Cited by 243Fungal Infections and StudiesAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityBacterial Infections and Vaccines

Protection of mice against experimental cryptococcosis by anti-Cryptococcus neoformans monoclonal antibody

Open access
Dromer, F, Charreire, J, Contrepois, A, Carbon, C, Yeni, P·1987·Infection and Immunity

Abstract

Humoral immunity does not play a prominent role during experimental cryptococcosis. However, previous studies have shown that immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-Cryptococcus neoformans antibodies can mediate cell-dependent yeast killing in vitro. Therefore, the protective effect of a previously described monoclonal IgG1 anti-C. neoformans antibody (E1) administered intraperitoneally 24 h before intravenous infection with a C. neoformans serotype A strain was evaluated in mice. Heavily infected (3 X 10(6) cells) untreated mice died in 2.9 +/- 0.5 (standard deviation) days. Survival time was 17.9 +/- 1.6 days for mice treated with 100 micrograms of E1 and 3.0 +/- 0.7 days for mice treated with 100 micrograms of a monoclonal IgG1 anti-thyroglobulin antibody used as a control. Protection was dose dependent and required at least 10 micrograms of E1 (mean antibody concentration in serum +/- standard deviation, 6.6 +/- 2.3 micrograms/ml). Insufficient concentrations of IgG anti-C. neoformans antibody could explain previous negative results obtained with polyclonal immune serum. After infection with a smaller inoculum (5 X 10(3) to 5 X 10(4)), the protective effect of E1 was confirmed by the presence of fewer CFUs in the spleens and brains of treated mice than in those of controls. CFU were still detected in the brains of protected mice 5 days after infection, although soluble antigen was negative in sera. These results suggest that passive serotherapy with monoclonal IgG antibodies could participate in the prevention or treatment of experimental cryptococcosis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/iai.55.3.749-752.1987

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A monoclonal antibody specific for the C. neoformans polysaccharide capsule was protective against cryptococcal infection in mice.

    “In addition to cell-mediated immunity, pioneering work established that a monoclonal antibody specific for the C. neoformans polysaccharide capsule was protective against cryptococcal infection in mice126,127.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 26 · Cited by 243

Authors
Dromer, F., Charreire, J., Contrepois, A., Carbon, C., & Yeni, P.
Venue
Infection and Immunity
Published
1987-03
Volume
55
Issue
3
Pages
749-752
ISSN
  • 0019-9567 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5522
OpenAlex
W2114512296
Cited by
243
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 10
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Infection and Immunity (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Fungal Infections and Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Bacterial Infections and Vaccines
Keywords
cryptococcosis, Cryptococcus neoformans, monoclonal antibodies, passive immunization, IgG1, humoral immunity, survival protection, dose dependence, serotype A
MeSH terms
Animals, Antibodies, Fungal, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Antigens, Fungal, Brain, Cryptococcosis, Cryptococcus neoformans, Immunoglobulin G, Immunization, Passive, Male, Mice, Inbred DBA, Spleen, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review