Hormaeche C E, Joysey H S, Desilva L, Izhar M, Stocker B A
Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, UK.
Res Microbiol. 1990 Sep-Oct;141(7-8):757-64. doi: 10.1016/0923-2508(90)90107-2.
Studies on the degree and specificity of protection conferred by immunization with aroA salmonella live vaccines in BALB/c mice are described. Animals were immunized i.v. and challenged orally 3 months later to ensure that the vaccine had been cleared from the tissues. Vaccination with Salmonella typhimurium aroA SL3261 conferred very good protection against virulent S. typhimurium C5 (over 10,000 x LD50). The specificity of cross protection was studied using S. typhimurium, Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella dublin for vaccination and challenge, including challenge with variants of S. typhimurium and S. enteritidis of similar virulence which differed in the main LPS (lipopolysaccharide) antigen (0-4 or 0-9). S. typhimurium SL3261 gave very good protection against S. typhimurium C5 (0-4), but no protection against S. enteritidis Se795 (0-9). However, challenge with strains differing in the main 0 antigens showed that, although protection was generally better to strains expressing the same LPS type as the vaccine, specificity of protection was determined more by the background (S. typhimurium or S. enteritidis) of the parent strain used for the challenge than by 0 factors 4 or 9, suggesting that other factors could be involved. The nature of the antigen(s) responsible for protection in this model is unclear, but it would not appear to be the main 0-specific antigen. An S. enteritidis Se795 aroA vaccine was far less effective than S. typhimurium SL3261; it conferred good protection against the homologous wild type at 2 weeks post-vaccination, but far less at three months (approx 10-200 x LD50). This was unexpected, as the persistence of the S. enteritidis vaccine in the liver and spleen was similar to that of S. typhimurium SL3261, and the S. enteritidis and S. typhimurium challenge strains were of similar virulence. An S. dublin aroA vaccine conferred similar protection against wild type S. dublin (approx 300 x LD50).
本文描述了用aroA沙门氏菌活疫苗免疫BALB/c小鼠所赋予的保护程度和特异性的研究。通过静脉注射对动物进行免疫，3个月后进行口服攻毒，以确保疫苗已从组织中清除。用鼠伤寒沙门氏菌aroA SL3261进行疫苗接种，对强毒株鼠伤寒沙门氏菌C5（超过10,000倍LD50）提供了很好的保护。使用鼠伤寒沙门氏菌、肠炎沙门氏菌和都柏林沙门氏菌进行疫苗接种和攻毒，研究交叉保护的特异性，包括用主要LPS（脂多糖）抗原（0-4或0-9）不同但毒力相似的鼠伤寒沙门氏菌和肠炎沙门氏菌变体进行攻毒。鼠伤寒沙门氏菌SL3261对鼠伤寒沙门氏菌C5（0-4）提供了很好的保护，但对肠炎沙门氏菌Se795（0-9）没有保护作用。然而，用主要O抗原不同的菌株进行攻毒表明，虽然对表达与疫苗相同LPS类型的菌株的保护通常更好，但保护的特异性更多地取决于用于攻毒的亲本菌株的背景（鼠伤寒沙门氏菌或肠炎沙门氏菌），而不是O因子4或9，这表明可能涉及其他因素。在该模型中负责保护的抗原的性质尚不清楚，但似乎不是主要的O特异性抗原。肠炎沙门氏菌Se795 aroA疫苗的效果远不如鼠伤寒沙门氏菌SL3261；它在疫苗接种后2周对同源野生型提供了良好的保护，但在3个月时保护作用小得多（约10-200倍LD50）。这是出乎意料的，因为肠炎沙门氏菌疫苗在肝脏和脾脏中的持久性与鼠伤寒沙门氏菌SL3261相似，并且肠炎沙门氏菌和鼠伤寒沙门氏菌攻毒株的毒力相似。都柏林沙门氏菌aroA疫苗对野生型都柏林沙门氏菌提供了类似的保护（约300倍LD50）。
