October 1987
Volume 28, Issue 10
Free
Articles  |   October 1987
Attempted oral immunization with chlamydial lipopolysaccharide subunit vaccine.
Author Affiliations
  • H R Taylor
    Wilmer Institute, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21205.
  • R A Prendergast
    Wilmer Institute, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21205.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science October 1987, Vol.28, 1722-1726. doi:
  • Views
  • PDF
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      H R Taylor, R A Prendergast; Attempted oral immunization with chlamydial lipopolysaccharide subunit vaccine.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1987;28(10):1722-1726.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

The effects of oral immunization with a recombinant vaccine expressing chlamydial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) on subsequent ocular challenge with Chlamydia trachomatis were studied in cynomolgus monkeys. Groups of four or five monkeys were given an oral vaccine containing 5 X 10(8) parent or recombinant Escherichia coli on days 0, 14, and 35 and were challenged with either 2 X 10(3) or 5 X 10(3) inclusion forming units of viable purified elementary bodies on day 42. On clinical and microbiologic grounds, oral immunization failed to protect monkeys against subsequent ocular challenge. Antichlamydial IgG or IgA antibodies were not induced by oral vaccination, and the antibody response following ocular challenge was similar in vaccinated and nonvaccinated animals. Paradoxically, however, while nonvaccinated control animals developed antibodies against chlamydial LPS detectable by immunoblotting after chlamydial challenge, the LPS vaccinated animals did not. This study demonstrates that the oral recombinant vaccine expressing chlamydial LPS was ineffective in protecting against chlamydial eye infection and strongly suggests that chlamydial LPS may not be an important antigen for protective immunity against chlamydia.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×