Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:20:46.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of the antigen which elicits the bactericidal antibody and of the mouse-protective antiǵen on the growth of Bordetella pertussis in the mouse brain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Jean M. Dolby ,
J. P. Ackers  and
D. E. Dolby
Jean M. Dolby
Affiliation:
The Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine, Elstree, Hertfordshire
J. P. Ackers
Affiliation:
The Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine, Elstree, Hertfordshire
D. E. Dolby
Affiliation:
The Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine, Elstree, Hertfordshire
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The effect of antigens of Bordetella pertussis and their antibodies on brain infections by B. pertussis in mice are suppression of an infection immediately, so that the initial 90 % loss due to leakage from the brain is maintained or the numbers of bacteria are reduced even further, sometimes with complete sterilization particularly after a small lethal challenge of 10 LD 50 (mechanism 1), and a delayed antibacterial activity in vivo which does not begin until 3 days after challenge (mechanism 2). The first, immediate reaction is over in 2–3 days; the second is maintained from 3–4 days onwards, and results in elimination of the bacteria and protection of mice.

The parts played in vivo in overcoming infection in these two ways by two antigens and their respective antibodies have been investigated. These antigens are a lipopolysaccharide capable of eliciting an antibody which is bactericidal in vitro in the presence of complement called the ‘bactericidal antigen’, and the mouse protective antigen.

Considering first passive immunity, bactericidal antibody elicited by isolated antigen, and of high titre in vitro, is only very weakly active by mechanism (1) in vivo. Brains are seldom sterilized and mice not therefore protected. Antisera to whole cell vaccines whether they contain the ‘bactericidal antigen’ or not, or the protective antigen or not can more easily reduce infections by mechanism (1), eliminating small lethal challenges in some mice which are protected. A passive, intracerebrally protective antibody (PIPA) different from other known antibodies, has been postulated to account for this. Antisera to whole cell vaccine which is protective as denned in the potency assay, can, in additon to this, protect mice by mechanism (2) not only against 10 LD 50 but also 100 LD 50 challenge, and is the only antibody which can do this.

These antibodies have been investigated by injecting them with the challenging organisms. The antibody effects described above are given by antisera stimulated by several injections and also by the concentrated serum immunoglobulins of once vaccinated mice. The antibody, which is bactericidal in vitro only, is in the 7 S globulin fraction of the serum of once vaccinated mice. The protective antibody capable of overcoming small and large challenges is in the 19 S and 11 S globulins. The antibody, PIPA, protecting against small lethal challenges only is in the fraction A2 containing mainly 11 S globulin.

In active immunization experiments the suppression of infection which immediately follows intracerebral vaccination, but which only lasts 2–3 days (mechanism 1), is not dependent on either ‘bactericidal’ or protective antigens but on a component present in all our whole cell vaccines. Vaccines which also had protective antigen eliminated the remaining infection at 4–6 days after challenge by mechanism (2).

As in passive immunity, only the protective antigen can completely overcome 100 LD 50. Suppression of a small, lethal, intracerebral infection given 14 days after intraperitoneal vaccination by mechanism (1) may however be correlated with protective antigen.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , February 1975 , pp. 71 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

References

REFERENCES

Ackers, J. P. & Dolby, J. M. (1972). The antigen of Bordetella pertussis that induces bactericidal antibody and its relationship to protection of mice. Journal of General Microbiology 70, 371–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, E. K. (1957). Demonstration of promunity in the early immunity of pertussis vaccinated mice. Acta pathologica et microbiologica scandinavica 40, 227–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berenbaum, M. C., Ungar, J. & Stevens, W. K. (1960). Intracranial infection of mice with Bordetella pertussis. Journal of General Microbiology 22, 313–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burstein, M. & Samaille, J. (1958). Sur une nouvelle méthode de dosage du cholestérol lié aux α- et aux β-lipoprotéines du sérum. Clinica chimica acta 3, 320–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chesebro, B. & Svehag, S. E. (1968). Precipitation of human serum proteins by polyethyl-eneglycol. Clinica chimica acta 20, 527–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. M. & Wheeler, M. W. (1946). Pertussis vaccine prepared with phase-1 cultures grown in fluid medium. American Journal of Public Health 36, 371–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolby, J. M. (1965). The antibacterial effect of Bordetella pertussis antisera. Immunology 8, 484–98.Google ScholarPubMed
Dolby, J. M. (1972). Passive protection of mice against intracerebral infections with Bordetella pertussis. Journal of Hygiene 70, 707–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Dolby, J. M. & Dolby, D. E. (1969). The antibody activities of 19 S and 7 S fractions from rabbit antisera to Bordetella pertussis. Immunology 16, 737–47.Google Scholar
Dolby, J. M., Dolby, D. E. & Bronne-Shanbury, C. J. (1975). The effects of humoral, cellular and non-specific immunity on intracerebral Bordella pertussis infections in mice. Journal of Hygiene 74, 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolby, J. M. & Standfast, A. F. B. (1961). The intracerebral infection of mice with Bordetella pertussis. Journal of Hygiene 59, 205–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolby, J. M. & Stephens, S. (1973). Pertussis antibodies in the sera of children exposed to Bordetella pertussis by vaccination or infection. Journal of Hygiene 71, 193–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, D. G. & Perkins, F. T. (1954). Interference immunity produced by pertussis vaccine to pertussis infection in mice. British Journal of Experimental Pathology 35, 603–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Iida, T. & Tajima, M. (1971). Stimulation of non-specific resistance by heterologous endotoxins and experimental immunity to Bordetella pertussis in mice. Immunology 21, 313–22.Google ScholarPubMed
Standfast, A. F. B. & Dolby, J. M. (1972). The influence of the route of immunization on the protection of mice infected intracerebrally with Bordetella pertussis. Journal of Hygiene 70, 487–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wardlaw, A. C. & Jakus, C. V. (1968). Intracerebral mouse protection test for pertussis vaccine. 1. Apparent absence of humoral protective antibody under the usual test conditions. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 14, 989–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organisation (1964). Requirements for pertussis vaccines. Potency test. Technical Report Series 274, 35–6.Google Scholar