Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.

Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Short Communication

Free Access

Development of a Streptococcus pneumoniae Keratitis Model in Mice

Moore III Q.C.a · McCormick C.C.a · Norcross E.W.a · Onwubiko C.a · Sanders M.E.a · Fratkin J.b · McDaniel L.S.a · O’Callaghan R.J.a · Marquart M.E.a

Author affiliations

Departments of aMicrobiology and bPathology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Miss., USA

Corresponding Author

Mary E. Marquart, PhD

Department of Microbiology

University of Mississippi Medical Center, 2500 North State Street

Jackson, MS 39216 (USA)

Tel. +1 601 815 6934, Fax +1 601 984 1708, E-Mail Mmarquart@microbio.umsmed.edu

Related Articles for ""

Ophthalmic Res 2009;42:141–146

Do you have an account?

Login Information

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.


Background:Streptococcus pneumoniae is a common cause of bacterial keratitis, and models to examine the ocular pathogenesis of this bacterium would aid in efforts to treat pneumococcal keratitis. The aim of this study was to establish a murine model of pneumococcal keratitis. Methods: The corneas of A/J, BALB/c or C57BL/6 mice were scratched and topically infected with a clinical strain of S. pneumoniae. Slitlamp examination (SLE), enumeration of bacteria in the corneas and histology were performed. Results: Bacteria were recovered from the eyes of A/J mice on postinfection (PI) days 1 [1.96 ± 0.61 log10 colony-forming units (CFU)] and 3 (1.41 ± 0.71 log10 CFU). SLE scores were significantly higher in the infected A/J mice as compared to the BALB/c or C57BL/6 mice on PI day 3 (p < 0.0001) and steadily increased over time, reaching a maximal value of 3.00 ± 0.35 on PI day 10. Histopathology revealed stromal edema and the influx of polymorphonuclear leukocytes on PI days 7 and 10, and corneal disruption on PI day 7. Conclusions:S. pneumoniae keratitis was established in A/J mice, but not BALB/c or C57BL/6 mice.

© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel


  1. Parmar P, Salman A, Kalavathy CM, Jesudasan CA, Thomas PA: Pneumococcal keratitis: a clinical profile. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2003;31:44–47.
  2. Bhave P, Chamie G: Streptococcus pneumoniae keratitis. J Hosp Med 2008;3:353.
  3. Wagoner MD, Al-Ghamdi AH, Al-Rajhi AA: Bacterial keratitis after primary pediatric penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 2007;143:1045–1047.
  4. Hooi SH, Hooi ST: Culture-proven bacterial keratitis in a Malaysian general hospital. Med J Malaysia 2005;60:614–623.
  5. Schaefer F, Bruttin O, Zografos L, Guex-Crosier Y: Bacterial keratitis: a prospective clinical and microbiological study. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:842–847.
  6. Asbell P, Stenson S: Ulcerative keratitis: survey of 30 years’ laboratory experience. Arch Ophthalmol 1982;100:77–80.
  7. Dunlop AA, Wright ED, Howlader SA, Nazrul I, Husain R, McClellan K, Billson FA: Suppurative corneal ulceration in Bangladesh: a study of 142 cases examining the microbiological diagnosis, clinical and epidemiological features of bacterial and fungal keratitis. Aust NZ J Ophthalmol 1994;22:105–110.
  8. Dada T, Sharma N, Dada VK, Vajpayee RB: Pneumococcal keratitis after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000;26:460–461.
  9. Kunimoto DY, Sharma S, Reddy MK, Gopinathan U, Jyothi J, Miller D, Rao GN: Microbial keratitis in children. Ophthalmology 1998;105:252–257.
  10. Green MD, Apel AJ, Naduvilath T, Stapleton FJ: Clinical outcomes of keratitis. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2007;35:421–426.
  11. Liesgang TJ: Bacterial and fungal keratitis; in Kaufman HE, Barron BA, McDonald MB (eds): The Cornea. Boston, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998, pp 159–219.
  12. Callegan MC, O’Callaghan RJ, Hill JM: Pharmacokinetic considerations in the treatment of bacterial keratitis. Clin Pharmacokinet 1994;27:129–149.
  13. Liesgang TJ: Bacterial and fungal keratitis; in Kaufman HE, et al (eds): The Cornea. New York, Churchill Livingstone, 1988, pp 217–270.
  14. Johnson MK, Hobden JA, Hagenah M, O’Callaghan RJ, Hill JM, Chen S: The role of pneumolysin in ocular infections with Streptococcus pneumoniae. Curr Eye Res 1990;9:1107–1114.
  15. Harrison JC, Karcioglu ZA, Johnson MK: Response of leukopenic rabbits to pneumococcal toxin. Curr Eye Res 1982;2:705–710.
  16. Johnson MK, Callegan MC, Engel LS, O’Callaghan RJ, Hill JM, Hobden JA, Boulnois GJ, Andrew PW, Mitchell TJ: Growth and virulence of a complement-activation-negative mutant of Streptococcus pneumoniae in the rabbit cornea. Curr Eye Res 1995;14:281–284.
  17. Green SN, Sanders M, Moore QC III, Norcross EW, Monds KS, Caballero AR, Mc- Daniel LS, Robinson SA, Onwubiko C, O’Callaghan RJ, Marquart ME: Protection from Streptococcus pneumoniae keratitis by passive immunization with pneumolysin antiserum. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:290–294.
  18. Marquart ME, Monds KS, McCormick CC, Dixon SN, Sanders ME, Reed JM, McDaniel LS, Caballero AR, O’Callaghan RJ: Cholesterol as treatment for pneumococcal keratitis: cholesterol-specific inhibition of pneumolysin in the cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:2661–2666.
  19. Reed JM, O’Callaghan RJ, Girgis DO, McCormick CC, Caballero AR, Marquart ME: Ocular virulence of capsule-deficient Streptococcus pneumoniae in a rabbit keratitis model. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:604–608.
  20. Girgis DO, Sloop GD, Reed JM, O’Callaghan RJ: A new topical model of Staphylococcus corneal infection in the mouse. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:1591–1597.
  21. Hume EB, Cole N, Khan S, Garthwaite LL, Aliwarga Y, Schubert TL, Willcox MD: A Staphylococcus aureus mouse keratitis topical infection model: cytokine balance in different strains of mice. Immunol Cell Biol 2005;83:294–300.
  22. Sun Y, Hise AG, Kalsow CM, Pearlman E: Staphylococcus aureus-induced corneal inflammation is dependent on Toll-like receptor 2 and myeloid differentiation factor 88. Infect Immun 2006;74:5325–5332.
  23. Hazlett LD: Role of innate and adaptive immunity in the pathogenesis of keratitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 2005;13:133–138.
  24. Koch AL: Autolysis control hypotheses for tolerance to wall antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001;45:2671–2675.
  25. Hazlett LD: Inflammatory response to Pseudomonas aeruginosa keratitis. Ocul Surf 2005;3:S139–S141.
  26. Hazlett LD: Corneal response to Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. Prog Retin Eye Res 2004;23:1–30.
  27. Huang X, Hazlett LD, Du W, Barrett RP: SIGIRR promotes resistance against Pseudomonas aeruginosa keratitis by down-regulating type-1 immunity and IL-1R1 and TLR4 signaling. J Immunol 2006;177:548–556.
  28. Girgis DO, Sloop GD, Reed JM, O’Callaghan RJ: Effects of toxin production in a murine model of Staphylococcus aureus keratitis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:2064–2070.
  29. Hume EB, Cole N, Garthwaite LL, Khan S, Willcox MD: A protective role for IL-6 in staphylococcal microbial keratitis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:4926–4930.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Short Communication

Received: February 10, 2009
Accepted: April 17, 2009
Published online: July 23, 2009
Issue release date: November 2009

Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 4
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 0030-3747 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0259 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/ORE

Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.