Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About IAI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Infection and Immunity
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About IAI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
GUEST COMMENTARY

Antibody-Mediated Immunity against Intracellular Pathogens: Two-Dimensional Thinking Comes Full Circle

Arturo Casadevall
Arturo Casadevall
Departments of Medicine and Microbiology and Immunology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York 10461
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: casadeva@aecom.yu.edu
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.71.8.4225-4228.2003
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The view that antibody-mediated immunity against many prokaryotic and eukaryotic intracellular pathogens is not important was popular until recently (6). The concept of a division of labor whereby antibody-mediated immunity protected against extracellular pathogens and cell-mediated immunity protected against intracellular pathogens may have had its intellectual origins in the great debate between the advocates of humoral and cellular immunity at the turn of the 20th century. The humoralists, championed by Paul Ehrlich, viewed immunity as being conferred by soluble substances in the blood and the generation of an effective antibody response, with phagocytic cells functioning primarily to clean up microbial debris (42). The cellularists, championed by Elie Metchnikoff, viewed immunity as being conferred by macrophages and other phagocytic cells, with the role of humoral factors being to provide opsonins (42). This debate was fueled by the success and difficulties associated with demonstrating antibody-mediated protection against certain pathogens in passive immunization studies. Administration of immune serum protected against toxin-mediated diseases such as tetanus and diphtheria and a certain subset of bacterial pathogens exemplified by the organisms now known as Streptococcus pneumoniae, Neisseria meningitidis, and Haemophilus influenzae. However, passive immunization provided little or no protection against other microbes such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis (reviewed in reference 19).

By the 1960s, classical studies with facultative intracellular pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes had shown that effective control of infection depended on cellular immunity, as manifested by granuloma formation and participation of T lymphocytes (28). The microbes for which passive antibody was not protective and cell-mediated immunity appeared to be paramount for host defense were often facultative intracellular pathogens. This association gave credence to the concept of an immunological division of labor whereby humoral and cellular immunity provided effective control for extracellular and intracellular pathogens, respectively (3, 8, 28). Furthermore, this division of labor was conceptually consistent with a large body of experimental observations that indicated an inverse and mutually antagonistic relationship between humoral and cellular immunity (35). In recent years, the view that antibody-mediated immunity protects against extracellular pathogens and cell-mediated immunity protects against intracellular pathogens has been modified and extended by the Th1/Th2 paradigm, which posits a division of labor at the level of T-cell differentiation. According to this view, Th1-polarized responses result in granulomatous inflammation that effectively controls intracellular pathogens, whereas Th2-polarized responses result in the production of antibodies that control extracellular pathogens and parasites.

The fact that a microbe inside a cell is separated from serum antibody has contributed to the belief that serum antibody cannot be effective against an intracellular pathogen. However, the two-dimensional separation and categorization of microbes as either intracellular and extracellular pathogens was never absolute, since tissue examination often revealed that pathogens classified as intracellular could be found in the extracellular space and vice versa. Furthermore, at some point in the infectious cycle, most intracellular pathogens reside in the extracellular space, where they are vulnerable to antibody action, and Fc receptor cross-linking can have profound effects in the intracellular milieu through signal transduction.

In this issue of Infection and Immunity, we have an example of how the investigation of mechanisms by which passive antibody protects against the obligate intracellular pathogen Ehrlichia chaffensis led to the discovery of an extracellular phase that may include replication (27). Hence, the wheel has turned full circle, since an investigation to explain how antibody protects against an obligate intracellular pathogen has revealed that it may not always reside in the intracellular space and thus could become accessible to serum antibody.

DECONSTRUCTING A PARADIGM

The notion of an immunological duality whereby immunity to intracellular pathogens is conferred by cell-mediated mechanisms and immunity to extracellular pathogens is conferred by antibody-mediated mechanisms was a reigning paradigm in the closing decades of the 20th century and still has wide credence. However, this view is problematic because it is not universally applicable to all pathogens and because the induction of antibody mediated-immunity is sufficient to prevent infection with some intracellular pathogens. For example, the major childhood viral diseases and smallpox were drastically reduced in incidence or eradicated by vaccines that elicited antibody-mediated immunity despite the fact that all viruses are obligate intracellular pathogens. For some intracellular bacterial pathogens, such as Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium, it was clear that antibody responses were protective in certain hosts (13). The concept of an immunological division of labor based on whether or not a microbe assumed intracellular residence defied the common-sense view that the most effective immune response was one that combined both humoral and cellular components.

Perhaps the most important advance in suggesting a resolution to the cellular versus humoral controversy was the application of hybridoma technology to investigate the potential of antibody-mediated immunity against certain pathogens for which immune serum did not manifest efficacy. In contrast to immune serum, which varied greatly in the composition, isotype, and specificity of microbe-binding antibodies, monoclonal antibodies provided a homogenous preparation or defined reagents with which to investigate the variables that contributed to antibody-mediated protection. Studies with monoclonal antibodies have now demonstrated passive protection for several microbes where experiments with immune serum had provided negative or inconsistent results, including Candida albicans (20), Cryptococcus neoformans (9, 17, 32, 40), Listeria monocytogenes (11), Leishmania mexicana (1), Mycobacterium tuberculosis (45), and Histoplasma capsulatum (J. D. Nosanchuk, A. Casadevall, and G. Deepe, Abstr. Annu. Meet. Am. Soc. Microbiol., 2001, abstr. F-143). For these pathogens, the identification of protective monoclonal antibodies established the precedent that antibody could be effective and dispelled the notion that humoral immunity was ineffective due to an inherent limitation in the activity of this arm of the immune system. The list of intracellular pathogens for which antibody has been shown to modify the course of infection to the benefit of the host is extensive (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1.

Prokaryotic and eukaryotic intracellular pathogens for which antibody has been shown to modify the course of infection to the benefit of the hosta

INTERPRETATION OF NEGATIVE RESULTS

A central argument for the concept that antibody lacked efficacy against certain intracellular microbes was the observation that transfer of immune serum was not protective in animal models of infection. In fact, Mackaness proposed six criteria for establishing the importance of cellular immunity, of which the first one stated that “there should be no evidence that protection can be conferred by passive transfer of antibody alone” (29). However, the absence of demonstrable protection in passive antibody experiments does not mean that antibody has no role in protection, since this conclusion cannot be made from a negative experimental result. In recent years, studies with monoclonal antibodies to Cryptococcus neoformans and other pathogens have provided several insights as to why passive antibody experiments can produce negative results even when protective antibodies exist and protective antibody responses are possible.

A dramatic example of the limitations of passive antibody transfer experiments is provided by the observation that transfer of either too little or too much antibody can result in no protection. In 1987, Dromer et al. generated a protective immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody to Cryptococcus neoformans and demonstrated that a certain amount of immunoglobulin was necessary to observe protection in a murine model of cryptococcosis (9). This observation suggested that the inability to protect with immune serum may have been a consequence of inadequate amounts of protective antibody. Similarly, it was noted that a monoclonal antibody to listeriolysin O was protective against Listeria monocytogenes if administered in large doses but that antibodies with that specificity were not common in immune serum (11). More recently, my group has shown prozone-like effects with protective IgM and IgG, such that the administration of large amounts of immunoglobulin can result in reduced or abolished protective effects (43, 44). Consequently, too much or too little antibody can yield a negative result in a passive protection experiment despite the fact that antibody can be protective against the relevant pathogen.

Apart from antibody amount, immunoglobulin-related variables such as antibody specificity (31), isotype (49), and idiotype (39) can have profound effects on antibody protective efficacy. However, host-related variables can also determine the outcome of passive protection experiments. For example, the protective efficacy of passive antibody to Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium is dependent on the mouse strain used (13). For some pathogens, the efficacy of passive antibody is dependent on the presence of intact cellular immunity (48). Adding to the uncertainty associated with negative results in passive transfer experiments is the observation that antibody efficacy can depend on the microbial strain used despite the presence of the target antigen (33).

Clearly, negative results in passive protection experiments do not exclude the existence of protective antibodies. Conversely, the discovery that it is possible to make protective monoclonal antibodies against several intracellular pathogens does not necessarily imply that antibody immunity plays a major role in natural resistance, since the antibodies that mediate protection may be absent or rare in the immune response to natural infection. Experimental variables that can lead to a negative result in passive protection experiments are listed in Table 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2.

Outcome of antibody protection experiments is dependent on multiple independent variables

LESSON FROM ERHLICHIA CHAFFEENSIS

The obligate intracellular bacterium Ehrlichia chaffensis is the causative agent of human monocytic ehrlichiosis. According to the immunological division of labor discussed above, host protection against E. chaffensis would have been expected to be conferred exclusively by cell-mediated immune mechanisms. However, there was evidence that specific antibody could mediate protection against Erhlichia spp. (23), possibly by blocking cellular entry or promoting the expression of proinflammatory cytokines (25, 30). Studies by Winslow and colleagues subsequently established that specific antibody could protect against E. chaffensis in both normal and SCID mice (47). That result was surprising because it might have been anticipated that cell-mediated immunity would play a major role in promoting antibody efficacy against an intracellular pathogen, as was shown for Cryptococcus neoformans (48).

