This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Skinner, M. C.
Right arrow Articles by Lampe, M. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Skinner, M. C.
Right arrow Articles by Lampe, M. L.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 2009, p. 1482-1489, Vol. 53, No. 4
0066-4804/09/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AAC.01179-08
Copyright © 2009, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Chlamydia trachomatis Laboratory Strains versus Recent Clinical Isolates: Implications for Routine Microbicide Testing {triangledown}

M. C. Skinner,1 W. E. Stamm,2 and M. L. Lampe1,2*

Department of Laboratory Medicine,1 Division of Allergy and Infectious Disease, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington2

Received 4 September 2008/ Returned for modification 29 December 2008/ Accepted 22 January 2009

A topical microbicide that women can use to prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) is essential, and many microbicide candidates are being tested for activity against human immunodeficiency virus and other STDs, including Chlamydia trachomatis. Screening assays for assessing the activity of microbicides against C. trachomatis are typically done with laboratory-adapted strains, but it is possible that recent clinical isolates may have different susceptibilities to microbicides, as has been seen with Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Lactobacillus spp. (B. J. Moncla and S. L. Hillier, Sex. Transm. Dis. 32:491-494, 2005). We utilized three types of microbicides to help define this aspect of our assay to test microbicides against C. trachomatis in vitro. To simulate conditions of transmission, we used an assay that we previously developed in which we exposed chlamydial elementary bodies to microbicides prior to contact with epithelial cells. We first determined the toxicity of microbicides to the cells used to culture Chlamydia trachomatis in the assay and, if necessary, modified the assay to eliminate toxicity at the concentrations tested. We compared the sensitivities of recent clinical isolates of Chlamydia trachomatis versus laboratory strains of the same serovar and found major differences in sensitivity to nonoxynol-9 (non-9), but only minor differences were seen with the other microbicides. We thus conclude that when assessing activity of potential topical microbicides versus the obligate intracellular bacteria C. trachomatis, the use of recent clinical isolates may not be necessary to draw a conclusion about a microbicide's effectiveness. However, it is important to keep in mind that differences (like those seen with non-9) are possible and that clinical isolates could be included in later stages of testing.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Medicine, Division of Laboratory Medicine, Box 357110, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195. Phone: (206) 598-2135. Fax: (206) 598-6189. E-mail: lampe{at}u.washington.edu

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 2 February 2009.

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 2009, p. 1482-1489, Vol. 53, No. 4
0066-4804/09/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AAC.01179-08
Copyright © 2009, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.





Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»