Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 8;16(7):e0246270. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246270

Integrated evaluation of lung disease in single animals

Pratyusha Mandal 1,*,#, John D Lyons 2,*,#, Eileen M Burd 3, Michael Koval 4, Edward S Mocarski 1,*, Craig M Coopersmith 2,*
Editor: Selvakumar Subbian5
PMCID: PMC8266100  PMID: 34237078

Abstract

During infectious disease, pathogen load drives inflammation and immune response that together contribute to tissue injury often resulting in organ dysfunction. Pulmonary failure in SARS-CoV2-infected hospitalized COVID-19 patients is one such prominent example. Intervention strategies require characterization of the host-pathogen interaction by accurately assessing all of the above-mentioned disease parameters. To study infection in intact mammals, mice are often used as essential genetic models. Due to humane concerns, there is a constant unmet demand to develop studies that reduce the number of mice utilized while generating objective data. Here, we describe an integrated method of evaluating lung inflammation in mice infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa or murine gammaherpesvirus (MHV)-68. This method conserves animal resources while permitting evaluation of disease mechanisms in both infection settings. Lungs from a single euthanized mouse were used for two purposes-biological assays to determine inflammation and infection load, as well as histology to evaluate tissue architecture. For this concurrent assessment of multiple parameters from a single euthanized mouse, we limit in-situ formalin fixation to the right lung of the cadaver. The unfixed left lung is collected immediately and divided into several segments for biological assays including determination of pathogen titer, assessment of infection-driven cytokine levels and appearance of cell death markers. In situ fixed right lung was then processed for histological determination of tissue injury and confirmation of infection-driven cell death patterns. This method reduces overall animal use and minimizes inter-animal variability that results from sacrificing different animals for different types of assays. The technique can be applied to any lung disease study in mice or other mammals.

Introduction

Animals models are essential for medical research investigating development, homeostasis, immunity, as well as disease mechanisms. The National Institutes of Health continues to stress the requirement for humane experimental strategies in animal research that align with the 3R principle: replacement, reduction and refinement [1]. Live animals are necessary tools to study mammalian processes at an organismal level [2], rendering replacement with alternative approaches non-viable option in many studies. Therefore, techniques that lead to accurate and objective information while using a minimal number of experimental animals are desirable. Here, we utilize intratracheal infection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa or intranasal infection of murine gammahespesvirus (MHV)68 as models for acute pulmonary inflammatory disease to demonstrate an integrated lung isolation technique. This method yields both histopathological and biological data from the same euthanized mouse.

Pulmonary diseases are some of the most significant human health hazards globally [35]. Changes in inflammatory signaling underlie many lung disease processes including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, acute respiratory distress syndrome, lung fibrosis, and cystic fibrosis [611]. Mice are widely used to investigate lung pathologies and the critical parameters of illness due to ease of genetic manipulation [1214]. For respiratory infectious diseases, the primary determinants of outcome are a) pathogen load, b) infection-triggered inflammatory signaling, c) immune response and d) tissue injury. Even though an interconnected combination of these factors is a recognized driver of organ damage [4], the relative contribution of each often is not distinguishably resolved. Understanding disease processes requires careful assessment of each parameter. While quantification of infection, immune response, and inflammatory signaling may require fresh tissues, assessment of tissue morphology primarily relies on histology. When lungs are harvested without in situ fixation, the alveoli collapse, giving a deflated appearance that no longer preserves the original tissue architecture. In situ fixation by passing formalin through the trachea fixes all lung tissue and does not allow collection of fresh tissues from the euthanized mouse. Due to these issues, researchers use different groups of mice for generation of fixed and fresh lung tissue samples. This practice not only increases the total number of experimental animals but introduces complexities associated with animal-to-animal variability. If different mice are used to generate a/b/c and d, the correlation between obtained biological and histopathological information becomes difficult to objectively correlate. To address these issues, fresh and fixed tissue samples should be collected from the same mouse. Here, we utilize an integrated lung isolation technique following infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa or MHV68 to demonstrate a method to achieve this goal.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an opportunistic pathogen that often underlies lung pathology in immunocompromised human beings such as patients who are critically ill due to other unrelated infections or people suffering from cystic fibrosis [15, 16]. Intratracheal inoculation of Pseudomonas is an established method infecting the lungs. Bacterium drives pulmonary inflammation and triggers injury via different processes including cytokine/chemokine production, as well as activation of cell death pathways [1719]. This model has identified critical genetic factors, as well as inflammatory and immune determinants of bacteria-triggered acute lung pathology. In wild type (WT) mice, inoculation of Pseudomonas triggers pneumonia and sepsis [12, 18]. We isolated lungs for biological assays and histology at 12- and 24-hours post infection (hpi) with bacteria. MHV68 infection of mice is a model to study the contribution from gammaherpesviruses during inflammatory diseases [20]. Virus replication is suppressed by interferon gamma (IFNγ) such that IFNγ receptor knock-out (Ifngr-/-) mice fail to control persistent virus. Intranasal infection of these mice results in chronic inflammation and sustained injury of the lung. This is an established experimental model to assess the contribution from gammaherpesviruses to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis [13]. Utilizing this model, we isolated lungs from WT and Ifngr-/- mice at 4 days(d) pi. For either bacterial or viral infection models, we perfused the right lung of the cadaver with formalin in situ for 20 minutes. The unfixed left lung was immediately excised. Segments from this lung was used for the determination of pathogen titer, cytokine levels and cell death markers. Fixed right lung tissues were used for histology. In situ formalin fixation preserved pulmonary architecture and produced histopathology images from undistorted lungs. In Pseudomonas-infected mice, this permits for accurate comparisons of hallmark bacteria-triggered changes in alveolar architecture between groups without artifacts due to the tissue isolation method. Our technique of lung isolation can be readily adapted to other pulmonary disease settings irrespective of infectious agent or animal species [21, 22].

Results

In situ formalin fixation of right lung

This fixation method prevents alveolar air sacs from collapsing and maintains the tissue resident lung architecture for analysis [23]. For in situ fixation, lungs need to be infused with 10% normal buffered formalin (NBF) before excision. We euthanized Pseudomonas aeruginosa-infected C57BL6/J WT mice undergoing pneumonia-induced sepsis [18] at 12 hours post infection (hpi) by IACUC-approved carbon dioxide inhalation. Using sterile technique, we immediately incised the neck to expose the trachea and inserted an angiocatheter into the tracheal lumen, directed two to three mm down the trachea caudally from the incision point (Fig 1A). We passed a 4–0 silk suture (surgical tie) circumferentially around the trachea, below the catheter insertion. The tied silk suture secured the catheter in place (Fig 1B). We then carefully incised along the midline of the chest wall such that underlying thoracic organs were not injured. Portions of the anterior chest wall were excised to fully expose both lungs. We tied a sterile 4–0 silk suture around the hilum of the left lung (Fig 1C left and zoomed in right panels) to prevent formalin flow into the left lung. The tracheal angiocatheter was connected to IV tubing attached to a 10 ml syringe fixed at a height of 20 cm above the cadaver (Fig 1D). This process also elevated the trachea above the level of the lung facilitating flow of formalin. We added 10 ml of NBF to the syringe that then flowed into the right lung. Formalin-induced inflation was observed in the right lung only confirming fixative flow was restricted primarily to this side (Fig 1E). We allowed the right lung tissue to fix for 20 minutes before being excised and placed into 10 ml formalin for further fixation (24–48 h). By maintaining multiple syringes attached to a stand at 20 cm above the workbench, we were able to fix the lungs of multiple mice at the same time. This minimized harvest time for researchers. 24 to 48 h later, fixed right lungs were put in histology cassettes and submitted for tissue sectioning. Paraffin-embedded unstained slides (for immunohistochemistry [IHC]) and hematoxylin-eosin (H&E)-stained slides (for histopathological analysis) were prepared by the Emory Histology Core at Yerkes National Primate Research Center. Unstained sections were used to detect appearance of apoptotic marker cleaved caspase-3 (Cl-CASP3), whereas H&E-stained sections were utilized in parallel to detect tissue morphology. During the 20 minutes of right-sided in situ fixation, we carefully removed the fresh left lung maintaining sterile techniques and cut it into three equal sections for different biological assays.

Fig 1. Lung isolation method to obtain samples for biological and pathology assays.

Fig 1

The following steps after euthanasia are depicted: (A) trachea was dissected out using curved forceps, (B) angiocatheter was inserted into trachea and position fixed with black silk tie indicated by arrow, (C) a silk suture was placed circumferentially around the hilum of the left lung (left panel) to prevent flow of formalin from the tracheal angiocatheter into left lung tissue. Magnified view of the thoracic viscera (right panel) showing close-up of the suture (indicated by arrow) with respect to the lungs. (D) angiocatheter was connected to IV tubing attached to 10 ml syringes containing a fluid meniscus at 20 cm above cadaver as demonstrated, and (E) inflated right lung (indicated by left arrow) was perfused for 20 minute while left lung (indicated by right arrow) was excised for biological assays.

Left lung occlusion

To determine whether the in situ method adequately limited formalin flow to the right lung only, we repeated our approach using hematoxylin dye (Fig 2A). Within a minute of starting flow, the blue dye was visibly detected in right lung and not in the left lung. Continued observation confirmed flow to the right lung only, evidenced by progressively increased expansion of coloring in this tissue. At no point in time was dye observed in the left lung. Excised lung tissues were then scrutinized for presence of dye. Left lung exhibited no evidence of dye flow (Fig 2A end panel). Thus, our method directs flow of fluid to the right lung only, leaving the left tissues intact and available for additional biological assays. We also assessed viability of cells in the unfixed left lungs from WT mice (Fig 2B). Lungs from unmanipulated cadavers (Fig 2B, left panel) or cadavers undergoing in situ formalin fixation (Fig 2B, right panel) were excised. Single cell suspension of each lung was analyzed for viability using the trypan blue exclusion method. Approximately 90% of recovered left lung cells were viable (did not stain with trypan blue) independently of fixation conditions of the right side lung. This demonstrated that our harvest method did not cause loss of viability of cells in the unfixed tissues of the left lungs. Fixed right lungs retained a surprising, 70–80% viability (right panel), compared to the cells obtained from the non-perfused right side lungs (~90% viable). These data reveal that perfusion was sufficient to retain alveolar architecture despite in situ exposure to perfused 10% formalin. We next applied the in situ fixation technique to bacterial or viral infection models using Pseudomonas (Fig 3A–3D) or MHV68 inoculation respectively (Fig 3E–3H).

Fig 2. Fluid flow to right lung and occlusion of the left lung.

Fig 2

(A) Hematoxylin dye was introduced to the right lung using in situ perfusion technique described in Fig 1. Pictures are from the same mouse (representative of three) depicting dye incorporation in the right lung over 0 through 20 minutes. By 20 minutes right lung turns dark blue while left lung does not show any visible dye. (B) Single cell suspensions obtained from the left lungs of uninfected mice were treated with typan blue for assessment of viability. Trypan blue negative (-ve) cells retain membrane property indicating viability, whereas positive (+ve) cells have membrane integrity damaged indicating loss of viability. Each data point represents one mouse with 3–4 mice per group. Error bars show mean error and range. Statistical analyses between groups were performed using unpaired t-test with Welch’s correction. n.s. is non-significant.

Fig 3. Biological data from one mouse.

Fig 3

(A, B) Sham-treated or Pseudomonas-infected mice at 12 hours post infection (hpi; mice undergoing pneumonia) or treatment where each mouse was inoculated with 40 ul of 2X108 CFU/ml Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 27853; approximately 8X106 CFU per mouse) were used to quantify bacterial load (A, n = 2 and 11 mice for sham and infected groups respectively) on blood-agar plates and cytokines IL-1β (B), as well as TNF by ELISA (C; n = 2 and 6 mice for sham and infected groups respectively) by ELISA. N.D. is not detected. (D) Immunoblot of lung lysates from sham treated (n = 2) or septic (n = 4) WT mice indicating appearance of cleaved CASP8 (Cl-C8; 18 kDa) and Cl-CASP3 (Cl-C3; 19, 17 kDa) with loading control β-actin. (E-F) MHV68 titer in lungs from infected WT and Ifngr-/- mice without perfusion (E) or infected Ifngr-/- mice with in situ perfusion (F) 4 days-post-infection (dpi) where each mouse was inoculated with 5X105 PFU of virus in 20 μl complete medium. (G, H) TNF levels detected by ELISA in lung sections from same mice depicted in (E) and (F) respectively. Each data point represents one mouse with 3–4 mice per group per condition. For each experiment all groups included comparable numbers of age-matched male and female mice. Error bars show mean error and range. Statistical analyses between groups were performed using unpaired t-test with Welch’s correction. n.s. is non-significant.

