Humans Immunized with Streptococcus mutans Antigens by Mucosal Routes

Childers, Noel K.; Tong, G.; Li, F.; Dasanayake, A.P.; Kirk, K.; Michalek, Suzanne M.

doi:10.1177/154405910208100111

Cited by 20 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…day 42), the response in the IT group (compared to baseline antibody activity) was maintained through to day 90. The initial tonsillar immunization (4) did not result in a salivary immune response; however, it may have primed for a salivary IgA response following intranasal immunization (i.e. day 28).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Fourteen of 21 healthy adult subjects (age 30–50 years) who were previously immunized (4) were available to participate in this study. These individuals were originally immunized 2 years previously with an intranasal (IN group; n = 7) or a tonsillar (IT group; n = 7) spray of soluble E‐GTF ( n = 5 IN and n = 3 IT) or L‐E‐GTF ( n = 2 IN and n = 4 IT).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The levels of total immunoglobulin and the relative concentration of antibodies to E‐GTF were determined by ELISA as previously described (4). Briefly, optimal dilutions of saliva, serum, and nasal wash samples were added in duplicates of four 2‐fold serial dilutions to designated microtiter plate wells.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, little information is available regarding the duration and recall of the salivary antibody response (20). The purpose of the present study was to determine the effect of a previous immunization with E‐GTF given via the intranasal or tonsillar route (4) on a subsequent intranasal immunization with E‐GTF given 2 years after the initial immunization compared to a control group of individuals who were receiving the immunization for the first time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Immune response in humans to a nasal boost with Streptococcus mutans antigens

Childers

Dasanayake

et al. 2006

Oral Microbiology and Immunology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We previously reported that a Streptococcus mutans enriched-glucosytransferase (E-GTF) preparation induces an immune response following intranasal, but not tonsillar, immunization of humans. In this study, we determined whether intranasal immunization of these subjects 2 years later resulted in augmented immune responses compared to those seen in control subjects. Subjects previously immunized via the intranasal (IN, n = 7) or tonsillar (IT, n = 7) route and control (n = 12) subjects were immunized via the intranasal route with E-GTF. Nasal wash, saliva, and serum were collected before immunization and then weekly for 3 months after immunization. Significant (P < 0.05) mucosal and serum immunoglobulin A (IgA) anti-E-GTF responses were observed in all three groups. Nasal and serum IgA anti-E-GTF responses were significantly higher (P < 0.05) in the IN group. The salivary responses in the three groups were, in general, similar. These results indicate that intranasal immunization primes the immune system for a localized secondary response to S. mutans antigens.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Immune response in humans to a nasal boost with Streptococcus mutans antigens

Childers

Dasanayake

et al. 2006

Oral Microbiology and Immunology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In that study, a higher IgA1 response was seen in nasal wash samples from the liposomal GTF (L‐E‐GTF) containing vaccine immunized group; however, no difference was seen in the serum or salivary response following immunization with soluble or liposomal GTF containing vaccine. The immunogenicity of L‐E‐GTF was further investigated in a human study using a dose of 125 μg of antigen and given by the intranasal or via a tonsil topical spray (10). While the subjects immunized via the intranasal route had a significantly higher immune response in mucosal secretions than those receiving a tonsil immunization, little or no difference was observed between the group of subjects immunized with E‐GTF or L‐E‐GTF.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intranasal immunization of humans with Streptococcus mutans antigens

Li¹,

Michalek²,

Dasanayake³

et al. 2003

Oral Microbiology and Immunology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate the effectiveness of a low dose of soluble or liposomal (L) glucosyltransferase-enriched preparation (E-GTF) in inducing mucosal immune responses after intranasal immunization, 12 adults were immunized on days 0 and 7 by the IN route with 62.5 microg of soluble E-GTF or L-E-GTF. An increase in the mean salivary IgA anti-E-GTF response (P < 0.03) was seen in the L-E-GTF but not the soluble E-GTF group. A significant increase (P < 0.05) in the mean specific IgA antibody activity was also seen in nasal wash from both groups. Although the nasal wash responses were higher in the L-E-GTF than in the soluble E-GTF group, they were not significantly different. The soluble E-GTF immunized group showed a higher serum IgG response than the L-E-GTF immunized group on day 90 (P < 0.05). These results indicate that as little as 62.5 microg of E-GTF, when given by the intranasal route, induced an IgA response in secretions.

show abstract

Local nasal immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Kasemsuk

Ngaotepprutaram

Kanjanawasee

et al. 2022

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Local nasal immunotherapy (LNIT), an alternative noninjection immunotherapy method, is theoretically an efficient method for inducing immunotolerance directly in the affected organ. LNIT is more convenient and less invasive than injection immunotherapy, with fewer systemic reactions. The development of adjuvants to overcome LNIT's limitations raises the possibility of it being an alternative allergen immunotherapy. Objectives To evaluate the clinical and immunological efficacy and safety of LNIT for patients with allergic rhinitis. Methods A systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing LNIT and placebo was performed using OVID Medline and Embase. Outcomes were total nasal symptom score (TNSS), symptom–medication score (SMS), medication score, immunological assessment, and nasal provocation threshold. Data were pooled for meta‐analysis. Results A total of 20 studies with 698 participants were included. The LNIT group had greater posttreatment improvement in TNSS, SMS, and medication score than control (TNSS: standardized mean difference [SMD], –1.37 [95% confidence interval [CI], –2.04 to –0.69]; SMS: SMD, –1.55 [95% CI, –2.83 to –0.28]; and medication score: SMD, –1.09 [95% CI, –1.35 to –0.83]). Immunological assessments showed no significant differences in serum‐specific IgE (mean difference [MD], 6.35; 95% CI, –4.62 to 17.31), nasal IgE (MD, –0.59; 95% CI, –1.99 to 0.81), or nasal eosinophil cationic protein (MD, 7.63; 95% CI, –18.65 to 33.91). Only serum IgG significantly increased with LNIT (MD, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.20, 0.70). Posttreatment, nasal provocation threshold was higher with LNIT (MD, 27.30; 95% CI, 10.13–44.46). No significant adverse events were reported. Conclusions LNIT is a safe alternative allergen immunotherapy route without significant adverse events. It improves clinical symptoms, reduces medication usage, and increases the nasal provocation threshold.

show abstract

Humans Immunized with Streptococcus mutans Antigens by Mucosal Routes

Cited by 20 publications

References 8 publications

Immune response in humans to a nasal boost with Streptococcus mutans antigens

Immune response in humans to a nasal boost with Streptococcus mutans antigens

Intranasal immunization of humans with Streptococcus mutans antigens

Local nasal immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About