Susceptibility testing of Chlamydia trachomatis: from eggs to monoclonal antibodies

Chlamydia trachomatis is thought to be the most common sexually transmitted agent in the United States, an assertion which has received further support as laboratory diagnostic tests become more widely used. Chlamydial infections are of major concern because peak incidence rates are found in adolescents and young adults of child-bearing age and because of their propensity to cause serious complications such as pelvic inflammatory disease, tubal infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and neonatal pneumonitis. Although the potential for the development of antimicrobial resistance seems limited, the frequent occurrence of C. trachomatis with Neisseria gonorrhoeae in which both chromosomeand plasmid-mediated resistances are rapidly becoming more prevalent demands continued surveillance of susceptibility to older antimicrobial agents, as well as evaluation of newer ones. Historically, the antimicrobial susceptibility of C. trachomatis has been predictable. When comparable methods are used, MICs usually fall within a narrow range. Reasons for this are suggested by the nature of the organism and its life cycle. The infectious form, or elementary body, is adapted to extracellular transit and is protected by a thick, rigid, trilaminar cell wall. After attachment to susceptible cells, elementary bodies are ingested into phagosomes (cytoplasmic vacuoles formed by invagination of cellular plasma membranes), where they remain during their intracellular phase. Within 24 h of phagocytosis, the elementary body develops into the reproductive form, or reticulate body, the cell wall becomes porous, and binary fission occurs, with the formation of new elementary bodies and eventual rupture of the host cell. Compared to most other procaryotes, chlamydiae have a relatively small genome, which consists of a double-stranded DNA molecule with a molecular mass of 4 x 10 to 6 x 108 daltons (6 x 105 nucleotide pairs) (18, 25), approximately one-half the size of N. gonorrhoeae DNA (18). Chlamydiae also possess a small (4.4-megadalton) cryptic plasmid (25). A new capacity for bacterial resistance must arise either through chromosomal mutation or through genetic transfer from another organism. The small chromosome limits the number of base pairs available for mutagenesis, while gene transfer by conjugation, transformation, or transduction is relatively unlikely because extracellular, thick-walled, metabolically inert elementary bodies probably are incapable of receiving genetic material from the many bacteria which they come in contact with and because intracellular, metabolically active, and dividing reticulate bodies rarely encounter other bacteria in the highly restrictive environment

[1]  V. Sambri,et al.  Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the in-vitro detection of sensitivity of Chlamydia trachomatis to antimicrobial drugs. , 1987, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[2]  D. Martin,et al.  Failure of multiple passages to increase chlamydial recovery , 1987, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[3]  R. Hodinka,et al.  In vitro Activity of Nonoxynol‐9 on McCoy Cells Infected with Chlamydia trachomatis , 1987, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[4]  P. B. Nielsen,et al.  Chlamydia trachomatis: in vitro susceptibility to antibiotics singly and in combination. , 2009, Acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica. Section B, Microbiology.

[5]  B. Katz,et al.  Effect of blind passage and multiple sampling on recovery of Chlamydia trachomatis from urogenital specimens , 1986, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[6]  T. Quinn,et al.  The Spermicide Nonoxynol‐9 Does Not Inhibit Chlamydia trachomatis in Vitro , 1986, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[7]  J. Schachter THE YALE JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 58 (1985), 443-452 Immunodiagnosis of Sexually Transmitted Disease , 1985 .

[8]  C. Hart,et al.  A comparison of the in-vitro activity of antimicrobials against Chlamydia trachomatis examined by Giemsa and a fluorescent antibody stain. , 1985, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[9]  E. Alexander,et al.  In vitro activity of clindamycin against strains of Chlamydia trachomatis, Mycoplasma hominis, and Ureaplasma urealyticum isolated from pregnant women. , 1984, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  S. Richmond,et al.  Comparison of the in vitro activities of ofloxacin and tetracycline against Chlamydia trachomatis as assessed by indirect immunofluorescence , 1984, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[11]  H. Muytjens,et al.  In vitro activities of ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, pipemidic acid, cinoxacin, and nalidixic acid against Chlamydia trachomatis , 1984, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[12]  G. Ridgway,et al.  In vitro activity of rifamycins alone and in combination with other antibiotics against Chlamydia trachomatis. , 1983, Reviews of infectious diseases.

[13]  R. Sweet,et al.  Relative resistance to erythromycin in Chlamydia trachomatis , 1980, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[14]  M. Landini,et al.  Antimicrobial drug susceptibility of 15 strains of Chlamydia trachomatis recently isolated from cases of non-gonococcal urethritis, in Italy. , 1980, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[15]  E. Lycke,et al.  Susceptibility of Chlamydia trachomatis to Antibiotics in Vitro and in Vivo , 1979, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[16]  W. Bowie,et al.  Prediction of efficacy of antimicrobial agents in treatment of infections due to Chlamydia trachomatis. , 1978, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[17]  W. Bowie,et al.  In vitro assays of the efficacy of antimicrobial agents in controlling Chlamydia trachomatis propagation , 1978, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[18]  J. Schachter,et al.  Antibiotic Susceptibility of Chlamydia trachomatis , 1977, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[19]  C. Kuo,et al.  Antimicrobial Activity of Several Antibiotics and a Sulfonamide Against Chlamydia trachomatis Organisms in Cell Culture , 1977, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[20]  C. Kuo,et al.  Interaction of Chlamydia trachomatis organisms and HeLa 229 cells , 1976, Infection and immunity.

[21]  G. Ridgway,et al.  A method for testing the antibiotic susceptibility of Chlamydia trachomatis in a cell culture system. , 1976, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[22]  S. Darougar,et al.  Effect of high-speed centrifugation on the sensitivity of irradiated McCoy cell culture for the isolation of Chlamydia. , 1974, The British journal of venereal diseases.

[23]  M. J. Harrison Conditions for growth of an ovine Chlamydia (bedsonia) in cell culture. , 1972, The Australian journal of experimental biology and medical science.

[24]  M. J. Kramer,et al.  Ultrastructural Analysis of the Effects of Penicillin and Chlortetracycline on the Development of a Genital Tract Chlamydia , 1971, Infection and immunity.

[25]  A. Matsumoto,et al.  Electron Microscopic Observations on the Effects of Penicillin on the Morphology of Chlamydia psittaci , 1970, Journal of bacteriology.

[26]  D. Kingsbury Estimate of the Genome Size of Various Microorganisms , 1969, Journal of bacteriology.

[27]  M. Tarizzo,et al.  The effect of antibiotics on the growth of TRIC agents in embryonated eggs. , 1967, American journal of ophthalmology.

[28]  F. B. Gordon,et al.  DRUG SUSCEPTIBILITIES OF THE PSITTACOSIS AND TRACHOMA AGENTS * , 1962, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.