Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T02:44:01.504Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A reappraisal of serotype factors 4, 5 and 6 of Bordetella pertussis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2010

N. W. Preston ,
Narekul Surapatana  and
E. J. Carter
N. W. Preston
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology and Virology, University Medical School, Manchester M13 9PT
Narekul Surapatana
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology and Virology, University Medical School, Manchester M13 9PT
E. J. Carter
Affiliation:
Department of Bacteriology and Virology, University Medical School, Manchester M13 9PT
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

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.

Twelve strains of Bordetella pertussis, of various serotypes, were tested by agglutination with serial dilutions of six antisera which were thought by their donor to be monospecific for six distinct agglutinogens.

The first three sera were shown, by agglutination of the twelve donated strains and of standard pertussis serotypes, to be monospecific for the three well-recognized major agglutinogens (factor 1, factor 2, factor 3).

The ‘factor 4’ serum gave weak agglutination, but only of strains that possessed factor 2, though not all of such strains. This suggested that it may be a distinct minor component of factor 2.

The ‘factor 5’ serum was very weak, and gave agglutination only with a few of the factor 2 strains.

The titres of the ‘factor 6’ serum were very closely parallel to those of the factor 3 serum, and it may be inferred that these ‘factors’ probably constitute a single antigenic entity.

Seven of the twelve donated strains were shown to be mixtures of two or more serotypes, offering an explanation for discrepancies in serological tests involving the use of these strains on different occasions.

It seems likely that ‘factors 5 and 6’ do not actually exist; and, since ‘factor 4’ is only a minor component of factor 2, any protective role that it may have would probably be covered by the presence of factor 2 in vaccine.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 88 , Issue 1 , February 1982 , pp. 39 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

References

Andersen, E. K. (1953). Serological studies on H. pertussis, H. parapertussis and H. bronchisepticus. Acta pathologica et microbiologica scandinavica 33, 202–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, E. K. (1963). Personal communication to N.W. Preston.Google Scholar
Bronne-Shanbury, C. J., Miller, D. & Standfast, A. F. B. (1976). The serotypes of Bordetella pertussis isolated in Great Britain between 1941 and 1968 and a comparison with the serotypes observed in other countries over this period. Journal of Hygiene 76, 265–275.Google Scholar
Dolby, J. M. & Stephens, S. (1973). Pertussis antibodies in the sera of children exposed to Bordetella pertussis by vaccination or infection. Journal of Hygiene 71, 193–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eldering, G., Eveland, W. C. & Kendrick, P. L. (1962). Fluorescent antibody staining and agglutination reactions in Bordetella pertussis cultures. Journal of Bacteriology 83, 745–749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eldering, G., Hornbeck, C. & Baker, J. (1957). Serological study of Bordetella pertussis and related species. Journal of Bacteriology 74, 133–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuronen, T. & Huovila, R. (1978). Seroresponse to pertussis vaccine. In Recent Advances in Pertussis Research, pp. 4–5. Conches: International Association of Biological Standardization.Google Scholar
Preston, N. W. (1966). Potency tests for pertussis vaccines: doubtful value of intracerebral challenge test in mice. Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology 91, 173–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preston, N. W. (1970). Technical problems in the laboratory diagnosis and prevention of whooping-cough. Laboratory Practice 19, 482–486.Google ScholarPubMed
Preston, N. W. (1976 a). Abstract no. 3322 (Bronne-Shanbury et al. 1976). Abstracts on Hygiene 51, 1065–1066.Google Scholar
Preston, N. W. (1976 b). Prevalent serotypes of Bordetella pertussis in non-vaccinated communities. Journal of Hygiene 77, 85–91.Google Scholar
Preston, N. W. (1979). Some unsolved problems with vaccines. Progress in Drug Research 23, 9–26.Google ScholarPubMed
Preston, N. W., Timewell, R. M. & Carter, E. J. (1980). Experimental pertussis infection in the rabbit: similarities with infection in primates. Journal of Infection 2, 227–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanbridge, T. N. & Preston, N. W. (1974). Variation of serotype in strains of Bordetella pertussis. Journal of Hygiene 73, 305–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toma, S., Lo, H. & Magus, M. (1978). Bordetella pertussis serotypes in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal 119, 722–724.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1979). WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization, Thirtieth Report; Technical Report Series no. 638, p. 65. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar