Back

Procedure-Matched Comparison of TNBS/Ethanol Enema and DSS Free-Drinking Models of Ulcerative Colitis in Rats: Immune Endotype Profiling and a Translational Model-Selection Framework

AN, Y.; wufang, F.; Zhang, L.; Shi, M.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, X.

2026-06-08 animal behavior and cognition
10.64898/2026.06.03.729947 bioRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveChoosing between TNBS/ethanol enema and DSS free-drinking water protocols for establishing rat ulcerative colitis(UC) models remains a practical challenge in preclinical research. Beyond confirming that both methods induce colitis, no prior study has quantified the independent contribution of enema procedural trauma to inflammatory readouts, reported sex-stratified cytokine responses, or formally linked model-specific immune profiles to human UC endotypes. MethodsTen SPF-grade SD rats(half male and half female) were allocated to a normal control, a procedure-matched saline enema control(anesthesia and enema without chemical agent), a TNBS group(100 mg/kg TNBS + 50% ethanol enema), and a DSS group(3% DSS free-drinking, 7 days). Endpoint assessments included body weight, colon length, macroscopic and histological scoring(modified Macpherson criteria, 0-10), and serum TNF- and IL-6 by ELISA. Post-hoc exploratory analyses included sex-stratified cytokine sub-analysis and coefficient of variation(CV%) for each readout. ResultsBoth model groups successfully induced UC(P<0.05 vs. controls for all endpoints). Critically, the procedure-matched saline enema control confirmed that colonic inflammation in the TNBS group was attributable to the chemical agent rather than mechanical trauma. TNBS induced significantly higher TNF-(90.2{+/-}10.5 vs. 73.5{+/-}9.8 pg/mL, P<0.05) and IL-6(66.5{+/-}8.3 vs. 53.2{+/-}7.6 pg/mL, P<0.05) than DSS,consistent with Th1-polarized vs. innate barrier-disruption immune endotypes, respectively. Coefficient of variation analysis indicated greater intra-group variability in TNBS versus DSS, reflecting the procedural dependency of enema-based models. ConclusionA procedure-matched control design is essential for valid TNBS-vs.-DSS comparisons and has been systematically underutilized in prior studies. Based on immune endotype alignment, TNBS is recommended for screening T-cell-targeted therapies and acute anti-inflammatory agents, while DSS is recommended for epithelial barrier repair and microbiome-modulating interventions. A model-selection decision framework derived from these data is provided to guide preclinical study design.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 3%
34.6%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 9%
7.0%
3
Frontiers in Pharmacology
111 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.5%
4
Lab Animal
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
5
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
116 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy
42 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.4%
7
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 37%
2.9%
8
JCI Insight
277 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.6%
9
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
10
Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology
46 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.2%
11
Experimental Neurology
61 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.6%
12
Gastro Hep Advances
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
13
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
494 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.2%
14
European Journal of Pharmacology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
15
American Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
16
The FASEB Journal
194 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
17
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.2%
18
Frontiers in Immunology
638 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.2%
19
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
20
mSystems
394 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
21
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
23
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
233 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
24
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
25
Pediatric Research
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
26
The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
27
American Journal of Gastroenterology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%