1887

Abstract

Summary

A monospecific polyclonal antiserum, prepared against common polysaccharide antigen purified by polyacrylamide gel immunoblot detected and in pus samples from various anatomical sites by immunofluorescence microscopy of the pus. With standard clinical laboratory culture methods, 36% of 147 samples were positive for one or more of the above bacteria. Of these, accounted for 33%. By immunofluorescent labelling of pus with the common antigen antiserum the detection of these bacteria in the samples increased to 50%. All nine of the blood cultures in which was detected by culture contained bacteria positive for the common antigen. Immunofluorescent labelling of pus samples with a selection of monoclonal antibodies specific for surface polysaccharides which are known to be antigenically variable in culture and in an animal model of infection showed that these polysaccharides are also variable in natural infection. The results indicate that the common polysaccharide antigen, in contrast to the variable surface polysaccharides, is a suitable target for the immunodetection of in clinical samples from a range of anatomical sites.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-43-2-99
1995-08-01
2022-08-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/43/2/medmicro-43-2-99.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-43-2-99&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Duerdert B. I., Drasar B. S. (eds) Anaerobes in human disease London: Edward Arnold; 1991
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Tally F. P., Ho J. L. Management of patients with intraabdominal infection due to colonic perforation. Curr Clin Top Infect Dis 1987; 8:266–295
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Namavar F., Theunissen E. B., Verweij-Van Vught A. M. J. J. Epidemiology of the Bacteroides fragilis group in the colonic flora of patients with colonic cancer. J Med Microbiol 1989; 29:171–176
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Slack M. P. E., Griffiths D. T., Johnston H. H. The Fluoretec system for rapid diagnosis of bacteroides infections by direct immunofluorescence of clinical specimens. J Clin Pathol 1981; 34:1381–1384
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Labbé M., Delamare N., Pepersack F., Crokaert F., Yourassowsky E. Detection of Bacteroides fragilis and Bacteroides melaninogenicus by direct immunofluorescence. J Clin Pathol 1980; 33:1189–1192
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Holst E., Oscarson J., Mardh P.-A. Evaluation of two fluorescent test kits for detection of selected Bacteroides species in clinical specimens. Curr Microbiol 1979; 3:133–136
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Fiksdal L., Berg J. D. Evaluation of a fluorescent antibody technique for the rapid enumeration of Bacteroides fragilis group of organisms in water. J Appl Bacteriol 1987; 62:377–383
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Viljanen M. K., Linko L., Lehtonen O.-P. Detection of Bacteroides fragilis. Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron and Bacteroides or at us in clinical specimens by immunofluorescence with a monoclonal antibody to B. fragilis lipopolysaccharide. J Clin Microbiol 1988; 26:448–452
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Lutton D. A., Patrick S., Crockard A. D. Flow cytometric analysis of within-strain variation in polysaccharide expression by Bacteroides fragilis by use of murine monoclonal antibodies. J Med Microbiol 1991; 35:229–237
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Poxton I. R., Brown R. Immunochemistry of the surface carbohydrate antigens of Bacteroides fragilis and definition of a common antigen. J Gen Microbiol 1986; 132:2475–2481
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Patrick S., Larkin M. J. Attachment in disease. In Denyer S. P., Gorman S. P., Sussman M. (eds) Microbial biofilms: formation and control Society for applied bacteriology technical series 30 Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1993109–131
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Reid J. H., Patrick S., Tabaqchali S. Immunochemical characterization of a polysaccharide antigen of Bacteroides fragilis with an IgM monoclonal antibody. J Gen Microbiol 1987; 133:171–179
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Patrick S. The virulence of Bacteroides fragilis. Rev Med Microbiol 1993; 4:40–49
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Schwan A., Danielsson D., Forsum U. Demonstration of heat-labile antigen(s) of Bacteroides fragilis associated with non-homogeneous immunofluorescent staining. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand B 1982; 90:13–19
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Stewart L. D. Bacteroides fragilis in clinical infection. (PhD thesis) Queen’s University of Belfast; Belfast: 1993
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Reid J. H., Patrick S., Dermott E. Investigation of antigenic expression of Bacteroides fragilis by immunogold labelling and immunoblotting with a monoclonal antibody. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1985; 30:289–293
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lutton D. A. Variability of surface structure expression in Bacteroides fragilis. (PhD thesis) Queen’s University of Belfast; Belfast: 1991
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Wilson K. G. Investigation of the surface structures of Bacteroides fragilis using immunological methods. (MMedSc thesis) Queen’s University of Belfast; Belfast: 1992
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Nikolich M. P., Hong G., Shoemaker N. B., Salyers A. A. Evidence for natural horizontal transfer of tetQ between bacteria that normally colonize humans and bacteria that normally colonize livestock. Appl Environ Microbiol 1994; 60:3255–3260
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kelly M. J. The quantitative and histological demonstration of pathogenic synergy between Escherichia coli and Bacteroides fragilis in guinea-pig wounds. J Med Microbiol 1978; 11:513–523
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gossling J. Occurrence and pathogenicity of the Streptococcus milleri group. Rev Infect Dis 1988; 10:257–285
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-43-2-99
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/00222615-43-2-99
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error