Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:26:38.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The influence of the route of immunization on the protection of mice infected intracerebrally with Bordetella pertussis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

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]

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.

The development of immunity in mice to Bordetella pertussis induced by intracerebral, intravenous or intraperitoneal vaccination was analysed in terms of the viable bacteria in the brain after intracerebral challenge, the serum antibodies, and protection against the sublethal infection of the lung that follows intranasal inoculation.

A vaccine introduced intracerebrally was five to ten times more effective than that given intraperitoneally or intravenously, as measured for each route by the amount of vaccine required to protect half the mice against an intracerebral challenge 14 days later (ImD50). Intracorebral vaccination induced higher antibody titres than vaccination by the other two routes. The survival of infected mice given 1–3 ImD50 doses of vaccine intracerebrally 14 days before, followed a pattern similar to that after intraperitoneal or intravenous vaccination with up to 10 ImD50 of vaccine: the numbers of organisms increased for 3 days and then declined. Injection of about four ImD50 of vaccine intracerebrally produced a local immunity, resulting in an immediate kill of challenge organisms given 14 days later. Such an effect following intraperitoneal vaccination was achieved only against challenges with an avirulent strain. It is suggested that better stimulation of circulating antibody and local immunity in the brain together account for the better protection induced by intracerebral vaccine.

Immunity to an intracerebral infection appears therefore to have at least three components, each specific for pertussis. The first, like that induced by intraperitoneal and intravenous vaccination, reaches a maximum in 2 or 3 weeks and is probably an expression of a general response by the animal operating not earlier than 3 days after infection. The second is a local immunity, appearing after the same interval. The third is a short-lived local immunity which has been described by previous workers; it immediately follows the injection intracorebrally of ten times less vaccine than that needed to protect against a challenge 14 days later and lasts only 2–3 days. The second and third types result in immediate sterilization of the infection.

Mice recovering from sublethal brain infection with avirulent organisms were immune to a second infection with a virulent organism, but this was achieved not by the ability to kill the re-infecting organisms immediately on injection into the brain, but only after the 3–4 days lag such as follows intraperitoneal vaccination.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

References

REFERENCES

Adams, G. J. (1970). Intracerebral infection of mice with high-virulence and low-virulence strains of Bordetella pertussis. Journal of Medical Microbiology 3, 113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, E. K. (1957). Demonstration of promunity in the early immunity of pertussis vaccinated mice. Acta pathologica et microbiologica scandinavica 40, 227–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blake, H. E. & Wardlaw, A. C. (1969). Intracerobral mouse protection test for pertussis vaccine. II. Immunosuppression with cyclophosphamide. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 15, 1355–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blyth, W. A. (1955). The effects of immunity on the intracerebral infection of mice with Haemophilus pertussis. Thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Manchester for the degree of M.Sc.Google Scholar
Cairns, H. J. F. (1950). Intracorebral inoculation of mice. Fate of inoculum. Nature, London 166, 910–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, S.M. & Wheeler, M. W. (1946). Pertussis vaccino prepared with phaso-I cultures grown in fluid medium. American Journal of Public Health 36, 371–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolby, J. M. (1965). The antibacterial effect of Bordetella pertussis antisera. Immunology 8, 484–08.Google ScholarPubMed
Dolby, J. M. & Dolby, D. E. (1969). The antibody activities of 19S and 7S fractions from rabbit antisera to Bordetella pertussis. Immunology 16, 737–47.Google ScholarPubMed
Dolby, J. M. & Standfast, A. F. B. (1961). The intracerebral infection of mice with Bordetella pertussis. Journal of Hygiene 59, 205–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolby, J. M. & Vincent, W. A. (1965). Characterization of the antibodies responsible for the ‘bactericidal activity patterns’ of antisera to Bordetella pertussis. Immunology 8, 499510.Google ScholarPubMed
Evans, D. G. & Perkins, F. T. (1954 a). The ability of pertussis vaccino to produce in mice specific immunity of a type not associated with antibody production. British Journal of Experimental Pathology 35, 322–30.Google Scholar
Evans, D. G. & Perkins, F. T. (1954 b). Interference immunity produced by pertussis vaccino to pertussis infection in mice. British Journal of Experimental Pathology 35, 603–8.Google Scholar
Evans, D. G. & Perkins, F. T. (1955). Tho production of both interference and antibody immunity by pertussis vaccino to pertussis infection in mice. British Journal of Experimental Pathology 36, 391401.Google Scholar
Holt, L. B., Spasojevio, V., Dolby, J. M. & Standfast, A. F. B. (1961). Immunity in mice to an intracerobral challenge of Bordetella pertussis. Journal of Hygiene 59, 373–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendriok, P. L., Elderino, G., Dixon, M. K. & Misner, J. (1947). Mouse protection tests in the study of pertussis vaccine. American Journal of Public Health 37, 803–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medical Research Council (1956). Vaccination against whooping cough. Relation between protection tests in children and results of laboratory tests. British Medical Journal ii, 454–62.Google Scholar
Miles, A. A. & Misra, S. S. (1938). The estimation of the bactericidal power of the blood. Journal of Hygiene 38, 732–49.Google ScholarPubMed
Mims, C. A. (1960). Intracorobral infections and tho growth of viruses in tho mouse brain. British Journal of Experimental Pathology 41, 52–9.Google Scholar
Reed, L. J. & Muench, H. (1938). A simple method of estimating fifty per cent end points. American Journal of Hygiene 27, 493–7.Google Scholar
Wardlaw, A. C. & Jakus, C. V. (1968). Intracerebral mouse protection test for pertussis vaccino. 1. Apparent absence of humoral protective antibody under the usual test conditions. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 14, 989–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar