Infection and immunization of mice with Pseudomonas aeruginosa antigens

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/08/2019
Views (190) Download (7)


The aim of this is preparation of different antigens, we prepare these types of antigens to compare which one is the best for uses in future in another animals (broken antigen, floating antigen, double antigen, dissolved antigen, killed antigen) from the Pseudomonas Aeruginosa to Immunize mice and measure the humoral and cellular immune response in immunized and control mice. Finally note the clinical symptoms and conduct the bacterial isolation of the internal organs. (95) Swiss laboratory white mice were taken from the National Center for Drug Control / Ministry of Health. First group: consisted of (15) animals prevented by a dose of (0.5) mL of the broken antigen subcutaneously, protein concentration is (4.7) mg / ml and the same dose was returned after (2) weeks. Second group contains (15) animals were treated as in the first group, but the use of floating antigen. Third group have (15) animals were injected with (0.5) ml of the subcutaneous antigen and after one week were treated as in the fourth group with the floating antigen and dissolved antigen (the double antigen). Fourth group consist from (15) animals treated as in the first group but using the dissolved antigen. Fifth group it includes (15) animals treated as in the first group, but using the killed germ antigen. Six group includes (10) animals as a positive control. Seven group contain (10) animals as a negative control. After that all mice have Delayed type hypersensitivity test and Humoral immune response (indirect blood test). I advice to do a study on use of a combination of  floating antigen and broken antigen to immunize the laboratory animals after exposure to burns contaminated with vesicles.


Jawetz E, Melnick JL, Adeberg EA. 1987. In Medical Microbiology. Appleton and 17th ed auge, Norwalk connec ticut. Los. Atlos. California, p 247-250.

Govan JR. 1997. Pseudomonas and non-fermenter. In : Medical Microbiology, By: Greenwood, D.; Slack, R. and Peutherer, J., 15th Ed. Vol.1, Cjurchill Livivg Stone, New York, p 413-422.

Quinn PJB, Carter ME, Markey PK, Carter JR. (2006). Clinical veterinary microbiology. London Mosby-Wolf., P 284-286.

Knight MPE, Hartman ZH, Young VM. 1979. A new method of preparation of pyocinin and demonstration of unusual bacterial sensitivity. Analytical Biochemistry 95, 19-23.

Hiallibarton BL, Blazkovec AA. 1975. Delayed hypersensitivity and acquired cellular resistance in guinea pigs infected with Listeria monocytogenes. Infect. Immun. 11, 1-7.

Ohta V, Saeki K, Yoneyema F, Tuzuka M, Yagoi Y. 1983. Immunomodulating activity of thymisin fruction-5 and Thymosine α-1 in immunosuppressed mice. Cancer Immunol. Immunother 15, 108-113.

Herbert WJ. 1978. Passive haemagglutination with special reference to the tanned cell technique In: “Handbook of Experimental Immunology”. (Weir. P.M.). 2nd ed. 3, 20.1-20.20, Blackwell Scientific.

Dannenberg A. 1968. Cellular hypersensitivity and Cellular immunity in the pathogenesis of tuberculosis: specifically systemic and local nature and associated macrophages enzymes. Bacteriological  Reviews. 32, 85-102.

Tizard L. 1982. An introduction to veterinary immunology 2nd (ed.) W. B. saunders. Co. Canada. p 300.

Gregory PP, Bringing MM, Hatano K, Coleman FT, Pier GB, Goldberg JB. 2002. Constructional characterization of a live, attenuated aro A delenom mutant of Pseudomonas aeruginosa as a caudicate intranasal vaccine. Infect. Immun 70, 1507-1517.

Gocke K, Baumann U, Hagemann H, Gabelsberger J, Hahn H, Freihorst J, Von Specht BU. 2003. Mucosal vaccination with a recombinant Oprf-I vaccine of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in healthy volunteers: comparison of a systemic vs. a mucosal booster schedule. FEMS. Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 37, 167-171.