people at risk6. Moreover, it
is estimated visceral leishmaniasis (VL) causes over 50,000 deaths
annually, a rate only surpassed, among parasitic diseases, by malaria,
and 2,357,000 disability-adjusted life years lost, placing leishmaniasis
ninth in a global analysis of infectious diseases 6,28. Despite this
very strong data, leishmaniasis is largely ignored in discussions of
tropical disease priorities and is one of the most neglected tropical
diseases51,52. It has been pointed out that this consignment to critical
oblivion possibly “results from its complex epidemiology and ecology,
the lack of simple, easily-applied tools for case management and the
paucity of current incidence data, and often results in a failure on the
part of policy-makers to recognize its importance5,14. Political and
socioeconomic changes may have an even more important role than
global warming on the changing epidemiology of the leishmaniases,
as has been argued for tick-borne diseases in Europe91. The European
Centre for Disease Prevention and Control lists the leishmaniases among
the ten vector-borne diseases that have the greatest potential to affect
European inhabitants101.
The disease is transmitted to humans by sand flies and displays
different clinical manifestations, ranging from asymptomatic or
subclinical infection to disfiguring forms of cutaneous and mucosal
leishmaniasis or potentially fatal visceral disease 35,36,78,93. This
polymorphic outcome has been considered to depend largely on the
virulence of the infecting parasite strain, immunoregulatory effects of
sand fly saliva, as well as the host’s genetic background and immune
response31,60,62. In summary, the leishmaniases remain as unpreventable
and uncontrollable diseases; moreover, their epidemiological profile is
shifting towards an increased prevalence, and therefore novel instruments
and approaches to reach their control are urgently necessary.
Leishmaniasis is most likely to be controlled by a successful
vaccination program. The relatively uncomplicated leishmanial life
cycle and the fact that recovery from a primary infection renders the host
resistant to subsequent infections indicate that a vaccine is feasible55.
Many immunological aspects of the disease have been studied in
experimental animal models, such as mice, hamsters, domestic dogs
and non-human primates. Although most experimental models of
Centro de Investigaciones Regionales “Dr. Hideyo Noguchi”, Mérida, Yucatán, México.
Correspondence to: Elsy Nalleli Loría-Cervera, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Centro de Investigaciones Regionales “Dr. Hideyo Noguchi”, Laboratorio de Inmunología, Ave. Itzáes
No. 490 x 59-A, Mérida, Yucatán, México. Phone: 52-999 9246412 ext. 1155. Fax: 52-999 9236120. E-mail: nalleli.cervera@uady.mx
LORÍA-CERVERA, E.N. & ANDRADE-NARVÁEZ, F.J. - Animal models for the study of leishmaniasis immunology. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. Sao Paulo, 56(1): 1-11, 2014.
leishmaniasis have the major advantage of allowing control over the
genetics of both the parasite and the host, none of them, in any way,
reproduces the outcome of human infection by Leishmania spp49.
Among the main factors contributing to differences between humans
and animal models are the size and nature of the inocula, the infection
route and the strain of host or parasite37,60,70. Currently, small numbers of
in vitro-derived metacyclic promastigotes together with strongly bioactive
saliva, intradermal infection and host reservoirs as experimental animal
models are used to mimic the clinical and immunological features found
in human disease49. These approaches could contribute to developing
improved experimental models for studying leishmaniasis and identifying
possible targets to evaluate vaccine candidates.
The present review describes the most common animal experimental
models which have been employed to study the immune response to
Leishmania spp. and includes wild rodents. The main purpose is to
discuss the concept of experimental animal models to study leishmaniasis
immunology.
MOUSE MODEL
The laboratory mouse owes much of its popularity as a model
organism in biomedical research to the existence of a large collection of
inbred strains that represent an immortal population of genetic clones
derived by repeated brother sister mating. Because mice from each strain
are genetically identical it is possible to collect and combine biological
data over time and space leading to a depth of phenotype characterization
rarely achieved in other mammalian systems. Furthermore, the existence
of a definite set of genetic differences among inbred strains allows
scientists to explore the effect of genetic diversity on almost any
phenotype of interest107. Another advantage of the murine model is the
simplicity of keeping, breeding and reproducing them47.
During the past 40 years, murine models of the human disease
cutaneous leishmaniasis have been extensively employed to elucidate the
cell types, cytokines, signal transduction cascades and antileishmanial
effector mechanisms that are necessary for the control of parasites, as
well as for the clinical resolution of disease, resistance to a secondary
infection, and vaccine development18,73. Experimental infection of
mice with L. major promastigotes has allowed understanding of the
immunologic mechanisms governing resistance (C57BL/6 strain) and
susceptibility (BALB/c strain) to infection2.
Susceptibility has been correlated with the development of lesions
associated with a Th2 type of immune response, while the healing of
lesions in resistant mice has been correlated with the development of a
Th1 type of immune response98. The resolution of lesions in C57BL/6
mice has been shown to involve several factors contributing to the killing
of L. major within macrophages. The most efficient mechanism of
parasite killing involves the production of gamma interferon (IFN-γ) and
tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) by CD4+ Th1 cells, which stimulate
the synthesis of inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), generating the
production of nitric oxide (NO), a potent cytotoxin involved in the
clearance or inhibition of Leishmania parasites61,65,77.
In contrast, susceptible BALB/c mice develop severe and uncontrolled
lesions that lead to progressive disease and eventual death. This non2
healer phenotype has been shown to be associated with a parasite-specific
Th2 response characterized by the enhanced expression of deactivating
macrophage cytokines such as interleukin 4 (IL-4), interleukin 10 (IL10) and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β)11,94,98,. Studies of mouse
models of leishmaniasis have provided important insights into the
response of the host to infection. However, the use of different parasite
species, tissue targets (mice footpad, ear, or base of tail) and doses (105
to 107) of metacyclic promastigotes has generated a wide variety of
experiments that do not reproduce the natural infection and cannot be
extrapolated to human disease.’
In natural infections, the sand fly introduces into the skin a very small
number (possibly as few as 100 to 1,000) of metacyclic promastigotes
together with strongly bioactive saliva, whereas in laboratory infections
thousands to millions of culture-derived promastigotes or tissue-derived
amastigotes are injected with a saline solution or culture medium57.
In order to have a better understanding of natural Leishmania
infection in the laboratory, investigators are now using small numbers
of in vitro-derived metacyclic promastigotes and intradermal rather than
subcutaneous infection into the ears of mice49.
It was demonstrated, for example, that in mice inoculated with a
mixture of phlebotomine saliva and L. major promastigotes, the lesions
grew faster and were bigger than those of mice inoculated only with
promastigotes13.
The ability of saliva to enhance Leishmania infection has been
attributed to modulation of the host immune system, potentially
through anti-inflammatory properties such as down regulation of
antigen presentation, co-stimulatory molecule expression, and nitric
oxide production13, 81. However, vaccination by pre-exposure to the
bites of uninfected sand flies, with whole saliva or with defined salivary
proteins has shown to protect against cutaneous L. major infection97.
The frequent exposure to sand fly bites leads to the production of
neutralizing antibodies against salivary proteins and also to the activation
of cellular mechanisms that may have an adverse effect on Leishmania
establishment. In this perspective, characterization of immune responses
against sand fly saliva can help estimate both risk of infection and, to some
degree, anti-parasite immunity. Although this hypothesis has been proven
in animal models, additional large-scale clinical studies are necessary
to validate it in humans15. Although the regulation of host immune
response to Leishmania has been well defined in cutaneous L. major
infection of inbred mice, many studies have demonstrated that the host
responses within the same mouse strain could vary according to different
Leishmania species. Different virulence factors have been identified for
distinct Leishmania species, and there are profound differences in the
immune mechanisms that mediate susceptibility/resistance to infection
and in the pathology associated with disease66. For example, C57BL/6 or
C3H mice, which heal from L. major infection, develop chronic disease
when infected with either L. (L.) amazonensis or L. (L.) mexicana.
The characteristic chronic lesions of L. (L.) amazonensis infection
in C57BL/6 and C57BL/10 mice are independent of IL-4 expression
and corresponding Th2 response1,54. In addition, L. (L.) amazonensis
infection in C3H mice results in low levels of production of IL-12 and
IFN-γ by antigen-specific CD4+ T cells54. However, lesion development
and parasite burden have been shown to be exacerbated in the presence
LORÍA-CERVERA, E.N. & ANDRADE-NARVÁEZ, F.J. - Animal models for the study of leishmaniasis immunology. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. Sao Paulo, 56(1): 1-11, 2014.
of CD4+ T cells, demonstrating that T cells are activated during L.
(L.) amazonensis infection and that they contribute significantly to the
immunopathology of chronic disease103.
Eventually, splenic replication is controlled but parasites are usually
maintained for life58. Parasite persistence in mice is accompanied by
failure of granuloma formation and splenomegaly39.
Recently, it was demonstrated that susceptibility to L. (L.)
amazonensis in the mouse model of cutaneous leishmaniasis does not
depend only on the expression of IL-10. L. (L.) amazonensis parasites
persistent in IL-10-deficient mice; even in the presence of an enhanced
Th1 response during the early stages of infection and in the presence
of antigen-specific cells primed for Th1 effectors function during the
chronic phase53.
Due to the fact that visceral infection in BALB/c mice is chronic
but not fatal, it may be more appropriate to use it as a model for
studying self-healing or subclinical infection. Although experimental
murine models of VL do not allow exact extrapolations with subclinical
infection in humans they have been useful to identify genes and predict
their functional roles in the protective immune response. Genetically
resistant mice have the functional NRAMP1 gene which is involved in
macrophage activation16. The NRAMP1 gene encodes a protein expressed
on the membrane of infected macrophages and exerts an enhanced effect
on iNOS expression and generation of NO, restricting intracellular
Leishmania multiplication17. In this context, visceral infection in BALB/c
mice provides a good model for the evaluation of candidate vaccines.
Although the requirements for effective intracellular killing of L (L.)
amazonensis by activated macrophages are relatively unknown, it has
been demonstrated that the presence of both superoxide and nitric oxide is
necessary for efficient killing of amastigotes within LPS/IFN-γ–activated
bone marrow-derived macrophages generated from C3H mice74.
HAMSTER MODEL
Control of the closely related L. (L.) mexicana in C57BL/6 mice
has been shown to be IFN-γ and STAT4-dependent and surprisingly
independent of IL-12 production while the presence of IL-4, STAT6
and, perhaps as a consequence, the ability to generate Th2 responses,
are essential for the rapid lesion growth and nonhealing responses21,100,106.
Later on, it was demonstrated that endogenous IL-12 is only critical for
controlling the late but not the early stage of L. (L.) mexicana infection
in C57BL/6 mice; however, they fail to resolve lesions, in contrast to L.
major infection3.
As an evasion mechanism, L. (L.) mexicana promastigotes mediate
the phosphorylation of specific transcription factors to enhance iNOS,
COX-2 and arginase-1 expression in LPS induced macrophages via
TLR-4. The activities associated with all three enzymes are the main
factors leading to the downregulation of the IL-12 production in L. (L.)
mexicana infected macrophages102.
The significant differences in the immune response between the
Old World (L. major) and New World (L. mexicana/L. amazonensis)
Leishmania species not only point to interesting features of the
host-pathogen interaction and immunobiology of this genus of parasitic
protozoa, but also have important implications for immunotherapy
and vaccine development. A view of leishmaniasis that only considers
mouse model infection with L. major misses a wealth of interesting
immunobiology associated with other species of Leishmania66. Therefore,
our understanding of the mechanisms involved in mucocutaneous and
cutaneous diseases caused by these organisms remains limited.
Mouse models have also been used to study visceral leishmaniasis
caused by both L. donovani and L. infantum. Although the outcome of
murine VL infection is genetically determined, most susceptible mouse
strains including BALB/c are able to control visceral disease75. Following
Leishmania infection, BALB/c mice develop an organ-specific immune
response113. During the first weeks of infection, the parasites multiply
rapidly in the liver; however four weeks later, the mice develop an
effective Th1 immune response, clear the parasites and become resistant
to reinfection76. The hepatic resistance to Leishmania infection in these
mice is associated with the development of a granulomatous reaction in
the liver12. While pathology in the liver is limited, the parasites persist
in the spleen and the infection progresses for a longer period of time.
The Syrian golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus) is highly
susceptible to infection with visceralizing Leishmania species (L.
donovani, L. infantum) and is considered the best experimental
model to study visceral leishmaniasis (VL) because it reproduces the
clinicopathological features of human disease. However, the wide use of
hamsters is still limited due to the scarcity of reagents (e.g., antibodies,
cell markers and cytokines) of defined specificity available to study the
role of the immune response in disease pathology48,68,113.
In 1978, CHANG & DWYER provided quantitative evidence
indicating an avid ingestion of L. donovani amastigotes by hamster
macrophages and supported the early findings that lysosome-phagosome
fusion ocurrs26.
In order to understand the immune response to L. donovani infection
the nucleotide sequences of several hamster cytokine genes (IL-2, IL-4,
INF-γ, TNF-α, IL-10, IL-12 and TGF-β) were cloned and used to analyze
their expression in a model of visceral infection. In this hamster model
there was a pronounced expression of the Th1 cytokine mRNAs (IL-2
and IFN-γ), with transcripts being detected as early as one week postinfection. Surprisingly, although the basal expression of IL-4 was detected
in uninfected hamsters, their expression did not increase in response to
infection with L. donovani. IL-12 transcript expression was detected at low
levels starting seven days post-infection and its expression paralleled that of
IFN-γ. Additionally, the mRNA for TNF-α was increased within one week
of infection but levels did not increase further during the first month of
infection. Expression of IL-10, a potent macrophage deactivator, increased
in splenic tissue over the first four weeks after infection, suggesting that
this cytokine could contribute to progressive disease in hamsters. These
studies provided the first description of the molecular immunopathogenesis
of disease in hamsters and indicated that progressive disease in this model of
VL is not associated with early polarization of the splenic cellular immune
response toward a Th2 phenotype and away from a Th1 phenotype, offering
important insights into human disease67.
During progressive disease in the hamster model of VL, uncontrolled
parasite replication in the liver, spleen, and bone marrow occurred despite
the high activation of the immune response and the strong Th1-like
cytokine microenvironment. The failure in the control of VL could be
3
LORÍA-CERVERA, E.N. & ANDRADE-NARVÁEZ, F.J. - Animal models for the study of leishmaniasis immunology. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. Sao Paulo, 56(1): 1-11, 2014.
partially explained by the lymphoproliferative suppression process which
occurs during active disease45. Visceral infection caused by L. donovani
led to a gradual impairment of the proliferative response to parasite
antigens in hamsters79. The latter dysfunction has been attributed to the
inability of the infected antigen-presenting cells (APCs) to stimulate
specific T cells, the production of TGF-β which triggers the apoptotic
death of lymphocytes and the downregulation of protein kinase C
activity9,72,95. Interestingly, the antigen-dependent immunosuppression
observed in L. chagasi-infected hamsters with active visceral disease is
not related to the cytokine profile41.
Furthermore, the fatal outcome of the disease in the hamster model
has been related to the loss of macrophages effector functions. Indeed,
throughout the course of infection, inducible NO synthase (iNOS, NOS2)
mRNA or enzyme activity in liver or spleen tissue was not detected.
Thus, although a Th1-like cytokine response was prominent, the major
antileishmanial effector mechanism that is responsible for control of
infection in mice was absent throughout the course of progressive VL
in the hamster68.
Later on, it was shown that the lack of NO production was due to
a defect in the transcriptional activation of NOS2. Luciferase reporter
assays demonstrated that the hamster NOS2 promoter, like the human
NOS2 promoter, has reduced basal and IFN-γ/LPS-induced activity
compared with the mouse promoter. The mechanism described above
is the most probable reason for the inability of hamsters to control
Leishmania infection84.
The role played by infected macrophages in the development of the
cellular unresponsiveness present in visceral leishmaniasis has been
studied. Adherent spleen cells from infected hamsters were unable to
present L. donovani antigens to antigen specific T cells, however they
were able to present KLH. Conversely, T cells from infected animals did
not respond to parasite antigens even when these antigens were presented
by normal syngeneic macrophages. Interestingly, lymphocytes from
inguinal lymph nodes of infected animals sensitized in their footpad
with parasite antigens proliferated well when stimulated in vitro with
L. donovani antigens. These results suggest that the defect in the cellular
immune response of the L. donovani infected hamsters is a consequence
of a selective inability of their antigen presenting cells to process and
present parasite antigens to T cells95.
To date, progressive disease in hamsters has been mostly achieved
by the injection of a large number of parasites via the i.v., intracardial,
or i.p. routes. However, these routes of infection do not mimic natural
transmission by sand fly bite where the parasites are delivered into the
skin of a mammalian host in the presence of saliva. Recently, it was
demonstrated that a salivary protein of the sand fly vector Lutzomia
longipalpis protects against the fatal outcome of visceral leishmaniasis
caused by L. infantum in a hamster model. Immunization with 16 DNA
plasmids coding for salivary proteins of Lu. longipalpis resulted in the
identification of LJM19, a novel 11-kDa protein, that protected hamsters
against the fatal outcome of VL. LJM19-immunized hamsters maintained
a low parasite load that correlated with an overall high IFN-γ/TGF-β
ratio and iNOS expression in the spleen and liver up to five months
postinfection. Importantly, a delayed-type hypersensitivity response with
high expression of IFN-γ was also noted in the skin of LJM19-immunized
hamsters 48 hours after exposure to uninfected sand fly bites. Induction of
4
IFN-γ at the site of the bite could partly explain the protection observed in
the viscera of LJM19-immunized hamsters through direct parasite killing
and/or priming of anti-Leishmania immunity. These findings reinforce
the concept of using components of arthropod saliva in vaccine strategies
against vector-borne diseases44.
To better understand the hamster immune response to important
pathogens such as Leishmania, a duplex real-time reverse transcriptase (RT)
PCR assay was developed for the relative quantification of the mRNAs of
hamster cytokines, chemokines, and related immune response molecules.
The application of this assay to a biological model was demonstrated
in a cutaneous hamster model by comparing mRNA expression in skin
and lymph node tissues between uninfected and L. panamensis infected
hamsters. As a result, there was a relatively greater basal expression in
the LN compared to the skin for most transcripts (IL-4, CCR4, IL-21,
TNF-α, TGF-β, IFN-γ, IL-12p40, IL-10, and Foxp3). Conversely, the assay
identified that the basal expression of CCL22 and CCL17 mRNAs was
significantly greater in the normal skin compared to the LN. At an early
stage of infection(one week p.i. ) there was concomitant upregulation of
the type 1 (IFN-γ and IL-12p40) and type 2 (IL-4, IL-10, IL-13, and IL-21)
cytokines at the site of cutaneous infection, suggesting that a balanced type
1 and type 2 cytokine response contributes to the chronicity of the disease
caused by L. panamensis in hamsters40.
Undoubtedly, the hamster model may be helpful for understanding
the immunological mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of
visceral leishmaniasis. However, it is necessary to continue the efforts
of producing specific reagents (i.e. cytokine-specific and cell surface
markers of monoclonal antibodies) and develop more sensitive techniques
that allow the study of the immunopathogenesis of the disease, which
has important implications for the generation of therapeutic and vaccine
targets.
DOG MODEL
Wild canines and domestic dogs are the main reservoirs of zoonotic
visceral leishmaniasis caused by L. infantum in the Mediterranean area,
Middle-East, Asian countries and Latin America. The role of dogs as the
main reservoir of visceral leishmaniasis has led to an increased interest in
studying the immune response and finding Leishmania antigens implicated
in protective cellular immunity in canine visceral leishmaniasis. Recent
research has provided new insights on the epidemiology, pathology
and immunology of canine leishmaniasis and its genetic basis. These
new findings have led to better understanding of the disease, and have
also helped in the development of new diagnostic methods and control
measures against the infection, such as insecticide-impregnated collars
for dogs, new drugs, and second generation vaccines4,10.
Canine visceral leishmaniasis is a multisystemic disease with variable
clinical signs. Infected dogs may develop symptomatic infection resulting
in death, while others remain asymptomatic, or develop one or more
mild symptoms and are classified as oligosymptomatic27. The typical
histopathological finding in the skin, liver and spleen, is a granulomatous
inflammatory reaction associated with the presence of Leishmania
amastigotes within macrophages10.
Studies on experimentally infected dogs have demonstrated that
three years after infection, asymptomatic or resistant dogs responded to
LORÍA-CERVERA, E.N. & ANDRADE-NARVÁEZ, F.J. - Animal models for the study of leishmaniasis immunology. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. Sao Paulo, 56(1): 1-11, 2014.
L. infantum antigen both in lymphocyte proliferation assays in vitro and
in delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction, whereas no serum antibodies
to parasite antigen were shown. In contrast, symptomatic or susceptible
animals failed to respond to the parasite antigen in cell-mediated
assays both in vitro and in vivo and showed considerably higher serum
antibodies to leishmanial antigens, which are not immunoprotective. In
addition, peripheral mononuclear cells from asymptomatic dogs produced
significantly higher levels of IL-2 and TNF-α than symptomatic and
control uninfected dogs. Similar results were observed with a group of
mixed-breed dogs with natural Leishmania infections, also grouped as
asymptomatic or symptomatic on the basis of clinical signs of canine
visceral leishmaniasis85.
The main effector mechanism involved in the protective immune
response of dogs infected with L. infantum is the activation of
macrophages by IFN-γ and TNF-α to kill intracellular amastigotes via
the L-arginine nitric oxide pathway, as has been observed following
successful chemotherapy of L. infantum-infected dogs 112 . NO
production and anti-leishmanial activity has also been detected in a
canine macrophage cell line infected with L.infantum after incubation
with IFN-γ, TNF-α and IL-288, as well as in macrophages from dogs
immunized with killed L.infantum promastigotes82. Later on, it was
demonstrated that NO production may be involved in the long-term
protection of dogs against natural Leishmania infection and in the clinical
presentation of canine leishmaniasis83.
The local tissue cytokine response of dogs naturally infected with L.
infantum has been evaluated. The analysis revealed an enhanced INF-γ
mRNA accumulation in infected dogs which was positively correlated
with humoral, (IgG1) but not with lymphoproliferative, responses to the
Leishmania antigen. However, infected dogs with detectable IL-4 mRNA
had significantly more severe symptoms90. A balanced production of Th1
and Th2 cytokines was detected in the spleen of L. infantum infected dogs,
with a predominant accumulation of mRNA for IL-10 and IFN-γ that was
related to the parasitic load and to clinical progression59. Additionally, a
mixed cytokine profile with high levels of expression of IFN-γ, TNF-α
and IL-13 was determined in the skin of asymptomatic dogs naturally
infected with L. infantum. Moreover, the levels of transcription factors
GATA-3 and FOXP3 were correlated with the asymptomatic disease.
These results indicate that in addition to the mixed cytokine profile,
the enhanced expression of their associated transcription factors plays
an important role in the clinical status of Leishmania infected dogs69.
The role of Th2 type cytokines in canine VL has not yet been defined.
Evidence for Th1 and Th2 mixed responses has been reported in antigenstimulated PBMC from asymptomatic dogs experimentally infected
with L. infantum, which displayed IL-2, IFN-γ and IL-10 mRNA
transcripts. However, IL-2 and IFN-γ predominated in asymptomatic
dogs and the development of symptomatic infections could not be
related to IL-10 expression25. IL-10 mRNA transcripts were detected in
Con A-stimulated PBMC derived from dogs with clinical signs of VL87.
All of these results are in agreement with experiments in which PBMC
obtained from symptomatic VL dogs were stimulated by a recombinant
L. infantum cysteine proteinase and high levels of IL-10 were detected
by an ELISA assay. In contrast, low or undetectable concentrations of
this cytokine were found in PBMC supernatants from oligosymptomatic
and asymptomatic animals, respectively89.
Although IL-10 secreted by CD25+ CD4+-regulatory T cells has
been implicated in murine and human leishmaniasis, the involvement
of these cells in canine visceral leishmaniasis has not been explored.
Few studies have demonstrated the involvement of CD8+
lymphocytes in resistance to canine VL. These lymphocytes were detected
in asymptomatic dogs experimentally infected with L.infantum but not in
symptomatic animals, suggesting that direct lysis of L. infantum-infected
macrophages by cytotoxic T lymphocytes represents an additional
effector mechanism in resistance to VL86. In dogs naturally infected
with L. infantum, a reduction in both CD4+ and CD8+ populations was
observed, while restoration of these cells occurred after drug treatment19.
The use of dogs as experimental models to study visceral leishmaniasis
has led to elucidate the role of immune cells and their principal products
to better understand the possible mechanisms mediating immune response
during Leishmania infection, which may contribute to the development
of vaccines or immunotherapy.
Natural infection of domestic dogs with L. (V.) braziliensis, L. (V.)
peruviana, L. (V.) panamensis, L. (V.) colombiensis and L. (L.) mexicana
has been reported in Latin America30. To date, there is no solid evidence
that dogs act as reservoir hosts for the domestic transmission of CL92,99.
Most studies are designed to determine the prevalence of CL in dogs,
however, little is known about the parasitologic and immunologic course
of infection.
NON-HUMAN PRIMATE MODEL
Non-human primates are valuable models for biomedical research
because of their similarities to humans in anatomy, immunology and
physiology. However, they are expensive laboratory animals that are
difficult to obtain and to handle. Availability of a non-human primate
model of leishmaniasis would facilitate the study of different aspects
of this disease and would accelerate the development of vaccines and
testing of new drug candidates.