Pseudomonas and MHV68 titer

To evaluate Pseudomonas or MHV68 titer, we collected the lowermost section (nearest to the diaphragm) of the left lung from WT mice (for bacteria, 12 hpi), or WT and Ifngr-/- mice (for virus, 4 dpi) in sterile complete medium (Fig 3A and 3E). Equal amounts (by weight) of this tissue were sonicated in medium on ice and serially diluted to determine the infectious titer of either pathogen. We performed all biological assays with equal weight:volume ratio of tissue:solvent for titer, cytokine analysis or immunoblot. To evaluate bacterial titer (Fig 3A), sonicated lung lysates were serially diluted in PBS before spreading on pre-warmed (37°C) blood agar plates. Plates were incubated at 37°C for 18–24 h before assessment of bacterial colonies. Plates exhibiting between 10–100 colonies were considered. Counted colonies were expressed as bacterial load after adjustment for tissue weight and dilution (Fig 3A). All infected mice exhibited comparable bacterial titer in the left lung. We did not detect bacteria in sham-treated mice confirming sterile technique was maintained during harvest without cross-contamination. For determination of MHV68 titer, sonicated lysates were serially diluted in medium and plated on murine fibroblast monolayers (Fig 3E and 3F). Seven days later, plates were stained and wells with 20–200 viral plaques were counted and adjusted for tissue weight before calculating titers. At 4 dpi, WT and mutant mice had comparable viral titer in the left lung, assayed without perfusion (Fig 3E). To determine whether in situ fixation impacts viral titers, we assessed titers in lungs from cadavers where our perfusion method was applied (Fig 3F). Left lungs from perfused Ifngr-/- mice exhibited similar titers (~106 PFU/gm tissue) when compared to left lungs from the unmanipulated mice (Fig 3E and 3F). Perfused right lungs showed a range of viral titer (~103−106 PFU/ml) suggesting that formalin perfusion for 20 mins impacted titer in some mice. These data set the stage to evaluate infection-triggered inflammatory singling in the lungs from each mouse.

Cytokine analysis and immunoblot (IB)

Acute Pseudomonas infection drives inflammatory cytokines such as TNF and IL-1β [24]. MHV68 infection triggers inflammatory cytokines detectable in lungs by 4 dpi [25]. To evaluate the quantity of infection-induced cytokines, we utilized the middle section from the left lung. We sonicated this tissue from each mouse in HBSS (Sigma) reconstituted with protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche). We used lysate for each sample to quantify TNF and IL-1β (for Pseudomonas, Fig 3B and 3C) or TNF (for MHV68, Fig 3G and 3H) levels by ELISA. We used the remaining topmost section (nearest to the trachea) of the left lung for IB to determine the appearance of known Pseudomonas-associated [2628] cell death markers (Fig 3D). For Pseudomonas infection settings, sham-treated mice expressed detectable TNF, but not IL-1β, in lungs (Fig 3B and 3C). Pseudomonas expresses pro-apoptotic proteins that trigger apoptotic cell death in infected cells and mice [29]. As expected, apoptosis executioner caspase (CASP)3 was markedly activated (cleaved to produce bioactive 19 kDa form) in all infected samples when compared to sham-treated samples (Fig 3D). CASP8, a mediator of extrinsic apoptosis was also significantly processed to yield active, cleaved forms (22 kDa and 18 kDa) along with intermediate form (43 kDa). In all MHV68 mice without manipulation of lungs, infection drove detectable levels of TNF (Fig 3G). In Ifngr-/- mice where right lungs were fixed and left lung unfixed, the left tissues exhibited cytokine levels comparable to that observed in unmanipulated mice (Fig 3H). Fixed right lung, as observed with viral titer, exhibited a broader variation of cytokine quantities. These data, together with titer data, demonstrate that in our described in situ fixation method produces the quality of fresh tissue necessary for biological assays.

Histology

To evaluate whether biological markers of infection correlated with tissue histopathology exhibiting bacteria-dependent inflammatory signaling, we assessed for morphology, appearance of infiltrates and cell death marker cleaved CASP3 (Fig 4A). In this figure, the first and second columns represent right lung harvested from two individual mice, one without and one with in situ fixation (as indicated in figure). The third column represents one infected mouse harvested at the same time with in situ fixation of the right lung. For H&E sections three magnifications are shown (increasing magnifications from top to bottom). The flattened alveolar spaces lead to thickened septal wall appearance in sections obtained without in situ fixation of the right lung. This is a recognized artifact of technique when lungs are placed directly in formalin without prior perfusion [23]. In contrast, a representative image from the in situ fixed lungs (Fig 4A second column) demonstrate crisp septal division. In lung sections obtained from mice infected for 24 h (S1A Fig) lungs from both sham-treated (S1A Fig, upper panel) and infected mice (S1A Fig, lower panel) exhibited flattened alveolar space in absence of in situ fixation. This confirmed the necessity of perfusion to preserve parenchymal architecture. Representative lung from one infected mouse demonstrated the known appearance of Pseudomonas-triggered inflammatory infiltrates and significant elevation of cleaved CASP3 (Fig 4A, lowest row) in complete accordance with IB (Fig 3D).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

(A) Histology following H&E stain (upper panels, scale bar = 200 μm, 10X magnification of camera lens; middle panels, scale bar = 100 μm, 20X magnification; lower panels, scale bar = 40 μm, 40X magnification) and immunohistochemistry showing Cl-C3 in situ with hematoxylin counterstain (scale bar = 40 μm, 40X magnification) of the same lung segments from sham-treated or Pseudomonas-infected WT mice at 12 hours post (hp) treatment or infection (n = 1 representative image for each group). Left most H&E and IHC panels are from lungs without in situ fixation exhibiting thickened alveolar wall which is an artifact of the method. Arrows indicate representative inflammatory infiltration (in H&E section) or Cl-C3 positive cells (in IHC sections).

Thus, we show that in murine studies of pulmonary infectious diseases, adjacent lung tissues from the same mouse can be utilized for different purposes. The described method preserves the quality of both fixed and fresh tissues. Cell death markers confirmed the consistency of data generated. The biological assays from the left lung can easily be modified to determine other disease markers such as immune cell infiltration (by flow cytometry), collagen deposition (by hyaluronidase assays) and pathogen DNA or gene expression patterns (by nucleic acid isolation) if required. Overall, we describe a lung isolation method that reduces total number of mice used for experiments by maximizing data generation. While we were surprised at the levels of viable cells and infectious virus remaining in lungs of perfused mice, our method refines lung isolation technique by overcoming fixation artifacts and simultaneously allowing generation of consistent biological data. Importantly, this method minimizes animal to animal variation by allowing all assays to be performed on individual mice. Therefore, here we describe a technique that enhances the 3R principle of animal research recommended by NIH.

Methods

Mice

Male and female C57BL/6J (JAX 000664), as well as C57BL/6J-background Ifngr-/- [13] mice were bred at Emory University. All infections were carried out with 8–12 weeks old mice where each experiment had comparable male and female mice. All animal experiments were conducted with approval according to the guidelines of the Emory University IACUC Animal Care and Welfare Review Committees.

Intratracheal inoculation with Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 27853) stocks were maintained by a medical microbiologist (EB). Stocks were prepared in tryptic soy broth using rehydrated Culti-Loops® (Remel Microbiology Products, ThermoScientific Inc., Lenexa, KS). Stock quality was evaluated every month by subculture. Fresh subcultures were made from these plates daily for quality control procedures at the Emory Clinical Microbiology Laboratory. For experiments, a colony from a subculture plate was selected for inoculation in tryptic soy broth; bacteria were grown overnight at 37°C. Pellet from centrifuged broth was resuspended in 0.85% saline (Remel Microbiology Products, ThermoScientific Inc., Lenexa, KS). 40 μl of inoculum from a stock of 2x108 colony-forming units (CFU)/ml estimated by optical density at a wavelength of 600 nm. (approximately 8x106 CFU/mouse) was inoculated in each mouse by intra-tracheal route as described before [12]. Briefly, mice were anesthetized with inhaled isoflurane (4% induction and 2% maintenance) and the trachea was exposed with dissection using sterile techniques. Inoculum was administered in the trachea using a fine-gauge needle. To ensure maximum flow of liquid inoculum, mice were held head-up for 10 to 15 seconds. For sham treatment, mice underwent anesthesia, midline cervical incision and injection of saline. The surgical incision was sealed using tissue glue and animals were euthanized by CO2 inhalation following Emory University IACUC protocol.

Intranasal infection with MHV68

Mice made unconscious by isoflurane inhalation were intranasally inoculated with 5X105 PFU virus in 20 μl of media as described before [30]. Mice were maintained for 4 days before euthanasia.

Hematoxylin staining of lungs

Cadavers of euthanized mice were set up for in situ perfusion of the right lung. 10 ml of hematoxylin (22110639, Fisher) was allowed to flow through the lungs for 20 minutes to detect leakage of dye into left lung.

Lung cell isolation

Excised lungs were put in 1 ml ice cold medium and cut into ~3 mm pieces for isolation of cells as described before [2]. Lung fragments were digested with collagenase D (11088858001, Sigma; 1.5 mg/ml) in PBS, filtered through a metal sieve and subjected to erythrocyte lysis [31]. Viable cells were calculated using a hemocytometer and trypan blue exclusion.

Viral and bacterial titer analysis

For organ titers, identical segments from the right lung of each mouse were collected in 1000 μl of complete medium. Complete medium is DMEM containing 4.5 g/ml glucose, 10% fetal bovine serum (F2442, Atlanta Biologicals), 2 mM L-glutamine (MT 25005CI, Fisher) with 100 units/ml penicillin and 100 units/ml streptomycin (MT 3002CI, Fisher). 100 mg of each lung segment was placed in 1000 μl complete medium, maintained on ice and homogenized using a Misonix Sonicator 2000 at program setting of two pulses for 10 seconds each at 15 Watts. For MHV68 infection settings, tissue lysates were diluted with seven serial ten-fold dilutions in media and second through seventh dilutions were plated on mouse fibroblast cells (NIH-3T3s, 200 μl/well). NIH-3T3 cells were plated 18 hours before experiment with 5X105 cell/well and maintained at 34°C incubator. After one hour adsorption with virus, cells in each well were covered with 5 ml warm carboxy methylcellulose as described before [30]. Plates were incubated for 6 days, stained with Giemsa and plaques were counted on day 7. Enumerated plaques were graphed as per gram of tissue. For Pseudomonas infection settings, 500 μg of lung sections was placed in 500 μl of media and homogenized. Lung lysates were diluted for five ten-fold serial dilutions in PBS and 200 μl from each sample was plated on pre-warmed blood agar plates for overnight incubation at 37°C. Dilution plates containing between 20–100 distinct colonies were considered for titer determination. Titers were expressed as bacteria for each lung as calculated using weight information.

Lung lysate for cytokine ELISA

For cytokine ELISA, lung lysates were prepared from middle sections of left lung from each mouse. Comparable portions of lung section were weighed and sonicated in HBSS (Sigma) supplemented with protease inhibition cocktail (Roche; 1 tablet for 10 ml of HBSS). Approximately 0.5 mg of tissue was sonicated as described higher up in methods in 500 μl of supplemented HBSS. 75 μl from each lysate was used for TNF and IL-β murine cytokine ELISAs (R&D).

Immunoblot

IB was performed as described before [32]. Briefly, top-most portion of left lungs were excised and placed in ice-cold HBSS. Equal weight of tissue (approximately 100 mg of tissue from each mouse) were sonicated in RIPA (25 mM Tris, 150 mM sodium chloride [Sigma], 1% NP-40 [Sigma], 1% sodium deoxycholate [Sigma], and 0.1% SDS [Sigma], pH 7.6; 200 μl per sample) supplemented with protease inhibitor and phosphatase inhibitor cocktail (Roche). After sonication, tissues were lysed on ice for 30 mins, collected by centrifugation at 150,000 rpm at 4°C for 20 mins using a Tomy TX-160 high speed refrigerated micro centrifuge. The resulting supernatant (tissue lysate) was collected for IB analysis. Beta actin levels were used to determine comparable protein quantities in all samples for IB. Proteins were transferred to PVDF membranes (Bio-Rad), treated with chemiluminescence reagent (Clarity, Bio-Rad) for signal development and imaged on Kwik Quant Gel Imaging System (Kindle Biosciences Inc). Antibodies used were rabbit anti-cleaved Casp8 (8592, Cell Signaling Technology), rabbit anti-cleaved Casp3 (9661, Cell Signaling Technology) and mouse anti-β-actin (A2228, Sigma).

