MODIFICATION OF HOST RESPONSES TO BACTERIAL ENDOTOXINS

Abstract

Evidence is presented suggesting that the apparent non-specificity of pyrogenic tolerance observed with Gram-negative bacterial endotoxins is due to related antigenic determinants associated with the macromolecular toxins. This is based on results obtained in rabbits from pyrogenic cross-tolerance tests with selected endotoxins. In these tests, purified endotoxins from Escherichia coli (COO8) and Chromobacterium violaceum (CV) gave results one might expect with non-reciprocal cross-reacting antigens in classical immune systems. Additional evidence for an immune mechanism in tolerance is suggested by the highly significant anamnestic response observed. Lipid A, a toxic derivative of the purified COO8 endotoxin, failed to induce pyrogenic tolerance against the parent toxin. These results are explained by assuming that endotoxins have two interdependent activities associated with different portions of the macromolecule; one is assumed to be responsible for the primary toxicity, and the other is involved in secondary toxicity. The latter is dependent on the hypersensitive state of the host. Additional evidence for the role of hypersensitivity in secondary toxicity is based on the observation that adult rabbits are highly sensitive to the pyrogenic, lethal, and skin-reacting activities of endotoxin in contrast to young animals which are more resistant to all of these attributes of toxicity. In adults, the host responses to pyrogenicity, lethality, and skin reactivity could be partially inhibited by the early exposure of the animals to massive doses of endotoxin equivalent to a LD50. The pyrogenic tolerance shown in these animals was specific indicating that the inhibition of the hypersusceptibility to endotoxin involved an immunological mechanism. A mechanism of endotoxin tolerance is proposed and discussed based on the induction of specific antibodies capable of assisting the RES in the clearance and destruction of endotoxin. It is suggested that the present inconsistencies relative to the chemical nature and biological activities of endotoxins might be explained on the basis of these two activities and the failure to recognize the importance of the immunological state of the host in which the toxins are tested.