Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T04:38:39.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Healthy individuals possess circulating antibodies against their indigenous faecal microflora as well as against allogenous faecal microflora: an immunomorphometrical study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

H. Z. Apperloo-Renkema ,
T. G. Jagt ,
R. H. J Tonk  and
D. van der Waaij
H. Z. Apperloo-Renkema
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Medical Microbiology, State University of Groningen, Oostersingel 59, 9713 EZ Groningen, The Netherlands
T. G. Jagt
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Medical Microbiology, State University of Groningen, Oostersingel 59, 9713 EZ Groningen, The Netherlands
R. H. J Tonk
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Medical Microbiology, State University of Groningen, Oostersingel 59, 9713 EZ Groningen, The Netherlands
D. van der Waaij
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Medical Microbiology, State University of Groningen, Oostersingel 59, 9713 EZ Groningen, The Netherlands
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.

Healthy persons were shown to possess circulating antibodies of both IgA, IgG and IgM isotype directed against the bacteria of their faecal microflora, assessed by immunomorphometry. After removal, by absorption, of the fraction of antibodies directed against the autochthonous faecal bacteria or cross-reacting with allogenous faecal bacteria, there were still antibodies left directed against allogenous faecal bacteria of both the IgA, IgG and IgM isotype. However, relatively more antibodies of the IgA isotype appeared to be directed against allogenous bacteria than against indigenous faecal bacteria. Persons who reacted with specific antibodies to many bacteria of their own flora also tended to react specifically to bacteria in the allogenous microflora of the other volunteers. The patterns of antibodies directed to faecal bacteria of different morphologies (morphotypes) were unique for each individual.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 111 , Issue 2 , October 1993 , pp. 273 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

REFERENCES

1.Foo, MC, Lee, A. Antigenic cross-reaction between mouse intestine and a member of the autochthonous microflora. Infect Immun 1974; 9: 1066–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Van de Merwe, JP. Stegeman, JH, Hazenberg, MP. The resident faecal flora is determined by genetic characteristics of the host. Implications for Crohn's disease ? Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1983; 49: 119–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Ebringer, R, Colthorpe, D, Young, A, Corbett, M. Increased incidence of faecal Klebsiella pneumoniae in patients with HLA B7 CREG antigen and men with rheumatoid arthritis. B M J 1980; 281: 583–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Meijer-Severs, GJ, Van Santen, E. Variations in the anaerobic faecal flora of ten healthy human volunteers with special reference to Bacteroides fragilis-group and Clostridium difficile. Zbl Bakt Hyg A 1986; 261: 43–52.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Wiegersma, N, Jansen, G, Van der Waaij, D. Effect of twelve antimicrobial drugs on the colonization resistance of the digestive tract of mice and on endogenous potentially pathogenic bacteria. J. Hyg 1982; 88: 221–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Nord, CE. Edlund, C. Ecological effects of antimicrobial agents on human intestinal microflora. Microb Ecol Health Dis 1991; 4: 193–207.Google Scholar
7.Moore, WEC, Holdeman, LV. Discussion of current bacteriological investigations of the relationships between intestinal flora, diet and colon cancer. Cancer Research 1975; 35: 3418–20.Google Scholar
8.Midtvedt, T. Microflora-assoeiated characteristics (MAC's) and germfree animal characteristics (GAC's) in man and animal. Microecol Ther 1985; 15: 295–302.Google Scholar
9.Welling, GW. Comparison of methods for the determination of β-aspartylglyeine in faecal supernatants of leukemic patients treated with antimicrobial agents. J Chromatogr 1982; 232: 55–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Welling, GW, Meijer-Severs, GJ. Helmus, G, et al. The effect of ceftriaxone on anaerobic bacterial flora and the bacterial enzvmatic activity in the intestinal tract. Infection 1991; 19: 313–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Meijer, BC, Kootstra, GJ, Wilkinson, MHF. A theoretical and practical investigation into the characterization of bacterial species by image analysis. Binary 1990; 2: 21–31.Google Scholar
12.Meijer, BC, Kootstra, GJ, Wilkinson, MHF. Morphometrical parameters of gut flora in human volunteers. Epidemiol Infect 1991; 107: 383–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Meijer, BC, Kootstra, GJ, Geertsma, DG, Wilkinson, MHF. Effects of ceftriaxone on faecal flora: analysis by micromorphometry. Epidemiol Infect 1991; 106: 513–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Apperloo-Renkema, HZ, Wilkinson, MHF, Van der Waaij, D. Circulating antibodies against faecal bacteria assessed by immunomorphometry: combining immunofluorescence and image analysis. Epidemiol Infect 1992; 109: 497–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Coutinho, A. Beyond clonal selection and network. Immunol Rev 1989; 110: 63–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Balner, H, Van Leeuwen, A, Dersjant, H, Van Rood, JJ. Defined leukocyte antigens of chimpanzees: use of chimpanzee isoantisera for leukocyte typing in man. Transplantation 1967; 5: 624–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Foo, MC. Lee, A. Immunological response of mice to members of the autochthonous intestinal microflora. Infect Immun 1972; 4: 525–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar