The protocol described here provides a reproducible, highly detailed method for the humanization of germ-free mice housed in experimental isocages. The ability to exclusively transplant fecal communities from human subjects into murine hosts is invaluable to microbiome research. Without contamination from mouse-specific commensal microbiota, one can study the impact of human-resident bacteria on a variety of health and disease states or the impact of interventions such as diet or drug administration on human microbiota16,17,18. Such studies are essential to demonstrate the causality of microbiome composition in health and disease states. This protocol also includes the collection of humanized mouse feces in preservation media, enabling the recovery of viability-preserved microbes for further use. A further application not described here is monoassociation with single bacterial strains or colonization with defined bacterial communities such as the Altered Schaedler flora or the Mouse Intestinal Bacterial Collection (miBC)13,19,20. These approaches enable the controllability and traceability of specific bacterial strains in response to interventions and host factors. This protocol is highly adaptable to using these defined consortia or single isolates as well, with the only modification being that the bacteria will need to be pre-cultured prior to oral gavage into mice.
It is essential to note that the representative results described here do not constitute an appropriately powered experiment. To determine causation, gut "humanized" mice from a single donor only constitute technical replicates of a single biological replicate (the donor)19. To appropriately test causality, this experiment would need to be repeated at least twice using completely different donor samples, ideally from a single donor instead of a pooled sample. In the case of our representative results, having multiple mice in a single cage sampled at each time point is considered pseudoreplication, and these data could not be used to make a causal inference19. Instead, an appropriately designed experiment would consider one cage per donor to be a single data point in the experiment. Although we provide these results to demonstrate a typical experiment in the isocage system, investigators should take care to apply the appropriate power analyses to their experimental design before initiating their studies.
Although donor microbiome composition was similar to recipient composition in our study, these humanized mice were not identical to their donors (Figure 3A,K). This is to be expected as many factors influence the engraftment rates of fecal microbiota samples into germ-free mice, including preparation of the donor samples, the genotype and diet of the recipient mice, the frequency of gavage, the CFU count of the donor stool, and the mode of preservation of the original donor stool13,20,21,22. A study examining the outcomes of 1713 human to GF mouse transfers found that only 47% of human species were recapitulated in the recipient mice and that one-third of transferred taxa consistently differed in relative abundance from donors23. While some studies demonstrate higher transference rates and more similarity to donor composition, gut "humanization" is therefore not perfect, and variable engraftment must be considered as a limitation to this procedure24,25. Unsuccessful engraftment could be a reason for unsuccessful phenotype transfer to recipient mice, so sequencing of donor and recipient stool to measure this outcome is highly desirable when performing these studies. When reporting results of a gut "humanized" mouse model, detailed methods regarding donor stool collection, preparation, 16S rDNA sequencing-defined composition, and all other relevant details should be described carefully to allow for reproducibility.
Although the taxa transference rate from human fecal donor to mouse is less than 100%, this does represent a unique opportunity. If a disease or response phenotype is maintained in the gut humanized mouse model, one can use the taxa transferred to the mouse as a way to rule out strains not required for a specific function and can instead focus on only those taxa transferred to the mice. Viability-preserved humanized mouse feces can be used for the isolation of bacterial strains to create a custom-defined human isolate consortium, or can be passaged through mice again for functional studies. In cases where human fecal donor stool quantity is limited, stocks of viability-preserved mouse recipient stool can be used in place of human donor stool to colonize mice. Furthermore, viability-preserved recipient stool can also be used in further applications, such as inoculating a bioreactor system to study the microbiota in isolation from the host.
The individual isolator cages described here provide experimental flexibility, reducing the cost and staff needed to conduct parallel experiments with many groups9,10. However, the risk of contamination is higher when using isocages than in experimental isolators26,27. Mini-isolators are stocked with food and water and have a portal entry protecting the contents from the outside environment. The isocages must be transferred to and opened in a biosafety cabinet, which greatly increases the chances of outside contaminants coming into contact with cage surfaces and being transferred to the mice. The chances of contamination are thus directly related to the number of times the isocage system is opened in the biosafety cabinet, which is at minimum every 2 weeks due to husbandry requirements. As a result, it is recommended to house mice in isocages for no more than 12 weeks10. This does limit experimental approaches in the isocages to shorter term experiments, excluding longer-term models, but long-term colonization studies are more appropriate for an isolator housing approach. The isocage system is uniquely suited for experimental approaches requiring more frequent interventions, for example, enabling studies involving tumor production and drug treatment.
Some alternative approaches use the transfer of germ-free to SPF conditions (termed ex-GF models) or antibiotic-depleted mice followed by immediate and repeated colonization of human microbiota to partially recapitulate the original fecal donor composition. While these approaches have shown promise in allowing donor microbiota to colonize for long-term studies, mouse-specific commensal bacteria still colonize these models, leading to a mixed microbial community (human and mouse). This could be partially mitigated by using large amounts of human donor feces and repeated colonization, sometimes daily28. Colonization of germ-free mice with human fecal samples in the isocage system only requires a single gavage for stable colonization, hence requiring far less donor material than these alternative approaches, although additional gavages can enhance engraftment at the expense of additional time and donor fecal material21. Transference rates as high as 88% from human fecal transfer into germ-free mice have been achieved in previous experiments, but as discussed, this rate is highly variable and does not determine the success of the fecal transplant24.
The sterilization of the biosafety cabinet, the isocages, and all materials and supplies is the most important aspect of the protocol. The primary cage manipulator cannot be too careful when completing the chlorine-dioxide sterilant cleaning steps. Everything that enters the biosafety cabinet must have a 20 min surface liquid contact time with sterilant, and in case of operator error, it may become necessary to completely re-sterilize all materials and the workstation. After using the biosafety cabinet, it is also important to clean it completely again with chlorine-dioxide sterilant followed by alcohol to reduce the oxidizing effect on metal surfaces. The protocol described here is widely applicable to any animal facility that is equipped with germ-free breeding and a biosafety cabinet, but it is laborious and can become time-consuming depending on the number of cages and experiments being run in parallel. For facilities with high usage of the isocage system, there are less labor-intensive equipment options that greatly reduce the effort needed to perform these experiments. For instance, there are biosafety cabinet systems designed for this purpose, which include an automated dunk tank attached to the cabinet, preventing the need for manual cleaning of each cage. Additionally, autoclave transfer chambers are available for attachment to the biosafety cabinet, which allows for the direct transfer of autoclaved materials to the hood without needing surface sterilization by chlorine-dioxide sterilant. While an expensive investment, these options greatly reduce the time and effort required to complete these experiments and can be easily substituted within the relevant sections of this protocol.
The most common reason for failure of this experimental protocol is a contamination event. The most likely source of contamination in the isocages is during the transfer and cage-changing processes under the hood. Spore-forming bacteria, like Bacillus, and human skin commensals from the genus Staphylococcus are the biggest risk of contamination for gnotobiotic mice in isocages26,27. In order to limit the risk of contamination, it is recommended to open the cages only when absolutely necessary outside of the 2-week cage change. In some situations, it is possible to schedule all procedures and interventions for that timeframe, but some experimental approaches necessitate repeated opening. For these situations, a highly experienced operator may be able to successfully maintain germ-free conditions, but collecting and testing feces at every cage opening may become necessary to prove that germ-free conditions were maintained. Additionally, an animal health emergency or running out of food or water will require immediate opening of the cage. As a result, it is recommended to closely monitor animal health and well-being and food/water supply level to ensure to minimize this as much as possible.
If repeated contamination events occur, it is recommended to swab surfaces of the biosafety cabinet and isocages to identify any regions of microbial growth. Swab the work surface, the air filter, the sash, the sides, and the opening of the biosafety cabinet hood, as well as the safe closure clamps, HEPA filter, air vents, and interior surfaces of the isocages. Culture these swabs as previously described and identify which areas have microbial growth. The contaminating bacteria or fungi can be identified by Biotyper MALDI-TOF analysis of individual colonies, but gram staining or qPCR for taxa are also viable methods to identify both the contaminants of the mice and the potential source for these contaminants in the environment.
A pitfall of this protocol is that in cases where animals are colonized with human microbiota, it is nearly impossible to detect contamination from outside sources due to the highly diverse and undefined microbiota. If contamination is suspected, it is recommended to perform next-generation sequencing of mouse feces across many time points to monitor for taxa not present in the human donor fecal inoculum that are present in the recipient mouse stool. Not all of the taxa from the human fecal donor stool will colonize the recipient mice, but there should be no taxa not present in the human feces that are present in the mice feces. Germ-free maintenance or donor feces colonization can also be monitored longitudinally via qPCR, using universal 16S primers or taxon-specific primers, especially if the microbial community composition of the original donor sample is known. However, this method is limited in that it cannot distinguish living/dead microorganisms. It is also important to use validated germ-free stool controls when designing the assay to eliminate false positive signals.
In summary, this protocol enables the successful and reproducible gut microbiota humanization of germ-free mice in experimental isolator cages and subsequent collection of viability-preserved humanized fecal specimens from these mice. This approach is an essential tool for studying the host-microbial interactions in the context of health and disease and provides the framework for designing further experimental interventions within the isocage system. It is anticipated that many associative connections between the human gut microbiota and health and disease will be validated using this model in the future.