HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hook, E. W. Articles by Wagner, R. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Hook, E. W. Articles by Wagner, R. R.

The Resistance-Promoting Activity of Endotoxins and Other Microbial Products

II. Protection against the Neurotoxic Action of Influenza Virus^1,2,

Department of Medicine, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

Abstract

The resistance-promoting activity of typhoid vaccine, xerosin and bacterial endotoxin against the neurotoxic action of influenza virus is similar in many respects to the effect of these compounds on resistance to cerebral typhoid infection of mice. Minute doses of endotoxin or vaccine injected intracerebrally produce marked protection against neurotoxic challenge whereas large doses injected intraperitoneally increase resistance to virus neurotoxicity only slightly. The protective effect against the neurotoxic action of virus develops by 2–4 hr after intracerebral injection of endotoxin and persists for about a week. The refractory state is not related to suppression of infectious virus in brains and it has not been possible to demonstrate virus neutralizing factors in cerebral tissue of resistant mice. Intracerebral injection of aleuronat, an irritant, did not alter resistance to neurotoxic challenge. A prior intracerebral injection of endotoxin or typhoid vaccine did not alter susceptibility to cerebral infection with lymphocytic choriomeningitis or neurotropic influenza viruses.

Although these studies shed no light on the mechanism of altered resistance after injection of endotoxin, they emphasize the importance of local factors in determining the protective effect.

Footnotes

¹ Presented in part at the annual meetings of the Eastern Section of the American Federation for Clinical Research (Clin. Res. Proc., 5: 22, 1957) and the American Society for Clinical Investigation (J. Clin. Invest., 37: 903, 1958).

² Supported by Grant C-2813 (C2R1) from the U. S. Public Health Service, and Contract DA-18-064-404-CML-100 with the U. S. Army Chemical Corps, Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. S. Cross Invited review: Endotoxin tolerance -- current concepts in historical perspective Innate Immunity, April 1, 2002; 8(2): 83 - 98. [PDF]