Evidence Hub

Mind the gap: Understanding discordance between culture- and a non-culture-based measure of bacterial burden in murine tuberculosis treatment models

Tabor ST, Friesen AD, Reichlen MJ, Dide-Agossou C, McGrath M, Peterson R, Ganusov VV, Robertson GT et al.

bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025

Abstract

The standard pharmacodynamic marker in murine tuberculosis drug studies is colony-forming units ( CFU ). A faster PCR-based marker of bacterial burden is 16S rRNA. For unclear reasons, treatment reduces CFU more than 16S rRNA. We evaluated this CFU-16S gap and estimated the fraction potentially attributable to slow decay of 16S rRNA from dead Mycobacterium tuberculosis ( Mtb ) versus transition to a viable but not culturable on solid agar ( VBNC SA ) population. We quantified the CFU-16S gap during and following treatment in six BALB/c mouse studies and one in vitro study. Applying a two-population ordinary differential equation-based model of Mtb death and 16S rRNA decay, we estimated the fraction of the gap potentially attributable to dead Mtb. Using meta-regression, we estimated the association between CFU or 16S rRNA with relapse. For all regimens, CFU fell more than 16S rRNA, ranging from isoniazid-rifampin-pyrazinamide-ethambutol (CFU decreased 39-times more than 16S rRNA at week 4) to bedaquiline-pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide (CFU decreased >500,000-times more). The two-population model suggested that the fraction of the CFU-16S gap attributable to residual 16S rRNA from dead Mtb is modest and decreases over time. After treatment, 16S rRNA often fell while CFU rose. Four-week CFU change explained most variation in relapse (R²=0.90) while four-week 16S rRNA change did not (R²=0.24). CFU-16S gap is only partially explained by slow decay of residual 16S,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a preprint, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free