The Asian rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) are quite susceptible
to Leishmania infection: they develop a human-like disease, exhibit
antibodies to Leishmania and parasite-specific T-cell mediated immune
responses both in vivo and in vitro, and can be protected effectively
by vaccination46. Distinct histopathological patterns were observed in
Macaca mulatta lesions at biopsy, but healing lesions contained more
organized epithelioid granulomas and activated macrophages, followed
by fibrotic substitution in response to L. (L.) amazonensis infection7.
Interestingly in L. (V.) braziliensis infection, the presence of antigenspecific IFN-γ or TNF-α-producing CD4+ and CD8+ cells are likely
important for the immunological effectiveness of granulomas. However,
their resolution can be attributed to the concomitant recruitment of IL10-producing CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells that suppress the effector
T-cell mediated inflammatory response 32,105. The progression and
resolution of skin lesions caused by both Leishmania species appears
to be very similar to that observed in humans, confirming the potential
for this monkey as a viable surrogate to study the immune response in
human cutaneous leishmaniasis7.
Macaques have also been used to explore immune response against
L. major infection. Infected animals develop a simple cutaneous lesion
which progresses spontaneously to ulceration and complete resolution
5
LORÍA-CERVERA, E.N. & ANDRADE-NARVÁEZ, F.J. - Animal models for the study of leishmaniasis immunology. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. Sao Paulo, 56(1): 1-11, 2014.
within about three months which is associated with a non-specific
chronic inflammation and/or tuberculoid-type granulomatous reaction.
Additionally, macaques develop varying levels of resistance against
homologous re-infection as it happens in humans. Thus, the importance
of this model in experimental CL lies in the reproduction of clinical and
histopathological features that are common in L. major-infected humans
and in the resistance to secondary infection, indicating the development
of an acquired immunity8.
New World primates, such as owl monkeys (Aotus trivirgatus),
squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus), and marmosets (Callithrix jaccus
jaccus) have been considered potential hosts for studying visceral
leishmaniasis. Owl monkeys develop a visceral disease characterized by
weight loss, anemia and hepatosplenomegaly. Its high susceptibility to
L. donovani infection suggest it may be useful for the study of VL20. In
contrast, squirrel monkeys develop a visceral disease when infected with
L. donovani but are able to recover from disease and became resistant
to reinfection34.
Although little is known about immune response to Leishmania
infection in monkeys, they are frequently used as models for preclinical
testing of Leishmania candidate vaccines. The safety, immunogenicity,
and efficacy of a vaccine combining heat-killed L. (L.) amazonensis
with human rIL-12 (rhIL-12) and alum (aluminium hydroxide gel)
as adjuvants was evaluated in rhesus macaques. The single s.c.
vaccination was found to be safe and immunogenic, although a small
transient s.c. nodule developed at the vaccination site. Groups receiving
rhIL-12 had an augmented in vitro Ag-specific IFN-γ response after
vaccination, as well as increased production of IgG. Furthermore,
intradermal forehead challenge infection with 107 metacyclic L. (L.)
amazonensis promastigotes at four weeks demonstrated protective
immunity in all monkeys receiving rhIL-12 with alum and Ag. Thus,
a single dose vaccine with heat-killed Leishmania using rhIL-12 and
alum as adjuvants was safe and fully protective in a primate model of
cutaneous leishmaniasis56.
Successful vaccination has been achieved against visceral
leishmaniasis by intradermal inoculation of alum-precipitated autoclaved
L. major with BCG (bacile Calmette-Guérrin) and autoclaved L. donovani
with BCG in Indian langurs. Vaccinated animals show a delayed
protection and significant lymphoproliferative response with high levels
of IFN-γ and IL-238,71.
Attempts were made to reproduce the spectrum of human visceral
leishmaniasis due to L. donovani in Vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus
pygerythrus). Both symptomatic and asymptomatic/cryptic infections
were observed. However asymptomatic infected animals had competent
humoral and cellular responses to homologous parasites43.
The development of a non-human primate model of leishmaniasis,
which largely mimics the human situation, is described for studies of
different aspects of the disease that would not be possible in humans
for ethical reasons. However, for financial and ethical reasons, the use
of primates in biomedical research is limited. Studies involving these
animals have, therefore, been tailored to solve questions that cannot be
answered in other animals. Monkeys are normally the final experimental
animals to be used in studies of the safety and efficacy of vaccines and
drugs developed in other laboratory animals48.
6
WILD RODENTS
Classical laboratory inbred strains of mice have been extremely
helpful for research in immunology and oncology. Unfortunately, because
they all derive from a relatively small pool of ancestors, their genetic
polymorphism is rather limited47.
A new approach to study host-parasite relationships has been the
use of wild rodents, particularly primary reservoirs, as experimental
animal models. They are, as the human being, genetically polymorphic
and represent an emerging system for the genetic analyses of the
physiological and behavioral bases of habitat adaptation47. Laboratory
studies using natural hosts as experimental models provide a suitable
indication of the importance of these hosts as reservoirs, since it allows a
better understanding of the dynamics of infection, especially concerning
the ability to retain the infection and amplify parasite populations in a
given environment, due to features that favor parasite transmission (e.g.,
presence of parasites in the skin). Moreover, the study of these rodents
could allow the understanding of the mechanisms involved in immune
activation during nonpathogenic and pathogenic infections, to clarify
how the reservoir immune response regulates Leishmania infection and
how the parasites evade a sterilizing immune response.
The role of several species of rodents as wild reservoirs of Leishmania
species is well known24,33,96,110. However, there are only a few studies that
followed up experimentally infected wild hosts by Leishmania species,
mostly due to the difficulties of managing wild mammals in captivity.
To date the host-parasite interactions involved in persistent infections in
different Leishmania reservoirs are unknown.
Sigmodon hispidus has been identified as Leishmania reservoir,
however no studies of experimental infection have been carried out with
this pathogen33. Currently Sigmodon hispidus is used as a model for
the study of various infectious diseases, mainly caused by viruses and
bacteria, due to its high susceptibility to a wide variety of pathogens80.
A large number of cytokine and chemokine genes have been cloned and
sequenced and monoclonal antibodies have been generated in order to
facilitate its use as an experimental animal model. Recently, low levels of
NO production and iNOS expression similar to human macrophages were
found in Sigmodon hispidus infected with bacteria23. These similarities
could explain the high susceptibility of this rodent to human pathogens.
Thrichomys laurentius is a South American caviomorph rodent
formerly included in a monospecific genus, in which the importance of
the retention of infection and transmission of Leishmania species has
been established. These rodents were found infected with Leishmania
species of different complexes – L. (L.) mexicana and L. donovani – in
an endemic area of both visceral and tegumentary leishmaniasis in
Brazil. Thrichomys laurentius was adapted to captivity and experimental
patterns of L. infantum and L. braziliensis infections were identified in
this rodent. Both Leishmania species demonstrated the ability to invade
and persist in the viscera and skin of T. laurentius, yet no rodent displayed
skin lesions, histological changes in skin, spleen or liver, nor clinical
evidence of infection96.
In the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico, Peromyscus yucatanicus has been
identified as primary reservoir of L. (L.) mexicana22,109. It has been adapted
to the laboratory and a colony was established for experimental studies.
LORÍA-CERVERA, E.N. & ANDRADE-NARVÁEZ, F.J. - Animal models for the study of leishmaniasis immunology. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. Sao Paulo, 56(1): 1-11, 2014.
P. yucatanicus inoculated with 106 promastigotes of L. (L.) mexicana on
the base of the tail reproduced both the clinical and histopathological
picture of CL in humans, supporting its utility as a novel experimental
model to study CL caused by L. (L.) mexicana104. Moreover 100% of P.
yucatanicus inoculated with 102 (“low inoculum”) developed subclinical
infection (absence of clinical signs and evidence of parasite´s DNA at
the site of inocula) and when immunosupressed with cyclophosphamide
a reactivation with the appearance of lesions was observed29. Nitric
oxide production was documented in co-cultured macrophages and
lymphocytes from P. yucatanicus with clinical and subclinical infection
caused by L. (L.) mexicana64. Although NO production was observed in
these wild rodents, they were unable to clear the infection, which differs
with the response observed in murine models where the generation
of NO is the main effector mechanism involved in the control of L.
major infection. Similarly, the role of this cytotoxic molecule in the
antileishmanial activity of human macrophages remains controversial42.
