Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:48:50.262Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Immunity to vaccinia induced by small doses of active virus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

C. R. Amies
C. R. Amies
Affiliation:
Connaught Medical Research Laboratories, University of Toronto, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Minimal quantities of active vaccinia virus in the form of a purified elementary body suspension were injected subcutaneously into rabbits. The amount administered was about 10 minimal infective doses as measured by intracutaneous titration and tissue culture assay: this is equivalent to about 1·3± 10−5μg of virus protein. The immune response to this minimal quantity of virus was determined by complement-fixation and virus neutralization tests and also by skin sensitivity tests. The results indicated that viral proliferation occurred to an extent sufficient to sensitize the tissues to the virus protein. Measurable amounts of antibody could also be detected in about one half of the experimental animals. A second inoculation of virus produced a considerable augmentation of the immune response. Viral proliferation must have taken place in order to evoke this immunity, but infection always remained at the subclinical level. The results were much improved when the infecting does of virus was incorporated in an adjuvant. DPT-polio vaccine functioned well as adjuvant but equally good results were obtained with a solution of polyvinylpyrrolidone. The latter substance also has valuable properties as a protective colloid and is thus able to maintain the viability of the virus over long periods of time.

On the evidence provided by these experiments it is suggested that an adequate immunity to smallpox might be achieved in man by similar methods. A primary sensitization could be achieved by incorporating a very small amount of active virus in one of the prophylactics given as a routine in the early months of life. This could be followed by normal jennerian vaccination a few months later; or the second inoculation of virus could also be incorporated in amultivalent prophylactic. For adults, a somewhat similar two-stage immunization would be required.

It is hoped that the publication of these preliminary experiments will encourage other investigators to continue what promises to be an important line of research.

All assays involving the use of monkey kidney tissue cultures were carried out by my former assistant Mr Edmund Bischoff. His help is gratefully acknowledged.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , December 1962 , pp. 483 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

References

Alivisatos, G. P. & Violaki-Paraskeva, M. (1959). Z. Immunforsch. 117, 230.Google Scholar
Amies, C. R. (1961). Canad. J. Microbiol. 7, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amies, C. R. (1962). J. Hyg., Camb., 60, 473.Google Scholar
Berger, K. (1954). Schweiz. med. Wschr. 84, 33.Google Scholar
Beunders, B. J. W., Driessen, J. H. & Van, Den Hoek C. (1960). Arch. ges. Virusforsch. 10, 529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calmette, A. & Guérin, C. (1901). Ann. Inst. Pasteur, 15, 161.Google Scholar
Craigie, J. (1932). Brit. J. exp. Path. 13, 259.Google Scholar
Cutchins, E., Warren, J. & Jones, W. P. (1960). J. Immunol. 85, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrengut, W. (1961). Dtsch. med. Wschr. 86, 264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gard, S. (1957). The Nature of Viruses, p. 123. London: J. and A. Churchill, Ltd.Google Scholar
Gard, S. & Maaløe, O. (1959). The Viruses, vol. 1, p. 401. London and New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Hallauer, C. (1938). Handbuch der Virusforschung, vol. 1, p. 349. Ed. Doerr, R., & Hallauer, C., Wien: Julius Springer.Google Scholar
Herrlich, A. (1959). Münch. med. Wschr. 101, 12.Google Scholar
Herzberg-Kremmer, H. & Herzberg, K. (1930). Zbl. Bakt. (1 Abt. Orig.) 119, 175.Google Scholar
Kempe, C. H. (1956). Diagnostic Procedures for Virus and Rickettsial Diseases, p. 358. New York: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
Mahnel, H. (1960). Arch. yes. Virusforsch. 10, 529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramon, G., Boquet, P. & Richou, R. (1942). C.R. Soc. Biol., Paris, 214, 925.Google Scholar
Ramon, G., Richou, R., Thiéry, J. P., Salomon, L. & Doucet, M. P. (1954). Rev. Immunol. 18, 1.Google Scholar
Rivers, T. M. & Tillett, W. S. (1923). J. exp. Med. 38, 673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verlinde, J. D. (1942). Arch. ges. Virusforsch. 2, 246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar