A cornerstone of modern biomedical research is the use of mouse models to explore basic pathophysiological mechanisms, evaluate new therapeutic approaches, and make go or no-go decisions to carry new drug candidates forward into clinical trials. Systematic studies evaluating how well murine models mimic human inflammatory diseases are nonexistent. Here, we show that, although acute inflammatory stresses from different etiologies result in highly similar genomic responses in humans, the responses in corresponding mouse models correlate poorly with the human conditions and also, one another. Among genes changed significantly in humans, the murine orthologs are close to random in matching their human counterparts (e.g., R 2 between 0.0 and 0.1). In addition to improvements in the current animal model systems, our study supports higher priority for translational medical research to focus on the more complex human conditions rather than relying on mouse models to study human inflammatory diseases.human disease | translational medicine | inflammation | immune response | injury M urine models have been extensively used in recent decades to identify and test drug candidates for subsequent human trials (1-3). However, few of these human trials have shown success (4-7). The success rate is even worse for those trials in the field of inflammation, a condition present in many human diseases. To date, there have been nearly 150 clinical trials testing candidate agents intended to block the inflammatory response in critically ill patients, and every one of these trials failed (8-11). Despite commentaries that question the merit of an overreliance of animal systems to model human immunology (3,12,13), in the absence of systematic evidence, investigators and public regulators assume that results from animal research reflect human disease. To date, there have been no studies to systematically evaluate, on a molecular basis, how well the murine clinical models mimic human inflammatory diseases in patients.The Inflammation and Host Response to Injury, Large Scale Collaborative Research Program has completed multiple studies on the genomic responses to systemic inflammation in patients and human volunteers as well as murine models (14-18). These datasets include genome-wide expression analysis on white blood cells obtained from serial blood draws in 167 patients up to 28 d after severe blunt trauma (15), 244 patients up to 1 y after burn injury, and 4 healthy humans for 24 h after administration of low-dose bacterial endotoxin (14) and expression analysis on analogous samples from well-established mouse models of trauma, burns, and endotoxemia (16 treated and 16 controls per model) (16-18). In humans, severe inflammatory stress produces a genomic storm affecting all major cellular functions and pathways (15) and therefore, provided sufficient perturbations to allow comparisons between the genes in the human conditions and their orthologs in the murine models.In this article, we report on a systematic comparison of the genomic respo...

Critical injury in humans induces a genomic storm with simultaneous changes in expression of innate and adaptive immunity genes.

Because of their extensive wounds, burn patients are chronically exposed to inflammatory mediators. Thus, burn patients, by definition, already have "systemic inflammatory response syndrome." Current definitions for sepsis and infection have many criteria (fever, tachycardia, tachypnea, leukocytosis) that are routinely found in patients with extensive burns, making these current definitions less applicable to the burn population. Experts in burn care and research, all members of the American Burn Association, were asked to review the literature and prepare a potential definition on one topic related to sepsis or infection in burn patients. On January 20, 2007, the participants met in Tucson, Arizona to develop consensus for these definitions. After review of the definitions, a summary of the proceedings was prepared. The goal of the consensus conference was to develop and publish standardized definitions for sepsis and infection-related diagnoses in the burn population. Standardized definitions will improve the capability of performing more meaningful multicenter trials among burn centers.

No abstract

No abstract