Pathogenicity and protective effect of rough mutants of Salmonella species in germ-free piglets

In this study, two stable, rough, streptomycin-sensitive Salmonella mutants with different types of genetic defects were used to colonize groups of germ-free (GF) piglets. The lipopolysaccharide (LPS) of Salmonella typhimurium SF 1591 was of the Ra chemotype (complete core), whereas the LPS of the S. minnesota mR 595 deep-rough mutant contained only lipid A and 2-keto-3-deoxyoctulosonic acid (Re chemotype). Both strains readily colonized the intestinal tracts of GF piglets and were stable during the whole experiment. All animals survived, and only transient fever was observed in some piglets colonized with the SF 1591 strain. Finally, streptomycin and virulent, smooth, streptomycin-resistant S. typhimurium LT2 were administered perorally 1 week later. All piglets colonized previously with the deep-rough mutant mR 595 died of sepsis, in contrast to piglets infected with the LT2 strain and colonized with the SF 1591 mutant, all of which survived. This difference is explained by the penetration of the mesenteric lymph nodes, spleen, and liver by great numbers of live bacteria in the latter case, resulting in prominent systemic and local immune responses. On the other hand, live bacteria were found only rarely in the mesenteric lymph nodes of animals colonized with the mR 595 strain and a negligible antibody response was observed.

[1]  F. Haurowitz Developmental aspects of antibody formation and structure (Proceedings of Symposium held on 1–7 June 1969 in Prague and Slapy)—Edited by J. Sterzl and I. Riha. Akademia Prague 255 Kcs; Academic Press, 1970. 1054 pp. $39.00 , 1972 .

[2]  S Falkow,et al.  Copyright © 1997, American Society for Microbiology Common Themes in Microbial Pathogenicity Revisited , 2022 .

[3]  J. Moulder Comparative biology of intracellular parasitism. , 1985, Microbiological reviews.

[4]  F. Collins,et al.  Comparative Immunogenicity of Heat-Killed and Living Oral Salmonella Vaccines , 1972, Infection and immunity.

[5]  V. Vetvicka,et al.  DEVELOPMENT OF IMMUNOLOGICAL CAPACITY UNDER GERMFREE AND CONVENTIONAL CONDITIONS , 1983, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[6]  J. Galán,et al.  Cloning and molecular characterization of genes whose products allow Salmonella typhimurium to penetrate tissue culture cells. , 1989, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  L. Mandel Rearing of germ-free pigs , 1996 .

[8]  B. Hirst,et al.  Preferential interaction of Salmonella typhimurium with mouse Peyer's patch M cells. , 1994, Research in microbiology.

[9]  J. Verhoef,et al.  Detection of antibodies against lipopolysaccharides of Escherichia coli and Salmonella R and S strains by immunoblotting , 1985, Infection and immunity.

[10]  F. Kovářů,et al.  Development of immune responses in early pig ontogeny. , 1994, Veterinary immunology and immunopathology.

[11]  L. Young Immunoprophylaxis and serotherapy of bacterial infections , 1984 .

[12]  R. Berg,et al.  Translocation of Certain Indigenous Bacteria from the Gastrointestinal Tract to the Mesenteric Lymph Nodes and Other Organs in a Gnotobiotic Mouse Model , 1979, Infection and immunity.

[13]  T. Eisenstein,et al.  Immunity to infection with Salmonella typhimurium: mouse-strain differences in vaccine- and serum-mediated protection. , 1984, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[14]  G. Abrams,et al.  Influence of the normal flora on mucosal morphology and cellular renewal in the ileum. A comparison of germ-free and conventional mice. , 1963, Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology.

[15]  C. Galanos,et al.  A new method for the extraction of R lipopolysaccharides. , 1969, European journal of biochemistry.

[16]  R. Germanier Immunity in Experimental Salmonellosis I. Protection Induced by Rough Mutants of Salmonella typhimurium , 1970, Infection and immunity.

[17]  R. Germanier Immunity in Experimental Salmonellosis III. Comparative Immunization with Viable and Heat-Inactivated Cells of Salmonella typhimurium , 1972, Infection and immunity.

