Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Passive antibodies do not protect cats from Mycoplasma haemofelis
By Sugiarto, Sarah et al.·Published in Veterinary research·2016·Vetsuisse Faculty·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Passive immunization does not provide protection against experimental infection with Mycoplasma haemofelis.
- Species:
- cat
Plain-English summary
A group of cats that received antibody-rich plasma from other cats recovering from a blood infection (Mycoplasma haemofelis) were tested to see if it would protect them from getting sick. Unfortunately, the transfused cats still became infected and showed signs of illness, despite having a stronger immune response. They had higher levels of certain blood cells and proteins, but this did not stop the infection. The study concluded that simply giving antibodies from recovered cats does not prevent this specific infection in other cats.
People also search for: cat blood infection treatment · Mycoplasma haemofelis symptoms · cat immune response to infection
Abstract
Mycoplasma haemofelis (Mhf) is the most pathogenic feline hemotropic mycoplasma. Cats infected with Mhf that clear bacteremia are protected from Mhf reinfection, but the mechanisms of protective immunity are unresolved. In the present study we investigated whether the passive transfer of antibodies from Mhf-recovered cats to naïve recipient cats provided protection against bacteremia and clinical disease following homologous challenge with Mhf; moreover, we characterized the immune response in the recipient cats. Ten specified pathogen-free (SPF) cats were transfused with pooled plasma from cats that had cleared Mhf bacteremia; five control cats received plasma from naïve SPF cats. After homologous challenge with Mhf, cats were monitored for 100 days using quantitative PCR, hematology, blood biochemistry, Coombs testing, flow cytometry, DnaK ELISA, and red blood cell (RBC) osmotic fragility (OF) measurement. Passively immunized cats were not protected against Mhf infection but, compared to control cats, showed significantly higher RBC OF and B lymphocyte (CD45R/B220(+)) counts and occasionally higher lymphocyte, monocyte and activated CD4(+) T lymphocyte (CD4(+)CD25(+)) counts; they also showed higher bilirubin, total protein and globulin levels compared to those of control cats. At times of peak bacteremia, a decrease in eosinophils and lymphocytes, as well as subsets thereof (B lymphocytes and CD5(+), CD4(+) and CD8(+) T lymphocytes), and an increase in monocytes were particularly significant in the passively immunized cats. In conclusion, passive immunization does not prevent bacteremia and clinical disease following homologous challenge with Mhf, but enhances RBC osmotic fragility and induces a pronounced immune response.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27496124/