4.7 Article

Feasibility of radioimmunotherapy of experimental pneumococcal infection

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 48, 期 5, 页码 1624-1629

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.48.5.1624-1629.2004

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI52042, AI52733, R01 AI033774, AI033774, AI035370, R01 AI052733, R01 AI035370, R21 AI052042] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Streptococcus pneumoniae is an important cause of community-acquired pneumonia, meningitis, and bacteremia. The problem of pneumococcal disease is exacerbated by increasing drug resistance. Furthermore, patients with impaired immunity are at high risk for invasive pneumococcal infections. Thus, there is an urgent need for new approaches to antimicrobial therapy. Antibody therapies take advantage of the specificity and high affinity of the antigen-antibody interaction to deliver antibacterial compounds to a site of infection in the form of naked or conjugated antibodies. We have recently established that radioimmunotherapy (RIT) can be used to treat experimental fungal infections in mice. In the present study, we investigated the feasibility of applying a RIT approach to the treatment of S. pneumoniae infection by evaluating the susceptibility of S. pneumoniae to radiolabeled antibody in vitro and in an animal infection model. For the specific antibody carrier, we used human monoclonal antibody D11, which binds to pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide 8. We have selected the alpha particle emitter Bi-213 as the radionuclide for conjugation to the antibody. Incubation of serotype 8 S.pneumoniae with Bi-213-D11 resulted in dose-dependent killing of bacteria. RIT of S.pneumoniae infection in C57BL/6 mice showed that 60% more mice survived in the Bi-213-D11-treated group (80 muCi) than in the untreated group (P < 0.01). The treatment did not cause hematological toxicity, as demonstrated by platelet counts. This feasibility study establishes that RIT can be applied to the treatment of bacterial infections.

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

4.7
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