BACKGROUND: Reinfection, a common occurrence with gonorrhea, may result from a lack of protective immune response, or from the tremendous gonococcal strain variation. GOAL: A two-phase study in human volunteers tested whether experimental infection with Neisseria gonorrhoeae MS11mkC would protect against reinfection with the same organisms. STUDY DESIGN: In phase 1, an intraurethral inoculum of 57,000 piliated, transparent (opacity protein-negative [Opa-]) MS11mkC N gonorrhoeae infected 14 of 15 (93%) volunteers. The volunteers were encouraged to delay treatment for at least 5 days. In phase 2, which began 2 weeks after treatment for the initial infection, volunteers were inoculated with 7,100 piliated, Opa- MS11mkC. RESULTS: The phase 2 challenge infected 6 of 14 (43%) previously infected volunteers and 5 of 10 (50%) naïve control subjects. Phase 1 volunteers who resisted reinfection were significantly more likely to have had a fourfold or greater increase in lipooligosaccharide immunoglobulin G during phase 1 than those who did not resist reinfection (P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Although infection did not provide protection from reinfection under the conditions used, the results suggest that immunity to reinfection is more complex than anticipated by the experimental design.
BACKGROUND: Reinfection, a common occurrence with gonorrhea, may result from a lack of protective immune response, or from the tremendous gonococcal strain variation. GOAL: A two-phase study in human volunteers tested whether experimental infection with Neisseria gonorrhoeae MS11mkC would protect against reinfection with the same organisms. STUDY DESIGN: In phase 1, an intraurethral inoculum of 57,000 piliated, transparent (opacity protein-negative [Opa-]) MS11mkC N gonorrhoeae infected 14 of 15 (93%) volunteers. The volunteers were encouraged to delay treatment for at least 5 days. In phase 2, which began 2 weeks after treatment for the initial infection, volunteers were inoculated with 7,100 piliated, Opa- MS11mkC. RESULTS: The phase 2 challenge infected 6 of 14 (43%) previously infected volunteers and 5 of 10 (50%) naïve control subjects. Phase 1 volunteers who resisted reinfection were significantly more likely to have had a fourfold or greater increase in lipooligosaccharide immunoglobulin G during phase 1 than those who did not resist reinfection (P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Although infection did not provide protection from reinfection under the conditions used, the results suggest that immunity to reinfection is more complex than anticipated by the experimental design.
Authors: Stanley M Spinola; Cliffton T H Bong; Andrew L Faber; Kate R Fortney; Stacy L Bennett; Carisa A Townsend; Beth E Zwickl; Steven D Billings; Tricia L Humphreys; Margaret E Bauer; Barry P Katz Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 3.441
Authors: Won Jong Kim; Dustin Higashi; Maira Goytia; Maria A Rendón; Michelle Pilligua-Lucas; Matthew Bronnimann; Jeanine A McLean; Joseph Duncan; David Trees; Ann E Jerse; Magdalene So Journal: Cell Host Microbe Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 21.023
Authors: Wenxia Song; Sara Condron; Brian T Mocca; Sandra J Veit; Dawn Hill; Asima Abbas; Ann E Jerse Journal: Vaccine Date: 2008-08-30 Impact factor: 3.641