Page 1 of 1

Immune response to Bb - 1989

Posted: Wed 25 Mar 2009 19:18
by Joe Ham
Rev Infect Dis. 1989 Sep-Oct;11 Suppl 6:S1494-8.
Immunologic aspects of Lyme borreliosis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2682961

Dattwyler RJ, Volkman DJ, Luft BJ.
Department of Medicine, State University of New York School of Medicine, Stony Brook 11724-8161.

Immune responses to Borrelia burgdorferi infection are now well characterized. Following infection there is an early T cell response and a more slowly evolving B cell response. IgM antibodies appear first and are followed by IgG and IgA.

Early antibodies are primarily against a 41-kilodalton flagellum-associated antigen; responses to other spirochetal antigens develop later.

Serologic assays that use whole B. burgdorferi preparations are not always able to detect an early rise in antibodies above a background of crossreactive antibodies present in most uninfected individuals.

Moreover, some individuals with neurologic involvement who lack diagnostic levels of serum antibody to B. burgdorferi have high levels of the antibody in their cerebrospinal fluid.

Specific T cell blastogenesis to B. burgdorferi can further document infection. Analysis of T cell subsets in Lyme arthritis demonstrates a marked decrease in the CD4+2H4+ subpopulation in the synovial fluid, although normal numbers of these cells are present in peripheral blood. Immunologic measurements are useful in evaluating and treating a wide array of patients who may be infected with B. burgdorferi.

Re: Immune response to Bb - 1989

Posted: Wed 25 Mar 2009 22:36
by Fin24
Early antibodies are primarily against a 41-kilodalton flagellum-associated antigen
isnt this the band CDC and other ducs claim have to be ignored?? too nonspecific??

and happens to be that we have normally occurring mouth flora of spirochetal species that will cause 41-kd bands reaction!!**

**http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html

and

**http://books.google.com/books?id=5U974B ... &ct=result

hey Porky this time you aint catching me missing a citation ;)


they conclude
Immunologic measurements are useful in evaluating and treating a wide array of patients who may be infected with B. burgdorferi.
despite all of their admitted problems??: spinal fluid has markers the blood wont, joint fluid may have markers the blood and/or the CSF wont...are they suggesting that the poor pt have all fluids pulled from all possible sources?? and which Insurance company will pay for a head to toe analysis of CSF, skin biopsy, joint fluid, blood, urine, CT biopsy etc series of exams??


btw THIS study is still cited as the reason why Lyme etal remains " easily diagnosed"---ignoring the actual meanings within and deficiencies as well as the glaring lack of quantification ( percent of those with Lyme arthritis actually having joint fluid detection of antibodies; percent of those with CSF seropositivity vs seronegativity and yet still infected etc)

Re: Immune response to Bb - 1989

Posted: Thu 26 Mar 2009 1:36
by Joe Ham
I believe band 41 is specific for the order Spirochetales, so it's presence may exclude possible cross reactors that are not a member of that order.

****hey Porky this time you aint catching me missing a citation ;)****
The links are not clickable because you put the cutsey stars in front of them. You can check to see if a link works by using the 'Preview' function.
Neither contains any info about Treponema denticola.

I found a different paragraph more interesting:
"Serologic assays that use whole B. burgdorferi preparations are not always able to detect an early rise in antibodies above a background of crossreactive antibodies present in most uninfected individuals."

Define uninfected. How was that proved?

Re: Immune response to Bb - 1989

Posted: Thu 26 Mar 2009 4:10
by Fin24
The links are not clickable because you put the cutsey stars in front of them
did not know that...my bad

you found them I assume by copy pasting urls anyway?? no harm/foul then

there are many species of oral spirochetes so they dont have to mention the T.denticola they say that spirochetes are part of the naturally occurring flora...period and thats all I meant to or had to state.

the order is large so saying that band 41 is specific to it is pretty generalized and not diagnostic--if you can have normal non pathogenic spirochetes setting it off then you cant use it to diganose pathogenic infection by another type of chete

as for their proof of UNINFECTION--cant you disprove a negative?? C'Mon dont you have your IDSA magic pink glitter wand and mantra " I must beleieve" imprinted upon it?? FAITH proves all ;)

Re: Immune response to Bb - 1989

Posted: Thu 26 Mar 2009 16:40
by Joe Ham
the order is large so saying that band 41 is specific to it is pretty generalized and not diagnostic
I didn't say that band 41 is specific for Bb -- quite the opposite, that it is only indicative that the sample in question is a member of that order. See a text on Taxonomy. A first qualifier, a first baby step along the foggy path of medical diagnosis. However it is accepted as as one of the cluster of bands for surveillance standards by CDC. As one of the three bands on IgM and one of the 10 bands on IgG.

Or are you saying that some members of the order Spirochetales do not have flagella and therefore do not show band 41? A reference would be nice. But it's a small point, perhaps of only academic interest because that still leaves band 41 as an indicator of spirochete and flagella which is what we want to know for diagnostic purposes.

Dattwyler implies that it is the first band to show up in the acute stage. It also seems to be fairly robust; I haven't noticed any WB reports on the Lyme boards that did not include band 41. Maybe you have and can point to them.

And by my experience the most robust band. A local duc ran a WB thru Lab Corp without telling me when I was three weeks into a course of Mino. It showed only band 41. He did not follow up with VDRL or RPR tests. He was intent on disproving Lyme. He believes that he himself has a relapsing / remitting variety of fibromyalgia. No, I didn't say anything.
there are many species of oral spirochetes so they dont have to mention the T.denticola they say that spirochetes are part of the naturally occurring flora...
Maybe, but it is by far the most common and most often mentioned example in the literature that I have seen. It is considered commensal (non-pathogenic). But I didn't see mention of any oral spirochetes in the reference you gave. Did I miss it?
Can it be found in the blood? except maybe by mechanical transfer, for example following tooth extraction. And in that situation can it persist in the blood?
as for their proof of UNINFECTION--cant you disprove a negative??
That was my point. Can you say "selection bias"?
See the long threads on this site about Asymptomatic Lyme and Seronegative Lyme. Then consider the implications.

Re: Immune response to Bb - 1989

Posted: Thu 26 Mar 2009 16:43
by Joe Ham
the order is large so saying that band 41 is specific to it is pretty generalized and not diagnostic
I didn't say that band 41 is specific for Bb -- quite the opposite, that it is only indicative that the sample in question is a member of that order. See a text on Taxonomy. A first qualifier, a first baby step along the foggy path of medical diagnosis. However it is accepted as as one of the cluster of bands for surveillance standards by CDC. As one of the three bands on IgM and one of the 10 bands on IgG.

Or are you saying that some members of the order Spirochetales do not have flagella and therefore do not show band 41? A reference would be nice. But it's a small point, perhaps of only academic interest because that still leaves band 41 as an indicator of spirochete and flagella which is what we want to know for diagnostic purposes.

Dattwyler implies that it is the first band to show up in the acute stage. It also seems to be fairly robust; I haven't noticed any WB reports on the Lyme boards that did not include band 41. Maybe you have and can point to them.

And by my experience the most robust band. A local duc ran a WB thru Lab Corp without telling me when I was three weeks into a course of Mino. It showed only band 41. He did not follow up with VDRL or RPR tests. He was intent on disproving Lyme. He believes that he himself has a relapsing / remitting variety of fibromyalgia. No, I didn't say anything.
there are many species of oral spirochetes so they dont have to mention the T.denticola they say that spirochetes are part of the naturally occurring flora...
Maybe, but it is by far the most common and most often mentioned example in the literature that I have seen. It is considered commensal (non-pathogenic). But I didn't see mention of any oral spirochetes in the reference you gave. Did I miss it?
Can it be found in the blood? except maybe by mechanical transfer, for example following tooth extraction. And in that situation can it persist in the blood?
as for their proof of UNINFECTION--cant you disprove a negative??
That was my point. Can you say "selection bias"?
See the long threads on this site about Asymptomatic Lyme and Seronegative Lyme. Then consider the implications.

Re: Immune response to Bb - 1989

Posted: Thu 26 Mar 2009 20:25
by Fin24
Dattwyler implies that it is the first band to show up in the acute stage. It also seems to be fairly robust
I try to NOT read into implications with studies
Early antibodies are primarily against a 41-kilodalton flagellum-associated antigen; responses to other spirochetal antigens develop later
all he says/shows is " OF the earliest responses the 41 band is the one he saw "primarily" NO where does it say it is or has to be the most ROBUST--simply that it IS there and early and in higher frequencies than other bands

He also does NOT say or imply its the "first" --all you can IMPLY is that it is AMONG the first--a very important distinction
Or are you saying that some members of the order Spirochetales do not have flagella and therefore do not show band 41
I said nothing of the sort and in fact IMPLIED quite the opposite by stating
saying that band 41 is specific to it is pretty generalized and not diagnostic--if you can have normal non pathogenic spirochetes setting it off then you cant use it to diganose pathogenic infection by another type of chete
meaning- EVEN normal flora will have the band 41 and the word " generalized" means able to be applied across the board--encompassing genera, orders, or the largest taxonomic category speaking about

by the way there MAY be ( and Im not bothering to do the work--you can if you like) a common protein and therefore cross reactivity to ALL flagella and therefore the 41kd band may be even more generalized to all " flagellated" organisms!!! making it even LESS diagnostic and goes beyond the bounds of spiro's
That was my point. Can you say "selection bias"?
See the long threads on this site about Asymptomatic Lyme and Seronegative Lyme. Then consider the implications.
even when I AGREE with you , youre contentious...amazing and Im well aware of the implications as proven by MY comment that the paper is STILL being used today
btw THIS study is still cited as the reason why Lyme etal remains " easily diagnosed"---ignoring the actual meanings within and deficiencies as well as the glaring lack of quantification ( percent of those with Lyme arthritis actually having joint fluid detection of antibodies; percent of those with CSF seropositivity vs seronegativity and yet still infected etc)

Re: Immune response to Bb - 1989

Posted: Thu 26 Mar 2009 20:49
by Fin24
describing spirochetes
These axial filaments, ultrastructurally similar to bacterial flagella, are attached to the cell poles and wrapped around the protoplasmic cylinder, which consists of the cytoplasmic and nuclear regions. The flagella and the protoplasmic cylinder are surrounded by a multilayered membrane called the outer sheath or outer cell envelope
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1352290
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 January; 72(1): 392–397.
doi: 10.1128/AEM.72.1.392-397.2006. PMCID: PMC1352290

Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology
Spirochaeta coccoides sp. nov., a Novel Coccoid Spirochete from the Hindgut of the Termite Neotermes castaneus †
Stefan Dröge,1 Jürgen Fröhlich,1 Renate Radek,2 and Helmut König1

ULTRA structurally similar is a safe bet on it being VERY similar
and since all flagella have eerily similar structure and proteins across kingdoms as well as across smaller groups like orders, genus etc Im GUESSING the axial filaments will be similar as well

here is something interesting re Treponema p. ( syphilis)
http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.b ... a_pallidum
1987: Cockayne A; Bailey M J; Penn C W
Analysis of sheath and core structures of the axial filament of Treponema pallidum.
Journal of general microbiology 1987;133(6):1397-407.

Electron microscopy and SDS-PAGE have been used to analyse the polypeptide and antigenic composition of the sheath and core components of the axial filament of Treponema pallidum. The sheath contains a major 37 kDa polypeptide which was solubilized by a combination of trypsin and urea treatments with concurrent loss of binding of anti-37 kDa monoclonal antibody. These studies also indicated some antigenic heterogeneity within the axial filament population. Trypsin treatment alone removed a number of antigenic determinants from the axial filament but left others intact, suggesting differences in their location within the sheath structure. A second 31.5 kDa polypeptide may also be associated with the sheath. The axial filament core comprises at least two components, an antigenically dominant 33.5 kDa polypeptide and a second of 34 kDa. The structure of the axial filament in T. pallidum and Treponema phagedenis biotype Reiterii was similar, but antigenic cross-reactivity of sheath and core components was incomplete.
Hey Joe--compare these T.p. bands of the axial filament (flag) with bands used in Lyme
37 kda
31.5 kda
33.5 kda
34kda

I suspect theyll turn out to be corss reactive and yet another reason why the CDC limitations and strictures are faulty...and dont we have here somewhere the wider ranges of bands by Igenex and other labs typifying Borrelia??


But I didn't see mention of any oral spirochetes in the reference you gave
http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html

has a LARGE CHART of bacterial species, types and where found
across the top plain as day " pharynx, mouth, nose, skin, GI etc etc"

I think the ones listed under MOUTH would qualify ;)