Recently cDNAs of Th1, Th2 and Th17 cytokines have been amplified
from P. yucatanicus spleen cells by PCR using P. maniculatus primers
cloned into TOPO TA cloning vector and sequenced63,111. These results
strongly support employing P. maniculatus specific primers to study the
kinetics of cytokines involved in the immune response against clinical and
subclinical L. (L.) mexicana infection in P. yucatanicus. This approach
will allow the quantifying and analyzing of the expression of important
cytokines, transcription factors and cellular markers involved in the
immune response to L. (L.) mexicana infection in a specific manner. It will
also permit to determine the immune response leading to the clinical and
subclinical infection in Yucatan deer mice and compare with the immune
response observed in humans, in order to confirm its importance as an
experimental model to study LCL caused by L. (L.) mexicana.
CONCLUSIONS
First of all, there is a worldwide agreement regarding the concept
that experimental animal models are expected to mimic the pathological
features and immunological responses observed in humans when
exposed to a variety of Leishmania spp. with different pathogenic
characteristics50. This approach deserves to be re-analyzed based on
updated studies.
What does it mean to “mimic the patholgical features”? It is clear
to date that the outcomes of the infection depend on a variety of factors
in each particular laboratory animal including: a) the Leishmania spp.
inoculated; b) the virulence of the parasite isolate used; c) the parasite
stage, via, size, and route of the inoculum. In addition, the nature of
each laboratory animal, i.e. the genetic makeup that relates to the
immunological background, which plays an important role in hostparasite realtionships. Moreover, when we say “leishmaniasis” as so “the
leishmaniases”, we are referring to a group of diseases that are caused
by different species of protozoan parasites of the genus Lesihmania.
We have been trying (as it has been done in other pathologies such as
“cancer”) to include different diseases as a single pathological entity.
Therefore, shouldn’t we develop a different experimental animal model
for each leishmaniasis?
It is well known that infection begins when an infected female sand
fly takes a blood meal from a human host in a leishmaniasis endemic
area. Following inoculation into the skin by the sand fly bite, the
flagellated promastigotes penetrate into the macrophage, transform into
amastigotes and multiply. The infected macrophage eventually bursts and
the released parasites are able to infect new phagocytic cells. When the
infected host is bitten by another female sand fly, parasites are ingested
and the life cycle continues. The course of the disease is variable ranging
from spontaneous healing to chronicity, but most infected individuals
remain asymptomatic or subclinical. Therefore, there is a wide infection
spectrum as a result of the parasite inoculation. As a consequence it is
necessary to study the significance of subclinical infection in humans and
other hosts. Therefore, when building a “good” animal model to study
leishmaniasis immunology, should we consider all the possible outcomes
of the Leishmania spp. infection, particularly subclinical infection?
With reference to the suggested requirement to “mimic immunological
responses observed in humans” when exposed to a particular Leishmania
spp., the problem becomes more complex if we consider that it varies
depending on multiple factors according to present knowledge of the
host-parasite interaction. In a recent work of the Working Group on
research Priorities for Development of Leishmania Vaccines, a good
review was made on vaccine trials in the last three decades, the profile
of strategies, and animal models used in leishmaniasis trials108. The main
questions raised encompassed issues concerning all of the leishmaniases.
They have addressed the employment of live attenuated or genetically
modified parasites, the role of vectors, and elucidation of protective
immunity. Regarding the last issue, they considered it crucial to test
vaccine candidates in different models using different species, and to
test the effects of including salivary proteins of vectors. The major
challenge is the absence of an experimental animal model that mimics
the whole picture of human leishmaniasis, i.e. different subclinical and
clinical outcomes and protective immune response. This situation leads
to the necessary development of research studies focused mainly on
building new animal models capable of evaluating the same criteria in
both models and humans.
The use of wild rodents, primary reservoirs, as experimental models
for studying Leishmania infection could be very useful to elucidate their
role as reservoirs so as to improve our knowledge about the parasitevector and parasite-host relationship, in order to understand what happens
in human Leishmania infections.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
The use of experimental animal models remains a good alternative
for designing immunological studies that, for ethical reasons, cannot
be performed in humans. Certainly, the increased interest in studying
the immune response against Leishmania infection in different
animal models has contributed to our understanding of parasite-host
relationship. However no model can develop all the possible outcomes
of the Leishmania infection or entirely reproduce the disease in humans.
Thus, there are still so many questions to answer in order to find control
strategies or a successful vaccination program.
Although mouse model has widely contributed to the understanding
of immune response against L. major infection many studies have
demonstrated profound differences in the immune mechanisms related
to infections with New World Leishmania species. Furthermore,
visceral infection in mice does not mimic the pathological features
and immunological responses observed in human cases. The hamster
7
LORÍA-CERVERA, E.N. & ANDRADE-NARVÁEZ, F.J. - Animal models for the study of leishmaniasis immunology. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. Sao Paulo, 56(1): 1-11, 2014.
result is a better model to study the progressive disease of visceralizing
Leishmania spp. The lack of reagents for immunological analysis and
the strong immunosuppression of the lymphoproliferative response in
hamsters make difficult its use for the evaluation of vaccine candidates.
The increased interest of researchers to use dogs as experimental
models lies in the possibility of studying the immune response in
natural infection. Since dogs are important reservoirs of visceralizing
Leishmania, vaccination of these animals would constitute a major step
towards the control of human infections. Finally, the use of monkeys has
been explored for testing vaccine candidates, however little is known as
to whether the immune response to Leishmania infection is similar to
that observed in humans.
In order to obtain more meaningful data regarding immune response
that parallels human disease it is very important to continue with the
efforts in developing strategies to mimic natural transmission such as
the use of low infectious doses, bioactive saliva and natural reservoir
hosts to have a better approximation of the dynamics of natural infection.
These approaches could contribute to developing improved experimental
models for studying leishmaniasis and identifying possible targets to
evaluate vaccine candidates.
RESÚMEN
Modelos animales para el estudio de la inmunología de la
leishmaniosis
Las leishmaniosis siguen siendo un importante problema de
salud pública a nivel mundial y se clasifican como categoría I por el
programa TDR/WHO, debido principalmente a la ausencia de control.
Muchos modelos experimentales tales como roedores, perros y monos
han sido desarrollados, cada uno con características específicas,
para caracterizar la respuesta inmune a las diferentes especies de
Leishmania, sin embargo ninguno reproduce la patología observada
en la enfermedad humana. La diversidad en los resultados obtenidos
podría deberse en parte a que diferentes cepas de parásitos o especies
están siendo examinadas, diferentes tejidos (cojinete plantar, oreja o
base de la cola) han sido infectados y diferente número (“bajo” 1x102
y “alto” 1x106) de promastigotes metacíclicos han sido inoculados.
Recientemente, nuevos enfoques han sido propuestos con el fin de
obtener datos más significativos en cuanto a la respuesta inmune del
huésped y a la patogénesis, de tal forma que reproduzcan lo que ocurre
en la enfermedad humana. El uso de la saliva del insecto y de un número
de parásitos menor en las infecciones experimentales ha permitido
reproducir la transmisión natural, identificar nuevas moléculas, así
como mecanismos inmunes que deberían ser considerados en el
diseño de vacunas y estrategias de control. Adicionalmente, se ha
propuesto como una buena alternativa el uso de roedores silvestres
como modelos experimentales tanto para el estudio de las relaciones
huésped-patógeno como para probar nuevas vacunas. A la fecha, el uso
de reservorios naturales para estudiar la infección por Leishmania ha
sido un reto, debido a la carencia de reactivos inmunológicos para uso
en roedores silvestres. Esta revisión describe los principales hallazgos
inmunológicos ante la infección por Leishmania, en los diferentes
modelos animales, destacando la importancia del uso de condiciones
experimentales similares a la transmisión natural y de reservorios
como modelos experimentales para el estudio de la inmunopatología
de la enfermedad.
8
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To Dr. Bruno Travi for editing the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Afonso LC, Scott P. Immune responses associated with susceptibility of C57BL/10
mice to Leishmania amazonensis. Infect Immun. 1993;61:2952-9.
2. Aguilar-Torrentera F, Carlier Y. Immunological factors governing resistance and
susceptibility of mice to Leishmania major infection. Rev Latinoam Microbiol.
2001,43:135-42.
3. Aguilar-Torrentera F, Laman JD, Van Meurs M, Adorini L, Muraille E, Carlieri, Y.
Endogenous interleukin-12 is critical for controlling the late but not the early stage
of Leishmania mexicana infection in C57BL/6 mice. Infect Immun. 2002;70:5075-80.
4. Alvar J, Cañavate C, Molina R, Moreno J, Nieto J. Canine leishmaniasis. Adv Parasitol.
2004;57:1-64.
5. Alvar J, Yactayo S, Bern C. Leishmaniasis and poverty. Trends Parasitol. 2006;22:552-7.
6. Alvar J, Vélez ID, Bern C, Herrero M, Desjeux P, Cano J, et al. Leishmaniasis worldwide
and global estimates of its incidence. PLoS One. 2012;7:e35671.
