Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T18:35:55.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corresponding type-specificity of vibriocidal and agglutinating activities of Vibrio cholerae antisera: relevance to vaccine immunogenicity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

N. W. Preston
N. W. Preston
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Microbiology, University Medical School, 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.

Cholera vibrios can be allocated to one of three biotypes (classical, intermediate and El Tor), each of which can be sub-divided into two serotypes (Ogawa and Inaba). Vibriocidal tests with absorbed antisera have shown no evidence of biotype specificity in the killing of bacteria, but they have confirmed the role of the two serotype-specific antigens in immunity to cholera. The same presence of serotype specificity, and absence of biotype specificity, has been found by bacterial agglutination, an easier and quicker serological test. The use of this simpler test in ensuring a balanced serotype response to cholera vaccine is discussed, together with evidence that may lead to the production of more effective vaccine and better immunity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 110 , Issue 3 , June 1993 , pp. 489 - 497
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

REFERENCES

1.Bartlett, AV. Cholera lessons. Lancet 1991; 338: 1216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Glass, RI, Claeson, M, Blake, PA, Waldman, RJ, Pierce, NF. Cholera in Africa: lessons on transmission and control for Latin America. Lancet 1991; 338: 791–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Haddadin, JM, Stirland, RM, Preston, NW, Collard, P. Identification of Virbrio cholerae by pyrolysis gas-liquid chromatography. Appl Microbiol 1973; 25: 40–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Adibfar, P, Preston, NW. Some factors affecting the haemolytic activity of Vibrio cholerae. J Med Microbiol 1974; 7: 521–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Wachsmuth, IK, Bopp, CA, Fields, PI, Carrillo, C. Difference between toxigenic Vibrio cholerae O1 from South America and US gulf coast. Lancet 1991; 337: 1097–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Pykett, AH, Preston, NW. Type-specific action of vibriocidal antibody on Vibrio cholerae. J Hyg 1975: 75: 399–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Mosley, WH, Ahmad, S, Benenson, AS, Ahmed, A. The relationship of vibriocidal antibody titre to susceptibility to cholera in family contacts of cholera patients. Bull WHO 1968; 38: 777–85.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Mosley, WH, Woodward, WE, Aziz, KMA, et al. The 1968–1969 cholera-vaccine field trial in rural East Pakistan. Effectiveness of monovalent Ogawa and Inaba vaccines and a purified Inaba antigen, with comparative results of serological and animal protection tests. J Infect Dis 1970: 121 Suppl: S1–S9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Preston, NW. Some unsolved problems with vaccines. Prog Drug Res 1979; 23: 9–26.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Levine, MM. Nalin, DR. Craig, JP, et al. Immunity of cholera in man: relative role of antibacterial versus antitoxic immunity. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1979; 73: 3–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.World Health Organization. Development of vaccines against cholera and diarrhoea due to enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli: memorandum from a WHO meeting. Bull WHO 1990; 68: 303–12.Google Scholar
12.Preston, NW. Technical problems in the laboratory diagnosis and prevention of whooping-cough. Lab Pract 1970; 19: 482–6.Google ScholarPubMed
13.Clemens, JD, van Loon, F, Sack, DA, et al. Biotype as determinant of natural immunising effect of cholera. Lancet 1991; 337: 883–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Qadri, F. Haq, S, Hossain, SA, Ciznar, I. Tzipori, S. The association of haemagglutination and adhesion with lipopolysaccharide of Shigella dysenteriae serotype 1. J Med Microbiol 1991; 34: 259–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Hsieh, WC, Hsieh, BS. Immune responses in cholera vaccinated persons. J Formosan Med Assoc 1976: 75: 183–9.Google ScholarPubMed
16.Clemens, JD. Stanton, BF, Chakraborty, J, et al. B subunit-whole cell and whole cell-only oral vaccines against cholera: studies on reactogenicity and immunogenicity. J Infect Dis 1987; 155: 79–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Clemens, JD, van Loon, F, Sack, DA, et al. Field trial of oral cholera vaccines in Bangladesh: serum vibriocidal and antitoxic antibodies as markers of the risk of cholera. J Infect Dis 1991; 163: 1235–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Kabir, S. Preparation and immunogenicity of a bivalent cell-surface protein-polysaccharide conjugate of Vibrio cholerae. J Med Microbiol 1987; 23: 9–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Rahman, S (ed). Proceedings of the Conference on Experimental Cholera Vaccines, Dacca. Bangladesh. 6–8 April 1981. Dacca, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Special Publication 15. 1981: 112–13.Google Scholar
20. Anonymous. Bacterial adhesiveness and the gut. Lancet 1977; i: 1293–4.Google Scholar
21.Eaton, KA. Morgan, DR, Krakowka, S. Motility as a factor in the colonisation of gnotobiotic piglets by Helicobacter pylori. J Med Microbiol 1992; 37: 123–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Preston, NW. Oral typhoid vaccine Ty21a. Lancet 1991; 338: 1456.Google Scholar
23.Puglielli, L. Cattrini, C, Resa, JJG, Velasques, M, Garcia, LML. Symptomless carriage of Vibrio cholerae in Peru. Lancet 1992; 339: 1056–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Levine, MM. South America: the return of cholera. Lancet 1991: 338: 45–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Preston, NW. Accelerated immunisation with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. Brit Med J 1991; 303: 248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed