1992
DOI: 10.1016/0264-410x(92)90167-i
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of parenteral immunization on the intestinal immune response to Salmonella typhi Ty21a

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1994
1994
1996
1996

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Three doses (10 11 CFU) of S. typhi Ty21a elicited specific anti-LPS IgA in 70% of jejunal fluid samples from a large group of vaccinees (n ϭ 81). This rate of response reached 100% when smaller groups of vaccinees were considered (17,18). In contrast, only 13.6% (3 of 22) to 20% (1 of 5) of the vaccinees had some specific anti-LPS IgA in their saliva samples 2 weeks after immunization (14,15).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Three doses (10 11 CFU) of S. typhi Ty21a elicited specific anti-LPS IgA in 70% of jejunal fluid samples from a large group of vaccinees (n ϭ 81). This rate of response reached 100% when smaller groups of vaccinees were considered (17,18). In contrast, only 13.6% (3 of 22) to 20% (1 of 5) of the vaccinees had some specific anti-LPS IgA in their saliva samples 2 weeks after immunization (14,15).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…However, the three spaced doses used in our vaccination schedule did not greatly improve the overall immune response, as only one of the orally immunized volunteers (volunteer 5) responded after the third immunization. In contrast, three alternate daily oral doses of 10 11 CFU of S. typhi Ty21a or of S. typhi Ty21a expressing Vibrio cholerae LPS elicit seroconversion in 62 (17,28) and 100% of the vaccines, respectively (45).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…(22), E. coli heat-labile enterotoxin (23), and cholera toxin (30), showing that parenteral priming followed by a mucosal immunization enhanced mucosal immune responses and, in the cholera toxin study, protection. However, it should be noted that other studies have indicated that parenteral priming had no effect on subsequent immune responses (14) or was suppressive (15,29,31), although Pierce did observe that the suppressive effect of parenteral immunization was largely reversed by a subsequent enteric immunization (29). Since it has been suggested that priming for a mucosal response is affected by dosage number and interval as well as immunization route(s) (29), further studies to determine optimum immunization regimens should be made.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%