7. Amaral VF, Pirmez C, Gonçalves AJS, Ferreira V, Grimaldi G Jr. Cell populations in
lesions of cutaneous leishmaniasis of Leishmania (L.) amazonensis-infected Rhesus
macaques, Macaca mulata. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2000;95:209-16.
8. Amaral VF, Teva A, Porrozzi R, Silva AJ, Pereira MS, Oliveira-Neto MP, et al.
Leishmania (Leishmania) major-infected Rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta)
develop varying levels of resistance against homologous re-infections. Mem Inst
Oswaldo Cruz. 2001;96:795-804.
9. Banerjee R, Kumar S, Sen A, Mookerjee A, Roy S, Pal S, et al. TGF-β-regulated
tyrosine phosphatases induce lymphocyte apoptosis in Leishmania donovani-infected
hamsters. Immunol Cell Biol. 2010;89:466-74.
10. Baneth G, Koutinas AF, Solano-Gallego L, Bourdeau P, Ferrer L. Canine leishmaniasisnew concepts and insights on an expanding zoonosis: part one. Trends Parasitol.
2008;24:324-30.
11. Barral-Netto M, Barral A, Brownell CE, Skeiky YAW, Ellingsworth LR, Twardzik
DR, et al. Transforming growth factor-β in leishmanial infection: a parasite escape
mechanism. Science. 1992;257:545-8.
12. Beattie L, Peltan A, Maroof A, Kirby A, Brown N, Coles M, et al. Dynamic imaging
of experimental Leishmania donovani-induced hepatic granulomas detects Kupffer
cell-restricted antigen presentation to antigen-specific CD8+ T cells. PLoS Pathog.
2010;6:e1000805.
13. Belkaid Y, Kamhawi S, Modi G, Valenzuela J, Noben-Trauth N, Rowton, E, et al.
Development of a natural model of cutaneous leishmaniasis: powerful effects of
vector saliva and saliva preexposure on the long-term outcome of Leishmania major
infection in the mouse ear dermis. J Exp Med. 1998;188:1941-53.
14. Bern C, Maguire JH, Alvar J. Complexities of assessing the disease burden attributable
to leishmaniasis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008;2:e313.
15. Bezerril Andrade B, Teixeira CR. Biomarkers for exposure to sand flies bites as tools
to aid control of leishmaniasis. Front Immunol. 2012;3:121-7.
16. Blackwell JM, Fakiola M, Ibrahim ME, Jamieson SE, Jeronimo SB, Miller EN,
et al. Genetics and visceral leishmaniasis: of mice and man. Parasite Immunol.
2009;31:254-66.
17. Blackwell JM, Goswami T, Evans CAW, Sibthorpe D, Papo N, White JK, et al. SLC11A1
(formely NRAMP1) and disease resistance. Cell Microbiol. 2011;3:773-84.
LORÍA-CERVERA, E.N. & ANDRADE-NARVÁEZ, F.J. - Animal models for the study of leishmaniasis immunology. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. Sao Paulo, 56(1): 1-11, 2014.
18. Bogdan C, Röllinghoff M. The immune response to Leishmania: mechanisms of parasite
control and evasion. Int J Parasitol. 1998;28:121-34.
36. Desjeux P. Leishmaniasis: current situation and new perspectives. Comp Immunol
Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004;27:305-18.
19. Bourdoiseau G, Bonnefont C, Hoareau E, Boehringer C, Stolle T, Chabanne L. Specific
IgG1 and IgG2 antibody and lymphocyte subset levels in naturally Leishmania
infantum infected treated and untreated dogs. Vet Immunol Immunopathol.
1997;59:21-30.
37. Doherty TM, Coffman RL. Leishmania major: effect of infectious dose on T cell subset
development in BALB/c mice. Exp Parasitol. 1996;84:124-35.
20. Broderson JR, Chapman Jr WL, Hanson WL. Experimental visceral leishmaniasis in
the owl monkey. Vet Pathol. 1986;23:293-302.
21. Buxbaum LU, Uzonna JE, Goldschmidt MH, Scott P. Control of New World cutaneous
leishmaniasis is IL-12 independent but STAT4 dependent. Eur J Immunol.
2002;32:3206-12.
22. Canto-Lara SB, Van Wynsberghe NR, Vargas-Gonzalez A, Ojeda-Farfán FF, AndradeNarváez, FJ. Use of monoclonal antibodies for the identification of Leishmania spp.
from humans and wild rodents in the State of Campeche, Mexico. Mem Inst Oswaldo
Cruz. 1999;94:305-9.
23. Carsillo M, Kutala VK, Puschel K, Blaco J, Kuppusamy P, Niewiesk S. Nitric oxide
production and nitric oxide synthase type expression by cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus) macrophages reflect the same pattern as human macrophages. Dev Comp
Immunol. 2009;33:718-24.
24. Chable-Santos JB, Van Wynsberghe NR, Canto-Lara SB, Andrade-Narváez FJ. Isolation
of Leishmania (Leishmania) mexicana from wild rodents and their possible role in
the transmission of localized cutaneous leishmaniasis in the State of Campeche,
Mexico. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1995;53:141-5.
25. Chamizo C, Moreno J, Alvar J. Semi-quantitative analysis of cytokine expression in
asymptomatic canine leishmaniasis. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2005;103:67-75.
26. Chang KP, Dwyer DM. Hamster macrophage interactions in vitro: cell entry, intracellular
survival, and multiplication of amastigotes. J Exp Med. 1978;147:515-30.
27. Ciaramella P, Oliva G, Luna RD, Gradoni L, Ambrosio R, Cortese L, et al. A retrospective
clinical study of canine leishmaniasis in 150 dogs naturally infected by Leishmania
infantum. Vet Rec. 1997;141:539-43.
28. Control of the leishmaniasis: report of a meeting of the WHO Expert Committee on
the Control of Leishmaniases, Geneva, 22-26 March 2010. (WHO technical report
series no. 949).
29. Cua Ake MA. Infección subclínica en Peromyscus yucatanicus inducida por el inóculo
de 1x102 promastigotes de Leishmania (Leishmania) mexican. Mérida: Universidad
Autónoma de Yucatán, Facultad de Medicina; 2008.
30. Dantas-Torres F. Canine leishmaniosis in South America. Parasit Vectors. 2009;2(Suppl
1):S1.
31. De Almeida MC, Vilhena V, Barral V, Barral-Netto M. Leishmanial infection: analysis
of its first steps. A review. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2003;98:861-70.
32. De Campos SN, Souza-Lemos C, Teva A, Porrozzi R, Grimaldi G Jr. Systemic and
compartmentalised immune responses in a Leishmania braziliensis-macaque model
of self-healing cutaneous leishmaniasis. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2010;137:
149-54.
33. De Lima H, De Guglielmo Z, Rodríguez A, Convit J, Rodríguez N. Cotto rats (Sigmodon
hispidus) and black rats (Rattus rattus) as possible reservoirs of Leishmania spp. in
Lara State, Venezuela. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2002;97:169-74.
34. Dennis VA, Lujan R, Chapman WL Jr, Hanson WL. Leishmania donovani: cellular
and humoral immune responses after primary and challenge infections in squirrel
monkeys, Saimiri sciureus. Exp Parasitol. 1986;61:319-34.
35. Desjeux P. The increase in risk factors for leishmaniasis worldwide. Trans R Soc Trop
Med Hyg. 2001;95:239-43.
38. Dube A, Sharma P, Srivastava JK, Misra A, Naik S, Katiyar JC. Vaccination of langur
monkeys (Presbytis entellus) against Leishmania donovani with autoclaved L. major
plus BCG. Parasitology. 1998;116:219-21.
39. Engwerda CR, Ato M, Kaye PM. Macrophages, pathology and parasite persistence in
experimental visceral leishmaniasis. Trends Parasitol. 2004;20:524-30.
40. Espitia CM, Zhao W, Saldarriaga O, Osorio Y, Harrison LM, Cappello M, et al. Duplex
real-time reverse transcriptase PCR to determine cytokine mRNA expression in a
hamster model of New World cutaneous leishmaniasis. BMC Immunol. 2010;11:3142.
41. Fazzani C, Guedes PA, Sena A, Souza EB, Goto H, Lindoso JAL. Dynamics of
immunosuppression in hamsters with experimental visceral leishmaniasis. Braz J
Med Biol Res. 2011;44:666-70.
42. Gantt KR, Goldman TL, McCormick ML, Miller MA, Jeronimo SMB, Nascimento ET,
et al. Oxidative responses of human and murine macrophages during phagocytosis
of Leishmania chagasi. J Immunol. 2001;167:893-901.
43. Gicheru MM, Olobo JO, Kariuki TM, Adhiambo C. Visceral leishmaniasis in ververt
monkeys: immunological responses during asymptomatic infections. Scand J
Immunol. 1995;41:202-8.
44. Gomes R, Teixeira C, Texeira MJ, Oliveira F, Menezes MJ, Silva C, et al. Immunity to
a salivary protein of a sand fly vector protects against the fatal outcome of visceral
leishmaniasis in a hamster model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:7845-50.
45. Goto H, Prianti MG. Immunoactivation and immunopathogeny during active visceral
leishmaniasis. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2009;51:241-6.
46. Grimaldi Jr G. The utility of rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) and non-human primate
models for preclinical testing of Leishmania candidate vaccines. Mem Inst Oswaldo
Cruz. 2008;103:629-44.
47. Guénet JL, Bonhomme F. Wild mice: an ever-increasing contribution to a popular
mammalian model. Trends Genet. 2003;19:24-31.
48. Gupta S, Nishi. Visceral leishmaniasis: experimental models for drug discovery. Indian
J Med Res. 2011;133:27-39.
49. Handman E. Leishmaniasis: current status of vaccine development. Clin Microbiol Rev.
2001;14:229-43.
50. Hommel M, Jaffe CL, Travi B, Milon G. Experimental models for leishmaniasis and for
testing anti-leishmanial vaccines. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2005;89(Suppl 1):55-73.
51. Hotez PJ, Remme JH, Buss P, Alleyne G, Morel C, Breman JG. Combating tropical
infectious diseases: report of the Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries
Project. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:871-8.
52. Hotez PJ, Molyneux DH, Fenwick A, Ottesen E, Ehrlich Sachs S, Sachs JD. Incorporating
a rapid-impact package for neglected tropical diseases with programs for HIV/AIDS,
tuberculosis, and malaria. PLoS Med. 2006;3:e102.
53. Jones DE, Ackermann MR, Wille U, Hunter CA, Scott P. Early enhanced Th1 response
after Leishmania amazonensis infection of C57BL/6 interleukin-10-deficient mice
does not lead to resolution of infection. Infect Immun. 2002;70:2151-8.
54. Jones DE, Buxbaum LU, Scott P. IL-4-independent inhibition of IL-12 responsiveness
during Leishmania amazonensis infection. J Immunol. 2000;165:364-72.
55. Kedzierski L. Leishmaniasis vaccine: where are we today? J Glob Infect Dis. 2012;2:17785.
9
LORÍA-CERVERA, E.N. & ANDRADE-NARVÁEZ, F.J. - Animal models for the study of leishmaniasis immunology. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. Sao Paulo, 56(1): 1-11, 2014.
56. Kenney RT, Sacks DL, Sypek JP, Vilela L, Gam AA, Evans-Davis K. Protective
immunity using recombinant human IL-12 and alum as adjuvants in a primate model
of cutaneous leishmaniasis. J Immunol. 1999;163:4481-8.
73. Moura TR, Novais FO, Oliveira F, Clarêncio J, Noronha A, Barral A, et al. Toward a
novel experimental model of infection to study American cutaneous leishmaniasis
caused by Leishmania braziliensis. Infect Immun. 2005;73:5827-34.
57. Kimblin N, Peters N, Debrabant A, Secundino N, Egen J, Lawyer P, et al. Quantification
of the infectious dose of Leishmania major transmitted to the skin by single sand
flies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:125-30.
74. Mukbel RM, Patten C Jr, Gibson K, Ghosh M, Petersen C, Jones DE. Macrophage killing
of Leishmania amazonensis amastigotes requires both nitric oxide and superoxide.
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007;76:669-75.
58. Kumar R, Nylén S. Immunobiology of visceral leishmaniasis. Front Immunol.
2012;3:251.
75. Murray HW, Masur H, Keithly JS. Cell mediated immune response in experimental
visceral leishmaniasis. I. Correlation between resistance to L. donovani and
lymphokine-generating capacity. J Immunol. 1982;129:344-50.
59. Lage RS, Oliveira GC, Busek SU, Guerra LL, Giunchetti RC, Corrêa-Oliveira R, et
al. Analysis of the cytokine profile in spleen cells from dogs naturally infected by
Leishmania chagasi. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2007;115:135-45.
60. Lang T, Courret N, Colle JH, Milon G, Antoine JC. The levels and patterns of cytokines
produced by CD4 T lymphocytes of BALB/c mice infected with Leishmania major
by inoculation into the ear dermis depend on the infectiousness and size of the
inoculums. Infect Immun. 2003;71:2674-83.
61. Liew FY, Wei X, Proudfoot L. Cytokines and nitric oxide as effector molecules against
parasitic infections. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1997;352:1311-5.
62. Lima CH, Titus RG. Effects of sand fly vector saliva on development of cutaneous
lesions and the immune response to Leishmania braziliensis in BALB/c mice. Infect
Immun. 1996;64:5442-5.
63. Loría Cervera EN. Implementación de técnicas moleculares para el análisis de citocinas
Th1 (Interleucina-12, interferón gamma y factor de necrosis tumoral alfa) de
Peromyscus yucatanicus. Mérida: Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán; 2011.
64. Loría-Cervera EN, Sosa-Bibiano EI, Villanueva-Lizama LE, Van Wynsberghe NR,
Canto-Lara SB, Batún-Cutz JL, et al. Nitric oxide production by Peromyscus
yucatanicus (Rodentia) infected with Leishmania (Leishmania) mexicana. Mem
Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2013;108:172-7.
65. Maüel J. Macrophage-parasite interactions in Leishmania infections. J Leukoc Biol.
1990;47:187-93.
66. McMahon-Pratt D, Alexander J. Does the Leishmania major paradigm of pathogenesis
and protection hold for New World cutaneos leishmaniases or the visceral disease?
Immunol Rev. 2004;201:206-24.
76. Murray HW, Stem JJ, Welte K, Rubin BY, Carreiro SM, Nathan CF. Experimental
visceral leishmaniasis: production of interleukin 2 and interferon-gamma, tissue
reaction and response to treatment with interleukin 2 and interferon-gamma. J
Immunol. 1987;138:2290-7.
77. Murray HW, Delph-Etienne S. Roles of endogenous gamma interferon and macrophage
microbicidal mechanisms in host response to chemotherapy in experimental visceral
leishmaniasis. Infect Immun. 2000;68:288-93.
78. Murray HW, Berman JD, Davies CR, Saravia NG. Advances in leishmaniasis. Lancet.
2005;366:1561-77.
79. Nickol AD, Bonventre PF. Immunosuppression associated with visceral leishmaniasis
of hamsters. Parasite Immunol. 1985;7:439-49.
80. Niewiesk S, Prince G. Diversifying animal models: the use of hispid cotton rats
(Sigmodon hispidus) in infectious diseases. Lab Anim. 2002;36:357-72.
81. Norsworthy NB, Sun J, Elnaiem D, Lanzaro G, Soong L. Sand fly saliva enhances
Leishmania amazonensis infection by modulating interleukin-10 production. Infect
Immun. 2004;72:1240-7.
82. Panaro MA, Acquafredda A, Lisi S, Lofrumento DD, Mitolo V, Sisto M, et al. Nitric
oxide production by macrophages of dogs vaccinated with killed Leishmania infantum
promastigotes. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 2001;24:187-95.
83. Panaro MA, Brandonisio O, Caprerii D, Cavallo P, Cianciulli A, Mitolo V, et al. Canine
leishmaniasis in Southern Italy: a role for nitric oxide released from activated
macrophages in asymptomatic infection? Parasite Vectors. 2008;1:10-17.
67. Melby P, Tryon V, Chandrasekar V, Freeman GL. Cloning of Syrian hamster
(Mesocricetus auratus) cytokine cDNAs and analysis of cytokine mRNA expression
in experimental visceral leishmaniasis. Infect Immun.1998;66:2135-42.
84. Perez LE, Chandrasekar B, Saldarriaga OA, Zhao W, Arteaga LT, Travi BL, et al.
Reduced nitric oxide synthase 2 (NOS2) promoter activity in the Syrian hamster
renders the animal functionally deficient in NOS2 activity and unable to control an
intracellular pathogen. J Immunol. 2006;176:5519-28.
68. Melby PC, Chandrasekar B, Zhao W, Coe JE. The hamster as a model of human visceral
leishmaniasis: progressive disease and impaired generation of nitric oxide in the face
of a prominent Th1-like cytokine response. J Immunol. 2001;166:1912-20.
85. Pinelli E, Killick-Kendrick R, Wagenaar J, Bernardina W, Del Real G, Ruitenberg J.
Cellular and humoral immune responses in dogs experimentally and naturally infected
with Leishmania infantum. Infect Immun. 1994;62:229-35.
69. Menezes-Sousa D, Corrêa-Oliveira R, Guerra-Sá R, Giunchetti RC, Texeira-Carvalho
A, Martins-Filho OA, et al. Cytokine and transcription factor profiles in the skin
of dogs naturally infected by Leishmania (Leishmania) chagasi presenting distinct
cutaneous parasite density and clinical status. Vet Parasitol. 2011;177:39-49.
86. Pinelli E, Gonzalo RM, Boog CJP, Rutten V, Gebhard D, Del Real G, et al. Leishmania
infantum specific T cell lines derived from asymptomatic dogs that lyse infected
macrophages in a major histocompatibility complex restricted manner. Eur J
Immunol. 1995;25:1594-600.
70. Menon J, Bretscher P. Parasite dose determines the Th1 / Th2 nature of the response
Leishmania major independently of infection route and strain of host or parasite.
Eur J Immunol. 1998;28:4020-8.
87. Pinelli E, van der Kaaij SY, Slappendel R, Fragio C, Ruitenberg EJ, Bernadina W, et al.
Detection of canine cytokine gene expression by reverse transcription-polymerase
chain reaction. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 1999;69:121-6.
71. Misra A, Dube A, Srivastava B, Sharma P, Srivastava JK, Katiyar JC, et al. Successful
vaccination against Leishmania donovani infection in Indian langur using alumprecipitated autoclaved Leishmania major with BCG. Vaccine. 2001;19:3485-92.
88. Pinelli E, Gebhard D, Mommaas AM, van Hoeij M, Langermans J, Ruitenberg EJ, et al.
Infection of a canine macrophage cell line with Leishmania infantum: determination
of nitric oxide production and anti-leishmanial activity. Vet Parasitol. 2000;92:181-9.
72. Mookerjee A, Sen PC, Ghose AC. Immunosuppression in hamsters with progressive
visceral leishmaniasis is associated with an impairment of protein kinase C activity in
their lymphocytes that can be partially reversed by okadaic acid or anti-transforming
growth factor β antibody. Infect Immun. 2003;71:2439-46.
89. Pinheiro PHC, Dias SS, Eulálio KD, Mendonça IL, Katz S, Barbiéri CL. Recombinant
cysteine proteinase from Leishmania (Leishmania) chagasi implicated in human and
dog T-cell responses. Infect Immun. 2005;73:3787-9.
10
LORÍA-CERVERA, E.N. & ANDRADE-NARVÁEZ, F.J. - Animal models for the study of leishmaniasis immunology. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. Sao Paulo, 56(1): 1-11, 2014.
90. Quinnell RJ, Courtenay O, Shaw MA, Day MJ, Garcez LM, Dye C, et al. Tissue cytokine
responses in canine visceral leishmaniasis. J Infect Dis. 2001;183:1421-4.
91. Randolph SE. To what extent has climate change contributed to the recent epidemiology
of tick-borne diseases? Vet Parasitol. 2010;167:92-4.
104. Sosa-Bibiano EI, Van Wynsberghe NR, Canto-Lara SB, Andrade-Narvaez FJ.
Preliminary study towards a novel experimental model to study localized cutaneous
leishmaniasis caused by Leishmania (Leishmania) mexicana. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao
Paulo. 2012;54:165-9.
92. Reithinger R, Davies CR. Is the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) a reservoir host of
American cutaneous leishmaniasis? A critical review of the current evidence. Am J
Trop Med Hyg. 1999;61:530-41.
105. Souza-Lemos C, De-Campos SN, Teva A, Porrozzi R, Grimaldi G Jr. In situ
characterization of the granulomatous immune response with time in nonhealing
lesional skin of Leishmania braziliensis-infected rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta).
Vet Immun Immunopathol. 2011;142:147-55.
93. Remme JHF, Blas E, Chistulo L, Desjeux PM, Engers HD, Kanyok TP, et al. Strategic
emphases for tropical diseases research: a TDR perspective. Trends Parasitol.
2002;18:421-6.
106. Stamm LM, Räisänen-Sokolowski A, Okano M, Russell ME, David JR, Satoskar AR.
Mice with STAT6-targeted gene disruption develop a Th1 response and control
cutaneous leishmaniasis. J Immunol. 1998;161:6180-8.
94. Roberts M, Stober C, Mckenzie A, Blackwell J. Interleukin-4 (IL-4) and IL-10 collude
in vaccine failure for novel exacerbatory antigens in murine Leishmania major
infection. Infect Immun. 2005;73:7620-8.
107. Szatkiewicz JP, Beane GL, Ding Y, Hutchins L, Pardo-Manuel de Villena F, Churchill
GA. An imputed genotype resource for the laboratory mouse. Mamm Genome.
2008;19:199-208.
95. Rodrigues Júnior V, Da Silva JS, Campos-Neto A. Selective inability of spleen antigen
presenting cells from Leishmania donovani infected hamsters to mediate specific T
cell proliferation to parasite antigens. Parasite Immunol. 1992;14:49-58.
108. The Working Group on Research Priorities for Development of Leishmaniasis Vaccines,
Nery Costa CH, Peters NC, Maruyama SR, de Brito EC Jr, Santos IK. Vaccines for
the leishmaniases: proposal for a research agenda. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2011;5:e943.
doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0000943.
96. Rodríguez Roque AL, Cupolillo E, Marchevssky RS, Jasen AM. Thrichomys laurentius
(Rodentia; Echimyidae) as a putative reservoir of Leishmania infantum and L.
braziliensis: patterns of experimental infection. Plos Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4:e589.
97. Rogers M, Kropf P, Choi B, Dillon R, Podinovskaia M, Bates P, et al.
Proteophosophoglycans regurgitated by Leishmania-infected sand flies target the
L-arginine metabolism of host macrophages to promote parasite survival. PLoS
Pathog. 2009;5:555-68.
98. Sacks D, Noben-Trauth N. The immunology of susceptibility and resistance to
Leishmania major in mice. Nat Rev. 2002;2:845-58.
99. Santaella J, Ocampo CB, Saravia NG, Méndez F, Góngora R, Gomez MA, et al.
Leishmania ( Viannia ) infection in the domestic dog in Chaparral, Colombia. Am
J Trop Med Hyg. 2011;84:674-80.
100. Satoskar A, Bluethmann H, Alexander J. Disruption of the murine interleukin-4 gene
inhibits disease progression during Leishmania mexicana infection but does not
increase control of Leishmania donovani infection. Infect Immun. 1995;63:4894-9.
101. Senior K. Vector-borne diseases threaten Europe. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008;8:531-2.
102. Shweash M, McGachy HA, Schroeder J, Neamatallah T, Bryant CE, Millington O,
et al. Leishmania mexicana promastigotes inhibit macrophage IL-12 production
via TLR-4 dependent COX-2, iNOS and arginase-1 expression. Mol Immunol.
2011;48:1800-8.
109. Van Wynsberghe NR, Canto-Lara SB, Damián-Centeno AG, Itzá-Ortiz M, AndradeNarváez FJ. Retention of Leishmania (L.) mexicana in naturally infected rodents
from the State of Campeche, Mexico. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2000;95:595-600.
110. Van Wynsberghe NR, Canto-Lara SB, Sosa-Bibiano EI, Rivero-Cárdenas NA, AndradeNarváez FJ. Comparison of small mammal prevalence of Leishmania (Leishmania)
mexicana in five foci of cutaneous leishmaniasis in the State of Campeche, México.
Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2009;51:87-94.
111. Villanueva Lizama LE. Implementación de técnicas moleculares para el análisis de
citocinas Th2 (Interleucina 4, interleucina 10 y factor transformador del crecimiento
beta) de Peromyscus yucatanicus. Mérida: Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán; 2011.
112. Vouldoukis I, Drapier JC, Nüssler AK, Tselentis Y, Da Silva O, Gentilini M, et al. Canine
visceral leishmaniasis: successful chemotherapy induces macrophage antileishmanial
activity via the L-arginine nitric oxide pathway. Antimicrob Agents Chemother.
1996;40:253-6.
113. Wilson ME, Jeronimo SMB, Pearson RD. Immunopathogenesis of infection with the
visceralizing Leishmania species. Microb Pathog. 2005;38:147-60.
Received: 13 February 2013
Accepted: 28 May 2013
103. Soong L, Chang CH, Sun J, Longley BJ Jr, Ruddle NH, Flavell RA, et al. Role of
CD4+ T cells in pathogenesis associated with Leishmania amazonensis infection. J
Immunol. 1997;158:5374-83.
11