Histopathologic Evaluation and Scoring of Viral Lung Infection
- 2.5k Downloads
Emergent coronaviruses such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV can cause significant morbidity and mortality in infected individuals. Lung infection is a common clinical feature and contributes to disease severity as well as viral transmission. Animal models are often required to study viral infections and therapies, especially during an initial outbreak. Histopathology studies allow for identification of lesions and affected cell types to better understand viral pathogenesis and clarify effective therapies. Use of immunostaining allows detection of presumed viral receptors and viral tropism for cells can be evaluated to correlate with lesions. In the lung, lesions and immunostaining can be qualitatively described to define the cell types, microanatomic location, and type of changes seen. These features are important and necessary, but this approach can have limitations when comparing treatment groups. Semiquantitative and quantitative tissue scores are more rigorous as these provide the ability to statistically compare groups and increase the reproducibility and rigor of the study. This review describes principles, approaches, and resources that can be useful to evaluate coronavirus lung infection, focusing on MER-CoV infection as the principal example.
Key wordsMERS-CoV infection Lung Scoring Pathology Immunostaining
Emergent coronaviruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV) have caused significant impacts on human health, especially during their initial outbreaks [1, 2]. People infected with these coronaviruses often have significant lung disease that contributes to clinical morbidity and mortality [3, 4, 5]. Histopathologic examination and immunostaining (e.g., immunohistochemistry) of lung tissues are essential to better understand disease pathogenesis and evaluate novel treatments of these current (and future) virus outbreaks [6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. Here, we will focus on MERS-CoV infection to present important principles for valid qualitative and quantitative evaluation of infected lung tissues.
1.1 Factors that Influence Evaluation
Preparation of quality lung tissue samples is important for histopathologic examination to optimize preservation of fine pulmonary architecture and, in the case of immunostaining, antigenicity of target epitopes [11, 12, 13]. A study by Engel and Moore identified more than 60 variables in this time frame, beginning with proper sample collection and handling and including multiple aspects of tissue collection, fixation, processing, embedding, slide drying, and storage . Thus, attention to details and quality early will greatly aid the subsequent evaluation, interpretation, and impact of tissue examination.
To collect lungs for histology, samples should be harvested as soon as possible following death to minimize autolysis . Autolysis (“self-digestion”) is a postmortem change characterized by degradation of cellular constituents (DNA, RNA, protein) and dissolution of the tissue . Not only can this cause degradation of epitopes and increased nonspecific staining with immunohistochemistry, autolytic regions can be morphologically confused with foci of necrosis and edema [15, 16, 17]. If animals will be euthanized, it is preferable to select a method that does not target the lungs such as an intravenous agent. Even use of inhalational overdose of carbon dioxide, as is commonly used in rodents, can potentially cause minor edema/hemorrhage [11, 18, 19]. Evaluation of controls should be standard to evaluate for antemortem or euthanasia-related variables affecting lung evaluation. When examining rodents versus lungs from larger animals or humans, sampling becomes a relevant variable. For instance, mice have small lungs that can be sectioned onto one glass slide for widespread evaluation. Larger sized lungs cannot be sampled adequately using only one slide without introducing sampling bias. Therefore, several samples will need to be collected in larger lungs. The collection method will need to be defined in the methods of publications and should include collection site (standardized vs. lesions sites) and total number, the latter of which depends on the size of the lungs, distribution of lung lesions, and overarching goals of the study.
Proper and adequate fixation of the tissues is essential to retain optimal tissue morphology and cellular antigenicity for immunostaining techniques [11, 20]. However, it is important to remember that if lungs are to be assessed or scored for macroscopic (gross) indicators of disease (such as color, surface texture, and consistency), this must be done prior to fixation, which will affect all of these parameters. Macroscopic evaluation and scoring can be a nice tool to complement histopathology lesions [21, 22]. For tissues that will be paraffin embedded, sections are typically fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin or 4% paraformaldehyde, though other fixatives may be employed based on the desired analysis endpoints. Collected lung samples can be placed in a minimum of 20:1 volume of fixative:tissue with a maximal thickness of tissue of no more than ~5 mm in at least one dimension to be consistently fixed . For rodents, inflation of the lungs via intratracheal instillation of fixative is recommended to best preserve lung morphology and reduce artifactual atelectasis . However, this approach is contraindicated for lung infection as this can alter the anatomic location of inflammation and cellular debris . The lungs and heart of rodents can be removed en bloc for fixation. Freezing of tissue may be an alternative approach to preserve specific antigens, but this process typically results in suboptimal retention of cellular and tissue architectural detail .
After processing to dehydrate the fixed lungs, samples must be embedded and sectioned in a consistent manner. Due to the relatively small size of mice, all lung lobes can be embedded en bloc with the ventral lobar surfaces oriented down in the cassette, which results in sections showing longitudinal views of major conducting airways. An alternative approach for mice, or standard approach for larger species, lung lobes can be collected as multiple sections that fit into a cassette, with each sample embedded separately . Slides are typically stained with hematoxylin and eosin (HE) for routine histologic evaluation. If immunostaining is desired, it is essential to optimize and validate each new antibody utilizing appropriate positive and negative controls to ensure accurate staining results [20, 23]. Similarly, if special histochemical stains will be employed, appropriate control slides and tissues should also be utilized for each batch.
Awareness of normal anatomy and morphology is necessary to recognize any type of change and when utilizing animal models of human disease, this includes knowing differences between the species [24, 25]. For example, there are a number of morphologic differences between the respiratory tract structures of mice and humans. Lobation is distinct, in that mice have four right lung lobes (cranial, middle, caudal, and accessory) and only one left lobe, while humans have three right lung lobes (upper, middle, and lower) and two left lobes (upper and lower) [15, 22]. Rats and mice lack intralobular septa, intrapulmonary bronchi, intrapulmonary submucosal glands, and respiratory bronchioles. Mice also have more club cells extending to the trachea, a thinner blood-gas barrier, and a smaller alveolar diameter than humans [11, 26]. These anatomic variations do not mean that rodents cannot be very valuable models of lung disease; rather they are highlighted here as an example of the type of knowledge necessary for correct interpretation of experimental models.
Inclusion of experienced board-certified pathologists, who are specially trained to examine and interpret tissues changes, as part of the multidisciplinary team can greatly enhance the quality of tissue evaluation [22, 27]. By histopathology, a skilled eye (ideally a pathologist familiar with the model) can not only define the types of inflammatory processes, but also corroborate these findings to clinical signs and/or data from other analyses [22, 27, 28, 29, 30]. In addition, pathologists have knowledge of correct lesion nomenclature, as well as potential effects of such variables as strain-related background lesions, husbandry, the microbiome, and diet on the interpretation of results . If pathologists are not involved in designing translational experiments and interpreting lesions in animal models, bias may be introduced and the accuracy of the data and conclusions may be questionable. This approach, which lacks the expertise of a pathologist trained in tissue interpretation, has been labeled as “do-it-yourself pathology” and is linked to multiple publications containing erroneous interpretations [22, 25, 31, 32]. While observations made by biomedical personnel may be biologically accurate in some cases, it is important to note that tissue examination by non-pathologists (even those who are “scientific experts” for a particular disease) is prone to false-positive and false-negative errors and not recommended . Ideally, tissues should be examined by a pathologist familiar with histopathology of the model (see Note 1). It is recognized that not all labs have access to pathologists for this role and in many situations a member of the investigational team is assigned to the role. In these situations, if possible, it helps to have a pathologist review the study findings prior to publication or have the examiner meet with a pathologist to screen the slides and data for accuracy.
Lungs have unique features compared to other organs that are important for consideration in designing experiments or when making interpretations. For study of infectious diseases, distribution and histologic appearance of lung lesions depends on a variety of factors including the viral inoculate concentration, route of exposure, regional deposition, cellular uptake, chronicity, and host immune response. For instance, inbred mouse strains can have variably sized airways that may affect viral droplet delivery or clinical disease manifestations such as airway obstruction . Inbred mouse strains can also exhibit biased (e.g., Th1 vs. Th2 immune responses) or deficient immune signaling pathways that might influence infection susceptibility or severity [35, 36]. Sex can also be an influencing factor for infection and needs to be considered in the experimental design . Even actions as simple as laying an animal in lateral recumbency to recover from anesthesia following viral inoculation may lead to more prominent lesions in certain lobe(s) . For many of these features, inclusion of appropriate control animals (i.e., strain-, age-, and sex-matched, housed under identical husbandry conditions and free from confounding pathogens) is necessary and important to tease out any lesions unrelated to the treatments. Unlike the other organs in which the size is relatively static, the lung has dynamic size changes during normal respiration. Handing of the postmortem lung in a standardized manner is useful to prevent postmortem atelectasis or variable inter-animal insufflation. Right ventricular perfusion of fixative into the lungs prior to extraction can help with fixation as well as insufflate the airspaces without dislodging inflammation or mucocellular debris .
Histopathology is the microscopic examination of tissues for morphologic or structural changes that differ from normal and these changes are called lesions. Histopathology of coronavirus-infected lung in humans and animal models can be a useful tool to help define affected cells, illuminate the structural cause(s) of clinical signs, and clarify potential therapies. During disease outbreaks, clinical data including autopsy cases can be studied in parallel with animal model investigations to better define lung disease pathogenesis and therapies. For instance, in 2012 the novel human coronavirus known as MERS-CoV was first isolated from a patient dying in Saudi Arabia [2, 38]. In the region of the outbreak, local burial rituals along with the requirement for high biosecurity constrained autopsy studies from being performed until the first report in early 2016 . Within a few years of the first reported MERS-CoV case in humans in 2012, several animal models were being studied and these models provided much of the initial critically important lung pathology data [39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44].
Examples of lesions seen in MERS-CoV lung infections
Samples are labeled without group identification (1, 2, 3, 4 …), minimal background information provided
Allows for experienced observers to score well-defined models, otherwise susceptible to errors
Samples are labeled according to de-identified groups (A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3…)
Allows for masked evaluation of groups while observer is informed about experimental context
Samples are examined in a transparent manner to determine the type and scope of tissue changes, samples are then masked for scoring
Allows for full examination and disclosure of experimental context; groups with small N may let observer recall sample group assignment
After the slides and stains have been examined for all groups, the results will need to be prepared for publication. Qualitative characterization of the findings is very important to understand features of the disease including cellular tropism, anatomic predisposition, and nature of lesions leading to clinical signs (see Note 4) [10, 21]. Qualitative descriptions of lesions include type (e.g., epithelial sloughing/necrosis), location (e.g., alveoli), distribution (e.g., locally extensive), inflammation (e.g., neutrophilic), and cell types involved (e.g., type I pneumocytes). Qualitative features can be sufficiently described in the text and exemplified in representative figures. Use of arrows and other forms of annotation are valuable in figures to clarify and guide readers through the images. High-quality descriptions will help the reader (including reviewers) better understand what was seen and allow for others to reproduce the study.
Immunostaining (immunohistochemistry) is a valuable tool in viral lung disease investigations as it can be used to study cellular localization of receptors and viral targets. For instance, detection of the MERS-CoV receptor dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) virus receptor can give insights to cell tropism to help explain disease pathogenesis [4, 6, 21, 42, 57, 58, 59].
There are several tissue handling (preanalytical) factors that can significantly affect the quality and specificity of immunostaining and its analysis. These have been discussed earlier sections of the paper and in several reviews [20, 52, 60, 61, 62, 63]. Similarly, there are many factors during the staining procedure that itself can also influence the results. Deparaffinization, lack of control tissues, optimization/validation techniques, species, batch effects, and chromogens can all influence the final quality and assessment of immunostaining methods. Standard operating procedures for each of the technical steps, if used by all biomedical staff, can significantly mitigate many of these issues. Use of positive and negative control tissues for each batch of immunostained tissues can help in validating appropriate staining and also making clear any potential nonspecific immunostaining. After the stained slides have been examined for all groups, qualitative statements about the immunostaining can be made and prepared for publication text and images. Descriptive text of immunostaining (receptor or virus) could include cell types (e.g., type I pneumocytes), cell integrity (necrotic vs. intact cells), and subcellular location (e.g., diffuse cytoplasmic). Demonstration of immunostaining using annotated images can strengthen the qualitative data.
As shown above, qualitative descriptions of tissue changes are useful and necessary, but they are less applicable in terms of group comparisons. More robust and reproducible methods are desirable and these criteria can be sought in tissue scoring systems (semiquantitative and quantitative) that produce data that allow for statistical analyses for evaluation of group differences (see Note 5) [52, 53]. Importantly, these scoring principles can be applied to tissue lesions (gross and/or histopathologic) as well as immunostained sections.
1.4.1 Nominal Approaches
1.4.2 Semiquantitative Approaches
Semiquantitative approaches are used to transform qualitative tissue changes into numerical scores using specific morphologic criteria [52, 53]. Semiquantitative methods have several advantages in that they can be done with minimal technical resources, quickly at the microscope for small to medium studies, provide guidance for future quantitative studies, and provide complementary data for publication [52, 53, 54]. The most commonly used semiquantitative methods produce ordinal scores. Ordinal implies there is an order or progression of severity in the assigned grades that define each score, with typically four to five grades being optimal (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3, 4). Each grade should be well defined so there is minimal ambiguity in assigning samples. Use of simple descriptive modifiers such as normal, rare, mild, moderate, and severe is discouraged as these have different meanings for each observer and thus limit reproducibility of the scoring. As a mock example of ordinal scoring, WT and mutated mice might be evaluated for the extent of hyaline membranes lining alveolar walls. The scoring grades might look like: “0”—none, “1”— <25% (see Fig. 1d), “2”—26–50% (see Fig. 1e), “3”—51–75%, and “4” >75% of alveolar walls in the lung section. If the ordinal scoring for seven mice per group produced the following results for WT (3, 3, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4) and mutated mice (1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2), then the data can be statistically analyzed. Importantly, ordinal scores do not meet the assumptions required for parametric tests; thus nonparametric tests should be used . For the mock example, the difference between groups using a Mann-Whitney U-test was significant (P = 0.002).
1.4.3 Quantitative Approaches
Quantitative methods are tissue techniques that measure specific tissue components (length, area, volume, number, percentage, etc.) . Quantitative methods tend to have greater precision and sensitivity than semiquantitative methods. These methods often require high-quality images and specialized software to properly analyze the tissues, which can make the methods costlier for some labs than semiquantitative techniques. The growing interest in automation and artificial intelligence may increase future efficiency and cost-effectiveness of quantification of tissue parameters, especially for large projects [64, 65, 66, 67].
When it comes to tissue scoring, each project is unique. Investigators will have to evaluate the lung samples to determine the best scoring approaches in relation to the breadth of lesions and goals of the project. Most importantly, any scoring that is performed should be corroborated, when possible, with other data to validate the findings [22, 52, 53]. For instance, if group A has more immunostaining than group B, this could be validated by ELISA or Western blots of whole lung homogenates. Alternatively, lesion severity could be corroborated to measurements of clinical data (see Note 6). Validation can help give more confidence in the data rigor and reproducibility.
1.4.4 Statistical Analyses
Inappropriate use of paired t-tests and shopping for significance are two issues that have slipped into the published literature and potentially compromise the interpretation and reproducibility of studies . For the various scoring methods, statistical analyses of the data should involve the collaborative expertise of a statistician to be able to identify the most relevant tests to confidently evaluate for group differences [22, 33, 52, 53].
Examination of infected lung tissues for histopathology and immunostaining are common and needed approaches to study viral lung infection, especially in emergent coronaviruses like MERS-CoV. Following the principles and concepts above will help guide and lead studies to more valid and reproducible data.
Ideally a pathologist familiar with the model is available for the lab to evaluate experimental tissues. If not, then a pathologist collaborator should be sought to perform or review of the results of examination prior to submission for publication. This prevents publication of data that is flawed or needs subsequent retraction.
Masking is important to prevent potential bias by the observer pathologist (Table 2). For new projects, the post-examination is preferred as this helps the pathologist understand the goals/experimental design of the project as well as see quality and scope of lesions/stains. For most other research projects where the pathologist is familiar with the model, these can be masked in grouped fashion to maximize the interpretative power of the pathologist to screen for biologically relevant changes in a group-specific manner. Comprehensive masking is often discouraged as it effectively constrains the ability of the pathologist in defining relevant versus unconnected data and therefore limits the sensitivity and specificity of the pathology data.
Evaluation of slides from all treatment and control groups prior to detailed examination is useful to give the pathologist an overview and primer of the type, scope and severity of lesions/stains.
Detailed examination of the tissues allows for extrapolation of qualitative descriptive data. If there are questions regarding the cells/tissues that can be addressed by specific stains—these could be done at this time to corroborate/clarify descriptive findings.
When biologically relevant lesions are defined in the project, group-specific changes may be evaluated for by semiquantitative or quantitative scores. Semiquantitative approaches are often done initially and the results can be used as screening tools to set up primary scoring approaches or be used as primary/supplemental data for reporting group differences in lesions or stains. Quantitative approaches may be performed by at the microscope (e.g., cell counts) or automated on digital images by specialized software.
Regardless of the masking method (see Note 2), it is often useful to score the slides in a random masked fashion and in one sitting to prevent diagnostic drift. After scoring, it is sometimes beneficial to take scoring data to see if these same differences are morphologically detectable in the respective groups. If the pathologist can see these differences, it gives further confidence to the scoring approach and final interpretations. If not, it can raise questions as to the scoring methods.
Effective reporting of pathology data requires transparency of methods, numbers of animals, statistical analyses, etc. Producing graphs of scoring data with matching images that are annotated can be very powerful tools in conveying the results to readers.
We would like to thank The Lamb Art Studio (www.faithlamb.com) for excellent assistance with graphic artwork.
- 1.Booth CM, Matukas LM, Tomlinson GA, Rachlis AR, Rose DB, Dwosh HA, Walmsley SL, Mazzulli T, Avendano M, Derkach P, Ephtimios IE, Kitai I, Mederski BD, Shadowitz SB, Gold WL, Hawryluck LA, Rea E, Chenkin JS, Cescon DW, Poutanen SM, Detsky AS (2003) Clinical features and short-term outcomes of 144 patients with SARS in the greater Toronto area. JAMA 289(21):2801–2809. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.21.JOC30885CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Khalid I, Alraddadi BM, Dairi Y, Khalid TJ, Kadri M, Alshukairi AN, Qushmaq IA (2016) Acute management and long-term survival among subjects with severe Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus pneumonia and ARDS. Respir Care 61(3):340–348. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.04325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Ng DL, Al Hosani F, Keating MK, Gerber SI, Jones TL, Metcalfe MG, Tong S, Tao Y, Alami NN, Haynes LM, Mutei MA, Abdel-Wareth L, Uyeki TM, Swerdlow DL, Barakat M, Zaki SR (2016) Clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and ultrastructural findings of a fatal case of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection in the United Arab Emirates, april 2014. Am J Pathol 186(3):652–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2015.10.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Peiris JS, Chu CM, Cheng VC, Chan KS, Hung IF, Poon LL, Law KI, Tang BS, Hon TY, Chan CS, Chan KH, Ng JS, Zheng BJ, Ng WL, Lai RW, Guan Y, Yuen KY, Group HUSS (2003) Clinical progression and viral load in a community outbreak of coronavirus-associated SARS pneumonia: a prospective study. Lancet 361(9371):1767–1772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Cockrell AS, Johnson JC, Moore IN, Liu DX, Bock KW, Douglas MG, Graham RL, Solomon J, Torzewski L, Bartos C, Hart R, Baric RS, Johnson RF (2018) A spike-modified Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infectious clone elicits mild respiratory disease in infected rhesus macaques. Sci Rep 8(1):10727. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28900-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.Hua X, Vijay R, Channappanavar R, Athmer J, Meyerholz DK, Pagedar N, Tilley S, Perlman S (2018) Nasal priming by a murine coronavirus provides protective immunity against lethal heterologous virus pneumonia. JCI Insight 3(11):99025. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.99025CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Li K, Wohlford-Lenane C, Perlman S, Zhao J, Jewell AK, Reznikov LR, Gibson-Corley KN, Meyerholz DK, McCray PB Jr (2016) Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus causes multiple organ damage and lethal disease in mice transgenic for human dipeptidyl peptidase 4. J Infect Dis 213(5):712–722. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiv499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Menachery VD, Yount BL Jr, Debbink K, Agnihothram S, Gralinski LE, Plante JA, Graham RL, Scobey T, Ge XY, Donaldson EF, Randell SH, Lanzavecchia A, Marasco WA, Shi ZL, Baric RS (2015) A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence. Nat Med 21(12):1508–1513. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3985CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 15.Renne R, Brix A, Harkema J, Herbert R, Kittel B, Lewis D, March T, Nagano K, Pino M, Rittinghausen S, Rosenbruch M, Tellier P, Wohrmann T (2009) Proliferative and nonproliferative lesions of the rat and mouse respiratory tract. Toxicol Pathol 37(7 Suppl):5S–73S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623309353423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Williams JM, Duckworth CA, Burkitt MD, Watson AJ, Campbell BJ, Pritchard DM (2015) Epithelial cell shedding and barrier function: a matter of life and death at the small intestinal villus tip. Vet Pathol 52(3):445–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300985814559404CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 21.Li K, Wohlford-Lenane CL, Channappanavar R, Park JE, Earnest JT, Bair TB, Bates AM, Brogden KA, Flaherty HA, Gallagher T, Meyerholz DK, Perlman S, McCray PB Jr (2017) Mouse-adapted MERS coronavirus causes lethal lung disease in human DPP4 knockin mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114(15):E3119–E3128. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619109114CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Adissu HA, Estabel J, Sunter D, Tuck E, Hooks Y, Carragher DM, Clarke K, Karp NA, Sanger Mouse Genetics P, Newbigging S, Jones N, Morikawa L, White JK, McKerlie C (2014) Histopathology reveals correlative and unique phenotypes in a high-throughput mouse phenotyping screen. Dis Model Mech 7(5):515–524. https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.015263CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 35.Feng CG, Scanga CA, Collazo-Custodio CM, Cheever AW, Hieny S, Caspar P, Sher A (2003) Mice lacking myeloid differentiation factor 88 display profound defects in host resistance and immune responses to Mycobacterium avium infection not exhibited by Toll-like receptor 2 (TLR2)- and TLR4-deficient animals. J Immunol 171(9):4758–4764. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.171.9.4758CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.de Wit E, Prescott J, Baseler L, Bushmaker T, Thomas T, Lackemeyer MG, Martellaro C, Milne-Price S, Haddock E, Haagmans BL, Feldmann H, Munster VJ (2013) The Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) does not replicate in Syrian hamsters. PLoS One 8(7):e69127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069127CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 41.de Wit E, Rasmussen AL, Falzarano D, Bushmaker T, Feldmann F, Brining DL, Fischer ER, Martellaro C, Okumura A, Chang J, Scott D, Benecke AG, Katze MG, Feldmann H, Munster VJ (2013) Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) causes transient lower respiratory tract infection in rhesus macaques. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110(41):16598–16603. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1310744110CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 44.Zhao J, Li K, Wohlford-Lenane C, Agnihothram SS, Fett C, Zhao J, Gale MJ Jr, Baric RS, Enjuanes L, Gallagher T, McCray PB Jr, Perlman S (2014) Rapid generation of a mouse model for Middle East respiratory syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111(13):4970–4975. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323279111CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 46.Dietert K, Gutbier B, Wienhold SM, Reppe K, Jiang X, Yao L, Chaput C, Naujoks J, Brack M, Kupke A, Peteranderl C, Becker S, von Lachner C, Baal N, Slevogt H, Hocke AC, Witzenrath M, Opitz B, Herold S, Hackstein H, Sander LE, Suttorp N, Gruber AD (2017) Spectrum of pathogen- and model-specific histopathologies in mouse models of acute pneumonia. PLoS One 12(11):e0188251. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 47.Falzarano D, de Wit E, Feldmann F, Rasmussen AL, Okumura A, Peng X, Thomas MJ, van Doremalen N, Haddock E, Nagy L, LaCasse R, Liu T, Zhu J, McLellan JS, Scott DP, Katze MG, Feldmann H, Munster VJ (2014) Infection with MERS-CoV causes lethal pneumonia in the common marmoset. PLoS Pathog 10(8):e1004250. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004250CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 48.Alsaad KO, Hajeer AH, Al Balwi M, Al Moaiqel M, Al Oudah N, Al Ajlan A, AlJohani S, Alsolamy S, Gmati GE, Balkhy H, Al-Jahdali HH, Baharoon SA, Arabi YM (2018) Histopathology of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronovirus (MERS-CoV) infection—clinicopathological and ultrastructural study. Histopathology 72(3):516–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 55.Meyerholz DK, Beck AP, Goeken JA, Leidinger MR, Ofori-Amanfo GK, Brown HC, Businga TR, Stoltz DA, Reznikov LR, Flaherty HA (2018) Glycogen depletion can increase the specificity of mucin detection in airway tissues. BMC Res Notes 11(1):763. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3855-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 56.Vergara-Alert J, Vidal E, Bensaid A, Segales J (2017) Searching for animal models and potential target species for emerging pathogens: experience gained from Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus. One Health 3:34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2017.03.001CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 57.Haagmans BL, van den Brand JM, Provacia LB, Raj VS, Stittelaar KJ, Getu S, de Waal L, Bestebroer TM, van Amerongen G, Verjans GM, Fouchier RA, Smits SL, Kuiken T, Osterhaus AD (2015) Asymptomatic Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection in rabbits. J Virol 89(11):6131–6135. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00661-15CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 58.Vergara-Alert J, van den Brand JM, Widagdo W, Munoz MT, Raj S, Schipper D, Solanes D, Cordon I, Bensaid A, Haagmans BL, Segales J (2017) Livestock susceptibility to infection with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Emerg Infect Dis 23(2):232–240. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2302.161239CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 59.Widagdo W, Raj VS, Schipper D, Kolijn K, van Leenders G, Bosch BJ, Bensaid A, Segales J, Baumgartner W, Osterhaus A, Koopmans MP, van den Brand JMA, Haagmans BL (2016) Differential expression of the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus receptor in the upper respiratory tracts of humans and dromedary camels. J Virol 90(9):4838–4842. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.02994-15CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 65.Barisoni L, Gimpel C, Kain R, Laurinavicius A, Bueno G, Zeng C, Liu Z, Schaefer F, Kretzler M, Holzman LB, Hewitt SM (2017) Digital pathology imaging as a novel platform for standardization and globalization of quantitative nephropathology. Clin Kidney J 10(2):176–187. https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfw129CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar