Next Article in Journal
Antiprotozoal Activity and Selectivity Index of Organic Salts of Albendazole and Mebendazole
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Microbial Dynamics, Sensorial Compounds, and Producing Regions in Cocoa Fermentation
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Rabbit Models for Infectious Diseases Caused by Staphylococcus aureus

1
Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
2
Department of Toxicology, Henan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Zhengzhou 450016, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microbiol. Res. 2025, 16(4), 76; https://doi.org/10.3390/microbiolres16040076
Submission received: 5 March 2025 / Revised: 20 March 2025 / Accepted: 24 March 2025 / Published: 27 March 2025

Abstract

:
Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is a disreputable symbiotic bacterium that is responsible for a range of diseases, including life-threatening pneumonia, endocarditis, septicemia, and others, which has led to an immense loss in both public health and economy, imposing a significant burden on society. To investigate the pathogenic mechanism of S. aureus and develop new treatment methods for infectious diseases caused by S. aureus, various rabbit models have been developed to simulate different infections by S. aureus, such as pneumonia models, meningitis models, and endocarditis models, etc. In this review, we summarized the application of rabbit models in S. aureus-induced infectious diseases.

1. Introduction

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is a Gram-positive bacterium and appears grape-like under the microscope. The human body is a repository of S. aureus, with an estimated 30% of the population asymptomatically colonized by the bacterium [1]. S. aureus commonly inhabits the nasal cavity, skin, and gastrointestinal tract [2]. Meanwhile, S. aureus acts as an opportunistic pathogen, capable of causing a range of diseases worldwide, including mild skin and soft tissue infections such as impetigo and uncomplicated cellulitis, as well as potentially life-threatening diseases like infective endocarditis, osteoarticular infections and toxic shock syndrome [3]. The pathogenesis of infections is primarily attributed to numerous surface and secreted virulence factors of S. aureus [4].
As a major culprit behind human infectious diseases [5], S. aureus has led to substantial morbidity and mortality. Antibiotics are routinely employed for the treatment of S. aureus infections. However, due to the overuse of antibiotics and the remarkable adaptability of S. aureus, drug-resistant strains have emerged, among which methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) poses the most substantial threat. A study in China revealed that the total hospital cost and antibiotic cost for MRSA patients has increased by an average of USD 3220 and USD 672, respectively, compared to methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) patients [6]. In addition to conventional antibiotic therapy, various alternative approaches for the treatment of MRSA have been explored [7], including the utilization of phytochemicals, natural compounds such as garlic and ginger, and bacteriophage therapy. However, the situation remains critical.
Novel strategies are urgently required to combat drug-resistant isolates and control the spread and infections of S. aureus. A thorough understanding of the pathogenesis of S. aureus is indispensable, which requires the assistance of appropriate animal models that accurately simulate human infections in pre-clinical studies. While mice are widely used in the study of disease pathogenesis because of their low cost [8], they are not natural hosts for S. aureus [9], and rodent models are flawed in many aspects for the study of human development and diseases [10]. Therefore, the conventional mouse model may not be the most suitable choice for studying S. aureus infections. In contrast, the larger size of the rabbit makes it possible to monitor non-fatal physiological changes [10], and the immune and cardiovascular systems of rabbits closely resemble those of humans in response to S. aureus infections [8]. Furthermore, rabbit models have been employed in studying infectious diseases caused by S. aureus for over two centuries [11]. To elucidate the mechanisms of disease onset and progression, and explore potential treatment options, various rabbit models of S. aureus infections, including pneumonia model, osteomyelitis model, endocarditis model and so on (Figure 1), have been established. This work conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Science databases, employing the following parameters: (1) keywords including “infectious diseases” (e.g., pneumonia, endocarditis, keratitis, meningitis, osteomyelitis), “rabbit model” and “Staphylococcus aureus”; (2) exclusion of articles published before 2000; and (3) exclusion of studies focusing on rabbit-specific diseases, and summarized the latest advances of the application of rabbit models in S. aureus-induced infectious diseases.

2. Pneumonia

S. aureus is a significant pathogen for both hospital-associated pneumonia (HAP) and community-associated pneumonia (CAP) [3], and pneumonia induced by S. aureus caused a high mortality, especially CAP with its mortality rate ranging from 30–70% [12].
Numerous rabbit models of pneumonia induced by S. aureus have been reported. For instance, with the assistance of bronchoscopy, Kong et al. [12] inoculated S. aureus into the first bronchiole of the lateral bronchiole of the basal segment of the right lower lobe of the rabbit lung to establish a rabbit model of pneumonia. Strandberg et al. [13] performed a 3-mm tracheal incision in the rabbit’ neck, and subsequently inserted a polyethylene catheter into the left bronchus for S. aureus inoculation, while Paharik et al. [14] opted for a midline abdominal incision. Histological examination revealed massive hemorrhage in the lungs of the model rabbits in all three studies.
Several studies have investigated the underlying mechanisms of pneumonia caused by S. aureus in rabbit models. For example, Diep et al. [15] found that Panton-Valentine leucocidin (PVL) relies on the recruitment and lysis of polymorphonuclear leukocytes to cause lung infection and injury in rabbit pneumonia model. Notably, the majority of S. aureus-induced pneumonia cases are caused by PVL-negative bacteria [16,17]. When producing elevated concentrations of the Hlg CB component, strain PEN (PVL) [18] exhibited similar virulence to PVL+ strains in rabbit pneumonia model. A protease called Spl [14], that is unique to S. aureus, also contributes to the development of pneumonia, pathological findings revealed hemorrhage in both lungs of rabbits infected with wild-type (WT) S. aureus, whereas only one lung in rabbits infected with the mutant bacteria (ΔSpl::erm).
Several studies utilized S. aureus-induced rabbit pneumonia models to evaluate the new treatment strategies. For example, α-Hemolysin (Hla) was clinically regarded as the target to treat or prevent S. aureus pneumonia [19,20,21,22], Diep et al. [11] employed MEDI4893*, a monoclonal antibody targeting Hla, to conduct passive immunization in rabbits infected with USA100 strains, which exclusively produce Hla. The results showed that the survival rate of rabbits infected with USA100 was 100%.
The summary information of reported S. aureus pneumonia rabbit models is presented in Table 1, highlighting the similarities and discrepancies in terms of rabbit species, modes and doses of inoculation, duration of infections, and types of S. aureus strains. The inoculation modes encompassed direct tracheal intubation and incision tracheal intubation. The most frequently utilized rabbit species was the New Zealand white rabbit. The doses of S. aureus inoculation ranged from 109 to 1010 colony forming units (CFUs). The range of infection duration varied from 36 h to 7 days, which may be related to different experimental purposes and procedures. For instance, Kong et al. [12] aimed to develop a model of severe pneumonia, and rabbits in the model group exhibited peak body temperature and minimum body weight on day 7. In the study by Strandberg et al. [13], prolonged monitoring for the development of respiratory distress and fatal disease was required, and day 7 was defined by the guidelines as the point at which the rabbit died or lost the ability to escape or self-correct.

3. Skin and Soft Tissue Infections

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) caused by S. aureus are a significant health concern. While most SSTIs are mild and self-limiting, complications can lead to fatal outcomes [25]. In 2019, SSTIs caused by S. aureus led to an all-cause, age-standardized mortality rate of 0.5 globally [26].
Several reported studies have discussed the establishment of rabbit SSTIs models. Le et al. [27] intradermally injected 120 μL of SF8300 at a concentration of 2.5 × 1010 to 3.0 × 1010 CFU/mL into the shaved and disinfected dorsal right lumbar spine skin of the rabbits by a 1-mL insulin syringe, the infection was maintained for seven days. This model effectively mimics severe human skin infections, and rabbits developed severe skin necrotizing ulcers. Nevertheless, in the study of Li et al. [28], which also utilized intradermal inoculation, rabbits did not present the same performance with the dose of inoculation 5 × 108 CFUs, consistent with the experimental results of Le et al. Rabbit models require high doses of S. aureus to cause reproducible disease, at least 1 × 108 CFUs [29]. However, human skin infections may not need such large doses, which may obscure strain virulence and bacteria-host interactions [30]. To develop better models, Malachowa et al. [30] developed a low-inoculum rabbit model through subcutaneous injection of USA300 strain with dltB gene harboring in rabbit S. aureus, and induction of SSTIs rabbit model with this strain requires only 1 × 106 CFUs. In the study by Muñoz-Silvestre et al. [8], rabbits were infected by intradermal inoculation with 300 CFUs of the rabbitized strain FdltBr, and at 1 day postinfection (dpi), erythema appeared at the inoculation site, followed by nodules and necrosis. The difference in inoculation dose between the two studies may be due to the discrepancies in inoculation methods and bacterial lineage. Additionally, So-In et al. [31] successfully induced the rabbit dermatitis model by using a sterile blade firstly to create a wound at the designated infection site after the rabbits were anesthetized, and then inoculating S. aureus into the wound for a 48-h period.
PVL and Hla are important virulence factors responsible for skin infections. In the research of Chi et al. [32], rabbits infected with PVL-positive strains exhibited more extensive lesions and severe inflammatory responses compared to those infected with PVL-negative strains; in the rabbit model developed by Le et al. [27], it was observed that immunoprevention with MEDI4893* significantly mitigated the severity of the disease caused by the USA300 WT strain.
Table 2 summarized the construction of various reported rabbit SSTIs models, which described that New Zealand White rabbits were frequently used species, the inoculated doses were ranging from 106 to 109 CFUs except Muñoz-Silvestre’s [8]. The mode of inoculation can be broadly divided into two categories, subcutaneous and intradermal, and the duration of infection was concentrated at 7 and 14 days.

4. Osteomyelitis

Osteomyelitis is a severe infectious disease that can lead to a detrimental outcome like pyogenic arthritis and abnormal bone remodeling without appropriate treatment [34]. The clinical presentation of osteomyelitis demonstrates considerable heterogeneity, with lacking a universally accepted classification system. Nevertheless, the Waldvogel system and Cierny-Mader system remain extensively referenced in clinical practice, for offering key information about the disease [35] S. aureus is the primary pathogen responsible for osteomyelitis, approximately accounting for 60% of all cases of osteomyelitis [36]. Furthermore, infections caused by PVL-positive strains demonstrated more persistent clinical courses and exhibited accelerated progression [37].
The establishment of rabbit osteomyelitis models presented greater challenges compared to SSTIs and pneumonia models as the S. aureus needs to be inoculated directly into the bone marrow cavity. Here are several representative studies, in the report of Kishor et al. [38], a 2-cm incision was made lateral to the distal femur of the rabbits after the rabbits were anesthetized and disinfected to expose the metaphyseal. A single cortical defect measuring 5 mm in diameter was created with the aid of a hand drill, intramedullary inoculation was followed to infect rabbits. For the wound management, the incision was covered with a sterile bandage and stitch was made in the middle of the open area. Unlike Kishor, Xu et al. [39] made a 2-cm skin incision on the anterolateral surface of the rabbit’s right proximal tibia to expose part of the metaphyseal cortex, and used a 2-mm kirschner to create a hole, subsequently irrigated with saline and aspirated the bone marrow with an 18-gauge needle. Finally, 0.1 mL 5% sodium morrhuate and MRSA bacterial suspension were injected into the medullary cavity successively. Radiographic results showed that bone infection reactions, including osteolysis and osteonecrosis, were observed in both rabbit models. In the study of Crémieux et al. [37], non-surgical method was utilized. 0.1 mL of 3% sodium tetradecyl sulfate, 0.2 mL of inoculum and 0.1 mL of saline were percutaneously injected into the medullary cavity in sequence through the lateral side of the right tibial metaphyseal using an 18-gauge needle to infect rabbits.
Treatment of osteomyelitis frequently necessitates long-term antibiotic therapy [40]. Rabbit osteomyelitis models have been used to discover novel treatment options for S. aureus, such as 1,8-Cineole [41], a component of essential oils, which was found to synergize with gentamicin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, greatly reducing the use of antibiotics. However, it is difficult to achieve effective bactericidal drug concentrations at the site of infection with conventional intravenous or oral administration methods. In rabbit models, the new drug delivery systems have been developed to achieve topical antibiotic treatment, for example, nanoparticle [42], hydroxyapatite cement [43], bone-like hydroxyapatite/poly amino acid [44] and synthetic calcium phosphate beads [45] have been utilized as carriers to load antibiotics. These carriers are biodegradable materials that can slowly release antibiotics, ensuring the concentration at the infection site sustained higher than the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC).
Osteomyelitis models can be established through a variety of methods, broadly categorized into surgical and non-surgical approaches. Notably, there are distinct variations in wound management among surgical models. In some studies, the osteomyelitis model was induced by using S. aureus strains obtained from patients, and doses varied ranging from 104 to 109 CFUs. The summary information can be found in Table 3.
Table 3. The summary information of S. aureus-induced osteomyelitis models in rabbits.
Table 3. The summary information of S. aureus-induced osteomyelitis models in rabbits.
AuthorRabbit SpeciesStrain
and
Source
DoseInoculation ModeWound Management
Kishor [38]RabbitsMRSA isolated from patients5 × 106
CFU/mL
0.01 mL
Inoculation by intramedullary injectionCovered with sterile bandage
Jacqueline [42]New Zealand rabbitsMRSA1 × 108
CFUs
Intracavitary inoculation of the kneeNot provided
Joosten [43]New Zealand rabbitsSCV-A22616/3
MRSA-W23, isolated from patients
3 × 106 CFUsInoculation by intramedullary injection through an openingClosed with sutures
Zahar [46]New Zealand rabbitMRSA isolated from patients1 × 108
CFUs
Inoculation by intramedullary injection through a bone deficitClosed with sutures and nylon sutures
Xu [39]New Zealand rabbitATCC 433001 × 106
CFU/mL
0.1 mL
Inoculation by intramedullary injection through a holeClosed with 4/0 vicryl
Yan [44]New Zealand rabbitATCC 259233 × 108
CFU/mL
0.2 mL
Inoculation by intramedullary injection through a holeClosed with layered sutures
Crémieux [37]New Zealand rabbitUSA300
LAC
8 × 105 CFUs
4 × 108 CFUs
Inoculation by intramedullary injectionNot provided
Hriouech [41]New Zealand rabbitMRSA isolated from patients1 × 109 CFUsInoculation by intramedullary injectionNot provided
Muñoz [47]New Zealand rabbitS. aureus UASM-12 × 106 CFUsInoculation by marrow space injectionSutured after bone restored
Amador [48]New Zealand rabbitMRSA obtained from blood cultures with an MIC of 1 g/mL vancomycin1 × 109 CFUsInoculation by knee cavity injectionNot provided

5. Keratitis

Keratitis, a type of corneal infection, can be caused by pathogenic microorganisms or non-infectious factors. Disruption of the corneal epithelial barrier facilitates bacterial invasion, leading to bacterial keratitis. A study from China showed that the prevalence of previous infectious keratitis and active infectious keratitis was 0.192%, and bacterial keratitis accounted for 39.06% [49]. Bacterial keratitis clinically presents with epithelial defects, stromal inflammation, and ulceration [50], potentially leading to permanent visual impairment or blindness [51].
The commonly reported rabbit keratitis models were established by directly injecting the strain into the corneal stroma [52,53,54,55]. Two specialized models warrant particular attention, one is soft contact lenses associated rabbit keratitis model, which aimed to explore the role of the collagen-binding adhesin in keratitis. Rhem et al. [56] marked the corneal epithelium of the right eye of each rabbit with a 9-mm trepanation and then performed the debridement within this area. Soft contact lenses that had been incubated in tryptic soy broth containing 108 CFU/mL S. aureus for 24 h at 35 °C were then placed on the corneas to infect the rabbits. Another one is an isolated rabbit keratitis model established by Marino et al. [54], which injected the strains into the isolated corneal stroma. This model is reproducible and can be used as a mechanism-based alternative to in vivo animal testing. Compared with other reported disease models, the inoculation dose required of the keratitis model is lower, about 100 to 104 CFUs. The information about rabbit keratitis models induced by S. aureus is summarized in Table 4.
The reported studies using rabbit models were mainly focusing on exploring the treatment of keratitis caused by S. aureus. Fluoroquinolones are suitable drugs, for example, moxifloxacin [57], which exhibit superior antibacterial activity than ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin in the late treatment of keratitis. Azithromycin [53] is also useful, due to its anti-inflammatory and antibacterial properties, as well as its ability to reduce the production of bacterial toxins. In addition to antibiotics, Las A [58], a protease secreted by pseudomonas aeruginosa, silver nanoparticles [59] and cationic antimicrobial peptide [60] all work a treat in the treatment of keratitis.
Several studies have explored the pathogenesis of the disease using rabbit models. In the study by Dajcs et al. [61], α-toxin is regarded as the main virulence factor in S. aureus-induced keratitis, while γ-toxin exhibited weaker virulence than α-toxin, and β-toxin played a less significant role. The strain lacking the α-toxin gene failed to cause epithelial erosion in rabbit keratitis model. The collagen-binding adhesin [56] produced by S. aureus also promoted the infection of cornea, eyes exposed to it are more likely to develop bacterial keratitis.
Table 4. The summary information of S. aureus-induced keratitis models in rabbits.
Table 4. The summary information of S. aureus-induced keratitis models in rabbits.
AuthorRabbit SpeciesStrainDoseInoculation Mode
McCormick [52]New Zealand White rabbitS. aureus 83254100 CFUsInoculation by corneal stroma injection
Ikemoto [53]Japanese white rabbitATCC 259234.7 × 106 CFU/mL, 30 μLInoculation by corneal stroma injection
Marino [54]Normal rabbit eyesS. aureus-7786, 815, 74CCH5 × 105 CFU/mL
0.05 mL
Inoculation by intrastromal injection
Sanders [55]New Zealand White rabbitMRSA 1131100 CFUsInoculation by corneal stroma injection
Rhem [56]New Zealand White rabbitS. aureusNot providedInoculation by applying specially treated
contact lenses
Aghamollaei [60]New Zealand White rabbitMRSA100 CFUsInoculation by injection to the cornea
Barequet [58]New Zealand White rabbitMSSA, MRSA1000 organismsInoculation by intrastromal injection to the center of the cornea

6. Rhinosinusitis

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a prevalent chronic disease that significantly impairs patients’ quality of life and substantially increases healthcare costs [62,63]. CRS manifests in two primary clinical subtypes: nasal polyp and non-nasal polyp types, affecting approximately 5% to 15% of the population [64]. Biofilms exist on the mucosa of patients with CRS, which accounts for the difficulty in curing [65]. S. aureus is a prevalent biofilm-forming pathogen frequently isolated from patients with CRS [66].
To investigate the relationship between biofilms of S. aureus and the occurrence of CRS, Jia et al. [67] created a simple rabbit model of S. aureus biofilms-associated sinusitis by cutting the skin and periosteum on the dorsum of the rabbit nose and drilling into the maxillary sinus which was then inserted through the hole with a cylindrical absorbable gelatin sponge, and finally, a syringe was used to inoculate the bacterial suspension into the sinuses to infect rabbits. All model rabbits developed sinusitis confirmed by both CT and the presence of mucopurulent discharge in the maxillary sinus. The model closely resembled human rhinosinusitis. Wu et al. [68] utilized the same method with Jia to study the immune response to biofilms. The results showed that the expression of IL-1β, IL-8 and TNF-α increased while IL-4 and IL-5 decreased, which portended biofilm formation and extensive damage to epithelial cells.
Ciliary dysfunction is one of the causes of rhinosinusitis, the model of Min et al. [69] has shown that high concentrations of S. aureus SEA can inhibit ciliary motility. Long-term exposing to SEB [64] also leads to nasal mucosal thickening and inflammatory cell infiltration.
Owing to the limitations of antibiotic resistance and difficulty in administration in traditional topical treatment, rabbit models have been extensively utilized to explore alternative treatment approaches. Bleier et al. [70] presented a novel approach that antibiotics-impregnated chitosan glycerophosphate was implanted into the sinus, which can prolong the washout period of antibiotics and provide continuous local drug delivery. Corticosteroids [71] can serve as an adjunctive therapy to antibiotics for the treatment of sinusitis, accelerating the healing process. Jia et al. utilized 384 mg/L silk fibroin-nano silver solution [72] for local treatment and results showed that the biofilm was completely removed and the damaged epithelium was recovered.
New Zealand white rabbit was the primary species utilized in the rhinosinusitis model. Unlike the previously described models, Min et al. [69] directly induced the rabbit models by using the toxins of S. aureus. Table 5 summarizes the reported rabbit rhinosinusitis models, revealing that all models with traumatism blocked the sinuses. The inoculation dose of S. aureus ranged from 106 to 108 CFUs.
Table 5. The summary information of S. aureus-induced rhinosinusitis models in rabbits.
Table 5. The summary information of S. aureus-induced rhinosinusitis models in rabbits.
AuthorRabbit SpeciesInfectious AgentsDoseInoculation Mode
Karasen [73]New Zealand White rabbitinactivated S. aureus1.1 × 109
0.2 mL
Inoculation by percutaneously applying to the maxillary sinus
Min [69]New Zealand White rabbitenterotoxin A (SEA) of S. aureus0.3 ng/mL
2 mL
30 ng/mL
2 mL
Inoculation by percutaneously injecting
Uslu [74]New Zealand White rabbitS. aureus
CMF-1
108
CFU/mL
0.2 mL
Inoculation by percutaneously injecting to maxillary sinus cavity
Sütbeyaz [71]New Zealand albino rabbitATCC 259239 × 108 CFU/mL
0.5 mL
Inoculation by injecting to maxillary cavity
Dong [75]New Zealand rabbitATCC 259231 × 108 CFU/mLInoculation by injecting to maxillary sinus
Bleier [70]New Zealand White rabbitS. aureus4.0 × 108
CFUs
Inoculation by instilling into the sinus
Jia
[67,72]
New Zealand White rabbitS. aureus
006
1 × 106
CFU/mL
0.5 mL
Inoculation through the hole of maxillary sinus

7. Meningitis

Meningitis is mainly classified into blood-borne and post-neurosurgical types, with hematogenous infections demonstrating significantly higher mortality rates [76]. S. aureus, the prevalent pathogen of bacterial meningitis [77], can cause both community-associated and hospital-associated meningitis, with the latter being the leading cause of death [78], particularly MRSA posing a challenge for the treatment of meningitis.
Reported rabbit meningitis models were established by inoculating S. aureus into the cisterna magna of rabbits. The New Zealand White rabbit was predominantly utilized in these experiments. Discrepancies occurred in the strains and dose of S. aureus, and the dose ranged from 105 to 108 CFUs. 25-gauge spinal needle and 22-gauge syringe were the main injection tools [78,79]. The summarized information of rabbit meningitis models is shown in Table 6.
The blood-brain barrier poses a significant challenge in the treatment of meningitis, and the reported rabbit meningitis model has made a great contribution to the treatment of meningitis. Linezolid has good permeability, and the concentration of it in human cerebrospinal fluid can reach 30% to 70% of the concentration in serum [80]. Calik et al. [81] found linezolid at a concentration of 20 mg/kg was equally effective as vancomycin, which is the first-line treatment for meningitis. Fusidic acid is a highly potent staphylococcal bacteriostatic agent with high permeability to the central nervous system; however, Ostergaard et al. [79] found that when it was used in combination with the fungicide methicillin, there would be a significant antagonistic effect. These findings suggest that antibiotics should be used rationally.
Table 6. The summary information of S. aureus-induced meningitis models in rabbits.
Table 6. The summary information of S. aureus-induced meningitis models in rabbits.
AuthorRabbit SpeciesStrainMICDoseInoculation Mode
Ostergaard [79]New Zealand White rabbitS. aureus
E2371
Fusidic acid
0.125 mg/L
1 × 107
CFUs
Inoculation by intracisternal injection
Sipahi [77]New Zealand White rabbitS. aureus
ATCC 43300
Vancomycin
1 mg/L
1 × 107
CFU/mL
0.3 mL
Inoculation by injecting into the cisterna magna
Cabellos [82]New Zealand White rabbitMRSA-COL
strain-GISA (Mu50, ATCC
700699)
Vancomycin
1 mg/L,
Vancomycin
8 mg/L
1 × 108 CFU/mLInoculation by injecting into the cisterna magna
Gerber [83]
Stucki [76]
New Zealand rabbitMSSA 1112Vancomycin
1 mg/L
1 × 105 CFUsInoculation by injecting into the subarachnoid space
Bardak-Ozcem [84]
Calik [81]
New Zealand White rabbitS. aureus
ATCC-43300
Vancomycin
1 mg/L
1 × 106 CFU/mL 0.5 mLInoculation by injecting into the cisterna magna
Mermer [78]New Zealand rabbitS. aureus
ATCC-43300
Vancomycin
1 mg/L
2 × 107 CFU/mL 0.3 mLInoculation by intracisternal injection

8. Endocarditis

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious intravascular infectious disease, in which the cardiac endothelium is involved, and IE is characterized by the formation of cauliflower-like vegetations on the heart valves [85]. The classification of IE is based on the location of infection, with four major categories: native valve endocarditis (NVE), prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), right-sided endocarditis, and device-related endocarditis [86]. S. aureus-induced IE presents high mortality and morbidity, especially caused by MRSA.
Rabbit models are commonly used for studying IE. The reported studies described two types of rabbit endocarditis models: One is a catheter-associated model in which the catheter was introduced into the left ventricle through the aortic valve or the right ventricle through the tricuspid valve, resulting in valve lesions and removal of the catheter, followed by intravenous inoculation of S. aureus to infect the rabbits, such as the models of Spaulding et al. [85] and Bastien et al. [87]. The other is intracardiac foreign bodies-associated model, the catheter was kept as a foreign body and held in place for the duration of the trial, and intravenously injected strains, like Huang et al. [88] and Chambers et al. [89]. Information of rabbit endocarditis models is summarized in Table 7. From the table, we can see that New Zealand white rabbit remain the most used species, and doses of S. aureus ranging from 105 to 108 CFUs. Except for the study of Wang et al. [90], the majority of experimental catheter locations were on the left side of the heart, causing left-sided endocarditis.
Vancomycin remains the first choice for the treatment of IE caused by MRSA [91]. Researchers have shown interest in using rabbit models to investigate alternative treatment strategies. The combination of vancomycin with other antibiotics, such as cloxacillin [91], produced a synergistic bactericidal effect against MRSA. Telavancin was effective against other glycopeptide-resistant MRSA strains [92] and was more active than vancomycin against the vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus [93]. The combination of daptomycin and β-lactam improved the survival of rabbits compared with the single drug treatment group. LSVT-1701 [88], a lyase encoded by bacteriophage, effectively reduces the number of MRSA in the experimental body when combined with daptomycin. Exebacase [94] is a direct cell wall cleaving agent that rapidly hydrolyzes the cell wall of S. aureus, and has a positive effect on the size, weight, and MRSA number of vegetations produced in IE when associated with daptomycin.
Table 7. The summary information of S. aureus-induced endocarditis models in rabbits.
Table 7. The summary information of S. aureus-induced endocarditis models in rabbits.
AuthorRabbit SpeciesStrainDoseInoculation ModeCatheter Location
and Duration
Huang [88]RabbitMRSA MW22 × 105 CFUsInoculation by intravenously injecting left ventricle
48 h
Spaulding [85]New Zealand white rabbitUSA200, USA300, USA400, FRI1169, Newman, COLNot providedInoculation by intravenously injecting after removing catheter aortic valve
2 h
Chambers [89]New Zealand white rabbitS. aureus-76,
HIP5836
106 CFUsInoculation by intravenously injecting aortic valve
48 h
Madrigal [93]New Zealand white rabbitMRSA-COL,
HIP 5836
106 CFUsInoculation by intravenously injecting aortic valve
48 h
Bastien [87]New Zealand white rabbitS. aureus isolated from non-IE SAB patients1–4 × 107
or
4.5–5.2 × 108 CFUs
Inoculation by ear marginal vein injection after the removal of the catheter aortic valve
2 h
Chan [95]New Zealand White rabbitS. aureus COL107–108 CFUsInoculation by intravenously injecting left ventricle
48 h
Asseray [96]New Zealand rabbitMecA+
MecA
108 CFUsInoculation by intravenously injectingleft ventricle
24 h
Shah [94]New Zealand White rabbitMRSA MW25 × 105 CFUsInoculation by intravenously injecting left ventricle
48 h
Castañeda [91]New Zealand White rabbitMSSA-678, 277105 CFU/mL
1 mL
Inoculation by intravenously injectingleft ventricle
24 h
Chambers [97]New Zealand White rabbitS. aureus CB5054107 CFUsInoculation by ear marginal vein injection left ventricle
48 h
Wang [90]New Zealand White rabbitATCC 292138 × 107 CFUsInoculation by ear marginal vein injectiontricuspid valve

9. Conclusions

In this review, we have summarized the recent advancements of application of rabbit models for studying S. aureus-induced infectious diseases. The research principally encompasses two aspects: (1) the pathogenic mechanisms of S. aureus, including the cytotoxic effects of PVL in pneumonia and SSTIs, and the inhibitory effect of SEA on cilia in sinusitis; (2) the treatment of S. aureus infections, such as providing novel drug delivery approaches for osteomyelitis and sinusitis; for the treatment of drug-resistant strains, especially MRSA and VRSA, combination regimens such as “combination of vancomycin and cloxacillin” or other non-antibiotic drugs are provided.
Beyond the above diseases, rabbit models have also been widely used to address other clinically relevant S. aureus infections, such as surgical wound infections [98], implant-associated infections [99,100], and septic shock [101]. In these studies, rabbits possessed certain advantages as a model organism, including similar skin thickness [102,103] and anatomical structure [67] to humans, suitable body size and analogous sensitivity to superantigens and PVL [15,104], etc.
However, there remain areas where rabbit models can be further optimized, such as addressing issues like excessive inoculation dosage mentioned earlier and improving the accuracy of the rabbit endocarditis model [90]. Additionally, rabbits exhibit limited resistance to environmental stressors. Even minor disturbances, such as slight environmental noise, can trigger diarrhea [105]. In pharmacokinetic studies, rabbits have the limitation of higher compound consumption and higher cost compared to rodents. No single animal is suitable for all studies, and researchers should select the appropriate animal model according to the purpose of the study; for example, rabbits were chosen over rats for evaluating S. aureus superantigen activity due to rodents’ inherent resistance [106]; mice are preferred for transgenic research owing to their large pronuclei of zygotes and manipulable embryonic stem cells [107].
In conclusion, rabbits have been proven to be excellent animal models for studying S. aureus infections, with great progress having been made. It is anticipated that future rabbit models will exhibit manifestations that more closely resemble human infectious diseases caused by S. aureus and contribute to overcoming the existing challenges.

Author Contributions

H.Y. conceptualized the study. M.Z., Y.W., F.L. and J.L. performed literature search, built the article frame and drew the main figures. M.Z. wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Project (2023YFC2605603), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81973105 and 82273696). The funders had no role in the preparation of manuscript and decision to submission.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are included in this article and available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Salgado-Pabón, W.; Schlievert, P.M. Models Matter: The Search for an Effective Staphylococcus aureus Vaccine. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2014, 12, 585–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kim, H.K.; Missiakas, D.; Schneewind, O. Mouse Models for Infectious Diseases Caused by Staphylococcus aureus. J. Immunol. Methods 2014, 410, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Tong, S.Y.C.; Davis, J.S.; Eichenberger, E.; Holland, T.L.; Fowler, V.G. Staphylococcus aureus Infections: Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, Clinical Manifestations, and Management. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2015, 28, 603–661. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Spaulding, A.R.; Salgado-Pabón, W.; Merriman, J.A.; Stach, C.S.; Ji, Y.; Gillman, A.N.; Peterson, M.L.; Schlievert, P.M. Vaccination Against Staphylococcus aureus Pneumonia. J. Infect. Dis. 2014, 209, 1955–1962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chambers, H.F.; DeLeo, F.R. Waves of Resistance: Staphylococcus aureus in the Antibiotic Era. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2009, 7, 629–641. [Google Scholar]
  6. Zhen, X.; Lundborg, C.S.; Zhang, M.; Sun, X.; Li, Y.; Hu, X.; Gu, S.; Gu, Y.; Wei, J.; Dong, H. Clinical and Economic Impact of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: A Multicentre Study in China. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 3900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nandhini, P.; Kumar, P.; Mickymaray, S.; Alothaim, A.S.; Somasundaram, J.; Rajan, M. Recent Developments in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Treatment: A Review. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Muñoz-Silvestre, A.; Penadés, M.; Selva, L.; Pérez-Fuentes, S.; Moreno-Grua, E.; García-Quirós, A.; Pascual, J.J.; Arnau-Bonachera, A.; Barragán, A.; Corpa, J.M.; et al. Pathogenesis of Intradermal Staphylococcal Infections: Rabbit Experimental Approach to Natural Staphylococcus aureus Skin Infections. Am. J. Pathol. 2020, 190, 1188–1210. [Google Scholar]
  9. Duranthon, V.; Beaujean, N.; Brunner, M.; Odening, K.E.; Santos, A.N.; Kacskovics, I.; Hiripi, L.; Weinstein, E.J.; Bosze, Z. On the Emerging Role of Rabbit as Human Disease Model and the Instrumental Role of Novel Transgenic Tools. Transgenic Res. 2012, 21, 699–713. [Google Scholar]
  10. Berube, B.J.; Bubeck Wardenburg, J. Staphylococcus aureus α-Toxin: Nearly a Century of Intrigue. Toxins 2013, 5, 1140–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Diep, B.A.; Hilliard, J.J.; Le, V.T.M.; Tkaczyk, C.; Le, H.N.; Tran, V.G.; Rao, R.L.; Dip, E.C.; Pereira-Franchi, E.P.; Cha, P.; et al. Targeting Alpha Toxin To Mitigate Its Lethal Toxicity in Ferret and Rabbit Models of Staphylococcus aureus Necrotizing Pneumonia. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2017, 61, e02456-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kong, D.; Liu, X.; Li, X.; Hu, J.; Li, X.; Xiao, J.; Dai, Y.; He, M.; Liu, X.; Jiang, Y.; et al. Mesenchymal Stem Cells Significantly Improved Treatment Effects of Linezolid on Severe Pneumonia in a Rabbit Model. Biosci. Rep. 2019, 39, BSR20182455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Strandberg, K.L.; Rotschafer, J.H.; Vetter, S.M.; Buonpane, R.A.; Kranz, D.M.; Schlievert, P.M. Staphylococcal Superantigens Cause Lethal Pulmonary Disease in Rabbits. J. Infect. Dis. 2010, 202, 1690–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Paharik, A.E.; Salgado-Pabon, W.; Meyerholz, D.K.; White, M.J.; Schlievert, P.M.; Horswill, A.R. The Spl Serine Proteases Modulate Staphylococcus aureus Protein Production and Virulence in a Rabbit Model of Pneumonia. mSphere 2016, 1, e00208-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Diep, B.A.; Chan, L.; Tattevin, P.; Kajikawa, O.; Martin, T.R.; Basuino, L.; Mai, T.T.; Marbach, H.; Braughton, K.R.; Whitney, A.R.; et al. Polymorphonuclear Leukocytes Mediate Staphylococcus aureus Panton-Valentine leukocidin-Induced Lung Inflammation and Injury. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 5587–5592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sharma-Kuinkel, B.K.; Ahn, S.H.; Rude, T.H.; Zhang, Y.; Tong, S.Y.C.; Ruffin, F.; Genter, F.C.; Braughton, K.R.; DeLeo, F.R.; Barriere, S.L.; et al. Presence of Genes Encoding Panton-Valentine Leukocidin Is Not the Primary Determinant of Outcome in Patients with Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia Due to Staphylococcus aureus. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2012, 50, 848–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shallcross, L.J.; Fragaszy, E.; Johnson, A.M.; Hayward, A.C. The Role of the Panton-Valentine Leucocidin Toxin in Staphylococcal Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2013, 13, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pivard, M.; Caldelari, I.; Brun, V.; Croisier, D.; Jaquinod, M.; Anzala, N.; Gilquin, B.; Teixeira, C.; Benito, Y.; Couzon, F.; et al. Complex Regulation of Gamma-Hemolysin Expression Impacts Staphylococcus aureus Virulence. Microbiol. Spectr. 2023, 11, e01073-23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hua, L.; Cohen, T.S.; Shi, Y.; Datta, V.; Hilliard, J.J.; Tkaczyk, C.; Suzich, J.; Stover, C.K.; Sellman, B.R. MEDI4893* Promotes Survival and Extends the Antibiotic Treatment Window in a Staphylococcus aureus Immunocompromised Pneumonia Model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2015, 59, 4526–4532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hua, L.; Hilliard, J.J.; Shi, Y.; Tkaczyk, C.; Cheng, L.I.; Yu, X.; Datta, V.; Ren, S.; Feng, H.; Zinsou, R.; et al. Assessment of an Anti-Alpha-Toxin Monoclonal Antibody for Prevention and Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus-Induced Pneumonia. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2014, 58, 1108–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rouha, H.; Badarau, A.; Visram, Z.C.; Battles, M.B.; Prinz, B.; Magyarics, Z.; Nagy, G.; Mirkina, I.; Stulik, L.; Zerbs, M.; et al. Five Birds, One Stone: Neutralization of α-Hemolysin and 4 Bi-Component Leukocidins of Staphylococcus aureus with a Single Human Monoclonal Antibody. mAbs 2015, 7, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  22. Foletti, D.; Strop, P.; Shaughnessy, L.; Hasa-Moreno, A.; Casas, M.G.; Russell, M.; Bee, C.; Wu, S.; Pham, A.; Zeng, Z.; et al. Mechanism of Action and in Vivo Efficacy of a Human-Derived Antibody against Staphylococcus aureus α-Hemolysin. J. Mol. Biol. 2013, 425, 1641–1654. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Croisier-Bertin, D.; Hayez, D.; Da Silva, S.; Labrousse, D.; Biek, D.; Badiou, C.; Dumitrescu, O.; Guerard, P.; Charles, P.-E.; Piroth, L.; et al. In Vivo Efficacy of Ceftaroline Fosamil in a Methicillin-Resistant Panton-Valentine Leukocidin-Producing Staphylococcus aureus Rabbit Pneumonia Model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2014, 58, 1855–1861. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Diep, B.A.; Afasizheva, A.; Le, H.N.; Kajikawa, O.; Matute-Bello, G.; Tkaczyk, C.; Sellman, B.; Badiou, C.; Lina, G.; Chambers, H.F. Effects of Linezolid on Suppressing in Vivo Production of Staphylococcal Toxins and Improving Survival Outcomes in a Rabbit Model of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Necrotizing Pneumonia. J. Infect. Dis. 2013, 208, 75–82. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kobayashi, S.D.; Malachowa, N.; DeLeo, F.R. Pathogenesis of Staphylococcus aureus Abscesses. Am. J. Pathol. 2015, 185, 1518–1527. [Google Scholar]
  26. Linz, M.S.; Mattappallil, A.; Finkel, D.; Parker, D. Clinical Impact of Staphylococcus aureus Skin and Soft Tissue Infections. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Le, V.T.M.; Tkaczyk, C.; Chau, S.; Rao, R.L.; Dip, E.C.; Pereira-Franchi, E.P.; Cheng, L.; Lee, S.; Koelkebeck, H.; Hilliard, J.J.; et al. Critical Role of Alpha-Toxin and Protective Effects of Its Neutralization by a Human Antibody in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 5640–5648. [Google Scholar]
  28. Li, M.; Cheung, G.Y.C.; Hu, J.; Wang, D.; Joo, H.-S.; DeLeo, F.R.; Otto, M. Comparative Analysis of Virulence and Toxin Expression of Global Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Strains. J. Infect. Dis. 2010, 202, 1866–1876. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kobayashi, S.D.; Malachowa, N.; Whitney, A.R.; Braughton, K.R.; Gardner, D.J.; Long, D.; Wardenburg, J.B.; Schneewind, O.; Otto, M.; DeLeo, F.R. Comparative Analysis of USA300 Virulence Determinants in a Rabbit Model of Skin and Soft Tissue Infection. J. Infect. Dis. 2011, 204, 937–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Malachowa, N.; McGuinness, W.; Kobayashi, S.D.; Porter, A.R.; Shaia, C.; Lovaglio, J.; Smith, B.; Rungelrath, V.; Saturday, G.; Scott, D.P.; et al. Toward Optimization of a Rabbit Model of Staphylococcus aureus (USA300) Skin and Soft Tissue Infection. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e02716-21. [Google Scholar]
  31. So-In, C.; Sunthamala, N. Treatment Efficacy of Thunbergia laurifolia, Curcuma longa, Garcinia mangostana, and Andrographis paniculata Extracts in Staphylococcus aureus-Induced Rabbit Dermatitis Model. Vet. World 2022, 15, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Chi, C.-Y.; Lin, C.-C.; Liao, I.-C.; Yao, Y.-C.; Shen, F.-C.; Liu, C.-C.; Lin, C.-F. Panton-Valentine Leukocidin Facilitates the Escape of Staphylococcus aureus From Human Keratinocyte Endosomes and Induces Apoptosis. J. Infect. Dis. 2014, 209, 224–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Malachowa, N.; Kobayashi, S.D.; Sturdevant, D.E.; Scott, D.P.; DeLeo, F.R. Insights into the Staphylococcus aureus-Host Interface: Global Changes in Host and Pathogen Gene Expression in a Rabbit Skin Infection Model. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0117713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Yin, L.-Y.; Calhoun, J.H.; Thomas, J.K.; Shapiro, S.; Schmitt-Hoffmann, A. Efficacies of Ceftobiprole Medocaril and Comparators in a Rabbit Model of Osteomyelitis Due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2008, 52, 1618–1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kavanagh, N.; Ryan, E.J.; Widaa, A.; Sexton, G.; Fennell, J.; O’Rourke, S.; Cahill, K.C.; Kearney, C.J.; O’Brien, F.J.; Kerrigan, S.W. Staphylococcal Osteomyelitis: Disease Progression, Treatment Challenges, and Future Directions. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2018, 31, e00084-17. [Google Scholar]
  36. Pimentel de Araujo, F.; Monaco, M.; Del Grosso, M.; Pirolo, M.; Visca, P.; Pantosti, A. Staphylococcus aureus Clones Causing Osteomyelitis: A Literature Review (2000–2020). J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2021, 26, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Crémieux, A.-C.; Dumitrescu, O.; Lina, G.; Vallee, C.; Côté, J.-F.; Muffat-Joly, M.; Lilin, T.; Etienne, J.; Vandenesch, F.; Saleh-Mghir, A. Panton–Valentine Leukocidin Enhances the Severity of Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Rabbit Osteomyelitis. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e7204. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kishor, C.; Mishra, R.R.; Saraf, S.K.; Kumar, M.; Srivastav, A.K.; Nath, G. Phage Therapy of Staphylococcal Chronic Osteomyelitis in Experimental Animal Model. Indian J. Med. Res. 2016, 143, 87–94. [Google Scholar]
  39. Xu, C.-P.; Chen, Y.; Sun, H.-T.; Cui, Z.; Yang, Y.-J.; Huang, L.; Yu, B.; Wang, F.-Z.; Yang, Q.-P.; Qi, Y. Efficacy of NEMO-Binding Domain Peptide Used to Treat Experimental Osteomyelitis Caused by Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus: An in-Vivo Study. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2019, 8, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lazzarini, L.; Mader, J.T.; Calhoun, J.H. Osteomyelitis in Long Bones. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2004, 86, 2305. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hriouech, S.; Akhmouch, A.A.; Mzabi, A.; Chefchaou, H.; Tanghort, M.; Oumokhtar, B.; Chami, N.; Remmal, A. The Antistaphylococcal Activity of Amoxicillin/Clavulanic Acid, Gentamicin, and 1,8-Cineole Alone or in Combination and Their Efficacy through a Rabbit Model of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Osteomyelitis. Evid. -Based Complement. Altern. Med. Ecam 2020, 2020, 4271017. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jacqueline, C.; Caillon, J.; Meyer, O.; Dailly, E.; Simonsson, C.; Lenaerts, V.; Asehnoune, K.; Reghal, A.; Potel, G. Efficacy of Nanoencapsulated Daptomycin in an Experimental Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bone and Joint Infection Model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2021, 65, e00768-21. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Joosten, U.; Joist, A.; Gosheger, G.; Liljenqvist, U.; Brandt, B.; von Eiff, C. Effectiveness of Hydroxyapatite-Vancomycin Bone Cement in the Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Induced Chronic Osteomyelitis. Biomaterials 2005, 26, 5251–5258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Yan, L.; Jiang, D.-M.; Cao, Z.-D.; Wu, J.; Wang, X.; Wang, Z.-L.; Li, Y.-J.; Yi, Y.-F. Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus-Induced Chronic Osteomyelitis with Bone-like Hydroxyapatite/Poly Amino Acid Loaded with Rifapentine Microspheres. Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 2015, 9, 3665–3676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lulu, G.A.; Karunanidhi, A.; Mohamad Yusof, L.; Abba, Y.; Mohd Fauzi, F.; Othman, F. In Vivo Efficacy of Tobramycin-Loaded Synthetic Calcium Phosphate Beads in a Rabbit Model of Staphylococcal Osteomyelitis. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2018, 17, 46. [Google Scholar]
  46. Zahar, A.; Kocsis, G.; Citak, M.; Puskás, G.; Domahidy, M.; Hajdú, M.; Antal, I.; Szendrői, M. Use of Antibiotic-Impregnated Bone Grafts in a Rabbit Osteomyelitis Model. Technol. Health Care 2017, 25, 929–938. [Google Scholar]
  47. Muñoz, N.M.; Minhaj, A.A.; Dupuis, C.J.; Ensor, J.E.; Golardi, N.; Jaso, J.M.; Dixon, K.A.; Figueira, T.A.; Galloway-Peña, J.R.; Hill, L.; et al. What Are the Effects of Irreversible Electroporation on a Staphylococcus aureus Rabbit Model of Osteomyelitis? Clin. Orthop. 2019, 477, 2367–2377. [Google Scholar]
  48. Amador, G.; Gautier, H.; Le Mabecque, V.; Miegeville, A.F.; Potel, G.; Bouler, J.-M.; Weiss, P.; Caillon, J.; Jacqueline, C. In Vivo Assessment of the Antimicrobial Activity of a Calcium-Deficient Apatite Vancomycin Drug Delivery System in a Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Rabbit Osteomyelitis Experimental Model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2010, 54, 950–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Song, X.; Xie, L.; Tan, X.; Wang, Z.; Yang, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Deng, Y.; Fu, S.; Xu, J.; Sun, X.; et al. A Multi-Center, Cross-Sectional Study on the Burden of Infectious Keratitis in China. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e113843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tuft, S.; Somerville, T.F.; Li, J.-P.O.; Neal, T.; De, S.; Horsburgh, M.J.; Fothergill, J.L.; Foulkes, D.; Kaye, S. Bacterial Keratitis: Identifying the Areas of Clinical Uncertainty. Prog. Retin. Eye Res. 2022, 89, 101031. [Google Scholar]
  51. Lin, W.; Zhao, L.; Tan, Q.; Lin, D. Treatment of Severe Acute Bacterial Keratitis in Rabbits Using Continuous Topical Ocular Instillation with Norvancomycin. Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 2021, 15, 617–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. McCormick, C.C.; Caballero, A.R.; Balzli, C.L.; Tang, A.; O’Callaghan, R.J. Chemical Inhibition of Alpha-Toxin, a Key Corneal Virulence Factor of Staphylococcus aureus. Investig. Ophth. Vis. Sci. 2009, 50, 2848–2854. [Google Scholar]
  53. Ikemoto, K.; Kobayashi, S.; Haranosono, Y.; Kozai, S.; Wada, T.; Tokushige, H.; Kawamura, A. Contribution of Anti-Inflammatory and Anti-Virulence Effects of Azithromycin in the Treatment of Experimental Staphylococcus aureus Keratitis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2020, 20, 89. [Google Scholar]
  54. Marino, A.; Blanco, A.R.; Ginestra, G.; Nostro, A.; Bisignano, G. Ex Vivo Efficacy of Gemifloxacin in Experimental Keratitis Induced by Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2016, 48, 395–400. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sanders, M.E.; Norcross, E.W.; Moore, Q.C.; Shafiee, A.; Marquart, M.E. Efficacy of Besifloxacin in a Rabbit Model of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Keratitis. Cornea 2009, 28, 1055–1060. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rhem, M.N.; Lech, E.M.; Patti, J.M.; McDevitt, D.; Höök, M.; Jones, D.B.; Wilhelmus, K.R. The Collagen-Binding Adhesin Is a Virulence Factor in Staphylococcus aureus Keratitis. Infect. Immun. 2000, 68, 3776–3779. [Google Scholar]
  57. Dajcs, J.J.; Thibodeaux, B.A.; Marquart, M.E.; Girgis, D.O.; Traidej, M.; O’Callaghan, R.J. Effectiveness of Ciprofloxacin, Levofloxacin, or Moxifloxacin for Treatment of Experimental Staphylococcus aureus Keratitis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2004, 48, 1948–1952. [Google Scholar]
  58. Barequet, I.S.; Ben Simon, G.J.; Safrin, M.; Ohman, D.E.; Kessler, E. Pseudomonas aeruginosa LasA Protease in Treatment of Experimental Staphylococcal Keratitis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2004, 48, 1681–1687. [Google Scholar]
  59. Nguyen, D.D.; Lue, S.J.; Lai, J.-Y. Tailoring Therapeutic Properties of Silver Nanoparticles for Effective Bacterial Keratitis Treatment. Colloids Surf. B 2021, 205, 111856. [Google Scholar]
  60. Aghamollaei, H.; Safabakhsh, H.; Moosazadeh Moghaddam, M.; Zare, H.; Bakherad, H.; Jadidi, K. Evaluation of a Cationic Antimicrobial Peptide as the New Antibiotic Candidate to Treat Staphylococcus aureus Keratitis. Int. J. Pept. Res. Ther. 2021, 27, 755–762. [Google Scholar]
  61. Dajcs, J.J.; Thibodeaux, B.A.; Girgis, D.O.; O’Callaghan, R.J. Corneal Virulence of Staphylococcus aureus in an Experimental Model of Keratitis. DNA Cell Biol. 2002, 21, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Soler, Z.M.; Wittenberg, E.; Schlosser, R.J.; Mace, J.C.; Smith, T.L. Health State Utility Values in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Sinus Surgery. Laryngoscope 2011, 121, 2672–2678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Bhattacharyya, N. Incremental Health Care Utilization and Expenditures for Chronic Rhinosinusitis in the United States. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 2011, 120, 423–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Braga, A.A.; Valera, F.C.P.; Faria, F.M.; Rossato, M.; Murashima, A.A.B.; Fantucci, M.Z.; Aragon, D.C.; Queiroz, D.L.C.; Anselmo-Lima, W.T.; Tamashiro, E. An Experimental Model of Eosinophilic Chronic Rhinosinusitis Induced by Bacterial Toxins in Rabbits. Am. J. Rhinol. Allergy 2019, 33, 737–750. [Google Scholar]
  65. Fastenberg, J.H.; Hsueh, W.D.; Mustafa, A.; Akbar, N.A.; Abuzeid, W.M. Biofilms in Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Strategies. World J. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2016, 2, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wood, A.J.; Fraser, J.D.; Swift, S.; Patterson-Emanuelson, E.A.C.; Amirapu, S.; Douglas, R.G. Intramucosal Bacterial Microcolonies Exist in Chronic Rhinosinusitis without Inducing a Local Immune Response. Am. J. Rhinol. Allergy 2012, 26, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Jia, M.; Chen, Z.; Du, X.; Guo, Y.; Sun, T.; Zhao, X. A Simple Animal Model of Staphylococcus aureus Biofilm in Sinusitis. Am. J. Rhinol. Allergy 2014, 28, e115–e119. [Google Scholar]
  68. Wu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, X.; Chen, J.; Jia, M. Inflammatory Immune Response in Rabbits with Staphylococcus aureus Biofilm–Associated Sinusitis. Int. Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2018, 8, 1226–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Min, Y.-G.; Jun Oh, S.; Won, T.-B.; Kim, Y.M.; Shim, W.S.; Rhee, C.-S.; Min, J.-Y.; Dhong, H.-J. Effects of Staphylococcal Enterotoxin on Ciliary Activity and Histology of the Sinus Mucosa. Acta Otolaryngol. 2006, 126, 941–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bleier, B.S.; Kofonow, J.M.; Hashmi, N.; Chennupati, S.K.; Cohen, N.A. Antibiotic Eluting Chitosan Glycerophosphate Implant in the Setting of Acute Bacterial Sinusitis: A Rabbit Model. Am. J. Rhinol. Allergy 2010, 24, 129–132. [Google Scholar]
  71. Sütbeyaz, Y.; Aktan, B.; Yoruk, O.; Özdemir, H.; Gundogdu, C. Treatment of Sinusitis with Corticosteroids in Combination with Antibiotics in Experimentally Induced Rhinosinusitis. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 2008, 117, 389–394. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  72. Jia, M.; Chen, Z.; Guo, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhao, X. Efficacy of Silk Fibroin-Nano Silver against Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms in a Rabbit Model of Sinusitis. Int. J. Nanomed. 2017, 12, 2933–2939. [Google Scholar]
  73. Karasen, R.M.; Uslu, C.; Taysi, S.; Gundogdu, C.; Akcay, F. Effect of Web 2170 Bs, Platelet Activating Factor Receptor Inhibitor, in the Rabbit Model of Sinusitis. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 2004, 113, 477–482. [Google Scholar]
  74. Uslu, C.; Karasen, R.M.; Sahin, F.; Taysi, S.; Akcay, F. Effect of Aqueous Extracts of Ecballium elaterium Rich, in the Rabbit Model of Rhinosinusitis. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2006, 70, 515–518. [Google Scholar]
  75. Dong, Y.; Zhou, B.; Huang, Z.; Huang, Q.; Cui, S.; Li, Y.; Fan, E.; Li, Y.; Wang, X. Evaluating Bone Remodeling by Measuring Hounsfield Units in a Rabbit Model of Rhinosinusitis: Is It Superior to Measuring Bone Thickness? Int. Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2018, 8, 1342–1348. [Google Scholar]
  76. Stucki, A.; Gerber, P.; Acosta, F.; Cottagnoud, M.; Cottagnoud, P. Efficacy of Telavancin against Penicillin-Resistant Pneumococci and Staphylococcus aureus in a Rabbit Meningitis Model and Determination of Kinetic Parameters. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2006, 50, 770–773. [Google Scholar]
  77. Sipahi, O.R.; Arda, B.; Yurtseven, T.; Sipahi, H.; Ozgiray, E.; Suntur, B.M.; Ulusoy, S. Vancomycin versus Teicoplanin in the Therapy of Experimental Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Meningitis. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2005, 26, 412–415. [Google Scholar]
  78. Mermer, S.; Turhan, T.; Bolat, E.; Aydemir, S.; Yamazhan, T.; Pullukcu, H.; Arda, B.; Sipahi, H.; Ulusoy, S.; Sipahi, O.R. Ceftaroline versus Vancomycin in the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in an Experimental MRSA Meningitis Model. J. Glob. Antimicrob. Resist. 2020, 22, 147–151. [Google Scholar]
  79. Ostergaard, C. Evaluation of Fusidic Acid in Therapy of Experimental Staphylococcus aureus Meningitis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2003, 51, 1301–1305. [Google Scholar]
  80. Myrianthefs, P.; Markantonis, S.L.; Vlachos, K.; Anagnostaki, M.; Boutzouka, E.; Panidis, D.; Baltopoulos, G. Serum and Cerebrospinal Fluid Concentrations of Linezolid in Neurosurgical Patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006, 50, 3971–3976. [Google Scholar]
  81. Calik, S.; Turhan, T.; Yurtseven, T.; Sipahi, O.R.; Buke, C. Vancomycin versus Linezolid in the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Meningitis in an Experimental Rabbit Model. Med. Sci. Monit. Int. Med. J. Exp. Clin. Res. 2012, 18, SC5–SC8. [Google Scholar]
  82. Cabellos, C.; Garrigós, C.; Taberner, F.; Force, E.; Pachón-Ibañez, M.E. Experimental Study of the Efficacy of Linezolid Alone and in Combinations against Experimental Meningitis due to Staphylococcus aureus strains with Decreased Susceptibility to Beta-lactams and Glycopeptides. J. Infect. Chemother. 2014, 20, 563–568. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  83. Gerber, P.; Stucki, A.; Acosta, F.; Cottagnoud, M.; Cottagnoud, P. Daptomycin Is More Efficacious than Vancomycin against a Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus in Experimental Meningitis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2006, 57, 720–723. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  84. Bardak-Ozcem, S.; Turhan, T.; Sipahi, O.R.; Arda, B.; Pullukcu, H.; Yamazhan, T.; Isikgoz-Tasbakan, M.; Sipahi, H.; Ulusoy, S. Daptomycin versus Vancomycin in Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Meningitis in an Experimental Rabbit Model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2013, 57, 1556–1558. [Google Scholar]
  85. Spaulding, A.R.; Satterwhite, E.A.; Lin, Y.-C.; Chuang-Smith, O.N.; Frank, K.L.; Merriman, J.A.; Schaefers, M.M.; Yarwood, J.M.; Peterson, M.L.; Schlievert, P.M. Comparison of Staphylococcus aureus Strains for Ability to Cause Infective Endocarditis and Lethal Sepsis in Rabbits. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2012, 2, 18. [Google Scholar]
  86. Tornos, P.; Gonzalez-Alujas, T.; Thuny, F.; Habib, G. Infective Endocarditis: The European Viewpoint. Curr. Probl. Cardiol. 2011, 36, 175–222. [Google Scholar]
  87. Bastien, S.; Meyers, S.; Salgado-Pabón, W.; Giulieri, S.G.; Rasigade, J.-P.; Liesenborghs, L.; Kinney, K.J.; Couzon, F.; Martins-Simoes, P.; Le Moing, V.; et al. All Staphylococcus aureus Bacteraemia-Inducing Strains Can Cause Infective Endocarditis: Results of GWAS and Experimental Animal Studies. J. Infect. 2023, 86, 123–133. [Google Scholar]
  88. Huang, D.B.; Gaukel, E.; Kerzee, N.; Borroto-Esoda, K.; Lowry, S.; Xiong, Y.Q.; Abdelhady, W.; Bayer, A.S. Efficacy of Antistaphylococcal Lysin LSVT-1701 in Combination with Daptomycin in Experimental Left-Sided Infective Endocarditis Due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2021, 65, e00508-21. [Google Scholar]
  89. Chambers, H.F. Evaluation of Ceftobiprole in a Rabbit Model of Aortic Valve Endocarditis Due to Methicillin-Resistant and Vancomycin-Intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2005, 49, 884–888. [Google Scholar]
  90. Wang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Fan, M.; Guo, Y.; Ren, W.; Luo, E. A Rabbit Model of Right-Sided Staphylococcus aureus Endocarditis Created with Echocardiographic Guidance. Cardiovasc. Ultrasoun. 2013, 11, 3. [Google Scholar]
  91. Castañeda, X.; García-De-la-Mària, C.; Gasch, O.; Pericàs, J.M.; Soy, D.; Cañas-Pacheco, M.-A.; Falces, C.; García-González, J.; Hernández-Meneses, M.; Vidal, B.; et al. Effectiveness of Vancomycin plus Cloxacillin Compared with Vancomycin, Cloxacillin and Daptomycin Single Therapies in the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant and Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus in a Rabbit Model of Experimental Endocarditis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2021, 76, 1539–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Abdelhady, W.; Bayer, A.S.; Gonzales, R.; Li, L.; Xiong, Y.Q. Telavancin Is Active against Experimental Aortic Valve Endocarditis Caused by Daptomycin- and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Strains. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2017, 61, e01877-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Madrigal, A.G.; Basuino, L.; Chambers, H.F. Efficacy of Telavancin in a Rabbit Model of Aortic Valve Endocarditis Due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Vancomycin-Intermediate Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2005, 49, 3163–3165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Shah, S.U.; Xiong, Y.Q.; Abdelhady, W.; Iwaz, J.; Pak, Y.; Schuch, R.; Cassino, C.; Lehoux, D.; Bayer, A.S. Effect of the Lysin Exebacase on Cardiac Vegetation Progression in a Rabbit Model of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Endocarditis as Determined by Echocardiography. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2020, 64, e00482-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Chan, L.C.; Basuino, L.; Dip, E.C.; Chambers, H.F. Comparative Efficacies of Tedizolid Phosphate, Vancomycin, and Daptomycin in a Rabbit Model of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Endocarditis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2015, 59, 3252–3256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Asseray, N.; Caillon, J.; Roux, N.; Jacqueline, C.; Bismuth, R.; Kergueris, M.F.; Potel, G.; Bugnon, D. Different Aminoglycoside-Resistant Phenotypes in a Rabbit Staphylococcus aureus Endocarditis Infection Model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2002, 46, 1591–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Chambers, H.F.; Basuino, L.; Hamilton, S.M.; Choo, E.J.; Moise, P. Daptomycin–β-Lactam Combinations in a Rabbit Model of Daptomycin-Nonsusceptible Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Endocarditis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2016, 60, 3976–3979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Emanuel, N.; Kozloski, G.A.; Nedvetzki, S.; Rosenfeld, S. Potent Antibacterial Activity in Surgical Wounds with Local Administration of D-PLEX100. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2023, 188, 106504. [Google Scholar]
  99. Zhang, C.; Li, X.; Xiao, D.; Zhao, Q.; Chen, S.; Yang, F.; Liu, J.; Duan, K. Cu2+ Release from Polylactic Acid Coating on Titanium Reduces Bone Implant-Related Infection. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gordon, O.; Miller, R.J.; Thompson, J.M.; Ordonez, A.A.; Klunk, M.H.; Dikeman, D.A.; Joyce, D.P.; Ruiz-Bedoya, C.A.; Miller, L.S.; Jain, S.K. Rabbit Model of Staphylococcus aureus Implant-Associated Spinal Infection. Dis. Models Mech. 2020, 13, dmm045385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Nguyen, N.T.Q.; Doan, T.N.M.; Sato, K.; Tkaczyk, C.; Sellman, B.R.; Diep, B.A. Monoclonal Antibodies Neutralizing Alpha-Hemolysin, Bicomponent Leukocidins, and Clumping Factor A Protected against Staphylococcus aureus-Induced Acute Circulatory Failure in a Mechanically Ventilated Rabbit Model of Hyperdynamic Septic Shock. Front Immunol 2023, 14, 1260627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Oznurlu, Y.; Celik, I.; Sur, E.; Telatar, T.; Ozparlak, H. Comparative Skin Histology Of The White New Zealand And Angora Rabbits: Histometrical And Immunohistochemical Evaluations. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2009, 8, 1694–1701. [Google Scholar]
  103. Boudry, I.; Trescos, Y.; Vallet, V.; Cruz, C.; Lallement, G. Méthodes et modèles d’étude de l’absorption percutanée des composés organophosphorés. Pathol. Biol. 2008, 56, 292–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Spaulding, A.R.; Lin, Y.-C.; Merriman, J.A.; Brosnahan, A.J.; Peterson, M.L.; Schlievert, P.M. Immunity to Staphylococcus aureus Secreted Proteins Protects Rabbits from Serious Illnesses. Vaccine 2012, 30, 5099–5109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Miller Wancket, L.; Bradley, A.; Himmel, L.E. Chapter 18—Animal Models in Toxicologic Research: Rabbit. In Haschek and Rousseaux’s Handbook of Toxicologic Pathology, 4th ed.; Haschek, W.M., Rousseaux, C.G., Wallig, M.A., Bolon, B., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 695–719. ISBN 978-0-12-821044-4. [Google Scholar]
  106. Schlievert, P.M. Cytolysins, Superantigens, and Pneumonia Due to Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J. Infect. Dis. 2009, 200, 676–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Clements, P.J.M.; Bolon, B.; McInnes, E.; Mukaratirwa, S.; Scudamore, C. Chapter 17—Animal Models in Toxicologic Research: Rodents. In Haschek and Rousseaux’s Handbook of Toxicologic Pathology, 4th ed.; Haschek, W.M., Rousseaux, C.G., Wallig, M.A., Bolon, B., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 653–694. ISBN 978-0-12-821044-4. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. There are seven rabbit models of infectious diseases induced by S. aureus, including pneumonia, skin and soft tissue infections, osteomyelitis, keratitis, rhinosinusitis, meningitis, and endocarditis.
Figure 1. There are seven rabbit models of infectious diseases induced by S. aureus, including pneumonia, skin and soft tissue infections, osteomyelitis, keratitis, rhinosinusitis, meningitis, and endocarditis.
Microbiolres 16 00076 g001
Table 1. The summary information of S. aureus-induced pneumonia models in rabbits.
Table 1. The summary information of S. aureus-induced pneumonia models in rabbits.
AuthorRabbit SpeciesDoseStrainsInoculation ModeDuration
Cruiser-Bertin [23]New Zealand white rabbit3 × 109 CFU/mL
0.5 ml
USA300Inoculation via jugular catheter50 h
Kong [12]New Zealand white rabbit1 × 1010 CFUsATCC 33591Inoculation by bronchoscope7 d
Strandberg [13]Dutch belted rabbit2 × 109 CFUsUSA200
USA400
Inoculation by tracheal intubation7 d
Diep [24]New Zealand white rabbit5–6 × 109 CFUsUSA300 SF8300Inoculation via pediatric endotracheal tube36 h
Diep [15]New Zealand white rabbit2–3 × 1010 CFU/mL
1.5 mL
USA300 SF8300Inoculation via pediatric endotracheal tube48 h
Paharik [14]Dutch belted
rabbit
2 × 109 CFUsUSA300 LACInoculation via ventral midline tracheal cannula6 d
Pivard [18]New Zealand white rabbit9.49–9.61 log10
CFU/mL, 0.5 mL
USA300 ST80
PEN
Inoculation by intratracheal instillation48 h
Diep [11]New Zealand White outbred rabbitsNot providedUSA300 SF8300Inoculation via pediatric endotracheal tube96 h
Table 2. The summary information of S. aureus-induced skin and soft tissue infection models in rabbits.
Table 2. The summary information of S. aureus-induced skin and soft tissue infection models in rabbits.
AuthorRabbit SpeciesStrainsDoseInoculation ModeDuration
Le [27]New Zealand White rabbitSF83002.5–3.0 × 1010 CFU/mL
0.12 mL
Inoculation by intradermal injection7 d
Li [28]New Zealand White rabbitSF83005 × 108 CFUsInoculation via intradermal injection14 d
Malachowa [33]New Zealand White rabbitUSA300
LAC
5 × 108 CFUsInoculation via subcutaneous injection14 d
Malachowa [30]New Zealand White rabbitST121
dltB/Δrot
1 × 106 CFUsInoculation via subcutaneous injection14 d
Kobayashi [29]New Zealand White rabbitUSA3005 × 108 CFUsInoculation via subcutaneous injection14 d
Muñoz-Silvestr [8]Albino hybrid rabbitFdltBr strains300 CFUsInoculation by Intradermal injection7 d
So-In [31]New Zealand White rabbitATCC 65381 × 106 CFUsInoculation by applying S. aureus to skin wound7 d
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zeng, M.; Wang, Y.; Liu, F.; Long, J.; Yang, H. Rabbit Models for Infectious Diseases Caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Microbiol. Res. 2025, 16, 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/microbiolres16040076

AMA Style

Zeng M, Wang Y, Liu F, Long J, Yang H. Rabbit Models for Infectious Diseases Caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Microbiology Research. 2025; 16(4):76. https://doi.org/10.3390/microbiolres16040076

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zeng, Minghang, Yadong Wang, Fang Liu, Jinzhao Long, and Haiyan Yang. 2025. "Rabbit Models for Infectious Diseases Caused by Staphylococcus aureus" Microbiology Research 16, no. 4: 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/microbiolres16040076

APA Style

Zeng, M., Wang, Y., Liu, F., Long, J., & Yang, H. (2025). Rabbit Models for Infectious Diseases Caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Microbiology Research, 16(4), 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/microbiolres16040076

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop