Publications by authors named "Leontine S Schuijff"

2 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Pathogenic characteristics of persistent feline enteric coronavirus infection in cats.

Vet Res 2010 Sep-Oct;41(5):71. Epub 2010 Jul 23.

Virology Division, Department of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 1, 3584 CL Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Feline coronaviruses (FCoV) comprise two biotypes: feline enteric coronaviruses (FECV) and feline infectious peritonitis viruses (FIPV). FECV is associated with asymptomatic persistent enteric infections, while FIPV causes feline infectious peritonitis (FIP), a usually fatal systemic disease in domestic cats and some wild Felidae. FIPV arises from FECV by mutation. FCoV also occur in two serotypes, I and II, of which the serotype I viruses are by far the most prevalent in the field. Yet, most of our knowledge about FCoV infections relates to serotype II viruses, particularly about the FIPV, mainly because type I viruses grow poorly in cell culture. Hence, the aim of the present work was the detailed study of the epidemiologically most relevant viruses, the avirulent serotype I viruses. Kittens were inoculated oronasally with different doses of two independent FECV field strains, UCD and RM. Persistent infection could be reproducibly established. The patterns of clinical symptoms, faecal virus shedding and seroconversion were monitored for up to 10 weeks revealing subtle but reproducible differences between the two viruses. Faecal virus, i.e. genomic RNA, was detected during persistent FECV infection only in the large intestine, downstream of the appendix, and could occasionally be observed also in the blood. The implications of our results, particularly our insights into the persistently infected state, are discussed.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/vetres/2010043DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2939696PMC
December 2010

Luciferase labeling for multipotent stromal cell tracking in spinal fusion versus ectopic bone tissue engineering in mice and rats.

Tissue Eng Part A 2010 Nov 13;16(11):3343-51. Epub 2010 Jul 13.

Department of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Tissue engineering of bone, by combining multipotent stromal cells (MSCs) with osteoconductive scaffolds, has not yet yielded any clinically useful applications so far. The fate and contribution of the seeded cells are not sufficiently clarified, especially at clinically relevant locations. Therefore, we investigated cell proliferation around the spine and at ectopic sites using noninvasive in vivo bioluminescence imaging (BLI) in relation to new bone formation. Goat MSCs were lentivirally transduced to express luciferase. After showing both correlation between MSC viability and BLI signal as well as survival and osteogenic capacity of these cells ectopically in mice, they were seeded on ceramic scaffolds and implanted in immunodeficient rats at two levels in the spine for spinal fusion as well as subcutaneously. Nontransduced MSCs were used as a control group. All rats were monitored at day 1 and after that weekly until termination at week 7. In mice a BLI signal was observed during the whole observation period, indicating survival of the seeded MSCs, which was accompanied by osteogenic differentiation in vivo. However, these same MSCs showed a different response in the rat model, where the BLI signal was present until day 14, both in the spine and ectopically, indicating that MSCs were able to survive at least 2 weeks of implantation. Only when the signal was still present after the total implantation period ectopically, which only occurred in one rat, new bone was formed extensively and the implanted MSCs were responsible for this bone formation. Ectopically, neither a reduced proliferative group (irradiated) nor a group in which the cells were devitalized by liquid nitrogen and the produced extracellular matrix remained (matrix group) resulted in bone formation. This suggests that the release of soluble factors or the presence of an extracellular matrix is not enough to induce bone formation. For the spinal location, the question remains whether the implanted MSCs contribute to the bone regeneration or that the principal mechanism of MSC activity is through the release of soluble mediators.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2009.0774DOI Listing
November 2010