Clinical and Histopathologic Features of a Feline SARS-CoV-2 Infection Model Are Analogous to Acute COVID-19 in Humans

  1. Jennifer M. Rudd
  2. Miruthula Tamil Selvan
  3. Shannon Cowan
  4. Yun-Fan Kao
  5. Cecily C. Midkiff
  6. Sai Narayanan
  7. Akhilesh Ramachandran
  8. Jerry W. Ritchey
  9. Craig A. Miller

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The emergence and ensuing dominance of COVID-19 on the world stage has emphasized the urgency of efficient animal models for the development of therapeutics for and assessment of immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Shortcomings of current animal models for SARS-CoV-2 include limited lower respiratory disease, divergence from clinical COVID-19 disease, and requirements for host genetic modifications to permit infection. In this study, n = 12 specific-pathogen-free domestic cats were infected intratracheally with SARS-CoV-2 to evaluate clinical disease, histopathologic lesions, and viral infection kinetics at 4 and 8 days post-inoculation; n = 6 sham-inoculated cats served as controls. Intratracheal inoculation of SARS-CoV-2 produced a significant degree of clinical disease (lethargy, fever, dyspnea, and dry cough) consistent with that observed in the early exudative phase of COVID-19. Pulmonary lesions such as diffuse alveolar damage, hyaline membrane formation, fibrin deposition, and proteinaceous exudates were also observed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, replicating lesions identified in people hospitalized with ARDS from COVID-19. A significant correlation was observed between the degree of clinical disease identified in infected cats and pulmonary lesions. Viral loads and ACE2 expression were also quantified in nasal turbinates, distal trachea, lungs, and other organs. Results of this study validate a feline model for SARS-CoV-2 infection that results in clinical disease and histopathologic lesions consistent with acute COVID-19 in humans, thus encouraging its use for future translational studies.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/v13081550
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.14.439863v2 on bioRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.14.439863: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.14.439863v1 on bioRxiv