Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Meeting Report
  • Published:

Promise and complexity of lupus mouse models

Nature Immunology volume 22, pages 683–686 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

As a follow up to a 2010 meeting deliberating on the benefits of studying mouse models of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), the virtual conference “Mouse models of lupus 10 years later” convened on 10 December 2020 to address a challenging decade that saw few new therapies approved, despite leaps in knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Dysbiosis and gut permeability contribute to lupus disease.
Fig. 2: The potential application of T cell phenotyping and TCR sequence monitoring at both the organ and disease levels.
Fig. 3: Using overlapping disease signatures in appropriate mouse models and subclusters of patients with lupus for the development of targeted therapies.

References

  1. Moore, E. & Putterman, C. J. Autoimmun. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaut.2020.102490 (2020).

  2. Richard, M. L. & Gilkeson, G. Lupus Sci. Med. https://doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2016-000199 (2018).

  3. Li, W., Titov, A. A., Morel, L. Curr. Opin. Rheumatol. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOR.0000000000000412 (2017).

  4. Di Niro, R. et al. Immunity https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2015.06.013 (2015).

  5. Elsner, R. A. & Shlomchik, M. J. Cell Rep. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2019.10.069 (2019).

  6. Miller, A. L. et al. PLoS Pathog. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1008591 (2020).

  7. Gallo, P. M. et al. Immunity https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2015.06.002 (2015).

  8. Pachucki, R. J. et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.41400 (2020).

  9. Azzouz, D. et al. Ann. Rheum. Dis. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214856 (2019).

  10. Manfredo Vieira, S. et al. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7201 (2018).

  11. Zhang, H., Liao, X., Sparks, J. B. & Luo, X. M. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02676-14 (2014).

  12. Mu, Q. et al. Microbiome https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-017-0300-8 (2017).

  13. Mu, Q. et al. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14223-0 (2017).

  14. Zegarra-Ruiz, D. F. et al. Cell Host Microbe https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2018.11.009 (2019).

  15. Sun, F. et al. Lancet Rheumatol. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30004-7 (2020).

  16. Titov, A. A., Baker, H. V., Brusko, T. M., Sobel, E. S. & Morel, L. J. Immunol. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1801651 (2019).

  17. Blanco, L. P. et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.41128 (2020).

  18. Nestor, J. et al. J. Exp. Med. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20180776 (2018).

  19. Stanley, S. et al. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15986-3 (2020).

  20. Chalmers, S. et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 71 (Suppl. 10), abstr. 65 (2019).

  21. Schickel, J.-N. et al. Sci. Immunol. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.aaf7153 (2016).

  22. Der, E. et al. Nat. Immunol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-019-0386-1 (2019).

  23. Misha, R. et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 71 (Suppl. 10), abstr. 1783 (2019).

  24. Bocharnikov, A. V. et al. JCI Insight https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.130062 (2019).

  25. Dong, X. et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.41532 (2021).

  26. Liu, X. et al. Ann. Rheum. Dis. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215442 (2019).

  27. Moore, E. et al. Front. Immunol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.01476 (2020).

  28. Hoover, P. et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 72 (Suppl. 10), abstr. 979 (2020).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all of the speakers for participating in the meeting’s robust discussion on the usefulness of mouse models in lupus research. Additionally, we thank Jose Aragon, Luis Mendez, and the rest of the IT team at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) for their support both prior to and on the day of the meeting. This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Center for Cancer Research, NCI. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the United States Government. Funding support included T32-GM007288 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (E.M. and J.A.R.); R21AR076557 (A.D.) and K08AR072791 (D.A.R.) from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (A.D); W81XWH-17-1-0657 from the Department of Defense, Lupus Research Alliance (A.D., S.G., and D.A.R.); R01AI128901 from the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (L.M.); and a Burroughs Wellcome Fund Career Award in Medical Sciences (D.A.R.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA

    Erica Moore, Joshua A. Reynolds & Chaim Putterman

  2. Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, NY, USA

    Anne Davidson

  3. Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Stefania Gallucci

  4. University of Florida College of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA

    Laurence Morel

  5. Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Deepak A. Rao

  6. National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD, USA

    Howard A. Young

  7. Azrieli Faculty of Medicine of Bar-Ilan University, Safed, Israel

    Chaim Putterman

  8. Galilee Research Institute, Nahariya, Israel

    Chaim Putterman

Authors
  1. Erica Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joshua A. Reynolds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne Davidson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefania Gallucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laurence Morel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Deepak A. Rao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Howard A. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Chaim Putterman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erica Moore.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

C.P. is a consultant to Equillium and is one of the investigators on the current anti-CD6 antibody treatment trial for lupus. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moore, E., Reynolds, J.A., Davidson, A. et al. Promise and complexity of lupus mouse models. Nat Immunol 22, 683–686 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-021-00914-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-021-00914-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing