Tear and serum antibody response to Chlamydia trachomatis antigens during acute chlamydial conjunctivitis in monkeys as determined by immunoblotting

Abstract

In this study, we examined the temporal antibody response by immunoblotting analysis in tears and sera of three cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fasicularis) with primary acute Chlamydia trachomatis serovar B conjunctivitis. The objective was to identify chlamydial antigens stimulating antibody during the host responses in the course of this self-limiting infection with the rationale that they may be protective antigens. The major outer membrane protein (MOMP), lipopolysaccharide (LPS), and polypeptides of 60 and 68 kilodaltons (kDa) were the predominant antigens recognized by immunoglobulin A (IgA) in monkey tears. Tear IgA antibody specific for the MOMP was first detected 14 days postinfection, whereas tear IgA reactive with LPS or the 68- and 60-kDa polypeptides was first detectable on day 21. Tear IgA antibodies specific for each of these antigens persisted in tears through day 56, 4 weeks after both peak clinical disease and recovery of the organism from the conjunctivae. In contrast, tear IgG antibodies peaked at approximately 28 days postinfection, the time of maximal inflammatory response. The IgG response in monkey sera was similar to that observed for tear antibodies, in that the MOMP, 60-, and 68-kDa polypeptides were the primary immunogens. The exception was that IgG antibody against these antigens was detected 1 week later than that observed for tear IgA antibodies. Of three monkeys that responded with tear IgA antibody against LPS, one did not have detectable serum IgG LPS antibody. The specificity of the tear IgA antibody response of monkeys was determined by immunoblotting nine other C. trachomatis serovars in addition to the homologous B serovar. The tear IgA response to the MOMP was predominantly B complex subspecies-specific (serovars B, Ba, D, and E), whereas the response to chlamydial LPS was found to be species-specific. The significance of these observations in relation to previous vaccine studies in nonhuman primates is discussed.