[18]  K. Watanabe,et al.  Antigenic role of stress-induced catalase of Salmonella typhimurium in cell-mediated immunity , 1992, Infection and immunity.

[19]  F. Collins Effect of Specific Immune Mouse Serum on the Growth of Salmonella enteritidis in Nonvaccinated Mice Challenged by Various Routes , 1969, Journal of bacteriology.

[20]  G. Mackaness,et al.  HOST-PARASITE RELATIONS IN MOUSE TYPHOID , 1966, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[21]  T. R. Licht,et al.  Role of lipopolysaccharide in colonization of the mouse intestine by Salmonella typhimurium studied by in situ hybridization , 1996, Infection and immunity.

[22]  R. Hancock,et al.  Monoclonal antibodies specific for Escherichia coli J5 lipopolysaccharide: cross-reaction with other gram-negative bacterial species , 1984, Infection and immunity.

[23]  K. Tanamoto,et al.  Lipopolysaccharides: structural principles and biologic activities. , 1984, Reviews of infectious diseases.

[24]  S. Michalek,et al.  Monoclonal antibodies to Salmonella lipopolysaccharide: anti-O-polysaccharide antibodies protect C3H mice against challenge with virulent Salmonella typhimurium. , 1984, Journal of Immunology.

[25]  Factors influencing the fate of Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium in germ-free piglets and rats. , 1995, Advances in experimental medicine and biology.

[26]  K. E. Shroff,et al.  Commensal enteric bacteria engender a self-limiting humoral mucosal immune response while permanently colonizing the gut , 1995, Infection and immunity.

[27]  R. Isberg,et al.  Discrimination between intracellular uptake and surface adhesion of bacterial pathogens. , 1991, Science.

[28]  D. van der Waaij,et al.  Colonization resistance of the digestive tract and the spread of bacteria to the lymphatic organs in mice , 1972, Journal of Hygiene.

[29]  W. R. Mccabe,et al.  Type-specific and cross-reactive antibodies in gram-negative bacteremia. , 1972, The New England journal of medicine.

[30]  P. Mäkelä,et al.  Lipopolysaccharide heterogeneity in Salmonella typhimurium analyzed by sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. , 1980, European journal of biochemistry.

[31]  J. Mekalanos,et al.  Monoclonal secretory immunoglobulin A protects mice against oral challenge with the invasive pathogen Salmonella typhimurium , 1992, Infection and immunity.

[32]  S. Avrameas,et al.  Isotype and antibody specificity of spontaneously formed immunoglobulins in pig fetuses and germ‐free piglets: production by CD5− B cells , 1996, Immunology.

[33]  I. Čižnár,et al.  Lipopolysaccharides of Gram-Negative Bacteria , 2019, Handbook of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[34]  S. Falkow,et al.  Salmonella typhimurium initiates murine infection by penetrating and destroying the specialized epithelial M cells of the Peyer's patches , 1994, The Journal of experimental medicine.

[35]  Z. Reháková,et al.  Cellular changes and cytokine expression in the ilea of gnotobiotic piglets resulting from peroral Salmonella typhimurium challenge , 1997, Infection and immunity.

[36]  S. Falkow Bacterial entry into eukaryotic cells , 1991, Cell.

[37]  J. Mcghee,et al.  New perspectives in vaccine development: mucosal immunity to infections. , 1993, Infectious agents and disease.

[38]  T. Arai,et al.  Protective Immunity Induced by Porin in Experimental Mouse Salmonellosis , 1989, Microbiology and immunology.

[39]  G. Edsall,et al.  Antibody Response and Protection Induced by Immunization with Smooth and Rough Strains in Experimental Salmonellosis ' , 2022 .

[40]  B. Finlay,et al.  Common themes in microbial pathogenicity , 1989, Microbiological reviews.

[41]  S. Attridge,et al.  Oral immunization with live, avirulent fla+ strains of Salmonella protects mice against subsequent oral challenge with Salmonella typhimurium. , 1988, The Journal of infectious diseases.