Histology and immunohistochemistry

In situ fixed right lungs were excised and further fixed in ice-cold 10% normal buffered formalin (5700TS, Fisher) at 4°C for 48 h and submitted for histology. For IHC detection, paraffin-embedded sections were prepared and stained as described [2] with rabbit anti-cleaved-CASP3 (1:100 dilution) at 4°C, followed by biotinylated goat anti-rabbit secondary antibody (BA-1000, Vector Laboratories), streptavidin-horseradish peroxidase (HRP, SA-5004, Vector Laboratories) and peroxidase reaction reagent (Vector Laboratories). Slides were counterstained using hematoxylin (22110639, Fisher) for 2 to 5 min and washed under tap water and finally with ultrapure water. Images were collected on a Nikon Elements microscope using Imaging Software-EIS Elements BR 3.10 (Nikon Instruments).

Statistical analysis and reproducibility

Statistics shown on biological assays indicate mean error with range, and statistical comparison between groups were performed using unpaired t-test with Welch’s correction in Graphpad Prism 8 (Graphpad Software Inc.). All graphs were graphed using same software. For biological assays multiple samples are shown to demonstrate reproducibility; for histology one representative image from each group is shown in the main figure (Fig 4) and 2–3 representative images are shown in S1 Fig. All analysis between groups were performed as

Discussion

Pulmonary diseases, from chronic to acute, often mediated by pathogens are primary causes of death globally [35]. There is ongoing need to establish dependable models for pulmonary illnesses. For infectious lung pathologies, the complicated host-pathogen interaction that underlies disease requires in vivo assessment of genetic, inflammatory and immune determinants. All of studies demand live animals. Thus, researchers bear the responsibility of evaluating techniques that minimize number of animals utilized wherever possible without confounding quality or interpretation of the data. The approach described in this manuscript was developed utilizing acute bacterial and viral infections. Here, we have demonstrated that this method a) minimizes animal-to-animal variability, which should prevent associated errors in data interpretation, b) generates high quality, mutually consistent histopathological and biological evidence, as well as c) reduces the total number of animals needed to gather objective data.

Through in situ infusion, we generated fixed lung and fresh lung sections from individual animals. Perfusion followed by prolonged formalin fixation maintains tissue architecture. Without the first step, lungs exhibit tissue edema with increased alveolar septal width consistent with method artifact. As pneumonia or other pulmonary inflammatory conditions are known to cause tissue edema, such artifacts clearly confound observations. These investigations can be readily adopted for determination of genetic influences and efficacy of prevention strategies in other models. This modified fixation method cuts down on number of experimental animals used while retaining both quality and quantity of information necessary to understand the underlying disease process. One distinct caveat of this model includes the lack of ability to analyze bronchoalveolar-lavage (BAL) fluid. Due the restraint of fluid flow into the left lung, BAL (a flushed effluent of inflammatory intruding cell in the lung) cannot be obtained. Thus, separate groups of mice will be necessary for BAL. Additionally, distributions of infection and damage in lungs during inflammatory diseases are often not uniform. A prominent example is tuberculosis infection. It has been long recognized that in infected mammals apical and upper lung sections are the primary sites of infection [33]. In such situations, or settings where the distribution of pathogen is not clearly understood, longitudinal sectioning (containing apical, mid and lower segments of the lung for each assay) of the fixed and unfixed tissue may be beneficial. Therefore, control experiments will be necessary for each experimental model to determine the differences in disease parameters in different sections of the lungs.

The ability to track individual animals for infection, inflammation and lung injury will significantly benefit studies examining the impact of antiviral and/or antibacterial therapy, as well as anti-inflammatory therapies, on disease outcome. In patients with acute respiratory distress, supportive care usually includes strategies to minimize inflammation related to both the underlying condition and associated with mechanical ventilation. During infectious pulmonary diseases, anti-inflammatory therapies are often combined with antibiotics or antivirals. This combined care regimen is intended to reduce the extent of tissue injury, minimize organ disfunction and prevent mortality [18, 34]. Even though such approaches are accepted, there is clear lack of comprehension into relative benefit of targeting infection versus inflammation. Likewise, the relative importance of specific components of the immune system such as eosinophils in asthma patients [35] have been difficult to assign. Our method will enable the targeting of different components of disease in order to reveal contributions, dependencies and overall outcomes. This insight into pathogen-host crosstalk is essential to understand the complex nature of pulmonary diseases. Undoubtedly, the strategies are applicable to any study using mice or other experimental animals beyond infection-driven acute pulmonary responses. Ultimately, the technique would allow users to employ the smallest number of animals for the determination of: a) the impact of a host modulation agent, b) the impact of an anti-viral or other anti-microbial (since changing pathogen burden will in turn alter host response and what is seen in the lungs) and c) the combination of both. This information will reveal whether host and pathogen modulations are additive, synergistic or paradoxically antagonistic for optimal intervention strategy in lung diseases.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

(A) Histology following H&E stain (scale bar = 100 μm, 20X magnification on camera) from sham-treated (upper panel) or Pseudomonas-infected (lower panel) WT at 24 hours post (hp) treatment (t) or infection (i). Two representative images for sham and three presentative images for infected groups are shown.

(DOCX)

S1 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

All contributors are included as authors.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) R01-GM072808, T32GM095442 to CMC; NIGMS F32-GM117895 to JDL, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) R01-AA025854 to MKH; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) R01-AI020211 to ESM and R21-AI142507 to ESM, CF@LANTA Director’s Fund to PM.

References

  • 1.Hubrecht RC, Carter E. The 3Rs and Humane Experimental Technique: Implementing Change. Animals (Basel). 2019;9(10). doi: 10.3390/ani9100754 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mandal P, Feng Y, Lyons JD, Berger SB, Otani S, DeLaney A, et al. Caspase-8 Collaborates with Caspase-11 to Drive Tissue Damage and Execution of Endotoxic Shock. Immunity. 2018;49(1):42–55 e6. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2018.06.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pahwa R, Jialal I. Chronic Inflammation. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL) 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Johnson ER, Matthay MA. Acute lung injury: epidemiology, pathogenesis, and treatment. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2010;23(4):243–52. doi: 10.1089/jamp.2009.0775 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Quaderi SA, Hurst JR. The unmet global burden of COPD. Glob Health Epidemiol Genom. 2018;3:e4. doi: 10.1017/gheg.2018.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Provinciali M, Cardelli M, Marchegiani F. Inflammation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and aging. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2011;17 Suppl 1:S3–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bringardner BD, Baran CP, Eubank TD, Marsh CB. The role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2008;10(2):287–301. doi: 10.1089/ars.2007.1897 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ward PA, Hunninghake GW. Lung inflammation and fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;157(4 Pt 2):S123–9. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.157.4.nhlbi-10 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.King PT. Inflammation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and its role in cardiovascular disease and lung cancer. Clin Transl Med. 2015;4(1):68. doi: 10.1186/s40169-015-0068-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Djukanovic R. Asthma: A disease of inflammation and repair. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000;105(2 Pt 2):S522–6. doi: 10.1016/s0091-6749(00)90055-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gorska K, Paplinska-Goryca M, Nejman-Gryz P, Goryca K, Krenke R. Eosinophilic and Neutrophilic Airway Inflammation in the Phenotyping of Mild-to-Moderate Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. COPD. 2017;14(2):181–9. doi: 10.1080/15412555.2016.1260539 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Coopersmith CM, Stromberg PE, Dunne WM, Davis CG, Amiot DM 2nd, Buchman TG, et al. Inhibition of intestinal epithelial apoptosis and survival in a murine model of pneumonia-induced sepsis. JAMA. 2002;287(13):1716–21. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.13.1716 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.O’Flaherty BM, Matar CG, Wakeman BS, Garcia A, Wilke CA, Courtney CL, et al. CD8+ T Cell Response to Gammaherpesvirus Infection Mediates Inflammation and Fibrosis in Interferon Gamma Receptor-Deficient Mice. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0135719. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135719 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Day CW, Baric R, Cai SX, Frieman M, Kumaki Y, Morrey JD, et al. A new mouse-adapted strain of SARS-CoV as a lethal model for evaluating antiviral agents in vitro and in vivo. Virology. 2009;395(2):210–22. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2009.09.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bhagirath AY, Li Y, Somayajula D, Dadashi M, Badr S, Duan K. Cystic fibrosis lung environment and Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. BMC Pulm Med. 2016;16(1):174. doi: 10.1186/s12890-016-0339-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Weiner LM, Webb AK, Limbago B, Dudeck MA, Patel J, Kallen AJ, et al. Antimicrobial-Resistant Pathogens Associated With Healthcare-Associated Infections: Summary of Data Reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011–2014. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37(11):1288–301. doi: 10.1017/ice.2016.174 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Klingensmith NJ, Coopersmith CM. The Gut as the Motor of Multiple Organ Dysfunction in Critical Illness. Crit Care Clin. 2016;32(2):203–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ccc.2015.11.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Coopersmith CM, Amiot DM 2nd, Stromberg PE, Dunne WM, Davis CG, Osborne DF, et al. Antibiotics improve survival and alter the inflammatory profile in a murine model of sepsis from Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia. Shock. 2003;19(5):408–14. doi: 10.1097/01.shk.0000054370.24363.ee [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Reiniger N, Lee MM, Coleman FT, Ray C, Golan DE, Pier GB. Resistance to Pseudomonas aeruginosa chronic lung infection requires cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator-modulated interleukin-1 (IL-1) release and signaling through the IL-1 receptor. Infect Immun. 2007;75(4):1598–608. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01980-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Barton E, Mandal P, Speck SH. Pathogenesis and host control of gammaherpesviruses: lessons from the mouse. Annu Rev Immunol. 2011;29:351–97. doi: 10.1146/annurev-immunol-072710-081639 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Rockx B, Kuiken T, Herfst S, Bestebroer T, Lamers MM, Oude Munnink BB, et al. Comparative pathogenesis of COVID-19, MERS, and SARS in a nonhuman primate model. Science. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rosen BH, Evans TIA, Moll SR, Gray JS, Liang B, Sun X, et al. Infection Is Not Required for Mucoinflammatory Lung Disease in CFTR-Knockout Ferrets. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;197(10):1308–18. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201708-1616OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Braber S, Verheijden KA, Henricks PA, Kraneveld AD, Folkerts G. A comparison of fixation methods on lung morphology in a murine model of emphysema. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2010;299(6):L843–51. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00192.2010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kloth C, Schirmer B, Munder A, Stelzer T, Rothschuh J, Seifert R. The Role of Pseudomonas aeruginosa ExoY in an Acute Mouse Lung Infection Model. Toxins (Basel). 2018;10(5). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lopez-Rodriguez DM, Kirillov V, Krug LT, Mesri EA, Andreansky S. A role of hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha in Murine Gammaherpesvirus 68 (MHV68) lytic replication and reactivation from latency. PLoS Pathog. 2019;15(12):e1008192. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1008192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ernst EJ, Hashimoto S, Guglielmo J, Sawa T, Pittet JF, Kropp H, et al. Effects of antibiotic therapy on Pseudomonas aeruginosa-induced lung injury in a rat model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43(10):2389–94. doi: 10.1128/AAC.43.10.2389 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Suresh Kumar V, Sadikot RT, Purcell JE, Malik AB, Liu Y. Pseudomonas aeruginosa induced lung injury model. J Vis Exp. 2014(92):e52044. doi: 10.3791/52044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hotchkiss RS, Dunne WM, Swanson PE, Davis CG, Tinsley KW, Chang KC, et al. Role of apoptosis in Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia. Science. 2001;294(5548):1783. doi: 10.1126/science.294.5548.1783a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Jendrossek V, Grassme H, Mueller I, Lang F, Gulbins E. Pseudomonas aeruginosa-induced apoptosis involves mitochondria and stress-activated protein kinases. Infect Immun. 2001;69(4):2675–83. doi: 10.1128/IAI.69.4.2675-2683.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mandal P, Krueger BE, Oldenburg D, Andry KA, Beard RS, White DW, et al. A gammaherpesvirus cooperates with interferon-alpha/beta-induced IRF2 to halt viral replication, control reactivation, and minimize host lethality. PLoS Pathog. 2011;7(11):e1002371. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Daley-Bauer LP, Wynn GM, Mocarski ES. Cytomegalovirus impairs antiviral CD8+ T cell immunity by recruiting inflammatory monocytes. Immunity. 2012;37(1):122–33. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2012.04.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mandal P, Berger SB, Pillay S, Moriwaki K, Huang C, Guo H, et al. RIP3 induces apoptosis independent of pronecrotic kinase activity. Mol Cell. 2014;56(4):481–95. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2014.10.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Goodwin RA, Des Prez RM. Apical localization of pulmonary tuberculosis, chronic pulmonary histoplasmosis, and progressive massive fibrosis of the lung. Chest. 1983;83(5):801–5. doi: 10.1378/chest.83.5.801 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mora AL, Torres-Gonzalez E, Rojas M, Xu J, Ritzenthaler J, Speck SH, et al. Control of virus reactivation arrests pulmonary herpesvirus-induced fibrosis in IFN-gamma receptor-deficient mice. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;175(11):1139–50. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200610-1426OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Brussino L, Heffler E, Bucca C, Nicola S, Rolla G. Eosinophils Target Therapy for Severe Asthma: Critical Points. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:7582057. doi: 10.1155/2018/7582057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Selvakumar Subbian

22 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-15152

Integrated Evaluation of Lung Disease in Single Animals

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mocarski,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: In addition to addressing the reviewers' concerns on the manuscript, the authors should discuss the limitations of the approach in this study. For example, various compartment of the lungs are not identical either functionally or structurally. Further, some infectious diseases such as TB has been documented to prefer the apical side of the lung. How these aspects would be addressed in your model system needs to be explained in the Discussion section.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 05 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Selvakumar Subbian, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors developed a nice technique to minimize the mouse usage in our in vivo experiments and clearly shown the difference between in situ fixation and normal fixation in their IHC studies. However authors mentioned that the in situ fixation process requires 20 minutes with flow through of 10 mL NBF, and authors failed to explain how they protect the other lung from flow through 10%NBF?. I would recommend the authors to include the text that address my concern.

Also I would recommend to show H&E staining of the whole lung (in low magnification) comparing in situ fixation and normal fixation, that will increase the strength of this manuscript

Reviewer #2: Summary:

The research article describes a protocol and its feasibility in different disease-based studies by minimizing the sacrifice of number of animals by using the same animal for histopathological and biological analysis. However authors have failed to justify the applicability of this potential protocol because of lack of experimental presentations. Manuscript has a lot of grammatical errors, some of which are mentioned in minor comments along with the major concerns below.

Major comments:

1. Authors mentioned- “During the 20 minutes of right-sided in situ fixation, we removed the left lung cut it into three equal sections and saved individually for biological assays”. Did authors check for any leakage of formalin in the left lung which was stitched to ensure tissue available for biological assays. There is no data presented in this context to show tissue was not or to what percentage it was affected by the formalin.

2. Authors mentioned-“We passed a 4-0 silk suture (surgical tie) circumferentially around the trachea, below the catheter insertion. The tied silk suture secured the catheter in place (Figure 1B)”. Did authors observe any back flow of formalin in the upper trachea

3. Did authors try single cell isolation from the left lung. Data on viability could be an interesting aspect to look into.

4. Since previous publications have already discussed about the in situ formalin fixation for 20 mins and its advantage over the other methods, authors here should have put more emphases and experimental justifications as to how a suture on the left lung was able to establish healthy tissue recovery for different experiments.

5. Authors mentioned about the applicability of this method in COVID-19 research as well. But they have not shown any data in that respect. Simple virus infection studies at BSL2 level along with the gram-negative bacteria reported here would have helped in justifying these statements.

Minor comments:

Please go through the typos etc in the manuscript some are mentioned below.

1. Line 123: “midline thought the chest”- correction needed.

2. Line 318: “lung injury will significant aid studies on following” correction needed.

3. Line 337: “both that might be result in results that” correction needed.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Murugesan Rajaram

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 8;16(7):e0246270. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246270.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


11 Dec 2020

ACADEMIC EDITOR: In addition to addressing the reviewers' concerns on the manuscript, the authors should discuss the limitations of the approach in this study. For example, various compartment of the lungs are not identical either functionally or structurally. Further, some infectious diseases such as TB has been documented to prefer the apical side of the lung. How these aspects would be addressed in your model system needs to be explained in the Discussion section.

Response: We appreciate the review and the editor’s note. We have modified text to clearly indicate how the lung structure varies, as well as limitations of our techniques. The modified Discussion now addresses the editor’s suggestions regarding the processes that take place in apical and basolateral epithelium of the lung.

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Response: To address the concern by reviewer 2, we have revised the manuscript text so that conclusions are drawn from the data. Statistical comparisons are now included wherever applicable along with sample size information.

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Response: In this modified manuscript, we added statistical comparisons wherever applicable along with sample size information.

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Response: We have included all data for all the figures as part of the manuscript.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Response: We have corrected all the errors.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors developed a nice technique to minimize the mouse usage in our in vivo experiments and clearly shown the difference between in situ fixation and normal fixation in their IHC studies. However authors mentioned that the in situ fixation process requires 20 minutes with flow through of 10 mL NBF, and authors failed to explain how they protect the other lung from flow through 10%NBF?. I would recommend the authors to include the text that address my concern.

Response: We have edited the text to clarify that unfixed left lung is excised and maintained cold for biological assays, immediately after tying the wire to prevent formalin flow into this lung. The new Figure 2 (an entirely new figure) includes images using hematoxylin dye (in place of formalin) demonstrating that in this occlusion method, the tie restricts flow to the left lung and dye only passes to the right lung.

Also I would recommend to show H&E staining of the whole lung (in low magnification) comparing in situ fixation and normal fixation, that will increase the strength of this manuscript

Response: We now include 10X, 20X and 40X magnification images of lung histology sections in Figure 4. Our initial submission only included 20X and 40X. The current range was selected to give a broad to magnified view of the lung that still demonstrated the differences of sections with or without in situ fixation. These distinctions are not objectively discernable at any magnification lower than 10X.

Reviewer #2: Summary:

The research article describes a protocol and its feasibility in different disease-based studies by minimizing the sacrifice of number of animals by using the same animal for histopathological and biological analysis. However authors have failed to justify the applicability of this potential protocol because of lack of experimental presentations. Manuscript has a lot of grammatical errors, some of which are mentioned in minor comments along with the major concerns below.

Response: We have modified the text and included new data in Figures 2, 3, 4 and S1 to address reviewer concerns. We have also corrected all grammatical errors. Please see answers to individual concerns below.

Major comments:

1. Authors mentioned- “During the 20 minutes of right-sided in situ fixation, we removed the left lung cut it into three equal sections and saved individually for biological assays”. Did authors check for any leakage of formalin in the left lung which was stitched to ensure tissue available for biological assays. There is no data presented in this context to show tissue was not or to what percentage it was affected by the formalin.

Response: New Figure 2 shows images using hematoxylin dye (in place of formalin) demonstrating that in this occlusion method, the tie restricts flow to the left lung and dye only passes to the right lung.

2. Authors mentioned-“We passed a 4-0 silk suture (surgical tie) circumferentially around the trachea, below the catheter insertion. The tied silk suture secured the catheter in place (Figure 1B)”. Did authors observe any back flow of formalin in the upper trachea

Response: A small amount of backflow of formalin to the upper trachea occurs as formalin flows with gravity. However, it is important to note that even though there is back flow to the trachea, formalin-fixation of the upper trachea does not influence analysis of lungs.

3. Did authors try single cell isolation from the left lung. Data on viability could be an interesting aspect to look into.

Response: In new Figure 2, we show single cell viability counts. These data demonstrate that the unfixed left lung harvested in this way does not alter viability. Additionally, in Figure 3, we compare lungs excised from cadavers without manipulation of the lungs or with in situ perfusion to demonstrate that our perfusion technique does not alter MHV68 titers and cytokine levels. These data demonstrate that in situ formalin fixation of the right lung does not compromise outcome of biological assays using left lung.

4. Since previous publications have already discussed about the in situ formalin fixation for 20 mins and its advantage over the other methods, authors here should have put more emphases and experimental justifications as to how a suture on the left lung was able to establish healthy tissue recovery for different experiments.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. “In situ formalin fixation of right lung” section under Results now emphasizes that the suture is used to restrict formalin flow. The modified text is quoted below:

“We tied a sterile 4-0 silk suture around the hilum of the left lung (Figure 1C left and zoomed in right panels). This prevents formalin flow into the left lung. The tracheal angiocatheter was connected to IV tubing attached to a ten ml syringe fixed at a height of 20 cm above the cadaver (Figure 1D). This process also elevated the trachea above the level of the lung facilitating flow of formalin.”

Furthermore, “Left lung occlusion” section under Results describes in our observations confirming that the left lung is occluded in our technique.

5. Authors mentioned about the applicability of this method in COVID-19 research as well. But they have not shown any data in that respect. Simple virus infection studies at BSL2 level along with the gram-negative bacteria reported here would have helped in justifying these statements.

Response: We have added the MHV68 data to Figure 3 demonstrating that our described technique can be adapted for lung studies with a BSL2 virus.

Minor comments:

Please go through the typos etc in the manuscript some are mentioned below.

1. Line 123: “midline thought the chest”- correction needed.

2. Line 318: “lung injury will significant aid studies on following” correction needed.

3. Line 337: “both that might be result in results that” correction needed.

Response: We have corrected these errors.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Murugesan Rajaram

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 12-1-20.docx

Decision Letter 1

Selvakumar Subbian

13 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-15152R1

Integrated Evaluation of Lung Disease in Single Animals

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mocarski,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Figure 1: all panels should be labelled. Right now, the “zoom-out” image at far right doesn’t have any label. Correct the legend accordingly.

As commented by Reviewer#2, the legend for Fig4A and Fig S1A have the scale bars wrongly typed. Correct this information.

Line 470. What is 12hp ?. The manuscript quality would improve if such unusual abbreviations are avoided throughout.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 27 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Selvakumar Subbian, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors carefully took actions to address all of my concerns and I am satisfied with the additional data provided by authors regarding my questions. Therefore I recommend editor to accept this manuscript for publication.

Reviewer #3: Authors addressed all questions raised. I have a few more concern.

Authors did not mention which statistical test they used for the data analysis in statistical analysis section.

There is typo in legend of the figure 4. Scale bar is given 200 mm, 100 mm and 40 mm for different panels. However, authors did not mentioned magnification of images respective to each panel in methodology section as well as in figure legend. I think scale bar should be presented in �m instead of mm.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 8;16(7):e0246270. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246270.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Jan 2021

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Figure 1: all panels should be labelled. Right now, the “zoom-out” image at far right doesn’t have any label. Correct the legend accordingly.

As commented by Reviewer#2, the legend for Fig4A and Fig S1A have the scale bars wrongly typed. Correct this information.

Line 470. What is 12hp ?. The manuscript quality would improve if such unusual abbreviations are avoided throughout.

Response: We have addressed all of the concerns in the manuscript. We have labeled and corrected corresponding legend for “zoom-out” image in Fig1. We have legends for Fig4A and FigS1A to indicate the correct measurement in �m��We have corrected abbreviations and checked manuscripts to avoid unusual abbreviations.

REVIEWER CONCERS:

Reviewer #3: Authors addressed all questions raised. I have a few more concern.

Authors did not mention which statistical test they used for the data analysis in statistical analysis section.

There is typo in legend of the figure 4. Scale bar is given 200 mm, 100 mm and 40 mm for different panels. However, authors did not mentioned magnification of images respective to each panel in methodology section as well as in figure legend. I think scale bar should be presented in �m instead of mm.

Response: We have now included in the statistical analysis section a complete description of the statistical test that was used for data analysis.

We thank the reviewer for catching the error in typing where scale bars are mentioned. We have corrected it for both Fig4 and FigS1A. We also indicate in both legends what lens magnification of the microscope used each scale bar corresponds to.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.docx

Decision Letter 2

Selvakumar Subbian

18 Jan 2021

Integrated Evaluation of Lung Disease in Single Animals

PONE-D-20-15152R2

Dear Dr. Mocarski,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Selvakumar Subbian, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Selvakumar Subbian

29 Jun 2021

PONE-D-20-15152R2

Integrated Evaluation of Lung Disease in Single Animals

Dear Dr. Mocarski:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Selvakumar Subbian

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    (A) Histology following H&E stain (scale bar = 100 μm, 20X magnification on camera) from sham-treated (upper panel) or Pseudomonas-infected (lower panel) WT at 24 hours post (hp) treatment (t) or infection (i). Two representative images for sham and three presentative images for infected groups are shown.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 12-1-20.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES