Comparison study of the response with botulinum toxin muscle injection in the ICR mice from three different sources.
Botulinum toxin
ICR mouse
Korl:ICR
Muscle
Journal
Laboratory animal research
ISSN: 1738-6055
Titre abrégé: Lab Anim Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101560684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
13
05
2019
accepted:
04
07
2019
entrez:
8
4
2020
pubmed:
8
4
2020
medline:
8
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Botulinum-toxin A (BoNT/A) is a widely used not only for cosmetics but also for various experimental purposes including muscle-related research. In this study, we applied BoNT/A to mouse muscle of three different sources to compare and evaluate the biological and pathological response. The three different mouse sources consist of Korl:ICR (Korea FDA source), A:ICR (USA source) and B:ICR (Japan source) which were purchased from each different vendors. To compare the responses of ICR mice with BoNT/A muscle injection, we examined the body weight, hematological and serum biochemistry analysis. Also, we evaluated the muscle change by histopathological analysis and gene expression patterns of muscle-related target by qPCR. The body weight gain was decreased in the BoNT/A-treated group compared with the control group. In clinical pathologic analysis and gene expression patterns, the data showed that the responses in the BoNT/A-treated group were similar compared with the control group. Decreased muscle fiber was observed in BoNT/A-treated group compared with control group, while Korl:ICR showed a little low response with the other mouse sources. In conclusion, our results suggest that three different sources ICR mice (Korl:ICR, A:ICR and B:ICR) have a similar biological and pathological responses in BoNT/A muscle injection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32257899
doi: 10.1186/s42826-019-0010-4
pii: 10
pmc: PMC7081521
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
11Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
J Biol Chem. 1946 Jul;164:63-79
pubmed: 20989469
Toxins (Basel). 2016 Feb 29;8(3):
pubmed: 26938559
J Bacteriol. 1966 Sep;92(3):796-7
pubmed: 5332083
Am J Med Sci. 2002 Jun;323(6):326-40
pubmed: 12074487
J Pharmacol Sci. 2011;117(4):275-85
pubmed: 22123262
Dermatol Surg. 2013 Jan;39(1 Pt 2):155-64
pubmed: 23301819
Indian J Dermatol. 2010;55(1):8-14
pubmed: 20418969
Toxins (Basel). 2015 Jun 23;7(6):2321-35
pubmed: 26110508
Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1981;79:734-70
pubmed: 7043872
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1994 Sep;128(1):69-77
pubmed: 8079356
J Toxicol Environ Health. 1986;18(2):161-88
pubmed: 3712484
Lab Anim Res. 2017 Mar;33(1):8-14
pubmed: 28400834
Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 2003 May;42(3):46-52
pubmed: 19760836
Int J Neurosci. 2017 Apr;127(4):285-290
pubmed: 27439999
Dermatol Surg. 1996 Jan;22(1):39-43
pubmed: 8556256
Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2015 Jun;116(6):524-8
pubmed: 25395371
Lab Anim. 1993 Apr;27(2):116-23
pubmed: 8501892
mBio. 2018 Mar 27;9(2):
pubmed: 29588398
J Orthop Res. 2007 Dec;25(12):1658-64
pubmed: 17600825
Laryngoscope. 1995 Feb;105(2):144-8
pubmed: 8544593
Infect Immun. 2013 Oct;81(10):3894-902
pubmed: 23918782
Brain Res. 1983 Feb 14;261(1):172-5
pubmed: 6301625
Nat Struct Biol. 2000 Aug;7(8):693-9
pubmed: 10932256
Microbiol Rev. 1992 Mar;56(1):80-99
pubmed: 1579114
ANZ J Surg. 2017 Sep;87(9):E70-E73
pubmed: 26423046
Sci Rep. 2017 Nov 7;7(1):14746
pubmed: 29116170
Trends Microbiol. 2003 Sep;11(9):431-7
pubmed: 13678859