JCP

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lyons, J M
Right arrow Articles by Morré, S A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lyons, J M
Right arrow Articles by Morré, S A
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
*Substance via MeSH
Journal of Clinical Pathology 2005;58:397-401
© 2005 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Association of Clinical Pathologists


ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Differences in growth characteristics and elementary body associated cytotoxicity between Chlamydia trachomatis oculogenital serovars D and H and Chlamydia muridarum

J M Lyons1, J I Ito, Jr1, A S Peña2, S A Morré2

1 Department of Infectious Diseases, City of Hope National Medical Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, California 91010, USA
2 Laboratory of Immunogenetics, Section of Immunogenetics of Infectious Diseases, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam 1081 BT, The Netherlands

Correspondence to:
Dr J M Lyons
Department of Infectious Diseases, City of Hope National Medical Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, California 91010, USA; jlyons{at}coh.org Aim: In vitro growth and elementary body (EB) associated cytotoxicity of two Chlamydia trachomatis strains belonging to serovars D and H and C muridarum were compared to identify difference(s) that correlate with virulence variations between these strains in the mouse model of human female genital tract infection, and phenotypic characteristics that could explain human epidemiological data on serovar prevalence and levels of shedding during serovar D and H infection.

Methods: Replication cycle kinetics, inclusion characteristics, and EB associated cytotoxicity were assessed in McCoy cell monolayers using culture, light microscopy, and lactate dehydrogenase release.

Results: Over 72 hours, more rapid production and release of inclusion forming units (ifu) allowed C muridarum to initiate two replication rounds, resulting in 4–8 times more ifu/input unit of infection than with serovars D and H. Although C muridarum EBs were significantly more cytotoxic to McCoy cell monolayers than serovar D at moderate and high multiplicity of infection ratios (MOI), serovar H EBs were significantly more cytotoxic than C muridarum, even at the lowest MOI tested.

Conclusions: These phenotypic differences are consistent with the more invasive course and severe pathological outcome of infection in mice infected with C muridarum, providing an objective basis for questioning the appropriateness of C muridarum as a surrogate for the human biovar of C trachomatis in the murine model of female genital tract infection. The differences seen between the human strains could help explain human epidemiological data relating to differences in prevalence and level of shedding that occurs during infection with oculogenital serovars D and H.


Abbreviations: EB, elementary body; ifu, inclusion forming units; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; MOI, multiplicity of infection; SP, sucrose phosphate transport medium

Keywords: Chlamydia muridarum; Chlamydia trachomatis; elementary body cytotoxicity; growth characteristics; serovar comparison




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Med MicrobiolHome page
N. Al-Mously and A. Eley
Interaction of Chlamydia trachomatis serovar E with male genital tract epithelium results in secretion of proinflammatory cytokines
J. Med. Microbiol., August 1, 2007; 56(8): 1025 - 1032.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Journal of Clinical Pathology Molecular Pathology
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2005 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Association of Clinical Pathologists.