Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T09:44:28.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigation of the immune status of mice during and following selective decontamination of the digestive tract

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. B. J. Speekenbrink ,
S. R. Alcock  and
D. M. V. Parrott
A. B. J. Speekenbrink
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology and Immunology, Western Infirmary, Glasgow G11 6NT, Scotland, UK
S. R. Alcock
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology and Immunology, Western Infirmary, Glasgow G11 6NT, Scotland, UK
D. M. V. Parrott
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology and Immunology, Western Infirmary, Glasgow G11 6NT, Scotland, UK
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.

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) employs oral antibiotics to eliminate aerobic Gram-negative bacilli while retaining the anaerobic flora. A combination of SDD and parenteral cefotaxime has recently been reported to strikingly reduce the incidence of infection in patients treated in an intensive therapy unit. The present study describes the effects of SDB and of cefotaxime on the immune response of mice to protein antigens. The in vivo cellular response to ovalbumin and sheep red blood cells was unchanged. However, SDD appeared to decrease the in vitro mitogenic response of spleen cells to phytohaemagglutinin, and cefotaxime similarly affected the response to Concanavalin A. The antibody response to sheep red blood cells was increased in the period after discontinuation of SDD. The antibody response was otherwise not affected. These results indicate that SDD is unlikely to have adverse effects on the immune response to protein antigens.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 103 , Issue 2 , October 1989 , pp. 323 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

References

REFERENCES

1.Waaij, D van der, Berghuis de Vries, JM, Lekkerkerk-van der Wees, JEC.Colonization resistance of the digestive tract in conventional and antibiotic-treated mice. J Hyg 1971; 69: 405–11.Google Scholar
2.de Vries-Hospers, HG, Sleijfer, DT, Mulder, NH, Waaij, D van der, Nieuweg, HO, Saene, HKF van.Bacteriological aspects of selective decontamination of the digestive tract as a method of infection prevention in granulocytopenic patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1981; 19: 813–20.Google Scholar
3.Guiot, HFL, Broek, PJ van den, Meer, JWM van der, Furth, R van.Selective antimicrobial modulation of the intestinal flora of patients with acute nonlymphocytic leukemia: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. J Infect Dis 1983; 147: 615–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Heimdahl, A, Gahrton, G, Groth, CG. et al. Selective decontamination of alimentary tract microbial flora in patients treated with bone marrow transplantation. Scand J Infect Dis 1984; 16: 51–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Stoutenbeek, ChP, Saene, HKF van, Miranda, DR, Waaij, D van der, Zandstra, DF.The effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on colonisation and infection rate in multiple trauma patients. Intensive Care Med 1984; 10: 185–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Ledingham, IMcA, Alcock, SR, Eastaway, AT, Ramsey, G, Macdonald, J, MacKay, IC.Triple regimen of selective decontamination of the digestive tract, systemic cefotaxime and microbiological surveillance for prevention of acquired infection in intensive care. Lancet 1988: 1: 785–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Schwab, JH. Modulation of the immune response by bacteria. In: Schlessinger, JD, ed. Microbiology 1977. Washington DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1977: 366–73.Google Scholar
8.Behling, UH, Nowotny, A. Immunostimulation by LPS and its derivatives. In: Friedman, H, Klein, TW, Szentivanyi, A, eds. Immunomodulation by bacteria and their products. New York: Plenum Press. 1981: 165–79.Google Scholar
9.Waaij, D van der. The regulation of bone marrow activity by the endogenous microflora and the contribution of cellular and humoral factors in the control of endotoxin. In: Waaij, D van der, ed. Antibiotic choice: importance of colonization resistance. London: Research Studies Press/Wiley, 1983: 95–107.Google Scholar
10.Goris, H, de Boer, F, Waaij, D van der.Oral administration of antibiotics and intestinal associated endotoxins in mice. Scand J Infect Dis 1986; 18: 55–63.Google Scholar
11.Goris, H, de Boer, F, Waaij, D van der.Kinetics of endotoxin release by gram negative bacteria in the intestinal tract of mice during oral administration of bacitracin and during in vitro growth. Scand J Infect Dis 1988; 20: 213–9.Google Scholar
12.Rogers, MJ, Moore, R, Cohen, J.The relationship between faecal endotoxin and faecal microflora of the C57BL mouse. J Hyg 1985; 95: 397–402.Google Scholar
13.Balish, E. Endotoxin effects on germfree animals. In: Henshaw, LB. ed. Handbook of endotoxin, vol. 2: Pathophysiology of endotoxin. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1985; 338–58.Google Scholar
14.Walker, RI, MacVitte, IJ, Sinha, BL, Ewald, PE, Egan, JE, McClung, GL.Antibiotic decontamination of the dog and its consequences. Lab Anim Sci 1978; 28: 55–61.Google Scholar
15.Mandel, L, Talafantova, M, Trebichovsky, I, Travnicek, J, Konkal, M.Selective decontamination induced colonisation resistance and connected immunological changes in piglets. Folia Microbiol (Praha) 1985; 30: 312–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Waaij, D van der, Berghuis de Vries, JM.Selective elimination of Enterobacteriaceae species from the digestive tract in mice and monkeys. J Hyg 1974; 72: 205–11.Google Scholar
17.Speekenbrink, ABJ, Alcock, SR, Forrester, J, Parrott, DMV.The effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract with the addition of systemic cefotaxime on the aerobic faecal flora of mice. Epidemiol Infect 1987; 98: 385–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Boranić, M, Waaij, D van der.The effect of the supply of oral antibiotic on the faecal flora and mortality of mouse radiation chimeras. J Infect Dis 1970; 122: 122–8.Google ScholarPubMed
19.Titus, RG, Chiller, JM.A simple and effective method to assess murine delayed type hypersensitivity to proteins. J Immunol Methods 1981; 45: 65–78.Google Scholar
20.Mowat, AMcI.Depletion of suppressor T cells by 2′-deoxyguanosine abrogates tolerance in mice fed ovalbumin and permits the induction of intestinal delayed-type hypersensitivity. Immunology 1986; 58: 179–83.Google Scholar
21.Wedner, HJ, Parker, CW.Lymphocyte activation. Prog Allergy 1976; 20: 195–300.Google ScholarPubMed
22.Waaij, D van der, Berghuis de Vries, JM, Lekkerkerk-van der Wees, JEC.Colonization resistance of the digestive tract and the spread of the bacteria to the lymphatic organs in mice. J Hyg 1972; 70: 335–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Walker, RI, Ledney, GD, Galley, CB.Aseptic endotoxaemia in radiation injury and graft-versus-host disease. Radiation Res 1975; 62: 242–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Vaara, M.Polymyxin B nonapeptide complexes with lipopolysaccharide. FEMS Lett 1983; 18: 117–21.Google Scholar
25.Koopman, JP, Kennis, HM.Influence of normal mouse intestinal bacteria on caecal weight in mice. Z Versuchstierkd 1980; 22: 224–9.Google ScholarPubMed