Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T22:12:25.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental pertussis infection in the marmoset: type specificity of active immunity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

T. N. Stanbridge  and
N. W. Preston
T. N. Stanbridge
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology and Virology, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PT
N. W. Preston
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology and Virology, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PT
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

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.

Although we have failed to produce either paroxysmal cough or vomiting in rhesus monkeys, cynomolgus monkeys and marmosets, we have found in marmosets several features of pertussis infection similar to those seen in children with whooping cough: catarrh, persistence of colonization of the naso-pharynx with Bordetella pertussis for 4–11 weeks, change of serotype during colonization and inability of type 1 organisms to establish themselves as the predominant serotype.

As in children, we have found that intramuscular vaccine of type 1,2,3 was more effective than type 1,2 in preventing persistent infection with the currently prevalent serotypes 1,2,3 and 1,3. A mixed vaccine (1,2,3 and 1,3) seemed to produce agglutinin 3 in the serum more consistently than a pure type 1,2,3 vaccine. The duration of colonization, after naso-pharyngeal challenge, was greatly reduced in animals with agglutinin 3.

Local immunity, resulting from previous infection, was even more effective than a good vaccine in preventing subsequent persistent colonization. Marmosets may be useful in studying the possible development of aerosol pertussis vaccine for human use.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , April 1974 , pp. 213 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

References

Abbott, J. D., Preston, N. W. & Mackay, R. I. (1971). Agglutinin response to pertussis vaccination in the child. British Medical Journal i, 86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, E. K. (1953). Serological studies on H. pertussis, H. parapertussis and H. bronchisepticus. Acta pathologica et microbiologica scandinavica 33, 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, E. K. & Bentzon, M. W. (1958). The failure to show correlation between type-specificity and protection in experimental pertussis in mice. Acta pathologica et microbiologica scandinavica 43, 106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, H. H., Hannik, C. A. & Nagel, J. (1971). Success and limitations of vaccination against pertussis. Scientific Publication no. 226, p. 323. Washington, D.C.: Pan American Health Organisation.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. M. & Wheeler, M. W. (1946). Pertussis vaccine prepared with phase I cultures grown in fluid medium. American Journal of Public Health 36, 371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, D. G. & Perkins, F. T. (1954). Interference immunity produced by pertussis vaccine to pertussis infection in mice. British Journal of Experimental Pathology 35, 603.Google ScholarPubMed
Holt, L. B. (1972). The pathology and immunology of Bordetella pertussis infection. Journal of Medical Microbiology 5, 407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, C. C., Chen, P. M., Kuo, J. K., Chiu, W. H., Lin, S. T., Lin, H. S. & Lin, Y. C. (1962). Experimental whooping cough. New England Journal of Medicine 266, 105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendrick, P. L., Eldering, G., Dixon, M. K. & Misner, J. (1947). Mouse protection tests in the study of pertussis vaccine. A comparative series using the intracerebral route for challenge. American Journal of Public Health 37, 803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klimenko, W. N. (1909). Die Aetiologie des Keuchhustens. Experimenteller Keuchhusten. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie, Parasitenkunde and Infektionskrankheiten Abt. I (Orig.) 48, 64.Google Scholar
Lin, T. M. (1958). Experimental whooping cough in monkey. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association 57, 505.Google Scholar
Mallory, F. B., Horner, A. A. & Henderson, F. F. (1913). The relation of the Bordet-Gengou bacillus to the lesion of pertussis. Journal of Medical Research 27, 391.Google Scholar
Medical Research Council (1959). Vaccination against whooping-cough. British Medical Journal i, 994.Google Scholar
Oxoid Manual (1965). 3rd ed., p. 90. London: Oxoid Ltd.Google Scholar
Pillemer, L., Blum, L. & Lepow, I. H. (1954). Protective antigen of Haemophilus pertussis. Lancet i, 1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pittman, M. (1970). Bordetella pertussis – bacterial and host factors in the pathogenesis and prevention of whooping cough. In Infectious Agents and Host Reactions (ed. Mudd, S.), p. 249. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
Preston, N. W. (1963). Type-specific immunity against whooping-cough. British Medical Journal ii, 724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, N. W. (1966). Potency tests for pertussis vaccines: doubtful value of intracerebral challenge test in mice. Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology 91, 173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preston, N. W. (1970 a). Pertussis: the epidemiological situation in various countries –serotypes. In International Symposium on Pertussis, Bilthoven 1969. Symposia Series in Immunobiological Standardization vol. 13, p. 18. Basel: Karger.Google Scholar
Preston, N. W. (1970 b). Technical problems in the laboratory diagnosis and prevention of whooping-cough. Laboratory Practice 19, 482.Google ScholarPubMed
Preston, N. W. (1971). The importance of the different serotypes of Bordetella pertussis in the effectiveness of pertussis vaccines. Scientific Publication no. 226, p. 371. Washington, D.C.: Pan American Health Organisation.Google Scholar
Preston, N. W. & Evans, P. (1963). Type-specific immunity against intra-cerebral pertussis infection in mice. Nature, London 197, 508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, N. W. & Stanbridge, T. N. (1972). Efficacy of pertussis vaccines: a brighter horizon. British Medical Journal iii, 448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, N. W. & Te Punga, W. A. (1959). The relation between agglutinin production by pertussis vaccines and their immunising potency in mice. Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology 78, 209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Public Health Laboratory Service (1969). Efficacy of whooping-cough vaccines used in the United Kingdom before 1968. A preliminary report. British Medical Journal iv, 329.Google Scholar
Public Health Laboratory Service (1973). Efficacy of whooping-cough vaccines used in the United Kingdom before 1968. Final report. British Medical Journal i, 259.Google Scholar
Reed, L. J. & Muench, H. (1938). A simple method of estimating fifty per cent endpoints. American Journal of Hygiene 27, 493.Google Scholar
Sauer, L. W. & Hambrecht, L. (1929). Experimental whooping-cough. American Journal of Diseases of Children 37, 732.Google Scholar
Shmilovitz, M., Preston, N. W., Zaltser, H. & Cahana, A. (1972). Whooping cough in northern Israel. Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 8, 1936.Google ScholarPubMed