The Inability of Neisseria gonorrhoeae Pili Antibodies to Confer Immunity in Subcutaneous Guinea-pig Chambers

Turner, W.; Novotny, P

doi:10.1099/00221287-92-1-224

Cited by 22 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is, therefore, most interesting that the diffusible products of lysis of the gonococcus were able to stimulate an antibody response in the test mice leading to the destruction of gonococci within Millipore chambers. These observations both on the effectiveness of immunisation with whole gonococci and on that occurring naturally in mice exposed to the diffusible products of lysis of gonococci are in marked contrast to those of Turner and Novotny (1976) who found that antibodies to gonococcal pili were without influence on the host's defence response to gonococci in open subcutaneous chambers in mice.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 52%

The Survival of Gonococci and Meningococci in Subcutaneous Diffusion Chambers in Mice

Hafiz

McEntegart

1977

Journal of Medical Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

THE use of a Millipore diffusion chamber technique for the study of antimicrobial systems in vivo was reported by Roantree and Collis (1960) and by Steward and Roantree (1961 (Logan and Hanson, 1974).The work of Ark0 (1972) on subcutaneous chambers in small laboratory animals provided a new approach to the study of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in experimental animals. Flynn and Waitkins (1973) found that gonococci survived for only 1 day when held in simple open chambers implanted subcutaneously in mice. In subsequent experiments, Waitkins (1975) showed that when gonococci were taken into cells grown in tissue culture and then held in chambers in mice, the survival time of the intracellular bacteria was extended.The present study was undertaken in an attempt to determine the extent to which the longer survival of gonococci within tissue-culture cells may simply have been due to protection of the organisms from the cellular defences of the host. Standardised suspensions of gonococci were placed in Millipore diffusion chambers which were implanted subcutaneously instead of intraperitoneally as in most previous reports. Our diffusion chambers allowed the diffusion of all humoral factors but excluded any cells and are described as '' closed ", whereas Arko's chambers allowed free access of both humoral and cellular elements and are described as " open ".Studies on the survival of gonococci in these Millipore chambers were made in groups of mice and the results obtained in normal mice compared with those in mice pre-immunised with whole gonococci. Similar studies were also carried out with meningococci (N. mezingitidis) in the chambers in place of gonococci. MATERIALS AND METHODSExperimental animals. Swiss albino Webster mice of 18-22 g were used. They were fed a standard diet and water was given ad libitum.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 52%

The Survival of Gonococci and Meningococci in Subcutaneous Diffusion Chambers in Mice

Hafiz

McEntegart

1977

Journal of Medical Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When these antibodies were injected intramuscularly or introduced into the chambers 2 days before (Arko, 1974) or at the same time as (Scales & Kraus, 1974) the challenge, they protected against infection. Immunity in the guinea-pig model, as in chimpanzees , appeared to be strain specific (Turner & Novotny, 1976) but the large challenge doses used may have masked any weak cross-protection. Fresh serum from immunized animals killed gonococci in vitro but not after it was heated at 56 "C for 30 min, indicating the possible involvement of complement (Scales & Kraus, I 974).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Washes of the organisms grown in vivo showed one or two precipitin lines in gel diffusion against antiserum produced by live infection; these were not shown by similar washes of organisms grown in vitro (Penn et Witt et al, 1976). These differences between gonococci grown in vivo and in vitro suggested that the immunizing effect of chamber infection (Scales & Kraus, 1974;Turner & Novotny, 1976), in which small numbers of gonococci (I x ro6 to 5 x ro6 ml-l; Veale et al, 1975) are present, may be due to a potent immunizing antigen not present to any significant extent in organisms grown in vitro. The latter are therefore needed in large quantities for producing effective immunity (Arko, 1974;Turner & Novotny, 1976).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This immunity was induced either by subcutaneous inoculations of large quantities of killed suspensions of gonococci (Arko, 1974;Turner & Novotny, 1976) or by initial infection of chambers followed by spontaneous eradication of infection (Scales & Kraus, I 974 ; Turner & Novotny, I 976). Both methods prevented subsequent infection of chambers and elicited serum antibodies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These differences between gonococci grown in vivo and in vitro suggested that the immunizing effect of chamber infection (Scales & Kraus, 1974;Turner & Novotny, 1976), in which small numbers of gonococci (I x ro6 to 5 x ro6 ml-l; Veale et al, 1975) are present, may be due to a potent immunizing antigen not present to any significant extent in organisms grown in vitro. The latter are therefore needed in large quantities for producing effective immunity (Arko, 1974;Turner & Novotny, 1976). Indeed, in a recent paper Arko, Bullard & Duncan (1976) report that gonococci adapted to chambers in mice and grown once in vitro were more immunogenic for guinea pigs than the parent strain grown in vifro.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Immunization of Guinea Pigs with Neisseria gonorrhoeae: Strain Specificity and Mechanisms of Immunity

Penn

Parsons

et al. 1977

Journal of General Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

S U M M A R YInfection of subcutaneously implanted chambers in guinea pigs conferred immunity against homologous infection of other chambers in the same animals. However, attempts to immunize guinea pigs by subcutaneous injection of filtered fluid from infected chambers, or with small doses of formalin-killed, chamber gonococci were not successful. Thus, neither organisms grown in vivo nor their extracellular products appeared to be exceptionally immunogenic.In immunizing tests with different isolates of gonococci adapted to growth in guinea-pig chambers, cross-immunity to chamber infection with low challenge doses was detected only between two of six isolates. The killing of gonococci in chambers of immunized animals, which occurred only after homologous challenge or with the heterologous strain showing cross-immunity, was not due primarily to humoral factors in the chamber fluid but probably to an enhanced effectiveness of phagocytosis. The serum of immunized animals was bactericidal for homologous strains and for the strain showing cross-immunity but not for strains showing no cross-immunity. Hence, serum bactericidal activity might be a useful indicator for investigating the specificity of immunity produced by different gonococcal strains.

show abstract

Protection against group B meningococcal disease. II. Infection and resulting immunity in a guinea pig model.

Frasch¹,

Robbins²

1978

The Journal of Experimental Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exposure to Neisseria meningitidis may result in either asymptomatic infection (carriage) or acute disease. Early studies indicated that acute meningococcal disease probably occurs about 2 wk after acquisition of the organism (1). Regardless of whether individuals become carriers or develop acute disease, they develop humoral antibodies to a variety of antigens, including the groupspecific polysaccharide (2, 3), the protein serotype antigen (STA), 1 and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) (4). Group-specific polysaccharide antibodies peak approximately 2 wk after onset of acute disease (5, 6), but the nature of the immune response to the STA and LPS antigens resulting from carriage or disease is unknown.There is no entirely satisfactory animal model simulating meningococcal disease in man, although several have been studied for their ability to predict the effectiveness of vaccines or serum therapy. The mouse-mucin model described by Miller and Castles in 1936 (7) and later standardized by Branham and Pittman (8, 9) was one of the first models for study of immune protection. Study of the immune response resulting from mouse infection is difficult because the effects of mucin on the immune response and clearance are unknown. The rabbit has also been used, but massive doses of organisms injected intracranially wererequired to cause meningitis-like disease (10). The chick embryo model was used to study passive protection against meningococcal infection (11-14), but active immunization is not possible.In these studies, the guinea pig implant model of Arko (15) was examined. This model proved useful because (a) the animals could be actively immunized, (b) useful amounts of serum from individual animals were obtained, (c) the induced meningococcal infections were not lethal, thus permitting rechallenge, and (d) localization of the infection permitted quantitation of organisms present. As long as no attempt is made to study the pathophysiology in relation to human disease, the guinea pig spring implant model is satisfactory.The purpose of our investigation was to examine the specificity and duration of the immune response to meningococcal infection and to determine the

show abstract

The Inability of Neisseria gonorrhoeae Pili Antibodies to Confer Immunity in Subcutaneous Guinea-pig Chambers

Cited by 22 publications

References 11 publications

The Survival of Gonococci and Meningococci in Subcutaneous Diffusion Chambers in Mice

The Survival of Gonococci and Meningococci in Subcutaneous Diffusion Chambers in Mice

Immunization of Guinea Pigs with Neisseria gonorrhoeae: Strain Specificity and Mechanisms of Immunity

Protection against group B meningococcal disease. II. Infection and resulting immunity in a guinea pig model.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About