The Journal of Experimental Medicine
R&D Systems
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Services
Right arrow Email this article
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new content in the JEM
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hirst, G. K.
Right arrow Articles by Horsfall, F. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Hirst, G. K.
Right arrow Articles by Horsfall, F. L., Jr.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The Journal of Experimental Medicine, Vol 75, 495-511, Copyright, 1942, by The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research New York


ARTICLE

ANTIBODY RESPONSE OF HUMAN BEINGS FOLLOWING VACCINATION WITH INFLUENZA VIRUSES

G. K. Hirst M.D.1, E. R. Rickard M.D.1, Loring Whitman M.D.1, and F. L. Horsfall Jr. M.D.1

1 From the Laboratories of the International Health Division of The Rockefeller Foundation, New York

Eleven different preparations of influenza virus were used to vaccinate large groups of human beings. The antibody response to these vaccines was measured by means of the in vitro agglutination inhibition test, and the geometric mean titers of sera taken 2 weeks after vaccination were compared. From these comparisons the following conclusions were drawn:

1. There was a wide individual variation in the antibody response of human beings to the same preparation of influenza virus administrated subcutaneously. The amount of antibody produced by a group with a low prevaccination antibody level was very nearly the same as the amount produced by groups that had higher initial levels.

2. The use of the X strain of distemper virus in the preparation of an influenza vaccine did not enhance the antigenicity of the influenza virus present.

3. Within certain limits the mean antibody response of human beings increased as the amount of virus injected was increased. When large amounts of influenza A virus were given, the antibody response was of the same order of magnitude as that which occurred following actual infection by this virus.

4. When the vaccine was prepared from allantoic fluid, there was no significant difference in the antibody response of human beings given active virus, formalin-inactivated virus, heat-inactivated virus, or virus inactivated by the drying process.

5. Ground infected chick embryos, when diluted with infected allantoic fluid, gave a greater antibody response than allantoic fluid alone (when the virus remained active). The antigenicity of such a preparation was diminished when the virus was inactivated by formalin.

6. Antibody levels 6 and 9 weeks after vaccination showed a marked drop from the 2-week postvaccination levels. In a small group the antibody levels at 5 months were still further reduced. Those individuals who possessed the higher titers tended to lose their antibodies faster than did those at a lower level.

Submitted on February 11, 1942


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:



  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search
TABLE OF CONTENTS