Summary
Previous studies in mice have demonstrated differing immunoprophylactic activity of antisera against rough mutants ofEnterobacteriaceae in the prevention of lethal gram-negative bacteremia. In this study, in which CF1 mice were made bacteremic with a serum-resistantEscherichia coli 06:K2:H1, the composite survival was significantly (p<0.001) enhanced by i. v. pre-treatment one to two hours before injection with either normal rabbit sera or antisera to the J5 mutant ofE. coli 0111. The protective efficacy of these preimmune and hyperimmune sera did not differ significantly. Since considerable variability in the mortality of control mice occurred in the 25 separate experiments, the results of individual experiments were grouped retrospectively according to survival in the individual control groups and compared for evidence of possible differences in the efficacy of these two sera. With the exception of a statistically significant difference in the efficacy in one group receiving an LD75–95 inoculum, no such differences were noted. Thus, the variable effects of a rough mutant antiserum were not explained by differences in the relative virulence in the inoculum. This study confirms earlier observations by others that the protective efficacy of the anti-J5 antisera in infected mice does not differ appreciably from that of normal rabbit sera, provided the same donor rabbits are the source of both preimmune and hyperimmune sera.
Zusammenfassung
Versuche zur Wirksamkeit einer Immunprophylaxe gegen die tödliche gramnegative Bakteriämie bei Mäusen mit Antiseren gegen Rauhmutanten vonEnterobacteriaceae brachten bisher unterschiedliche Ergebnisse. In der vorliegenden Studie wurde bei CF1-Mäusen eine Bakteriämie durch einen serumresistentenEscherichia coli 06:K2:H1 Stamm hervorgerufen. Wenn die Tiere ein bis zwei Stunden vor Injektion der Bakterien mit normalem Kaninchenserum oder Antiserum gegen die J5-Mutante vonE. coli 0111 i. v. vorbehandelt wurden, war die Gesamtüberlebenzeit signifikant erhöht (p<0,001). Serum vor der Immunisierung und Hyperimmunserum unterschieden sich in ihrer protektiven Wirksamkeit nicht signifikant voneinander. In 25 getrennt durchgeführten Experimenten schwankte die Sterblichkeit der Mäuse in den Kontrollgruppen erheblich; daher wurden die Ergebnisse der einzelnen Experimente retrospektiv entsprechend den Überlebenszeiten der Tiere in den einzelnen Kontrollgruppen zusammengefaßt und nach möglichen Unterschieden in der Wirksamkeit der beiden Seren untersucht. Ein statistisch signifikanter Unterschied ließ sich lediglich in einer Gruppe nachweisen, die eine LD75–95 erhalten hatte. Die unterschiedliche Effektivität von Antiseren gegen Rauhmutanten läßt sich folglich nicht mit den Unterschieden in der relativen Virulenz des Inoculum erklären. Die vorliegende Studie bestätigt somit frühere Beobachtungen anderer Untersucher, daß die Wirksamkeit von Anti-J5-Serum und normalem Kaninchenserum nicht wesentlich verschieden ist, vorausgesetzt, daß das Serum vor der Immunisierung und das Hyperimmunserum von demselben Kaninchen gewonnen wurden.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Literature
Chedid, L., Parent, M., Boyer, F. A proposed mechanism for natural immunity to enterobacterial pathogens. J. Immunol. 100 (1968) 292–301.
McCabe, W. R. Immunization with R mutants ofS. minnesota. 1. Protection against challenge with heterologous gram-negative bacilli. J. Immunol. 108 (1972) 601–610.
Lüderitz, O., Staub, A. M., Westphal, O. Immunochemistry of O and R antigens ofSalmonella and relatedEnterobacteriaceae. Bacteriol. Rev. 30 (1966) 192–255.
Ng, A. K., Chen, C. H., Chang, C. M., Nowotny, A. Relationship of structure of function in bacterial endotoxins: serologically cross-reactive components and their effect on protection of mice against some gram-negative infections. J. Gen. Microbiol. 94 (1976) 107–116.
Greisman, S. E., DuBuy, J. B., Woodward, C. L. Experimental gram-negative bacterial sepsis: reevaluation of the ability of rough mutant antisera to protect mice. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 158 (1978) 482–490.
Goldman, J. N., Ruddy, S., Feingold, D. S. The serum bactericidal reaction. III. Antibody and complement requirements for killing a roughEscherichia coli. J. Immunol. 102 (1969) 1379–1387.
Johns, M. A., Bruins, S. C., McCabe, W. R. Immunization with R mutants ofSalmonella minnesota. II. Serological response to lipid A and the lipopolysaccharide of Re mutants. Infect. Immun. 17 (1977) 9–15.
Galanos, C., Lüderitz, O., Westphal, O. A new method for the extraction of R lipopolysaccharides. Eur. J. Biochem. 9 (1969) 245–249.
Young, L. S., Stevens, P., Ingram, J. Functional role of antibody against “core” glycolipid of enterobacteriaceae. J. Clin. Invest. 56 (1975) 850–861.
Peter, G., Zinner, S. H. A comparative study of methods for the detection of antibodies to core glycolipid. Eur. J. Cancer 15 (1979) 65–70.
Pillemer, L., Blum, L., Lepow, I. H., Wurz, L., Todd, E. W. The properdin system and immunity. III. The zymosan assay of properdin. J. Exp. Med. 103 (1956) 1–13.
Young, L. S., Hoffman, K. R., Stevens, P. “Core” glycolipid of enterobacteriaceae: immunofluorescent detection of antigen and antibody (38814). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 149 (1975) 389–396.
Ziegler, E. J., Douglas, H., Sherman, J. E., Davis, C. E., Braude, A. I. Treatment ofE. coli and klebsiella bacteremia in agranulocytic animals with antiserum to an UDP-GAL epimerase-deficient mutant. J. Immunol. 111 (1973) 433–438.
Robson, H. G.: Immunoprophylaxis ofPseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) sepsis in neutropenic rats by homologous PA andE. coli J5 vaccines. International Symposium on Infections in the Immunocompromised Host, June 1–5, 1980, Veldhoven, The Netherlands, p. 95, Abst. # 129.
Ziegler, E. J., McCutchan, J. A., Braude, A. I.: Successful treatment of human gram-negative bacteremia with antiserum against endotoxin core. Clinical Research 29 (1981) 576A.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Peter, G., Chernow, M., Keating, M.H. et al. Limited protective effect of rough mutant antisera in murine Escherichia coli bacteremia. Infection 10, 228–232 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01666916
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01666916