4.4 Article

Vaccination with the Chlamydia trachomatis major outer membrane protein can elicit an immune response as protective as that resulting from inoculation with live bacteria

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 73, 期 12, 页码 8153-8160

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.73.12.8153-8160.2005

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BALB/c mice were vaccinated by the intramuscular (i.m.) and subcutaneous (s.c.) routes with a native preparation of the Chlamydia trachomatis mouse pneumonitis (MoPn) major outer membrane protein (MOMP), using Montanide ISA 720 and CpG-1826 as adjuvants. A negative control group was immunized with ovalbumin and the two adjuvants, and a positive control group was immunized intranasally (i.n.) with 104 inclusion-forming units (IFU) of C trachomatis. Four weeks after the last i.m.-plus-s.c. immunization, mice were challenged in the ovarian bursa with 105 IFU of C. trachomatis MoPn. Six weeks after the genital challenge, animals were mated, and the pregnancies were monitored. After vaccination with MOMP, the mice developed strong Chlamydia-specific humoral and cellular immune responses. Following the genital challenge, of the mice vaccinated with the MOMP, only 15% (3/20) had positive vaginal cultures, while 85% (17/20) of the animals immunized with ovalbumin had positive cultures over the 6 weeks of observation (P < 0.05). Also, only 14% (3/21) of the animals inoculated i.n. with Chlamydia had positive vaginal cultures. After mating, 75% (15/20) of the mice vaccinated with MOMP carried embryos in both uterine horns. Of the animals vaccinated i.n. with the Chlamydia, 81% (17/21) had embryos in both uterine horns (P > 0.05). In contrast, only 10% (2/20) of the mice immunized with ovalbumin had embryos in both uterine horns (P < 0.05). In conclusion, immunization with a purified preparation of the MOMP is as effective as vaccination with viable C trachomatis in eliciting a protective immune response against a genital challenge in mice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据