4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Establishment of a non-human primate Campylobacter disease model for the pre-clinical evaluation of Campylobacter vaccine formulations

Journal

VACCINE
Volume 24, Issue 18, Pages 3762-3771

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.07.023

Keywords

Campylobacter infection; rhesus monkey; immune response

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Campylobacter jejuni is a common cause of enteritis worldwide. The mechanisms by which C. jejuni causes disease are unclear. Challenge studies in humans are currently considered unethical due to the possibility of severe complications, such as Guillain-Barre syndrome. Campylobacter infection in non-human primates closely mimics the disease and immune response, seen in humans. In this study, we attempted to determine the minimal dose of a pathogenic C. jejuni 81-176 strain required for clinical signs and symptoms of disease (>= 80% attack rate) in Macaca mulatta monkeys using an escalating dosage (three doses for three monkey groups: 10(7), 10(9) and 10(11) cfu). Eighty percent of the monkeys challenged with highest dose (10(11) cfu) had mild disease, but the 80% attack rate (moderate diarrhea in 80% of the monkeys) was not achieved. However, 100% of monkeys showed IgA seroconversions (three-fold over pre-challenge titers). The elicited immune response was challenge dose-dependent. Campylobacter antigen specific fecal s-IgA responses were observed in all challenged groups but the response was not dose-dependent. Only IgM antibody secreting cells response was observed against Campylobacter antigens. The elicited immune response in three groups of rhesus monkeys was dose-dependent, indicating this monkey model can be used for pre-clinical evaluation of Campylobacter candidate vaccines, however these adult rhesus monkeys are less prone to Campylobacter infection. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available