This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Animal models are used in preclinical trials to test vaccines, antivirals, monoclonal antibodies, and immunomodulatory drug therapies against SARS-CoV-2. However, these drugs often do not produce equivalent results in human clinical trials. Here, we show how different animal models infected with some of the most clinically relevant SARS-CoV-2 variants, WA1/2020, B.1.617.2/Delta, B.1.1.529/Omicron, and BA5.2/Omicron, have independent outcomes. We show that in K18-hACE2 mice, B.1.617.2 is more pathogenic, followed by WA1, while B.1.1.529 showed an absence of clinical signs. Only B.1.1.529 was able to infect C57BL/6J mice, which lack the human ACE2 receptor. B.1.1.529-infected C57BL/6J mice had different T cell profiles compared to infected K18-hACE2 mice, while viral shedding profiles and viral titers in lungs were similar between the K18-hACE2 and the C57BL/6J mice. These data suggest B.1.1.529 virus adaptation to a new host and shows that asymptomatic carriers can accumulate and shed virus. Next, we show how B.1.617.2, WA1 and BA5.2/Omicron have similar viral replication kinetics, pathogenicity, and viral shedding profiles in hamsters, demonstrating that the increased pathogenicity of B.1.617.2 observed in mice is host-dependent. Overall, these findings suggest that small animal models are useful to parallel human clinical data, but the experimental design places an important role in interpreting the data. Importance: There is a need to investigate SARS-CoV-2 variant phenotypes in different animal models due to the lack of reproducible outcomes when translating experiments to the human population. Our findings highlight the correlation of clinically relevant SARS-CoV-2 variants in animal models with human infections. Experimental design and understanding of correct animal models are essential to interpreting data to develop antivirals, vaccines, and other therapeutic compounds against COVID-19.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Burns et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: