Expanding the scope of Mycobacterium abscessus reference strains to improve pulmonary disease modeling

Le résumé fourni par la source

ABSTRACT Mycobacterium abscessus ( Mab ) pulmonary disease is an emerging clinical challenge, particularly among individuals with immunosuppression or underlying structural lung conditions. There are currently no FDA-approved therapies for Mab disease. Existing treatment strategies using repurposed drugs are prolonged, complex, and yield low cure rates (30–50%), underscoring the urgent need for more effective therapeutics. Developing new treatments requires preclinical disease models that faithfully replicate human disease, and the choice of Mab strain is a key determinant of model relevance. The commonly used reference strain, ATCC 19977, was isolated from a non-pulmonary source but became the default due to its early availability. To evaluate its relevance for pulmonary disease modeling, we compared ATCC 19977 with 15 clinical Mab isolates derived from lung infections across diverse regions of the United States. In both in vitro assays and a validated mouse lung infection model, ATCC 19977 behavior differed from the clinical isolates for key traits including rapid systemic dissemination, failure to develop robust lung granulomas, and early mortality. In contrast, clinical isolates demonstrated greater pulmonary tropism and reduced dissemination, with several producing robust lung pathology. Based on these findings, we propose a set of pulmonary clinical isolates representing the major Mab subspecies for use in lung infection research. These isolates more accurately recapitulate the pathological features of human Mab lung disease and are expected to enhance the translational value of future mechanistic and therapeutic studies. SUMMARY STATEMENT Using a mouse model, this study identified Mycobacterium abscessus clinical isolates whose infection profiles more closely resemble human pulmonary disease, establishing them as superior reference strains to ATCC 19977 for future translational and therapeutic research.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.