ABSTRACT
Infectious diseases are the leading cause of death in developing countries. Preclinical studies are carried out with small experimental animals in order to understand the pathophysiology of the infection, to treat it correctly, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment. In these studies, various infection models are created and displayed by appropriate methods. Molecular imaging methods used in research of infectious diseases, are frequently used together with anatomical imaging methods. Hybrid imaging methods single photon emission computerized tomography/ computerized tomography (SPECT/CT), positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT), PET/ magnetic resonance imaging have been used frequently in small animal models, especially to present anatomical and functional imaging. In addition, bioluminescence imaging was also used. Anatomic imaging modalities are generally insufficient to follow the pathophysiological process as they show morphological changes secondary to infection. Recent advances in imaging technology and the discovery of new radiolabelled molecules used in molecular imaging have opened up new horizons for infection imaging. These developments will bring forth personalized treatments against the infectious agent in the future and the treatment processes can be followed up with imaging methods.
References
1WHO. World Health Statistics 2014. Available at: http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/2014.
2Beltman JB, Maree AF, De Boer RJ. Spatial modelling of brief and long interactions between T cells and dendritic cells. Immunol Cell Biol 2007;85:306-314.
3Altun GD, Üstün F. Klinik öncesi görüntüleme yöntem ve protokoller. Editörler: Perihan Ünak, Gülay Durmuş Altun, Serap Teksöz, Zümrüt Biber Müftüler. Uygulamalı Temel Radyofarmasi. 1. baskı, İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri, 2017. Sayfa:1-14.
4Patel M, Rojavin Y, Jamali AA, et al. Animal models for the study of osteomyelitis. Semin Plast Surg 2009;23:148-154.
5An YH, Kang QK, Arciola CR. Animal models of osteomyelitis. Int J Artif Organs 2006;29:407-420.
6Norden CW. Lessons learned from animal models of osteomyelitis. Rev Infect Dis 1988;10:103-110.
7Lankinen P, Noponen T, Autio A, et al. A Comparative 68Ga-Citrate and 68Ga-Chloride PET/CT Imaging of Staphylococcus aureus Osteomyelitis in the Rat Tibia. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2018;25:1-10.
8Wang Y, Cheng LI, Helfer DR, et al. Mouse model of hematogenous implant-related Staphylococcus aureus biofilm infection reveals therapeutic targets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2017;114:5094-5102.
9Johansson A, Svensson O, Blomgren G, et al. Anaerobic osteomyelitis. A new experimental rabbit model. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991;297-301.
10Ozturk AM, Tabak AY, Aktekin CN, et al. Alendronate enhances antibiotic impregnated bone grafts in the treatment of osteomyelitis. Int Orthop 2008;32:821-827.
11Emslie KR, Nade S. Acute hematogenous staphylococcal osteomyelitis. A description of the natural history in an avian model. Am J Pathol 1983;110:333-345.
12Bremell T, Lange S, Yacoub A, et al. Experimental Staphylococcus aureus arthritis in mice. Infect Immun 1991;59:2615-2623.
13Tissi L, Marconi P, Mosci P, et al. Experimental model of type IV Streptococcus agalactiae (group B streptococcus) infection in mice with early development of septic arthritis. Infect Immun 1990;58:3093-3100.
14Lucke M, Schmidmaier G, Sadoni S, et al. A new model of implant-related osteomyelitis in rats. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2003;67:593-602.
15Gristina AG, Shibata Y, Giridhar G, et al. The glycocalyx, biofilm, microbes, and resistant infection. Semin Arthroplasty 1994;5:160-170.
16Gupta K, Donnola SB, Sadeghi Z, et al. Intrarenal injection of escherichia coli in a rat model of pyelonephritis. J Vis Exp 2017;54649.
17Majd M, Nussbaum Blask AR, Markle BM, et al. Acute pyelonephritis comparison of diagnosis with 99mTc-DMSA, SPECT, spiral CT, MR imaging, and power Doppler US in an experimental pig model. Radiology 2001;218:101-108.
18Van der Laken CJ, Boerman OC, Oyen WJG, et al. In-vivo expression of IL-1 receptors during various experimentally induced inflammatory conditions. J Infect Dis 1998;177:1398-1401.
19Ertay T, Sencan Eren M, Karaman M, Oktay G, Durak H. 18F-FDG-PET/CT in Initiation and Progression of Inflammation and Infection. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther 2017;26:47-52.
20Gibson GW, Kreuser SC, Riley JM, et al. Development of a mouse model of induced Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis. Comp Med 2007;57:563-569.
21McCormick JK, Tripp TJ, Dunny GM, et al. Formation of vegetations during infective endocarditis excludes binding of bacterial-specific host antibodies to Enterococcus faecalis. J Infect Dis 2002;185:994-997.
22Turan C, Tutuş A, Ercan MT, et al. Evaluation of 99mTc-citrate, 67Ga-citrate and 99mTc(V) dimercaptosuccinic acid for the scintigraphic visualization of acute appendicitis. Res Exp Med (Berl) 1997;197:157-164.
23Ertay T. Enfeksiyon-Enflamasyon: Moleküler Görüntülemede Kullanılan SPECT Radyofarmasötikleri. Nucl Med Semin 2016;2:63-70.
24Goldsmith SJ, Vallabhajosula S. Clinically proven radiopharmaceuticals for infection imaging: mechanisms and applications. Semin Nucl Med 2009;39:2-10.
25Heiba S, Knešaurek K. Evaluation of diabetic foot infection in nuclear medicine. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017;61:283-291.
26Heiba S, Kolker D, Ong L, et al. Dual-isotope SPECT/CT impact on hospitalized patients with suspected diabetic foot infection: saving limbs, lives, and resources. Nucl Med Commun 2013;34:877-884.
27Ankrah AO, Klein HC, Elsinga PH. New imaging tracers for the infected diabetic foot (nuclear and optical imaging). Curr Pharm Des 2018;24:1287-1303.
28Glaudemans AW, de Vries EF, Galli F, et al. The use of (18)F-FDG-PET/CT for diagnosis and treatment monitoring of inflammatory and infectious diseases. Clin Dev Immunol 2013;2013:623036.
29Pellegrino D, Bonab AA, Dragotakes SC, et al. Inflammation and infection: Imaging properties of 18F-FDG-labeled white blood cells versus 18F-FDG. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1522-1530.
30Pio BS, Byrne FR, Aranda R, et al. Noninvasive quantification of bowel inflammation through positron emission tomography imaging of 2-deoxy-2-2[18F]fluoro-D-glucose-labeled white blood cells. Mol Imaging Biol 2003;5:271-277.
31Bhargava KK, Gupta RK, Nichols KJ, Palestro CJ. In-vitro human leukocyte labeling with (64)Cu: an intraindividual comparison with (111)In-oxine and 18F-FDG. Nucl Med Biol 2009;36:545-549.
32Locke LW, Chordia MD, Zhang Y, et al. A novel neutrophil-specific PET imaging agent: cFLFLFK-PEG-64Cu. J Nucl Med 2009;50:790-797.
33Vorster M, Maes A, Wiele Cv, Sathekge M. Gallium-68
34PET: a powerful generator-based alternative to infection and inflammation imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2016;46:436-47.
35Kumar V, Boddeti DK, Evans SG, Angelides S. 68Ga-citrate-PET for diagnostic imaging of infection in rats and for intra-abdominal infection in a patient. Curr Radiopharm 2012;5:71-75.
36Ujula T, Salomäkia S, Virsua P, et al. Synthesis, 68Ga labeling and preliminary evaluation of DOTA peptide binding vascular adhesion protein-1: a potential PET imaging agent for diagnosing osteomyelitis. Nucl Med Biol 2009;36:631-641.
37Pullambhatla M, Tessier J, Beck G, et al.125I-FIAU imaging in a preclinical model of lung infection: quantification of bacterial load. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;2:260-270.
38Hess S, Alavi A, Werner T, Hoilund-Carlsen PF. Molecular imaging of bacteria in patients is an attractive fata morgana, not a realistic option. J Nucl Med 2018;59:716-717
39Jelicks LA, Lisanti MP, Machado FS, et al. Imaging of small-animal models of infectious diseases. Am J Pathol 2013;182:296-304.
