Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T04:37:55.435Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Histamine-Sensitizing Property of Haemophilus Pertussis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

H. B. Maitland ,
R. Kohn  and
A. D. MacDonald
H. B. Maitland
Affiliation:
Bacteriological and Pharmacological Departments of the University of Manchester
R. Kohn
Affiliation:
Bacteriological and Pharmacological Departments of the University of Manchester
A. D. MacDonald
Affiliation:
Bacteriological and Pharmacological Departments of the University of Manchester
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary and conclusions

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.

Mice and rats which are normally resistant to histamine become more susceptible to its lethal action after an injection of H. pertussis. This so-called sensitization to histamine is not an anaphylactic phenomenon. It is due to the action of a component of H. pertussis, the histamine-sensitizing factor (HSF), which in some unknown way overcomes the physiological mechanism in rats and mice that makes them more resistant than other species to histamine. Guinea-pigs which appear not to possess this mechanism and are about 200-fold more susceptible, weight for weight, than rats and mice, were not made more sensitive by H. pertussis.

After a stated dose of vaccine, sensitization was detectable in 48 hr., reached a maximum in 3–4 days, remained at this level for about 2 weeks and gradually disappeared. The effects of dosage, route of injection, and weight and sex of mice have been examined.

The HSF was found in strains of H. pertussis; it was not found in H. parapertussis, H. bronchisepticus or H. influenzae. It was only slightly affected by heating at 70° C. for 1 hr. but was destroyed at 80° C. in ½ hr. It was destroyed when bacteria were disintegrated by shaking with glass beads, or by grinding after being freeze-dried. It was found in the supernatant fluid of a partially autolysed vaccine.

HSF was antigenic. Antisera were prepared in rabbits. Anti-HSF combined with HSF and neutralized its histamine-sensitizing activity. Bacteria treated with antiserum in vitro absorbed anti-HSF and did not thereafter sensitize mice.

Antiserum protected mice passively against the sensitizing action of vaccine, presumably by combining with HSF. After sensitization had developed the sensitive state was not affected by antiserum.

Although HSF is an antigen there was no indication that histamine-sensitization was due to its antigenicity.

The HSF was differentiated from heat-labile and heat-stable toxin, haemagglutinin, capsular material and agglutinogen.

The preparation V 17, which is a small fraction of the disintegrated bacteria, adsorbed on red cell stromata (Pillemer et al. 1954) had a high histamine-sensitizing value. Compared with whole bacterial vaccine it caused little production of agglutinin in mice; in rabbits it caused a slower and smaller production of agglutinin and a faster and greater production of anti-HSF. For this reason immune rabbit sera may have a high agglutinin titre and a low anti-HSF value or vice versa. Anti-HSF rabbit serum protected mice against sensitization by V 17.

Vaccines could be graded according to their histamine-sensitizing activity. This did not always correspond to their grading by agglutinin production in mice. The relation of HSF to the immunizing antigen of H. pertussis and the use of histamine-sensitization to indicate the immunizing potency of pertussis vaccines are discussed.

We wish to thank Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. for the supply of reference vaccine, and the Whooping Cough Immunization Committee of the Medical Research Council for vaccines and sera.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , June 1955 , pp. 196 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

References

Andersen, E. K. (1953). Serological studies on H. pertussis, H. parapertussis and H. bronchisepticus. Acta path. microbiol. scand. 33, 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. M. & Wheeler, M. W. (1946). Pertussis vaccine prepared with Phase-I cultures grown in fluid medium. Amer. J. publ. Hlth, 36, 371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cruickshank, J. C. & Freeman, G. G. (1937). Immunizing fractions isolated from Haemophilus pertussis. Lancet, ii, 567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldering, G. (1942). A study of the antigenic properties of Haemophilus pertussis and related organisms. II. Protection tests in mice. Amer. J. Hyg. 46, 294.Google Scholar
Evans, D. G. & Adams, M. O. (1952). The inability of the capsular material of Haemophilus pertussis to produce protective antisera. J. gen. Microbiol. 7, 169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, D. G. & Maitland, H. B. (1937). The preparation of the toxin of H. pertussis: its properties and relation to immunity. J. Path. Bact. 45, 715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, D. G. & Perkins, F. T. (1953). An agglutinin-production test in the study of pertussis vaccines. J. Path. Bact. 66, 479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, D. G. & Perkins, F. T. (1954). An improved method for testing the ability of pertussis vaccines to produce agglutinin. J. Path. Bact. 68, 251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, D. G. & Perkins, F. T. (1955). Test for agglutinin production by stromata protective antigen (SPA) of H. pertussis. J. Path. Bact. 69, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flosdorf, E. W., Bondi, A. & Dozois, T. F. (1941). Studies with H. pertussis. VI. Antigenicity of the toxins and relation to other cellular components from the several phases. J. Immunol. 42, 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flosdorf, E. W. & Kimball, A. C. (1940). Separation of the phase I agglutinogen of H. pertussis from toxic components. J. Immunol. 39, 475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, B. N. & Roux, J. (1950). Interférence entre l'immunisation par l'hémophilus pertussis et l'intoxication histaminique. Sem. Hôp. Paris, 26, 1806.Google Scholar
Kind, L. S. (1953). The altered reactivity of mice after immunization with Haemophilus pertussis vaccine. J. Immunol. 70, 411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacey, B. W. (1951). Antigenic modulation of Haemophilus pertussis. J. gen. Microbiol. 5, xxi.Google ScholarPubMed
Malkiel, S. & Hargis, B. J. (1952). Anaphylactic shock in the pertussis-vaccinated mouse. J. Allergy. 23, 352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masry, F. L. G. (1952). Production, extraction and purification of the haemagglutinin of Haemophilus pertussis. J. gen. Microbiol. 7, 201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munoz, J. & Schuchardt, L. F. (1953). Studies on the sensitivity of mice to histamine following injection of Haemophilus pertussis. I. Effect of strain and age of mice. J. Allergy, 24, 330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parfentjev, I. A. & Goodline, M. A. (1948). Histamine shock in mice sensitized with Haemophilus pertussis vaccine. J. Pharmacol. 92, 411.Google Scholar
Parfentjev, I. A., Goodline, M. A. & Vision, M. E. (1947 a). A study of sensitivity of Haemophilus pertussis in laboratory animals. I. The hypersensitivity of laboratory animals to Haemophilus pertussis. J. Bact. 53, 597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfentjev, I. A., Goodline, M. A. & Virion, M. E. (1947 b). A study of sensitivity to Haemophilus pertussis in laboratory animals. II. Haemophilus pertussis allergen and its assay on laboratory animals. J. Bact. 53, 603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parfentjev, I. A., Goodline, M. A. & Virion, M. E. (1947 c). A study of sensitivity to Haemophilus pertussis in laboratory animals. III. The formation of antibodies and the development of sensitivity in laboratory animals injected with Haemophilus pertussis antigens. J. Bact. 53, 613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pillemer, L., Blum, L. & Lepow, I. N. (1954). Protective antigen of Haemophilus pertussis. Lancet, i, 1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pittman, M. (1951 a). Influence of sex of mice on histamine sensitivity and protection against Haemophilus pertussis. J. infect. Dis. 89, 296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pittman, M. (1951 b). Sensitivity of mice to histamine during respiratory infection by Haemophilus pertussis. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., 77, 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pittman, M. (1951 c). Comparison of the histamine-sensitizing property with the protective activity of pertussis vaccines for mice. J. infect. Dis. 89, 300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, L. J. & Muench, H. (1938). A simple method of estimating fifty per cent endpoints. Amer. J. Hyg. 27, 493.Google Scholar
Report (1953). Diphtheria and pertussis vaccination. Technical Report Series, World Health Organization, no. 61. Geneva.Google Scholar
Smolens, J. & Mudd, S. (1943). Agglutinogen of Haemophilus pertussis, phase I, for skin testing. Theoretical considerations and a simple method of preparation. J. Immunol. 47, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, J. L. (1953). Development of antibodies in children convalescent from whooping-cough. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 83, 866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed