Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

, Volume 86, Issue 3, pp 1217–1221 | Cite as

State of nonspecific resistance in germfree and Escherichia coli contaminated miniature piglets

  • G. I. Podoprigora
Microbiology and Immunology


The phagocytic activity of the leukocytes and the serum complement, properdin, and lysozyme levels were studied in germfree miniature piglets and similar animals ocntaiminated withEscherichia coli 055 andE. coli 083. In the presence of autologous serum and complement phagocytosis ofE. coli 055 cells was inhibited, but it was considerably intensified under the influence of specific opsonins (antibodies againstE. coli 055). Lowered levels of complement, properdin, and lysozyme were found in the germfree animals. After peroral monocontamination withE. coli the formation of properdin and complement was stimulated the most, and that of lysozyme the least. Antibodies againstE. coli 055 were not found in the monocontaminated piglets. The highest lysozyme levels were found in the previously germfree animals, which points to the role of other contamination factors thanE. coli cells in the stimulation of lysozyme. It is concluded that microbial contamination plays an important role in the development of the cellular and humoral factors of resistance.

Key Words

gnotobiotic miniature piglets phagocytosis complement properdin lysozyme 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    V. N. Andreev and G. I. Podoprigora, Byull. Éksp. Biol. Med.,82, No. 9, 1100 (1976).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. N. Intizarov, V. A. Dushkin, and G. I. Podoprigora, in: The Genetics of Laboratory Animals and Experimental Research. Proceedings of a Conference [in Russian], Moscow (1974), p. 57.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    É. É. Kening, G. I. Podoprigora, Yu. A. Kol'chik, et al., in: The Use of Laboratory Animals for the Development, Production, and Control of Biological Medical Preparations. Proceedings of a Conference [in Russian], Moscow (1976), p. 163.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Z. M. Mikhailova, “The state of nonspecific immunological reactivity in the course of the acute infectious process in children,” Doctoral Dissertation, Moscow (1967).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Z. M. Mikhailova, and G. A. Mikheeva, The Immunobiological Reactivity of the Child [in Russian], Moscow (1974).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. I. Podoprigora, Byull. Éksp. Biol. Med., No. 6, 706 (1977).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. I. Podoprigora and V. A. Dushkin, Rules for Work with Gnotobiological Isolators (technical instructions) [in Russian], Moscow (1977).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Koch, Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Scand., Section B,82, 136 (1974).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Sterzl, J. Rejnek, and J. Travnicek, Folia Microbiol. (Prague),11, 7 (1966).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Travnicek, L. Mandel, A. Lanc, et al., Csl. Fysiol.,15, 240 (1966).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. I. Podoprigora

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations