Monoclonal antibodies to murine lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-binding protein (LBP) protect mice from lethal endotoxemia by blocking either the binding of LPS to LBP or the presentation of LPS/LBP complexes to CD14.

Cellular responses to LPS, the major lipid component of the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria, are enhanced markedly by the LPS-binding protein (LBP), a plasma protein that transfers LPS to the cell surface CD14 present on cells of the myeloid lineage. LBP has been shown previously to potentiate the host response to LPS. However, experiments performed in mice with a disruption of the LBP gene have yielded discordant results. Whereas one study showed that LBP knockout mice were resistant to endotoxemia, another study did not confirm an important role for LBP in the response of mice challenged in vivo with low doses of LPS. Consequently, we generated rat mAbs to murine LBP to investigate further the contribution of LBP in experimental endotoxemia. Three classes of mAbs were obtained. Class 1 mAbs blocked the binding of LPS to LBP; class 2 mAbs blocked the binding of LPS/LBP complexes to CD14; class 3 mAbs bound LBP but did not suppress LBP activity. In vivo, class 1 and class 2 mAbs suppressed LPS-induced TNF production and protected mice from lethal endotoxemia. These results show that the neutralization of LBP accomplished by blocking either the binding of LPS to LBP or the binding of LPS/LBP complexes to CD14 protects the host from LPS-induced toxicity, confirming that LBP is a critical component of innate immunity.

Correlation of wear in vivo and six laboratory wear methods.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the correlation between clinical wear rates of restorative materials and enamel (TRAC Research Foundation, Provo, USA) and the results of six laboratory test methods (ACTA, Alabama (generalized, localized), Ivoclar (vertical, volumetric), Munich, OHSU (abrasion, attrition), Zurich). METHODS: Individual clinical wear data were available from clinical trials that were conducted by TRAC Research Foundation (formerly CRA) together with general practitioners. For each of the n=28 materials (21 composite resins for intra-coronal restorations [20 direct and 1 indirect], 5 resin materials for crowns, 1 amalgam, enamel) a minimum of 30 restorations had been placed in posterior teeth, mainly molars. The recall intervals were up to 5 years with the majority of materials (n=27) being monitored, however, only for up to 2 years. For the laboratory data, the databases MEDLINE and IADR abstracts were searched for wear data on materials which were also clinically tested by TRAC Research Foundation. Only those data for which the same test parameters (e.g. number of cycles, loading force, type of antagonist) had been published were included in the study. A different quantity of data was available for each laboratory method: Ivoclar (n=22), Zurich (n=20), Alabama (n=17), OHSU and ACTA (n=12), Munich (n=7). The clinical results were summed up in an index and a linear mixed model was fitted to the log wear measurements including the following factors: material, time (0.5, 1, 2 and 3 years), tooth (premolar/molar) and gender (male/female) as fixed effects, and patient as random effect. Relative ranks were created for each material and method; the same was performed with the clinical results. RESULTS: The mean age of the subjects was 40 (±12) years. The materials had been mostly applied in molars (81%) and 95% of the intracoronal restorations were Class II restorations. The mean number of individual wear data per material was 25 (range 14-42). The mean coefficient of variation of clinical wear data was 53%. The only significant correlation was reached by OHSU (abrasion) with a Spearman r of 0.86 (p=0.001). Zurich, ACTA, Alabama generalized wear and Ivoclar (volume) had correlation coefficients between 0.3 and 0.4. For Zurich, Alabama generalized wear and Munich, the correlation coefficient improved if only composites for direct use were taken into consideration. The combination of different laboratory methods did not significantly improve the correlation. SIGNIFICANCE: The clinical wear of composite resins is mainly dependent on differences between patients and less on the differences between materials. Laboratory methods to test conventional resins for wear are therefore less important, especially since most of them do not reflect the clinical wear.