This study showed that the ocular surface of
Muc1 null
mice of C57BL/6 background appeared normal in all respects tested.
These data are at variance with the report by Kardon et
al.,
9 in which a marked propensity for development of
blepharitis and conjunctivitis by
Muc1 null mice in C57BL/6
x SVJ129 background, was reported. Several possibilities for the
differences between our study and theirs include the housing conditions
of the animals, mouse strain variation in response to deletion of
Muc1, strain variation of pathogens, or other environmental
or epigenetic differences. Our conventional animal facility, licensed
by the US Department of Agriculture, houses mice that are routinely
tested to assure the absence of pathogenic viruses, bacteria, and
parasites, and is considered murine pathogen free. The facility housing
the animals in the study by Kardon et al.
9 is described as“
a conventional animal facility,” but it is not clear whether it is
murine pathogen free. Because none of the
Muc1 null mice
housed in our facility (>200) displayed development of infection of
the ocular surface, and because the bacterial adherence assay using
P. aeruginosa, a common pathogen seen in eye infections,
gave no definitive evidence that
Muc1 null mice were more
susceptible to bacterial adherence, the difference between the two
populations may be due to other factors, including strain variation.
Although there appear to be no reports on susceptibility of the inbred
SVJ129 strain to infection, it is possible that the combination of
C57BL/6 and SVJ129 backgrounds renders
Muc1 null mice
susceptible to microbial infections, implying that
Muc1 mucin plays a more important role in the latter background in
protecting against infection. Similar phenotypic differences of null
mutation between C57BL/6 and SVJ129 backgrounds are reported, with p53
null mice displaying vitreal opacities, fibrous retrolental tissue, and
retinal folds in the former strain but not in the
latter.
18