Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:08:40.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of the chick embryo to live and heat-killed Campylobacter jejuni injected into the yolk sac

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

A. G. Clark  and
D. H. Bueschkens
A. G. Clark
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, University of Toronto, 150 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A8
D. H. Bueschkens
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, University of Toronto, 150 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A8
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.

Graded doses of live and heat-killed cells of Campylobacter jejuni were injected into the yolk-sac of 5-day-old chick embryos, and the 50% lethal dose (LD50) was determined 7 days later. A strain dependent virulence was seen. In the diluted series of cultures the LD50 values for live campylobacter ranged from 106 c.f.u. beyond the last dilution showing growth, that is to less than one organism per embryo. When the 22 strains were tested as heat-killed cells, the chick embryo LD50 values retained the same relative order of toxicity obtained with viable cells, but the LD50 values were increased by + 1 to + 4 log units. Heat-killed cells from strains known to be invasive, but non-toxigenic, were still lethal for the embryos, suggesting that viability was not solely necessary for virulence. Semi-pure lipopolysaccharide from a non-virulent strain of C. jejuni was not toxic to the embryos, but semi-pure and ultracentrifuge-purified lipopolysaccharide from the most lethal campylobacter strains gave LD50 values in the order of 3·0 μg lipopolysaccharide per ml (0·6 µg per embryo) in the yolk-sac assay. No relationship between serotype and lethality was seen. Injection into the yolk-sac appears to be an easy, rapid and reproducible in vivo assay of the virulence of C. jejuni.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 103 , Issue 3 , December 1989 , pp. 577 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

References

REFERENCES

1.Klipstein, FA, Engert, RF.Purification of Campylobacter jejuni enterotoxin. Lancet 1984: 1: 1123–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Johnson, WM, Lior, H.Cytotoxic and cytotonic factors produced by Campylobacter jejuni. Campylobacter coli, and Campylobacter laridis. J Clin Microbiol 1986: 24: 274–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Logan, SM, Trust, TJ.Structural and antigenic heterogeneity of lipopolysaccharides of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter Coli. Infect Immun 1984; 45: 210–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Mattsby-Baltzer, I, Lindblom, G-B, Sjögren, E, Kaijser, B. Lipid A in campylobacter. In: Pearson, AD, Skirrow, MB, Lior, H, Rowe, B eds. Campylobacter III. London: Public Health Laboratory Service. 1985: 42–3.Google Scholar
5.Walker, RI, Caldwell, MB, Lee, EC, Gerry, P, Trust, TJ, Ruiz-Palacios, GM.Pathophysiology of Campylobacter enteritis. Microbiol Rev 1986; 50: 81–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Klipstein, FA, Engert, RF, Short, HB, Schenk, EA.Pathogenic properties of Campylobacter jejuni assay and correlation with clinical manifestations. Infect Immun 1985; 50: 43–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Klipstein, FA, Engert, RF, Short, HB.Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for virulence properties of Campylobacter jejuni clinical isolates. J Clin Microbiol 1986: 23: 1039–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Ruiz-Palacios, GM, Escamilla, E, Torres, N.Experimental Campylobacter diarrhea in chickens. Infect Immun 1981; 34: 250–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Welkos, S.Experimental gastroenteritis in newly-hatched chicks infected with Campylobacter jejuni. J Med Microbiol 1983; 18: 233–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Davidson, JA, Solomon, JB. Onset of resistance to pathogenic strains of Campylobacter fetus subspecies jejuni in the chicken embryo. In: Solomon, JB. ed. Aspects of developmental and comparative immunology. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 1981: 289–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Field, LH, Headley, VL, Underwood, JL, Payne, SM, Berry, LJ.The chicken embryo as a model for campylobacter invasion: comparative virulence of human isolates of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli. Infect Immun 1986; 54: 118–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Clark, AG, Bueschkens, DH.Laboratory infection of chicken eggs with Campylobacter jejuni by using temperature or pressure differentials. Appl Environ Microbiol 1985; 49: 1467–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Clark, AG, Bueschkens, DH.Survival and growth of Campylobacter jejuni in egg yolk and albumen. J Food Protect 1986; 49: 135–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.George, HA, Hoffman, PS, Smibert, RM, Kreig, NR.Improved media for growth and aerotolerance of Campylobacter fetus. J Clin Microbiol 1978; 8: 36–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Reed, LJ, Muench, H.A simple method of estimating fifty percent endpoints. Amer J Hyg 1938; 27: 493–7.Google Scholar
16.Preston, MA, Penner, JL.Structural and antigenic properties of lipopolysaccharides from serotype reference strains of Campylobacter jejuni. Infect Immun 1987; 55: 1806–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Rollins, DM, Colwell, RR.Viable but nonculturable stage of Campylobacter jejuni and its role in survival in the natural aquatic environment. Appl Environ Microbiol 1986; 52: 531–8.Google ScholarPubMed
18.Pearson, AD, Colwell, RR, Rollins, DM et al. , Transmission of C. jejuni on a poultry farm. In: Kaijser, B, Falsen, E, eds. Campylobacter IV. Sweden: University of Gothenburg Press. 1988; 281–4.Google Scholar
19.Mills, SD, Bradbury, WC, Penner, JL.Basis for serological heterogenicity of thermostable antigens of Campylobacter jejuni. Infect Immun 1985; 50: 284–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Perez-Perez, GI, Blaser, MJ.Lipopolysaccharide characteristics of pathogenic campylobacters. Infect Immun 1985; 47: 353–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Naess, V, Hofstad, T.Chemical studies of partially hydrolysed lipopolysaccharides from four strains of Campylobacter jejuni and two strains of Campylobacter coli. J Gen Microbiol 1984; 130: 2783–9.Google ScholarPubMed
22.Stuart-Tull, DES, Ng, FKP, Wardlaw, AC.Factors affecting the lethality of Campylobacter fetus subspecies jejuni in mice. J Med Microbiol 1984; 18: 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Goodpasture, EW.Some uses of the chick embryo for the study of infection and immunity. Am J Hyg 1938; 28: 111–29.Google Scholar
24.Weil, AJ, Volentine, JA.Infection of the developing chick embryo with dysentry bacilli. Soc Exp Biol Med 1940; 44: 160–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Smith, RT, Thomas, LT.The lethal effect of endotoxins on the chick embryo. J Exp Med 1956: 104: 217–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.White, FH, Ristic, M, Sanders, DA.Infectivity of colonial variants of Vibrio fetus strains for the chicken embryo. Am J Vet Res 1958; 19: 205–8.Google ScholarPubMed
27.Finkelstein, RA.Observations on mode of action of endotoxin in chick embryos. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1964; 115: 702–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Finkelstein, RA, Ramm, JP.Effect of age on susceptibility to experimental cholera in embryonated eggs. J Infect Dis 1962; 111: 239–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Finkelstein, RA, Ransom, JP.Non-specific resistance to experimental cholera in embryonated eggs. J Exp Med 1960; 112: 315–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed