Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hustinx, W. N.
Right arrow Articles by Verhoef, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hustinx, W. N.
Right arrow Articles by Verhoef, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Vol 40, 475-483, Copyright © 1997 by The British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

REVIEWS

Cross-protection by anti-core glycolipid antibodies: evidence from animal experiments

WN Hustinx, K Kraaijeveld, AI Hoepelman and J Verhoef
Eijkman-Winkler Institute for Medical & Clinical Microbiology, Utrecht University Hospital, The Netherlands.

The ability of antibodies against the core glycolipid (CGL) of endotoxin to protect experimentally infected animals against death from Gram-negative sepsis is reviewed. The limitations and confounding factors inherent to animal models of sepsis are also briefly discussed. This review considers 30 studies in mice and 12 in other animal species that investigated protection against heterologous challenge by passive immunization with anti-CGL antibodies. In 28 (67%) of the reviewed studies antibodies were found to be protective, either prophylactically (n = 17) or therapeutically (n = 11). With the possible exception of the type of antibody preparation that was used (monoclonal versus polyclonal antibodies), none of the many differences in the experimental protocols were clearly correlated with success. Convincing proof is still lacking for any of the hypothetical mechanisms of protection by anti-CGL antibodies. Moreover, the evidence that protection by these antibodies is attributable to their anti-CGL specificity is poor. The available data raise serious questions about the validity of the concept underlying the search for broadly cross- protective antibodies raised against the core region of endotoxin. However, continuing research suggests that endotoxin still is a valid target in devising new adjunctive treatment strategies to improve the outcome of serious Gram-negative infections.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CVIHome page
M. L. Rodrigues, L. Shi, E. Barreto-Bergter, L. Nimrichter, S. E. Farias, E. G. Rodrigues, L. R. Travassos, and J. D. Nosanchuk
Monoclonal Antibody to Fungal Glucosylceramide Protects Mice against Lethal Cryptococcus neoformans Infection
Clin. Vaccine Immunol., October 1, 2007; 14(10): 1372 - 1376.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.