$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
In the search for alternative in vivo research models, with reduced associated costs and logistical and ethical considerations, the chicken embryo emerged and quickly became one of the most applicable, manageable, and reproducible in vivo vertebrate model systems1,2. Compared to other animal models, such as rodents and rabbits, fertilized chicken eggs are inexpensive to obtain and require no complex housing logistics for their development. Moreover, the chicken egg size enables the handling of numerous embryos in parallel, supporting a robust number of experimental test conditions/groups and replicates. The short embryogenesis duration (21 days) and the simplicity of accessing and observing the embryo and associated structures at any point of the developmental period make this a useful model in a variety of fields, such as developmental biology (e.g., heart and brain formation)3,4 and pharmacology (testing drug activity, delivery, and toxicity)1,5,6. In addition, the immature immune system of the chicken embryo makes it a suitable system for immune-based studies and cancer research-related approaches7. Importantly, because of the embryonic nature of this model, which only acquires a mature nociceptive system by developmental day 13-148, research applications conducted within this timeframe are not constrained by legal and ethical concerns7.
The chicken embryo model has also been widely used to study the pathogenicity of microbes causing disease in humans and other mammals. Indeed, numerous studies have explored and validated this model to investigate the virulence of protozoan (e.g., Neospora caninum, Eimeria tenella, Cryptosporidium spp.)9,10,11, fungal (e.g., Candida albicans, Aspergillus fumigatus)12,13, and bacterial species (e.g., Enterococcus spp., Salmonella enterica, Francisella spp., Campylobacter jejuni, Clostridium perfringens, Listeria monocytogenes, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Staphylococcus aureus)10,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22, as well as to test the therapeutic effect of antimicrobial compounds17,23.
Microorganisms, like the ones mentioned above, are often exposed to stressful stimuli in their environment(s) and have, therefore, evolved stress-coping strategies to endure potentially harmful/lethal situations. Some bacterial species can produce highly resilient and metabolically dormant structures called endospores, which preserve cellular and genetic integrity under severe environmental constraints. If favorable environmental conditions are gathered, endospores can regenerate into viable active cells by germination24. Non-sporulating bacteria, however, may enter into an alternative metabolically dormant state called viable but non-culturable (VBNC), whose main phenotypic trait is the loss of culturability in routine growth media25. Given that a large part of the > 100 bacterial species reported to enter a VBNC state are pathogenic to humans and other animals26, and that VBNC pathogens may revive back into a metabolically active and virulent state25,26, the failure of conventional growth-based methods to detect VBNC pathogens is a concerning public health issue. The environmental cues and molecular and physiological mechanisms driving this revival process are not yet well understood and may vary with the microbial species and the VBNC state-inducing stress(es).
Researchers have taken advantage of the particularities of the chicken embryo model to investigate the in vivo revival capacity of bacterial pathogens in a VBNC state. Human-derived C. jejuni isolates, driven into a VBNC state by nutritional deprivation in water, recovered their culturability and virulence in human cells after passage in embryonated chicken eggs27. Similarly, successful attempts to revert the VBNC state were also reported for other pathogens, such as Edwardsiella tarda28, Legionella pneumophila29, and L. monocytogenes30.
We have recently reported that when L. monocytogenes is driven into a VBNC state by starvation in mineral water, it shifts from a rod-shaped to a coccoid cell. We revealed that this morphological transformation is caused by cumulative damage to the cell wall, leading to its complete shedding by the bacterium, which then becomes a cell wall-deficient spherical cell form31. Our unsuccessful attempts to revive these wall-less VBNC L. monocytogenes forms in vitro, using nutrient replenishing approaches, led us to investigate their potential rescue in vivo. Given its promising use with L. monocytogenes30, we selected the chicken embryo model for this task. The results confirmed the capacity of the embryonated chicken egg system to promote the restoration of cell wall-deficient VBNC L. monocytogenes back to an active culturable state31.
Here, we provide a detailed protocol enabling the in vivo revival of L. monocytogenes from a dormant VBNC state through exposure to the embryonated chicken egg environment. We describe the preparation and monitoring of chicken eggs and VBNC bacteria, the inoculation of eggs, the processing of the embryonated and non-embryonated eggs, and the scoring of the culturable bacterial burden to assess VBNC cell revival efficiency. The results reaffirm the chicken embryo as a simple, cost-effective, and suitable model to understand the mechanisms governing different aspects of microbial life, such as bacterial dormancy. This in vivo system can be further explored to investigate the contribution of individual bacterial genes in the resurrection process.