Impact of anesthesia protocols on in vivo bioluminescent bacteria imaging results
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 10, Issue: 7, Page: e0134048
2015
- 5Citations
- 25Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations5
- Citation Indexes5
- CrossRef1
- Captures25
- Readers25
- 25
Article Description
Infectious murine models greatly benefit from optical imaging using bioluminescent bacteria to non-invasively and repeatedly follow in vivo bacterial infection. In this context, one of the most critical parameters is the bioluminescence sensitivity to reliably detect the smallest number of bacteria. Another critical point is the anesthetic approaches that have been demonstrated to impact the bioluminescence flux emission in studies with luciferase-transfected tumor cells. However, this impact has never been assessed on bacteria bioluminescent models. To this end, we investigated the effects of four anesthesia protocols on the bioluminescence flux in a central venous catheter murine model (SKH1-hrhr mice) infected by a bioluminescent S. aureus Xen36 strain. Bioluminescence imaging was performed on mice anesthetized by either ketamine/xylazine (with or without oxygen supplementation), or isoflurane carried with air or oxygen. Total flux emission was determined in vivo daily for 3 days and ex vivo at the end of the study together with a CFU counting of the biofilm in the catheter. Bioluminescence flux differences appear between the different anesthetic protocols. Using a ketamine/xylazine anesthesia (with air), bacteria detection was impossible since the bioluminescence signal remains in the background signal. Mice anesthetized with isoflurane and oxygen led to a signal significantly higher to the background all along the kinetics. The use of isoflurane in air presents a bioluminescence signal similar to the use of ketamine/xylazine with oxygen. These data highlight the importance of oxygen to improve bioluminescence flux by bacteria with isoflurane as well as with ketamine/xylazine anesthetics. As a conclusion, we recommend the use of isoflurane anesthetic with oxygen to increase the bioluminescence sensitivity in this kind of study.
Bibliographic Details
10.1371/journal.pone.0134048; 10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g004; 10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g003; 10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g002
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84941662552&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26208168; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g004; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g004; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g003; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g004; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g004; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134048; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g002; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g004; http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134048&type=printable; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134048; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134048&type=printable; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g001; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0134048; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g003; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/metrics?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134048; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134048.g002
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know