1996
DOI: 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1996.tb04917.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Passive immunization with monoclonal antibodies specific for lipopolysaccharide (LPS) O‐side chain protects mice against intravenous Yersinia enterocolitica serotype O:3 infection

Abstract: Passive immunization with monoclonal antibodies specific for the lipopolysaccharide (LPS) O-side chain protected mice against intravenously given lethal doses of Yersinia enterocolitica O:3 bacteria. On the other hand, passive immunization with monoclonal antibody specific for the LPS core oligosaccharide did not protect mice. Neither antibody was able to protect mice against orally given lethal doses of bacteria. These results indicate that the O-side chain functions as an important antigenic structure during… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Because the biological basis of benefit in the previous studies relied on the neutralization of potent immunomodulators that act in concert within a complex series of pathways, the variability of the clinical responses was considerable. In addition, the tremendous heterogeneity in the patient population receiving the early antibody-based products, such as HA-1A MAb (anti-lipid A on lipopolysaccharide) (21,45) or tumor necrosis factor alpha MAb (1,8), contributed significantly to the well-documented failures.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because the biological basis of benefit in the previous studies relied on the neutralization of potent immunomodulators that act in concert within a complex series of pathways, the variability of the clinical responses was considerable. In addition, the tremendous heterogeneity in the patient population receiving the early antibody-based products, such as HA-1A MAb (anti-lipid A on lipopolysaccharide) (21,45) or tumor necrosis factor alpha MAb (1,8), contributed significantly to the well-documented failures.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two observations support this last conclusion: (i) better protection was elicited by the WT bacteria than by the OC mutants, and the latter had ≈fourfold lower antibody titres by EIA with no clear specificity differences by immunoblot; and (ii) YeO3‐R2 generated a very poor protection (Table 3). It is likely that the absence in YeO3‐R2‐immunized mice of the O‐antigen‐specific antibodies, previously shown to be protective in passive immunizations (Skurnik et al ., 1996), causes the difference. It is known that antibodies against polysaccharide antigens are T‐cell independent.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In many bacterial species the O-antigen has been shown to be an essential virulence factor [6] and is thought to be involved in protecting the bacteria against the activity of complement [7], by causing the membrane-attack complex to form at a distance from the bacterial surface. The LPS of Y. pseudotuberculosis and Y. enterocolitica have been shown to possess an O-antigen which is an essential virulence determinant [8]. However, the composition of the O-antigen can vary between strains; in Y. pseudotuberculosis seven di¡erent O-antigen polysaccharides have been identi¢ed and these di¡erences can be exploited to serotype di¡erent strains of the bacteria [9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%