Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:16:35.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nature of the antibody response to Yersinia enterocolitica serotype IX in cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

M. J. Corbel
M. J. Corbel
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Central Veterinary Laboratory, Weybridge, Surrey
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 nature of the antibody response of cattle to the antigen of Yersinia enterocolitica IX cross-reacting with Brucella spp. was examined. Density-gradient ultracentrifugation, ion-exchange chromatography, antibody adsorption and elution and disulphide bond reduction tests showed that both 19 S IgM and 7 S IgG1 and IgG2 antibodies were produced in response to the cross-reacting antigen. The highest titres of cross-reacting antibodies were detected by the agglutination and Coombs antiglobulin tests. Production of complement-fixing and precipitating antibodies cross-reacting with Br. abortus was transient and high titres were not attained.

In contrast, although infection with Br. abortus also evoked cross-reacting antibodies of the IgM and IgG classes, much higher titres were produced in the complement fixation and precipitation tests and these persisted for long periods. At all stages of the serological response to both organisms, the two infections could be differentiated by the quantitative Rose Bengal plate test.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , June 1973 , pp. 309 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

References

REFERENCES

Ahvonen, P., Jansson, E. & Aho, K. (1969). Marked cross-agglutination between Brucellae and a subtype of Yersinia enterocolitica. Acta pathologica et microbiologica scandinavica 75, 291.Google Scholar
Ahvonen, P. & Sievers, K. (1969). Yersinia enterocolitica infection associated with Brucella agglutinins. Acta medica scandinavica 185, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akkermans, J. P. W. M. & Hill, W. K. W. (1971). Yersinia enterocolitica serotype 9-infectie als storend element bij de serologische diagnostiek van brucella - infecties bij het varken. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeskunde 96, 1654.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. K., Jenness, R., Brumfield, H. P. & Gough, P. (1964). Brucella-agglutinating antibodies: relation of mercaptoethanol stability to complement fixation. Science, New York 143, 1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, D. C., & Stavitsky, A. B. (1961). On the different molecular forms of antibody synthesized by rabbits during the early response to a single injection of protein and cellular antigens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 47, 1667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbel, M. J. (1972). Characterisation of antibodies active in the Rose Bengal plate test for bovine brucellosis. Veterinary Record 90, 484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbel, M. J. & Cullen, G. A. (1970). Differentiation of the serological response to Yersinia enterocolitica and Brucella abortus in cattle. Journal of Hygiene 68, 519.Google ScholarPubMed
Cowan, K. M. & Trautman, R. (1965). Antibodies produced by guinea-pigs infected with foot-and-mouth disease virus. Journal of Immunology 94, 858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, B. J. (1964). Disc electrophoresis. II. Method and application to human serum proteins. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 121, 404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diaz, R., Jones, L. M., Leong, D. & Wilson, J. B. (1968). Surface antigens of smooth brucellae. Journal of Bacteriology 96, 893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diaz, R., Lacalle, R., Medrano, M. P. & Leong, D. (1970). Immunobiological activities of the endotoxin from Yersinia enterocolitica strain M.Y. 79. Proceedings of the Vth International Congress on Infectious Diseases, Vienna; Bacteria 2, 11.Google Scholar
Howe, C. W. (1970). The immune response in canine and human brucellosis as determined by antigen processing. Journal of Clinical Investigation 49, 46a.Google Scholar
Hurvell, B., Ahvonen, P. & Thal, E. (1971). Serological cross-reactions between different brucella species and Yersinia enterocolitica. Acta veterinaria scandinavica 12, 86.Google ScholarPubMed
Jonas, W. E. (1969). Determination of sheep saati-Salmonella typhimurium immunoglobulin class by antiglobulin testing. Research in Veterinary Science 10, 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leong, D., Diaz, R., Milner, K., Rudbaoh, J. & Wilson, J. B. (1970). Some structural and biological properties of Brucella endotoxin. Infection and Immunity 1, 174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lospalluto, J., Miller, W. Jr, Dorward, B. & Fink, C. W. (1962). The formation of macroglobulin antibodies. I. Studies on adult humans. Journal of Clinical Investigation 41, 1415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lüderitz, O., Galanos, C. & Rietschel, E. (1971). Investigations on the structure and biological activity of the lipid A component of Salmonella cell-wall lipopolysaccharides. Proceedings of the Society for General Microbiology, Symposium on Microbial Lipids, Dublin, no. XX, p. 3.Google Scholar
Morgan, W. J. B. (1967). The serological diagnosis of bovine brucellosis. Veterinary Record 80, 612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, W. J. B., Mackinnon, D. J., Gill, K. P. W., Gower, S. G. M. & Norris, P. I. W. (1971). Standard Laboratory Techniques for the Diagnosis of Brucellosis. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
Pike, R. M. & Schulze, M. L. (1964). Production of 7S and 19S antibodies to the somatic antigens of Salmonella typhosa in rabbits. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 115, 829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, P. & Noakes, D. E. (1970). Immunoglobulin IgA in bovine serum and external secretions. Biochimica et Biophysics Acta 214, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, C. E., Tailyour, J., & Cochrane, D. (1966) Ultracentrifrigal studies of sera from cattle vaccinated or naturally infected with Brucella abortus. Canadian Journal of Comparative Medicine 30, 270.Google ScholarPubMed
Romanowska, E. (1970). Sepharose gel filtration method of purification, of lipopolysaccharides. Analytical Biochemistry 33, 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, J. E., Lambert, G. & Roepke, M. H. (1964). Electrophoretic and ultracentrifugation studies on serum from pregnant heifers after exposure to virulent Brucella abortus. American Journal of Veterinary Research 25, 998.Google ScholarPubMed
Scheidegger, J. J. (1955). Une microméthode de l'immunoeleetrophorèse. International Archives of Allergy and Applied Immunology 7, 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimmel, D. & Erler, W. (1967). Characterization of agglutinins of cattle serum against Brucella abortus. American Journal of Veterinary Research 28, 1919.Google Scholar
Smith, J. W., Barnett, J. A. & Sanford, J. P. (1970). Heterogeneity of immunø response to the somatic antigens of Proteus mirabilis. Journal of Immunology 105, 404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, E. W., Cori, C. P., Haynes, R. & Olsen, N. S. (1949). Purification of the hyperglycemic-glycogenolytic factor from insulin and from gastric mucosa. Journal of Biological Chemistry 180, 825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westphal, O., Lüderitz, O. & Bister, F. (1952). Über die Extraktion von Bakterien mit Phenol/Wasser. Zeitschift für Naturforschung 7B, 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar