Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Alternatives to animal models to study bacterial infections

  • Review
  • Published:
Folia Microbiologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Animal testing has made a significant and unequalled contribution to important discoveries and advancements in the fields of research, medicine, vaccine development, and drug discovery. Each year, millions of animals are sacrificed for various experiments, and this is an ongoing process. However, the debate on the ethical and sensible usage of animals in in vivo experimentation is equally important. The need to explore and adopt newer alternatives to animals so as to comply with the goal of reduce, refine, and replace needs attention. Besides the ever-increasing debate on ethical issues, animal research has additional drawbacks (need of trained labour, requirement of breeding area, lengthy protocols, high expenses, transport barriers, difficulty to extrapolate data from animals to humans, etc.). With this scenario, the present review has been framed to give a comprehensive insight into the possible alternative options worth exploring in this direction especially targeting replacements for animal models of bacterial infections. There have been some excellent reviews discussing on the alternate methods for replacing and reducing animals in drug research. However, reviews that discuss the replacements in the field of medical bacteriology with emphasis on animal bacterial infection models are purely limited. The present review discusses on the use of (a) non-mammalian models and (b) alternative systems such as microfluidic chip–based models and microdosing aiming to give a detailed insight into the prospects of these alternative platforms to reduce the number of animals being used in infection studies. This would enlighten the scientific community working in this direction to be well acquainted with the available new approaches and alternatives so that the 3R strategy can be successfully implemented in the field of antibacterial drug research and testing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

All the data pertaining the above study is available within the manuscript.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

CH, WY: literature search, data collection and extraction, draft writing, editing, and approval of the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wenlong Yang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, C., Yang, W. Alternatives to animal models to study bacterial infections. Folia Microbiol 68, 703–739 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12223-023-01084-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12223-023-01084-6

Keywords

Navigation