I have read with interest James C. Hurley’s very good review []. I totally agree that a reappraisal of the use of anti-endotoxin antibodies in Gram negative infections is warranted. In a study [] we showed the possible association between endotoxin (LPS) and morbidity and mortality in septic shock. This was a study in healthy primates (vervet monkeys). We found, when these anesthetized primates received an LD100 iv infusion of Echerichia coli (E. coli) over one hour, both E. coli and endotoxin concentration significantly increased during the E. coli infusion. The anti-endotoxin (anti-LPS) on the other hand decreased significantly. Interestingly, when the animals succumbed, their LPS concentration was still raised, but there were no viable E. coli. There was also only a small amount of anti-LPS present. Hence, endotoxin concentration rather than circulating E. coli bacteria may be an important pathogen responsible for the high mortality experienced during E. coli shock. This is in agreement with Spink et al. [] and now Hurley [] who suggested that endotoxin which forms an integral part of the outer cellular membrane of gram negative bacteria (GNB) participates in the genesis of shock.
In our review [] and some of the other papers we published in this field [,,,,], we refer to successful preliminary studies using anti-lipopolysaccharide IgG (anti-LPS). The anti-LPS both present prior to the insult or given after the insult, would seem to inactivate plasma endotoxins and combat Gram-negative bacteria in sepsis. Thereby, as Hurley [] suggests, may form part of a possible new form of therapy.
The question that needs to be addressed is: how best to accomplice this? What part of the endotoxin should be attacked, the O-specific chain or the smaller Lipid-A, or even, if possible, both?
Conflicts of Interests
The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
- Hurley, J.C. Towards Clinical applications of anti-endotoxin antibodies; A re-appraisal of the disconnect. Toxins 2013, 5, 2589–2620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wessels, B.C.; Wells, M.T.; Gaffin, S.L.; Brock-Utne, J.G.; Gathiram, P.; Hinshaw, L.B. Plasma endotoxin concentration in healthy primates and during E. coli-induced shock. Crit. Care Med. 1998, 16, 601–605. [Google Scholar]
- Spink, W.; Braude, A.I.; Castaneda, M.R. Aureomycin therapy in human brucellosis due to Brucella melitensis. JAMA 1948, 138, 1145–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brock-Utne, J.G.; Gaffin, S.L. Endotoxins and anti-endotoxins. (Their relevance to the anaesthetist and the intensive care specialist). Anaesth. Intens. Care 1989, 17, 49–55. [Google Scholar]
- Wells, M.T.; Gaffin, S.L.; Wessels, B.C.; Brock-Utne, J.G.; Jordaan, J.P.; Van den Ende, J. Anti-LPS antibodies reduce endotoxemia in whole body 60 Co irradiated primates. A preliminary report. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1990, 61, 802–806. [Google Scholar]
- Brock-Utne, J.G.; Gaffin, S.L.; Wells, M.T.; Gathiram, P.; Sohar, E.; James, M.F.; Morrell, D.F.; Norman, R.J. Endotoxaemia in exhausted runners following a long distance race. (Comrades Marathon 1986). S. Afr. Med. J. 1988, 73, 533–536. [Google Scholar]
- Gathiram, P.; Wells, M.T.; Brock-Utne, J.G.; Gaffin, S.L. Anti-lipopolysaccharide improves survival in primates subjected to heat stroke. Circ. Shock 1987, 23, 157–164. [Google Scholar]
- Gathiram, P.; Gaffin, S.L.; Wells, M.T.; Brock-Utne, J.G. Superior mesenteric artery occlusion shock in catrs. Modification of the endotoxemia by anti-lipopolysaccharide antibodies (Anti-LPS). Circ. Shock 1986, 19, 231–237. [Google Scholar]
- Gaffin, S.L.; Brock-Utne, J.G.; Zanotti, A.; Wells, M.T. Hypoxia induced endotoxemia in primates. Role of RES function and anti-lipopolysaccharide plasma. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1986, 57, 1044–1049. [Google Scholar]
© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).