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
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • 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 AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • 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
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • 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 AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Experimental Therapeutics

Immunotherapy Markedly Increases the Effectiveness of Antimicrobial Therapy for Treatment of Burkholderia pseudomallei Infection

Katie L. Propst, Ryan M. Troyer, Lisa M. Kellihan, Herbert P. Schweizer, Steven W. Dow
Katie L. Propst
Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Rocky Mountain Regional Center of Excellence for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Disease Research, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80523
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ryan M. Troyer
Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Rocky Mountain Regional Center of Excellence for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Disease Research, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80523
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lisa M. Kellihan
Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Rocky Mountain Regional Center of Excellence for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Disease Research, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80523
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Herbert P. Schweizer
Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Rocky Mountain Regional Center of Excellence for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Disease Research, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80523
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven W. Dow
Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Rocky Mountain Regional Center of Excellence for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Disease Research, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80523
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: sdow@colostate.edu
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01513-09
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Additional Files
  • FIG. 1.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 1.

    CLDC supernatants synergize with ceftazidime to inhibit the intracellular replication of B. pseudomallei. AMJ.2 macrophages were infected in triplicate wells with B. pseudomallei strain 1026b for 1 h and were then treated with ceftazidime and/or CLDC spleen supernatants, alone or in combination, for 24 h, as described in Materials and Methods. The concentrations of intracellular bacteria were quantitated by serial dilution plating of macrophage lysates. The effects of the CLDC supernatants at the dilutions indicated, alone or in combination with 10 μg/ml of ceftazidime, on the intracellular replication of B. pseudomallei were assessed. The mean bacterial concentrations in each treatment group were plotted, and bars represent means ± standard deviations. Synergistic interactions were assessed statistically by two-way ANOVA (***, P < 0.001). The data presented here are representative of those from two independent experiments.

  • FIG. 2.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 2.

    Synergistic inhibitory activity of CLDC-stimulated supernatants is mediated by IFN-γ. Macrophages were infected in triplicate wells in vitro with B. pseudomallei for 1 h and were then treated for 24 h with CLDC-stimulated spleen supernatants (1:5 dilution) alone or in combination with ceftazidime at 10 μg/ml. The CLDC supernatants were untreated or were treated with an IFN-γ-neutralizing antibody (Ab) or isotype control antibody for 30 min before they were added to the infected macrophages. The intracellular bacterial numbers were determined 24 h after infection, and the mean bacterial numbers (± standard deviations) were plotted. Assessments for synergistic interactions between ceftazidime and IFN-γ were performed statistically by two-way ANOVA (***, P < 0.001), as described previously (27). The data presented here are representative of those from two independent experiments.

  • FIG. 3.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 3.

    rIFN-γ and ceftazidime reciprocally increase inhibition of intracellular replication of B. pseudomalleiin vitro. Macrophages were infected in triplicate wells in vitro with B. pseudomallei for 1 h and were then treated with rIFN-γ and ceftazidime for 24 h, and the intracellular bacterial numbers were determined. (A) Decreasing concentrations of rIFN-γ were added to infected macrophages treated with 10 μg/ml of ceftazidime, and the effects on intracellular B. pseudomallei replication were assessed. For each treatment, the mean bacterial numbers were plotted, and the bars represent group means ± standard deviations. (B) Decreasing concentrations of ceftazidime (Ceft) were added to macrophages treated with a fixed concentration of rIFN-γ (100 U/ml), and the effects on intracellular B. pseudomallei replication were assessed. Synergistic interactions between ceftazidime and IFN-γ were assessed statistically by two-way ANOVA (***, P < 0.001), as described previously (27). The data presented here are representative of those from two independent experiments.

  • FIG. 4.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 4.

    Time course of intracellular B. pseudomallei replication and killing following treatment with IFN-γ and ceftazidime. Macrophages were infected in triplicate wells in vitro with B. pseudomallei for 1 h and were then treated with rIFN-γ (100 U/ml) or ceftazidime (10 μg/ml), or with both agents in combination, for the indicated times, and the intracellular bacterial numbers were determined. The mean bacterial concentrations (± standard deviations) in the individual treatment groups were compared over time by repeated-measures ANOVA with the Bonferroni posttests (***, P < 0.001 for the group treated with ceftazidime plus IFN-γ combined versus all other groups). Similar results were obtained in one additional experiment.

  • FIG. 5.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 5.

    Low-dose ceftazidime (Ceftaz.) plus CLDC immunotherapy effectively protects mice from acute and chronic infection with B. pseudomallei. (A) BALB/c mice (n = 10 mice per group) were challenged i.n. with 7.5 × 103 CFU of B. pseudomallei, as described in Materials and Methods. Six hours later the mice were treated i.p. with 25 mg/kg ceftazidime or 20 μl CLDC, or with both agents in combination. The ceftazidime treatments were continued every 12 h for a total of six treatments over 3 days, while CLDCs were administered only once. Short-term (20-day) survival times were assessed. (B) Mice (n = 10 per group) that initially survived the 20-day short-term period were followed for an additional 40 days to assess the effects of treatment on chronic infection. At the end of the 60-day observation period, any surviving animals were euthanized and their organs (lung, spleen, liver) were cultured for B. pseudomallei, as described in Materials and Methods. Survival times were assessed as described in Materials and Methods. Statistical differences in survival times were determined by the use of Kaplan-Meier curves, followed by the log-rank test. The Bonferroni corrected threshold was applied for comparison of multiple survival curves, such that a P value of <0.02 was considered significant for these analyses (***, P < 0.001 for combination therapy versus CLDC treatment and for combination therapy versus ceftazidime treatment). The survival curves represent pooled data from two independent experiments.

  • FIG. 6.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 6.

    Combined treatment with CLDCs and ceftazidime (Ceft.) significantly decreases the bacterial burden. BALB/c mice (n = 5 mice per group) were challenged i.n. with 8 × 103 CFU of B. pseudomallei. Six hours later the mice were treated i.p. with 25 mg/kg ceftazidime or 20 μl CLDC, or with both agents in combination. The ceftazidime treatments were continued every 12 h for a total of four treatments, and the CLDCs were administered once. The mice were euthanized 48 h after the bacterial challenge; and the bacterial burdens in the lungs (a), spleen (b), and liver (c) were quantified. Organ bacterial burdens between combination treatments and single-agent treatments were compared statistically by one-way ANOVA and the Tukey multiple-means-comparison test (***, P < 0.001; **, P < 0.01). Significant reductions (P < 0.01) in bacterial counts in the lungs, livers, and spleens of single-drug-treated animals compared with those in the organs of untreated control animals were also observed but are not noted here.

  • FIG. 7.
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIG. 7.

    Treatment with low-dose ceftazidime plus rIFN-γ protects mice from acute but not chronic B. pseudomallei infection. (A) BALB/c mice (n = 10 mice per group) were challenged with 7.5 × 103 CFU of B. pseudomallei administered by the i.n. route. Six hours later the mice were treated i.p. with 25 mg/kg ceftazidime (Ceftaz.) or 3 × 103 U rIFN-γ, or with both in combination. Ceftazidime treatments were continued every 12 h for a total of six treatments over 3 days. Treatment with rIFN-γ was administered twice, at 6 and 18 h postinfection. (B) Mice (n = 10 per group) that initially survived the 20-day short-term period were followed for an additional 40 days to assess the effects of the treatment on chronic infection. At the end of the 60-day observation period, any surviving animals were euthanized and their organs (lung, spleen, liver) were cultured for B. pseudomallei, as described in Materials and Methods. The survival times of the treated and the control mice were determined, and statistical differences in the survival times were determined by the use of Kaplan-Meier curves followed by the log-rank test. The Bonferroni corrected threshold was applied for comparison of multiple survival curves, such that a P value of <0.02 was considered significant for this analysis (***, P < 0.001 for combination therapy versus rIFN-γ treatment and for combination therapy versus ceftazidime treatment). The survival curves represent pooled data from two independent experiments.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Supplemental material

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental file 1 - Supplemental Figure 1, showing titration of ceftazidime for B. pseudomallei inhibition in vitro.
      Zipped TIF file, 43K.
    • Supplemental file 2 - Figure 2, control nonstimulated spleen supernatant does not synergize with ceftazidime.
      Zipped TIF file, 49K.
    • Supplemental file 3 - Legends for supplemental figures.
      MS Word document, 26K.
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Immunotherapy Markedly Increases the Effectiveness of Antimicrobial Therapy for Treatment of Burkholderia pseudomallei Infection
Katie L. Propst, Ryan M. Troyer, Lisa M. Kellihan, Herbert P. Schweizer, Steven W. Dow
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Apr 2010, 54 (5) 1785-1792; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01513-09

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 Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 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.
Immunotherapy Markedly Increases the Effectiveness of Antimicrobial Therapy for Treatment of Burkholderia pseudomallei Infection
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Immunotherapy Markedly Increases the Effectiveness of Antimicrobial Therapy for Treatment of Burkholderia pseudomallei Infection
Katie L. Propst, Ryan M. Troyer, Lisa M. Kellihan, Herbert P. Schweizer, Steven W. Dow
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Apr 2010, 54 (5) 1785-1792; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01513-09
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Anti-Bacterial Agents
Burkholderia pseudomallei
ceftazidime
Interferon-gamma
melioidosis

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

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

Authors

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

Follow #AACJournal

@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: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596