Potter C W, Jennings R, Ali M J, Wood J M, Dunleavy U, Tyrrell D A
University of Sheffield Medical School.
Epidemiol Infect. 1987 Oct;99(2):501-15. doi: 10.1017/s095026880006800x.
Previous studies of boys at Christ's Hospital school have indicated that annual immunization with influenza virus vaccines did not significantly reduce the total incidence of influenza infection compared to unimmunized subjects. In view of the implications of this result, a similar study was conducted in ferrets to clarify these findings. Groups of ferrets were immunized or infected with a series of influenza A (H3N2) viruses over an 18-month period, and the immunity to subsequent live virus challenge was measured after each virus or vaccine exposure. The results indicated that live virus infection gave a more solid immunity than immunization with inactivated vaccine; and the serum haemagglutination-inhibiting antibody response was greater following immunization than following infection. In addition, differences in immunity could not be explained by measurements of cross-reacting and specific antibody, since the incidence of these antibodies was similar in both infected and immunized animals. The results do not suggest an explanation for the different levels of immunity induced following infection or immunization or the results obtained from the Christ's Hospital study. However, the relative contribution of various immune responses to virus or virus antigen is discussed, and it is suggested that the difference in immunity may lie in the ability of live virus infection to stimulate local antibody.
先前对基督医院学校男生的研究表明，与未接种疫苗的受试者相比，每年接种流感病毒疫苗并未显著降低流感感染的总发病率。鉴于这一结果的影响，在雪貂身上进行了一项类似的研究以阐明这些发现。在18个月的时间里，给几组雪貂接种或感染一系列甲型流感（H3N2）病毒，并在每次接触病毒或疫苗后测量其对随后活病毒攻击的免疫力。结果表明，活病毒感染产生的免疫力比接种灭活疫苗更持久；接种疫苗后的血清血凝抑制抗体反应比感染后的反应更强。此外，交叉反应抗体和特异性抗体的测量无法解释免疫力的差异，因为在感染和接种疫苗的动物中这些抗体的发生率相似。这些结果并未对感染或接种疫苗后诱导的不同免疫力水平或从基督医院研究中获得的结果给出解释。然而，文中讨论了各种免疫反应对病毒或病毒抗原的相对贡献，并表明免疫力的差异可能在于活病毒感染刺激局部抗体的能力。
