Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T13:16:16.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Antibody Response in Man Following Infection With Viruses of the pox Group: II. Antibody Response Following Vaccination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

K. McCarthy ,
A. W. Downie  and
W. H. Bradley
K. McCarthy
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology, University of Liverpool
A. W. Downie
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology, University of Liverpool
W. H. Bradley
Affiliation:
Ministry of Health
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.

Following primary vaccination no antibody was detected up to the tenth day. After this time neutralizing antibody and antihaemagglutinin were present in the majority of individuals, while, with the technique used, complement-fixing antibody was found in less than half those examined. Neutralizing antibody may be found in the blood more that 20 years after primary vaccination; by this time very few show antihaemagglutinin and then only in low titre. Complement-fixing antibody was not found more than 6 months after primary vaccination.

In revaccinated individuals the antibody response tended to be higher than after primary vaccination and, when it occurred, often appeared within a week. This suggests that prompt revaccination of smallpox contacts may offer even greater protection than does primary vaccination.

The neutralization test is a better measure of immunological response than are either of the other two tests, for these may give a negative result even though there may be a well-marked rise in neutralizing antibody. The ‘early’ type of reaction to revaccination was associated with an antibody response in only about half the subjects examined. In the remainder, the skin reaction, although identical in appearance, must be regarded as allergic in nature and not accompanied by increase in immunity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , December 1958 , pp. 466 - 478
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

References

Béclère, A., Chambon, & Ménard (1899). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 13, 81.Google Scholar
Benenson, A. S. (1950). J. Amer. med. Ass. 143, 1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, J. C. (1947). Lancet, i, 364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buddingh, J. G. (1943). Amer. J. Hyg. 38, 310.Google Scholar
Chu, C. M. (1948). J. Hyg., Camb., 46, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, W. A., De Cloe-Enklaar, W. & Geiger-Koedyk, J. J. (1949). Docum. neerl. indones. Morb. trop. 1, 362.Google Scholar
Collier, W. A. & Schönfeld, J. K. (1950). Med. J. Aust. ii, 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craigie, J. & Wishart, F. O. (1936). Canad. pub. Hlth J. 27, 371.Google Scholar
Downie, A. W. & Macdonald, A. (1950). J. Path. Bact. 62, 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downie, A. W. & McCarthy, K. (1950). Brit. J. exp. Path. 31, 789.Google Scholar
Downie, A. W. & McCarthy, K. (1958). J. Hyg., Camb., 56, 479.Google Scholar
Elisberg, B.L., McCown, J. M. & Smadel, J. E. (1956). J. Immunol. 77, 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gispen, R. (1953a). Antonie v. Leeuwenhoek. 19, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gispen, R. (1953b). Antonie v. Leeuwenhoek. 19, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrlich, A., Mayr, A. & Munz, E. (1956). Zbl. Bakt. 1, Abt. Orig. 166, 73.Google Scholar
Hooker, S. B. (1929). J. infect. Dis. 45, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horgan, E. S. & Haseeb, M. A. (1944). J. Hyg., Camb., 43, 337.Google Scholar
Kempe, C. H. & Benenson, A. S. (1953). J. Pediat. 42, 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keogh, E. V. (1936). J. Path. Bact. 43, 441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loutit, J. F. & McClean, D. (1945). J. Path. Bact. 57, 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, K. & Downie, A. W. (1953). Lancet, i, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, K., Downie, A. W. & Armitage, P. (1958). J. Hyg., Camb., 56, 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagler, F.P. O. (1942). Med. J. Aust. i, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagler, F. P. O. (1944). Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci. 22, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, E. A. (1944). Aust. J. exp. Biol. med. Sci. 22, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricketts, T. F. & Byles, J. B. (1908). The Diagnosis of Smallpox, pp. 154. London: Cassell and Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Sato, K. & Kuroda, T. (1929). Z. ImmunForsch. 64, 34.Google Scholar
Szathmáry, J. & Baranyai, P. (1957). Zbl. Bakt. 1, Abt. Orig. 169, 307.Google Scholar