The efficacy of passive antibody against E. chaffensis in SCID mice suggests that antibody-mediated protection was independent of T cells and implied that other mechanisms must be operative. In pursuit of that question, Li and Winslow now describe an extracellular phase for E. chaffensis during which the bacteria are potentially susceptible to serum antibody (27). Although it has not been proven that antibody-mediated protection against E. chaffensis occurs in the extracellular phase, this observation suggests a mechanism that is fundamentally different from that reported for Listeria monocytogenes (12), where antibody is active intracellularly. Ironically, the finding that E. chaffensis has an extracellular phase that is presumably susceptible to serum antibody is consistent with the older view that antibodies are active only against extracellular microbes. Nonetheless, antibody may be effective against E. chaffensis when a threshold portion of the microbial pool is extracellular and accessible to antibody. This discovery suggests that other obligate intracellular pathogens may also have extracellular phases during which they are susceptible to humoral immunity. This elegant study illustrates the connectivity of scientific thought in that pursuing an explanation for an observation that defied one paradigm led to findings that undermined another and, in so doing, provided new insights into microbial pathogenesis and immunology.

  • Copyright © 2003 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Anderson, S., J. R. David, and D. McMahon-Pratt. 1983. In vivo protection against Leishmania mexicana mediated by monoclonal antibodies. J. Immunol.131:1616-1618.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.
    Bowden, R. A., S. M. Estein, M. S. Zygmunt, G. Dubray, and A. Cloeckaert. 2000. Identification of protective outer membrane antigens of Brucella ovis by passive immunization of mice with monoclonal antibodies. Microbes Infect.2:481-488.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    Bretscher, P. A. 1992. An hypothesis to explain why cell-mediated immunity alone can contain infections by certain intracellular parasites and how immune class regulation of the response can be subverted. Immunol. Cell. Biol.70:343-351.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.
    Brieland, J. K., L. A. Heath, G. B. Huffnagle, D. G. Remick, M. S. McClain, M. C. Hurley, R. K. Kunkel, J. C. Fantone, and C. Engleberg. 1996. Humoral immunity and regulation of intrapulmonary growth of Legionella pneumophila in the immunocompetent host. J. Immunol.157:5002-5008.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  5. 5.
    Briles, D. E., C. Forman, and M. Crain. 1992. Mouse antibody to phosphocholine can protect mice from infection with mouse-virulent human isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Infect. Immun.60:1957-1962.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Casadevall, A. 1998. Antibody-mediated protection against intracellular pathogens. Trends Microbiol.6:102-103.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.
    Casadevall, A., and M. D. Scharff. 1994. “Serum Therapy” revisited: Animal models of infection and the development of passive antibody therapy. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.38:1695-1702.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Collins, F. M. 1979. Cellular antimicrobial immunity. Crit. Rev. Microbiol7:27-91.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    Dromer, F., J. Charreire, A. Contrepois, C. Carbon, and P. Yeni. 1987. Protection of mice against experimental cryptococcosis by anti-Cryptococcus neoformans monoclonal antibody. Infect. Immun.55:749-752.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.
    Dromer, F., C. Perrone, J. Barge, J. L. Vilde, and P. Yeni. 1989. Role of IgG and complement component C5 in the initial course of experimental cryptococcosis. Clin. Exp. Immunol.78:412-417.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    Edelson, B. T., P. Cossart, and E. R. Unanue. 1999. Cutting edge: paradigm revisited: antibody provides resistance to Listeria infection. J. Immunol.163:4087-4090.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    Edelson, B. T., and E. R. Unanue. 2001. Intracellular antibody neutralizes Listeria growth. Immunity14:503-512.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    Eisenstein, T. K., L. M. Millar, and B. M. Sultzer. 1984. Immunity to infection with Salmonella typhimurium: mouse strain differences in vaccine- and serum-mediated protection. J. Infect. Dis.150:425-435.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.
    Eisenstein, T. K., R. Tamada, J. Meissler, A. Flesher, and H. C. Oels. 1984. Vaccination against Legionella pneumophila: serum antibody correlates with protection induced by heat-killed or acetone-killed cells against intraperitoneal but not aerosol infection in guinea pigs. Infect. Immun.45:685-691.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.
    Elzer, P. H., R. H. Jacobason, S. M. Jones, K. H. Nielsen, J. T. Douglas, and A. J. Winter. 1994. Antibody-mediated protection against Brucella abortus in BALB/c mice at successive periods after infection: variation between virulent strain 2308 and attenuated vaccine strain 19. Immunology82:651-658.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  16. 16.
    Feldmesser, M., and A. Casadevall. 1997. Effect of serum IgG1 against murine pulmonary infection with Cryptococcus neoformans. J. Immunol.158:790-799.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  17. 17.↵
    Fleuridor, R., Z. Zhong, and L. Pirofski. 1998. A human IgM monoclonal antibody prolongs survival of mice with lethal cryptococcosis. J. Infect. Dis.178:1213-1216.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.
    Fulop, M., P. Mastroeni, M. Green, and R. W. Titball. 2001. Role of antibody to lipopolysaccharide in protection against low- and high-virulence strains of Francisella tularensis. Vaccine19:4465-4472.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    Glatman-Freedman, A., and A. Casadevall. 1998. Serum therapy for tuberculosis revisited: a reappraisal of the role of antibody-mediated immunity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.11:514-532.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    Han, Y., and J. E. Cutler. 1995. Antibody response that protects against disseminated candidiasis. Infect. Immun.63:2714-2719.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.
    Joiner, K. A., R. Scales, K. A. Warren, M. M. Frank, and P. A. Rice. 1985. Mechanism of action of blocking immunoglobulin G for Neisseria gonorrhoeae. J. Clin. Investig.76:1765-1772.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.
    Kang, H., J. S. Remington, and Y. Suzuki. 2000. Decreased resistance of B-cell-deficient mice to infection with Toxoplasma gondii despite unimpaired expression of IFN-gamma, TNF-alpha, and inducible nitric oxide synthase. J. Immunol.164:2629-2634.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    Kaylor, P. S., T. B. Crawford, T. F. McElwain, and G. H. Palmer. 1991. Passive transfer of antibody to Ehrlichia risticii protects mice from ehrlichiosis. Infect. Immun.59:2058-2062.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.
    Koesling, J., T. Aebischer, C. Falch, R. Schülein, and C. Dehio. 2001. Cutting Edge: Antibody-mediated cessation of hemotropic infection by the intraerythrocytic mouse pathogen Bartonella grahamii. J. Immunol.167:11-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    Lee, E., and Y. Rikihisa. 1997. Anti-Ehrlichia chaffeensis antibody complexed with E. chaffeensis induces potent proinflammatory cytokine mRNA expression in human monocytes through sustained reduction of IκB-α and activation of NF-κB. Infect. Immun.2890:2897.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.
    Li, J. S., F. Chu, A. Reilly, and G. M. Winslow. 2002. Antibodies highly effective in SCID mice during infection by the intracellular bacterium Ehrlichia chaffeensis are of picomolar affinity and exhibit preferential epitope and isotype utilization. J. Immunol.169:1419-1425.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    Li, J. S., and G. M. Winslow. 2003. Survival, replication, and antibody susceptibility of Ehrlichia chaffeensis outside of host cells. Infect. Immun.71:4229-4237.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    Mackaness, G. B. 1971. Resistance to intracellular infection. J. Infect. Dis.123:439-445.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    Mackaness, G. B. 1977. Cellular immunity and the parasite. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol.93:65-73.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Messick, J. B., and Y. Rikihisa. 1994. Inhibition of binding, entry, or intracellular proliferation of Erhlichia risticii in P388D1 cells by anti-E. risticii serum, immunoglobulin G, or Fab fragment. Infect. Immun.62:3156-3161.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    Mukherjee, J., G. Nussbaum, M. D. Scharff, and A. Casadevall. 1995. Protective and non-protective monoclonal antibodies to Cryptococcus neoformans originating from one B-cell. J. Exp. Med.181:405-409.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    Mukherjee, J., M. D. Scharff, and A. Casadevall. 1992. Protective murine monoclonal antibodies to Cryptococcus neoformans. Infect. Immun.60:4534-4541.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    Mukherjee, J., M. D. Scharff, and A. Casadevall. 1995. Variable efficacy of passive antibody administration against diverse Cryptococcus neoformans strains. Infect. Immun.63:3353-3359.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.
    Pal, S., I. Theodor, E. M. Peterson, and L. de la Maza. 1997. Monoclonal immunoglobulin A antibody the major outer membrane protein of the Chlamydia trachomatis mouse pneumonitis biovar protects mice against a chlamydial genital challenge. Vaccine15:575-582.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Parish, C. R. 1972. The relationship between humoral and cell-mediated immunity. Transplant. Rev.13:35-66.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.
    Peterson, E. M., X. Cheng, V. L. Motin, and L. de la Maza. 1997. Effect of immunoglobulin G isotype on the infectivity of Chlamydia trachomatis in a mouse model of intravaginal infection. Infect. Immun.65:2693-2699.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.
    Pethe, K., S. Alonso, F. Biet, G. Delogu, M. J. Brennan, and F. D. Menozzi. 2001. The heparin-binding haemagglutinin of M. tuberculosis is required for extrapulmonary dissemination. Nature412:190-194.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.
    Phalipon, A., M. Kaufmann, P. Michetti, J. Cavaillon, M. Huerre, P. Sansonetti, and J. Kraehenbuhl. 1995. Monoclonal immunoglobulin A antibody directed against serotype-specific epitope of Shigella flexneri lipopolysaccharide protects against murine experimental shigellosis. J. Exp. Med.182:769-778.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    Pirofski, L. 2001. Polysaccharides, mimotopes and vaccines for fungal and encapsulated pathogens. Trends Microbiol.9:445-451.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. 40.↵
    Sanford, J. E., D. M. Lupan, A. M. Schlagetter, and T. R. Kozel. 1990. Passive immunization against Cryptococcus neoformans with an isotype-switch family of monoclonal antibodies reactive with cryptococcal polysaccharide. Infect. Immun.58:1919-1923.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.
    Sayles, P. C., G. W. Gibson, and L. L. Johnson. 2000. B cells are essential for vaccination-induced resistance to virulent Toxoplasma gondii. Infect. Immun.68:1026-1033.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    Silverstein, A. M. 1979. History of immunology. Cellular versus humoral immunity: determinants and consequences of an epic 19th century battle. Cell. Immunol.48:208-221.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    Taborda, C. P., and A. Casadevall. 2001. Immunoglobulin M efficacy against Cryptococcus neoformans: mechanism, dose dependence and prozone-like effects in passive protection experiments. J. Immunol.66:2100-2107.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    Taborda, C. P., J. Rivera, O. Zaragoza, and A. Casadevall. 2003. More is not necessarily better: prozone-like effects in passive immunization with immunoglobulin G. J. Immunol.170:3621-3630.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    Teitelbaum, R., A. Glatman-Freedman, B. Chen, J. B. Robbins, E. R. Unanue, A. Casadevall, and B. R. Bloom. 1998. A monoclonal antibody recognizing a surface antigen of Mycobacterium tuberculosis enhances host survival. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA95:15688-15693.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.
    Usinger, W. R., and A. H. Lucas. 1999. Avidity as a determinant of the protective efficacy of human antibodies to pneumococcal capsular polysaccharides. Infect. Immun.67:2366-2370.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    Winslow, G. M., E. Yager, K. Shilo, E. Volk, A. Reilly, and F. K. Chu. 2000. Antibody-mediated elimination of the obligate intracellular bacterial pathogen Erhlichia chaffeensis during active infection. Infect. Immun.68:2187-2195.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    Yuan, R., A. Casadevall, J. Oh, and M. D. Scharff. 1997. T cells cooperate with passive antibody to modify Cryptococcus neoformans infection in mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA94:2483-2488.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    Yuan, R., A. Casadevall, G. Spira, and M. D. Scharff. 1995. Isotype switching from IgG3 to IgG1 converts a non-protective murine antibody to C. neoformans into a protective antibody. J. Immunol.154:1810-1816.
    OpenUrlAbstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Antibody-Mediated Immunity against Intracellular Pathogens: Two-Dimensional Thinking Comes Full Circle
Arturo Casadevall
Infection and Immunity Jul 2003, 71 (8) 4225-4228; DOI: 10.1128/IAI.71.8.4225-4228.2003

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Infection and Immunity article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Antibody-Mediated Immunity against Intracellular Pathogens: Two-Dimensional Thinking Comes Full Circle
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Infection and Immunity
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Infection and Immunity.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Antibody-Mediated Immunity against Intracellular Pathogens: Two-Dimensional Thinking Comes Full Circle
Arturo Casadevall
Infection and Immunity Jul 2003, 71 (8) 4225-4228; DOI: 10.1128/IAI.71.8.4225-4228.2003
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • DECONSTRUCTING A PARADIGM
    • INTERPRETATION OF NEGATIVE RESULTS
    • LESSON FROM ERHLICHIA CHAFFEENSIS
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

antibodies
infection

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About IAI
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #IAIjournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0019-9567; Online ISSN: 1098-5522