Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T06:53:06.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison between the intranasal and intracerebral infection of mice with Bordetella pertussis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. F. B. Standfast  and
Jean M. Dolby
A. F. B. Standfast
Affiliation:
The Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine, Elstree, Hertfordshire
Jean M. Dolby
Affiliation:
The Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine, Elstree, Hertfordshire
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

1. The main differences between intracerebral and intranasal infections in mice with virulent strains of Bordetella pertussis are in: (1) the responses to small in fecting doses (< 1 LD 50); (2) the action of antisera in controlling infection; (3) the action of toxin on brain and lung; and (4) the rates of increase of the viable count. The two infections can run concurrently in the same mouse without any demonstrable interference.

2. The terminal viable count in the lung and brain is c. 108 organisms.

3. In the brain there is no sublethal infection with virulent strains; probably even single organisms can grow up to the critical level and kill the mouse. In the lung sublethal infections are found in which the count rises to a figure below the critical level and then declines.

4. The action of ‘intranasal’ antiserum is to reduce a lethal infection to a sublethal one in the lung but there is no effect in the brain. ‘Intracerebral’ antisera cannot act until the blood-brain barrier becomes leaky, when they are able to reduce the viable count and eventually sterilize the brain. In the lung ‘intracerebral’ sera have no action against lethal infections but can control small infections (<I LD 50). The sublethal intranasal test measures this effect but it also measures the action of ‘intranasal’ sera and so cannot be used to distinguish the two types of sera and hence the two antigens.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , June 1961 , pp. 217 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

References

REFERENCES

Andersen, E. K. (1953). Active pertussis immunity in mice after recovery from pulmonary infection or vaccination against. H. pertussis. Acta path. microbiol. scand. 32, 125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, E. K. (1957). Demonstration of promunity in the early immunity of Pertussis vaccinated mice. Acta path. microbiol. scand. 40, 227.Google ScholarPubMed
Andersen, E. K. (1958). Comparison between Pertussis vaccine potency assays in mice challenged by the intracerebral route and mice challenged by the intranasal route (sublethal dose). Acta path. microbiol. scand. 42, 333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blyth, W. A. (1955). The effects of immunity on the intracerebral infection of mice with Haemophilus pertussis. Thesis, Victoria University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Brown, A. M. (1958). Intracerebral infection of mice with Haemophilus pertussis and passive protection by hyperimmune rabbit sera. J. gen. Microbiol. 18, 48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolby, J. M. & Standfast, A. F. B. (1958). A comparison of passive protection tests against intranasal and intracerebral challenges with Bordetella pertussis. Immunology, 1, 144.Google ScholarPubMed
Dolby, J. M. & Standfast, A. F. B. (1961). The intracerebral infection of mice with Bordetella pertussis. J. Hyg., Camb. 59, 205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolby, J. M., Thow, D. & Standfast, A. F. B. (1961). The intranasal infection of mice with Bordetella pertussis. J. Hyg., Camb. 59, 191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, S. (1955). Multiplication of H. pertussis in the mouse lung following intranasal infection. Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci. 33 609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, D. E. (1951). A press for disrupting bacteria and other micro-organisms. Brit. J. exp. Path. 32, 97.Google ScholarPubMed
Meynell, G. G. & Meynell, E. W. (1958). The growth of micro-organisms in vivo with particular reference to the relation between dose and latent period. J. Hyg., Camb. 56, 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, A. A. & Misra, S. S. (1938). The estimation of the bactericidal power of the blood. J. Hyg., Camb. 38, 732.Google ScholarPubMed
Mims, C. A. (1960). Intracerebral injections and the growth of viruses in the mouse brain. Brit. J. exp. Path. 41, 52.Google ScholarPubMed
M.R.C. Report (1956). Vaccination against whooping-cough. Brit. med. J. ii, 454.Google Scholar
Proom, H. (1947). The immunological aspects of experimental Haemophilus pertussis infection. J. Path. Bact. 59, 165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Standfast, A. F. B. (1958). The comparison between field trials and mouse protection tests against intranasal and intracerebral challenges with Bordetella pertussis. Immunology, 1, 135.Google ScholarPubMed