HISTORICAL ARTICLE A Brief History of the Pneumococcus in Biomedical Research: A Panoply of Scientific Discovery David A. Wqatson, Daniel M. Musher, James W. Jacobson, and Jan Verhoef From the Veterans Afsairs Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine. and the University of Houston, Houston. Texas; and Academic Hospital Utrechl. Utrecht, The Netherlands Because of its prominence as a cause of disease in humans, Streptococcuspneumoniae has been the subject of intensive investigation at both the clinical level and the basic scientific level during the past century. In a number of instances, these studies have resulted in important progress toward the comprehension of basic biological principles. The areas advanced by studies of the pneumococcus include an understanding of the concept of pathogenesis of infectious disease; the development of Gram's stain for identification of bacteria in specimens from patients; the eluci- dation of the role of the bacterial capsule in resistance to phagocytosis by cells of the host's immune system; the demonstration that molecules other than proteins are capable of eliciting the host's humoral immune responses and later, by extension, that isolated bacterial exopolysacchar- ides can be used safely and effectively as vaccines in humans; the documentation of the efficacy of penicillin; the collection of conclusive evidence that DNA encodes genetic information; and the investigation of putative proteinaceous virulence factors. Data acquired during the course of clinical investigations can often provide the answers to basic biological questions if subjected to critical analysis by insightful researchers. Ample illustrations of this point are found in the abundant reports of investigations involving Streptococcus pneumoniae, an or- ganism of unquestioned clinical importance. Since a variety of recent reviews have focused on different aspects of pneu- mococcal research, we will not attempt an exhaustive sum- mary here; rather, we will direct the reader to detailed re- views where appropriate. In this review we will focus on the ways in which studies of this pathogen have been central to several of the most profoundly influential biological findings of the past 110 years. Description of the Organism and Demonstration of Its Virulence In 188 1 two microbiologists, George M. Sternberg in the United States and Louis Pasteur in France, independently described roughly lancet-shaped pairs of coccoid bacteria in Received 9 November 1992; revised 2 April 1993. Portions of this paper were included in the doctoral dissertation of D. A. W. Financial support: This work was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Reprints or correspondence: Dr. David A. Watson. Department of Veteri- nary and Microbiological Sciences, North Dakota State University, Van Es Hall, P.O. Box 5406, Fargo, North Dakota 58 105. Clinical Infectious Diseases 1993;17:913-24 0 1993 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. lO58-4838/93/1705-0058$02.00 human saliva. Pasteur [ 1, 21 and Stemberg [3, 41 each in- jected human saliva into rabbits; Pasteur used saliva from a child who had died of rabies, while Sternberg used his own saliva. Both researchers subsequently recovered diplococci from the blood of these rabbits. Previous reports identifying slightly elongated diplococci existed in the literature [5,6], but only Sternberg and Pasteur demonstrated the pathogenic potential of these bacteria in animals. In fact, each researcher had described the same or- ganism; it was named Microbe septicemique du salive by Pas- teur [2] and Micrococcus pasteuri by Sternberg [7]. By 1886 this organism was being referred to as Pneumococcus by Fraenkel [S] because of its propensity to cause pulmonary disease. It was renamed Diplococcus pneumoniae in I920 [9] -a designation obviously referring to pairs of cocci causing pneumonia. This epithet was first suggested by Weichsel- baum in 1886 [ lo- 131 in a series of case reports on the caus- ative agent ofwhat was then called croupous pneumonia; he also referred to pneumococci as "kapsel kokken." It was not until 1974, however, that the pneumococcus was given its present name, Streptococcus pneumoniae [ 141, primarily on the basis of its characteristic growth as chains of cocci in liquid media. The causative role of this organism in human lobar pneu- monia was firmly established in the early 1880s by a number of investigators [ 15- 181; later in that same decade, the pneu- mococcus was clearly demonstrated to be a cause ofmeningi- tis [ 191 and otitis media [20]. Robert Austrian, an influential researcher on pneumococcal vaccines and a noted historian of the pneumococcus, has written two excellent reviews on the latter subject [2 1, 221. 914 Watson et al. CID 1993; I7 (November) Gram's Stain Also during the 188Os, Christian Gram [23] was experi- menting in the laboratory of Friedlgnder [22] with tech- niques for visualization of bacteria in pathological speci- mens. Gram examined sections of lung tissue from patients who had died of pneumonia; he exposed the specimens se- quentially to aniline-gentian violet; a weak solution of io- dine; ethanol; and Bismarck brown or vesuvin. Gram found that these sections contained many pairs of slightly elon- gated cocci that retained the dark aniline-gentian violet stain. He referred to these organisms as "the cocci of crou- pous pneumonia." The failure of other bacteria in Gram's specimens to retain the aniline-gentian violet demonstrated a phenomenon that would become one of the cornerstones of clinical microbiology-namely, that nearly all clinically important bacteria are either gram-positive or gram-negative. In fact (as discussed by Austrian [21]), in some of the lung sections described above, Gram saw an encapsulated bacte- rium that did not retain the aniline-gentian violet and that caused pneumonia (Klebsiella pneumoniae, or Friedlgnder's bacillus). This observation, had he fully appreciated it, could have forestalled an acrimonious debate between Fraenkel and Friedlgnder over the etiology of lobar pneumonia; in fact, each was correct [2 11. The pneumococcus, therefore, was one of the first patho- genic bacteria observed during the development of Gram's stain, a bacteriologic tool that is still in everyday use more than a century after its original description. Humoral Immunity, Bacterial Capsules, and Phagocytosis After the early descriptions of the role of the pneumococ- cus in disease, Klemperer and Klemperer [24, 251 showed that serum from rabbits injected with heat-killed pneumo- cocci or with filtrates of broth cultures contained factors that conferred immunity to reinfection with the same strain but not necessarily to infection with different clinical isolates. More important, rabbits were protected against primary pneumococcal infection by infusion of serum from a previ- ously immunized animal [24, 251. Issaeff [26] demonstrated shortly thereafter that this protective serum was not directly bactericidal but that it did promote uptake of pneumococci by phagocytic cells of the immune system. Earlier, the well- known immunologist Eli Metchnikoff had observed pneu- mococcal agglutination in antisera [27], but he apparently did not make the connection between this agglutinating fac- tor and the promotion of phagocytosis. This point is ironic, in that Metchnikoffwas the first to describe the phenomenon of phagocytosis. In any event, S. pneumoniae was the organ- ism used to document the protection of animals by active immunization and the presence of the protective factor in serum. Figure 1. Upper panel: Reactivity of S. pneumoniae serotype 8 (ATCC 6308) with antiserum pools A, B, and C. Specific agglutina- tion is evident for pool B, which contains antibody specific for serotypes 3,4, and 8, and group 19. Lowerpanel: Specific reactivity of the same strain with antiserum to serotype 8 polysaccharide. Pneumococci were stained with ethidium bromide, washed twice with PBS, resuspended at a concentration of - 5 X IO'cfu/mL, and mixed I : 1 with the indicated antisera. At the turn of the century, Neufeld demonstrated both macroscopic agglutination and microscopically visible, spe- cific swelling (queflung in his native German) of the external capsule upon the addition of specific antiserum to a suspen- sion of pneumococci [28]. For most pneumococcal sero- types, homologous rabbit polyclonal antiserum mixed in equal parts with a cloudy suspension of bacteria (N 10' cfu) results in macroscopically visible bacterial clumping (figure I), thereby providing a simple method of serotyping. Bile solubility testing, the quellung and agglutination reactions, and additional techniques are lucidly discussed in a classic review of the laboratory identification of pneumococci by Lund [29]. , The apparent discrepancy between humoral and cellular immunity was resolved in 1904, when Neufeld and Rimpau [30] showed that ingestion of pneumococci by white blood cells was greatly facilitated by preexposure of the bacteria- but not the white cells-to serum from a previously immu- nized animal. The phenomenon they demonstrated was what we now call opsonization (from the Greek word for "preparing food"), in which the coating of bacteria with complement components and immunoglobulins leads to Fc receptor-mediated uptake by phagocytic cells. Definitive proof of the critical importance ofthe capsule to virulence was established in a pair of papers printed back to back in the Journal of Experimental Medicine in 193 1, In the first paper Rene Dubos and Oswald Avery showed that an enzyme obtained from a soil bacillus removed the serotype 3 capsular polysaccharide [31]. In the second paper [32] these CID 1993; I7 (November) The Pneumococcus in Biomedical Research 915 investigators demonstrated the protection of mice by the en- zyme against otherwise-fatal challenge with S. pneumoniae serotype 3. This enzyme was later shown by Francis et al. [33] to provide the same protection to the Java monkey. It is clear from the foregoing discussion that, even without knowledge of the specific structure or mode of action of anti- bodies, early investigators were well aware of the presence and importance of this serum component. Less well studied in the early 1930s was the possible role ofnonimmunoglobu- lin serum molecules in opsonophagocytosis of pneumococci. While Ward and Enders [34] first demonstrated the necessity for such a factor in 1933, little additional work was com- pleted until 1969, when Johnston et al. [35] outlined the effect of complement in increasing the rate of pneumococcal phagocytosis. Winkelstein and (later) Hosea, Brown, and other researchers specifically delineated the locations and mechanisms of activation of the classical and alternative pathways of complement by encapsulated pneumococci, leading to phagocytosis (see [36] for references). These stud- ies helped to clarify the relative contributions of immuno- globulin and complement opsonins to the opsonophagocyto- sis of encapsulated pathogenic bacteria. The subject has been reviewed by Winkelstein [36] and-quite recently-by Jan- off et al. [ 371 as part of a broader discussion of pneumococcal disease during infection due to human immunodeficiency virus. The Concept of Serotyping The discovery that the injection of pneumococci into rab- bits had an immunizing effect facilitated the development of an elementary typing system for this bacterial species. Neu- feld and Haendel [38] classified isolates from patients with confirmed pneumococcal pneumonia into two groups on the basis of whether or not they killed mice previously immu- nized with pneumococcal isolates referred to as type I or type II. The authors correlated these results with those obtained in agglutination reactions. Three years later Dochez and Gil- lespie [39] extended these groupings to include three distinct pneumococcal serotypes as well as a fourth group that was heterogeneous. All isolates ofthe first three serotypes reacted with antiserum to any other organism of the same serotype. In contrast, each member of the fourth cluster failed to react with antisera to the first three serotypes but instead tended to react only with antiserum produced by immunization of a rabbit with that specific isolate. Lister [40, 411, working in South Africa, confirmed the validity of this typing system and showed that virulent strains unrelated to the American strains studied by Dochez and Gillespie existed in South Africa. It is worth noting that the third pneumococcal serotype to be established was phenotypically distinct from types 1 and 2 and from the group 4 isolates; when grown on solid agar, it produced colonies that were noticeably larger, more mucoid, and more iridescent than those produced by serotype 1 or 2 or by group 4. In fact, for some time, what we now refer to as S. pneumoniae serotype 3 was considered to be a separate species known as Pneumococcus mucosus [42]. It is now known, however, that serotype 37 also exhibits a highly mu- coid phenotype and thus is macroscopically indistinguish- able from serotype 3 on blood agar plates [43]; moreover, on rare occasions, we have observed this phenotype among clin- ical isolates of serotypes 6A and 19F (authors' unpublished observations). The detection of recurring reactive types (sero- types) among group 4 pneumococci eventually led to the identification of 85 distinct serotypes [44], largely through the efforts of Cooper, Eddy, March, and Lund before 1960. Lund [29] beautifully reviewed the history of these studies. An excellent review of the immunogenicity and immuno- chemistry of pneumococcal capsular polysaccharides has re- cently been published by van Dam and associates [44]. Polysaccharides as Capsular Material While working at the Rockefeller Institute in New York City in 19 17, Dochez and Avery [45] described a soluble specific substance they had found in serum and urine from patients with lobar pneumonia and in blood from animals experimentally infected with pneumococci; this substance formed a precipitate with specific antiserum to the homolo- gous pneumococcus. By identifying this substance-which comprised the pneumococcal cell envelope-as a complex carbohydrate or polysaccharide, Heidelberger and Avery [46] unambiguously established that the capsular polysaccha- ride was the factor responsible for serological reactivity. Of the pneumococcal cell, Heidelberger later concluded [47]: "[Tlhere is disposed at its periphery a highly reactive sub- stance upon which type specificity depends." Heidelberger and colleagues further showed that this capsule was anti- genie; that is, the complex carbohydrate composing this cov- ering induced immunity in mice that protected these animals from lethal infection upon subsequent pneumococcal chal- lenge. Before this seminal observation was reported, it had been widely believed that only proteins were capable ofelicit- ing an immune response [48]. , Vaccine Studies Even before the demonstration of the immunogenicity of the bacterial capsular polysaccharide, studies begun in I9 I 1 by Sir Almroth E. Wright and colleagues [49]-with South African gold miners as test subjects-suggested that inocula- tion of whole killed pneumococci might elicit protection against pneumococcal infection in human beings [50]. In this work Wright followed the principles of study he had already used with reasonable success in vaccinating subjects against typhoid fever [5 I]. Unfortunately, the results he ob- tained with pneumococcal vaccine did not convince the sci- 916 Watson et al. CID 1993; 17 (November) entific community of its efficacy. The problem lay in the failure to include both pneumococcal serotypes known at that time and in the use of an inadequate vaccine dosage [22] because of the discomfort associated with the injection of relatively large inocula of whole killed pneumococci. In 1926 Felton and Baily [52] described the separation of capsular polysaccharides and showed that the resulting mate- rial, called "soluble specific substance," was the subcellular fraction responsible for conveying immunity. This work opened the door for Francis and Tillett [53] and Finland and co-workers [54-571 to conduct a number of studies (during the 1930s and 1940s) of the effectiveness of vaccines aimed at the prevention of pneumococcal disease. In 1937 Felton's capsular material was used successfully in a program of mass vaccination to abort an outbreak of pneumonia at a state hospital [58]; this was the first instance in which active vacci- nation with a relevant subcellular bacterial fraction had been used for such a purpose. Besides Finland, other pioneers in the field at this time included Felton himself 1591, MacLeod and colleagues [60], and Heidelberger and associates [61]; each investigator or group of investigators showed that healthy adult volunteers were protected against pneumococ- cal infection by vaccines that stimulated the immune system to produce antibodies to the pneumococcus. Kaufman [62] demonstrated that pneumococcal vaccines containing two and later three type-specific polysaccharides (i.e., bivalent and trivalent vaccines) were efficacious in an elderly cohort. These studies led to the licensing of hexavalent polysaccha- ride vaccines for human use after World War II. However, these vaccines were not used by physicians at that time be- cause many believed that newly available drugs constituted a more effective means of dealing with pneumococcal disease; as a result, the vaccines were withdrawn from the market [22]. Interest in pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines was re- vived in the mid- 1960s largely because of the efforts of Rob- ert Austrian. Work on a multivalent vaccine containing the polysaccharide components of each of the 14 most common pneumococcal serotypes (which caused some 80% of cases of pneumococcal disease) began in 1967 and culminated in the introduction of a ICvalent vaccine in 1977. This advance followed studies by Austrian et al. [63, 641 in which such a vaccine was efficacious in certain populations with high at- tack rates of pneumococcal pneumonia. A 23-valent vaccine containing an even larger percentage of the pneumococcal serotypes commonly causing disease was introduced in I983 [65] and is the subject of recent reviews [66, 671 and com- ment [68]. A number of studies have evaluated the efficacy of this vaccine [69-711, and all have yielded values in the range of 55%65%. The most recent of these reports also showed that the age and immune status of the patient as well as the interval since vaccination all figure significantly into the equation [72]. The degree of efficacy has not been uni- form in all populations, however, with particularly low suc- cess rates among very young children [73], debilitated el- derly persons [74], or individuals whose immune systems are compromised [72, 751; production of a vaccine that is effi- cacious in these high-risk groups remains a cherished but elusive goal. Pneumococcal polysaccharides of several sero- types have been conjugated to carrier proteins [76-791, a technique previously used with great success for Haemophi- lus injuenzae type b polyribosyl ribitol phosphate. A number of clinical trials of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines are in progress; to date, the results have been generally favorable [72], though not unequivocally so (D. M. Musher, M. C. Rodriguez-Barradas, J. E. Groover, and D. A. Watson, un- published observations). While much remains to be accom- plished in this area, Broome and Breiman [68] point out that the current 23-valent vaccine can greatly reduce the number of cases of bacteremic pneumococcal infections and should therefore be more widely administered to the persons for whom its use is indicated. Chemotherapy In 19 11 Morganroth and Levy [80] showed that a quinine derivative, ethylhydrocupreine (also known as optochin), in- hibited the growth of pneumococci but not of clinically re- lated organisms. The use of optochin by Morganroth and Kaufmann [8 l] to treat experimentally infected mice is one of the first examples of the use of a specific antimicrobial agent as therapy for a serious bacterial infection-and, in fact, of any highly specific compound as therapy for any in- fection. Quinine had previously been evaluated for the treat- ment of pneumococcal pneumonia in humans [50]; the min- imal success of this effort contrasted with the great importance of quinine in the treatment of malaria. Mor- ganroth and Kaufmann showed that pneumococci rapidly became resistant to clinically achievable doses of optochin, possibly through the acquisition of a single point mutation, as our recent data suggest [82]. In addition, optochin had only a narrow window of effectiveness between therapeutic and toxic dosages [83]; its use was rapidly abandoned due to its optic toxicity [ 841. . Serotherapy During the 1930s two important new approaches to ther- apy were developed, at least in part through their application to pneumococcal infection. The first approach-the infusion of pneumococcal antiserum produced in animals for the treatment of active pneumococcal infection in humans [85] -had been shown much earlier to be effective in animals [24,25]. In the last decade ofthe nineteenth century, numer- ous investigators had obtained mixed results with immune serum from a variety of animal sources [50]. Interest in this approach was probably fueled by the successful reduction in mortality from diphtheria by the same basic technique. How- ever, the underlying principle was quite different in the latter CID 1993: I7 (November) The Pneumococcus in Biomedical Research 917 case: serotherapy for diphtheria involved an antiserum to the toxin, whereas serotherapy for pneumococcal infection was aimed at the transfer of antibody that would opsonize the infecting organism and therefore eradicate it from the host. It was not until the 1920s-when serotypes began to be recog- nized, when antisera were standardized according to sero- type, and when sera from repeatedly sensitized horses were used-that consistently good results were first reported [86]. Sera from patients who had recovered from pneumonia were theoretically preferable to those from animals because of the reduced risk of serum sickness; unfortunately, the potency of these preparations of human serum was inferior, and their use was abandoned [87]. Use of Antimocrobii Agents The second new approach to therapy was the administra- tion of defined chemotherapeutic agents-first sulfanila- mide and later penicillin. Sulfanilamide. Among the earliest uses of the antimicro- bial compound sulfanilamide was that for the treatment of pneumococcal pneumonia, although the frequency with which this option was selected was limited by the popularity of serotherapy [5 11. Since the pneumococcus did not exhibit the same extreme susceptibility to sulfanilamide as did Srrep- tococcus pyogenes, Whitby [88] undertook a systematic search for a related chemical compound with good in vitro activity but relatively low toxicity. According to this author, "these experiments represent the one striking success in the chemotherapy of pneumococcal infections in an assessment of no less than 64 related sulfanilamide compounds." One of these 64 derivatives possessed the proper combination of low toxicity and good in vitro activity; this compound was re- ferred to as 2-(p-aminobenzenesulfonamido) pyridine, or simply sulfapyridine. (Whitby's approach has been the basis, in more modem times, for selection of a particular formula- tion of a given antimicrobial compound for further clinical testing.) This work [88] was followed only 5 weeks later in The Lancer by the study of Evans and Gaisford [89], who reported that treatment with sulfapyridine reduced the over- all case-fatality rate from 27% to 8% among patients with pneumonia (including 100 with lobar pneumonia) at the Dudley Road Hospital in Birmingham, England. Thus, for a brief period, sulfapyridine appeared to be the treatment of choice for pneumococcal infections. By 1943, however, in an early example of an increasingly important problem, sulfonamide-resistant strains of S. pneumoniae were reported by Tillett et al. [90]. Penicillin. In 1929 Fleming [9 l] discovered the antibac- terial properties of the fungus-derived substance that came to be called penicillin. The third subject to receive this drug (by topical application)-and the first to show any clinical bene- fit-was suffering from pneumococcal conjunctivitis [5 11. Compared with sulfanilamide, penicillin possessed a number of superior attributes, including greater potency per unit, minimal influence of inoculum size on effectiveness, and lack of interference by the breakdown products of protein hydrolysis [92]. However, the efficacy of readily synthesized sulfanilamide in treating pneumococcal infections, coupled with the difficulty of obtaining sufficient quantities of peni- cillin, meant that the full potential of the latter drug in com- bating the pneumococcus was not immediately realized. In 1939 Dubos [93] discovered the first naturally occur- ring antimicrobial compound with demonstrable activity in vitro against a bacterial pathogen. This compound was named gramicidin, and the activity demonstrated was against S. pneumoniae. Unfortunately, like optochin, gramici- din proved to be toxic in mice [94] and dogs [95], and this toxicity effectively ruled out its use in humans. On the posi- tive side, however, the identification of this compound by Dubos did prompt Chain and colleagues [96] to reevaluate the antibacterial properties of penicillin in 1940. This reanal- ysis was made possible by methods that these investigators developed at Oxford for the isolation of penicillin in large quantities and for the rapid assay of its inhibitory power, as described in detail by Abraham et al. [92] in a landmark paper appearing in The Lance1 in 194 1. In the same elegant paper, this group detailed their dramatic results in the treat- ment of life-threatening infections caused by gram-positive cocci, including S. pneumoniae. As a result, the approach to the treatment of pneumococcal infections was changed for- ever. In I943 Keefer et al. [97] reported a series of 500 cases in which penicillin was used with great success in the treat- ment of a variety of staphylococcal and streptococcal (in- cluding pneumococcal) infections, mostly those resistant to sulfonamides. According to a personal communication from Louis Weinstein: Having obtained small amounts of penicillin through his con- tacts with researchers at Oxford, Dr. Chester Keefer first tried to treat patients at the Boston Memorial Hospital with 5,000 units of penicillin every four hours for viridans streptococcus endocarditis. When that treatment failed, Keefer (the supervi- sor) and [I] (the acting intern) turned to the treatment ofpneu- mococcal pneumonia with dramatic results. This was the first disease for which penicillin was used successfully in the United States. The next year, Tillett et al. [98] reported on the use of penicillin in 46 cases of pneumococcal pneumonia and 8 cases of pneumococcal empyema, again with excellent re- sults. This study was useful in further defining proper treat- ment for pneumococcal infections, since the Keefer study-conducted during a period of great dedication to the U.S. effort in World War II-was focused narrowly "toward those infections that are most likely to occur in our armed forces." These investigations yielded convincing evidence of the value of penicillin in the treatment of a variety of bacte- rial infections. As Mufson has pointed out [99], studies of Watson et al. CID 1993; 17 (November) 918 100 d 60 - 20- 0' I I 12-29 30.49 50-69 70+ Age Group Figure 2. Graphic representation of data taken from Mufson [99], showing a uniform decline of 40%-50% in mortality asso- ciated with pneumococcal bacteremia for every age group after the introduction of penicillin for the treatment of pneumococcal infec- tion. Data for mortality due to pneumococcal bacteremia in the era preceding the introduction of penicillin were obtained at the Bos- ton City Hospital, while those for mortality after the introduction of this drug were obtained at Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn, New York ( 1952- 1962) and at Cook County Hospital in Chicago ( 1967- 1970). mortality from serious pneumococcal infection as a function of age showed a dramatic reduction after the introduction of penicillin (figure 2). Studies ofthe pneumococcus were among the first to docu- ment the clinical relevance of penicillin-binding proteins (PBPs) in the development of resistance to penicillin. Close examination of the data from the paper published in The Lancet in 1941 by Abraham et al. reveals that even the first studies of the in vitro susceptibility of S. pneumoniae to peni- cillin detected a biphasic pattern. Specifically, one group of pneumococci was at least 30 times as susceptible to the drug as was the other, yet both groups included isolates of the same serotypes. In fact, serotype 19F, recently associated with both moderate and high-level resistance to penicillin, was originally identified by Abraham et al. [92] as being the serotype of one of the less sensitive isolates. Although to our knowledge the PBP profiles of these strains have never been examined, it is likely that differences in PBPs were responsi- ble for the discrepancy. By 1943 it had been shown that pneumococcal resistance to penicillin could be induced in vitro [ 1001 or in vivo (in the mouse) [ 1011. In light of these findings, the reports by Hansman and Bullen [ 1021 of a highly penicillin-resistant pneumococcus and later by Ap- pelbaum et al. [ 103, IO41 and by Jacobs et al. [ 1051 of a large outbreak of penicillin-resistant pneumococcal infections are surprising, not so much because penicillin-resistant clinical isolates of S. pneumoniae were identified but because such isolates took so many years to appear. The mechanism by which resistance to penicillin arises in pneumococci has been shown to be decreased binding of the drug to PBPs, which are also known as transmembrane car- boxypeptidases-enzymes involved in cell wall synthesis. (See Waxman and Strominger [ 1061 for a review.) The con- cept of such surface proteins was developed by Spratt [ 1071 in studies with Escherichia coli; pioneering investigations of decreased penicillin binding to pneumococci were published in 1954 by Eagle [ 108, 1091, albeit without knowledge of specific surface-associated PBPs. The large-scale outbreak of penicillin-resistant pneumococci in South Africa discussed above [ 1051 led to the identification of one of the first clini- cal correlates of the PBP concept-namely, that alteration of these proteins contributed to the development of resistance to penicillin. In 1980 Hakenbeck et al. [ 1 IO] reported alter- ations in the PBPs of clinical isolates of pneumococci asso- ciated with increased resistance to penicillin. Zighelboim and Tomasz [ 1 I I] extended this finding to penicillin-resis- tant isolates from South Africa and further described the mechanism of resistance. Additional studies of PBPs have been reported by Hakenbeck et al. [ 112, I 131, Chalkley and Koornhof [ 1141, Dowson and colleagues [ 1151, and Jabes et al. [ 1161. Moreover, in two of only a few well-documented instances, pneumococci have been shown to be both the do- nors of altered PBP DNA sequences to other streptococcal species [ 1171 and the recipients of such sequences from an- other streptococcal species [ 1181. Horizontal transfer of PBP genes has also been demonstrated among natural popula- tions of pneumococci [ 119, 1201, and penicillin-resistant clones have even been shown to have taken transcontinental journeys [ 12 I]. The increasing frequency of penicillin-resis- tant pneumococci [ 122- 1241 is especially worrisome in light of the trend toward higher levels of resistance to vancomycin among enterococci, since horizontal genetic transfer of the latter resistance to pneumococci seems likely. Discovery of the Transforming Principle In 19 16 Stryker [ 1251 described changes that occurred in pneumococci upon growth in broth containing homologous ' immune serum. She noted that, when virulent strains were cultured in this fashion, they became less virulent, produced less capsular material, were more readily ingested by phago- cytes, and displayed altered antigenic properties. Griffith built on these data [126], borrowing the terminology of Arkwright [ 1271 to describe the appearance of colonies of dysentery bacilli on plates containing homologous immune antiserum. Smooth ("S") colonies, as defined by Griffith [ 1281, possess a lustrous, mucoid, macroscopically apparent colonial phenotype attributable to the presence of a polysac- charide capsule; agglutinate in the presence of homologous antisera; cause fatal infections in laboratory animals; and, when injected into rabbits, stimulate the production of pro- tective antibodies. Rough ("R") forms do not possess the extracellular polysaccharide capsule; are avirulent; and, when injected into rabbits, lead to the production of antisera specifically reactive only with other rough pneumococci. Griffith showed that some induced rough forms could re- CID 1993; I7 (November) The Pneumococcus in Biomedical Research 919 vert to the smooth form in vivo, while others could not. Even rough forms that never spontaneously reverted to capsule production, which he regarded as completely "dissociated" (i.e., unable to produce a capsule), could be transformed back to their original capsular types by a novel technique that Griffith himself pioneered. This procedure involved the concomitant injection into mice of heat-killed smooth pneu- mococci of the same or a different capsular type together with the nonrevertible rough strain. Under these conditions Griffith found that the rough form not only could be made to revert to its original capsular type but also could acquire the capsular type of the heat-killed organism. He did not under- stand the significance of this finding at the time, but his re- sults were quickly verified by Neufeld and Levinthal [ 1291. Dawson and colleagues [130-l 331 and Alloway [ 134, 1351 appreciably extended these observations. Alloway demon- strated the phenomenon in vitro, using extracts of S. pneu- moniae; in his first study he dissolved the bacteria by re- peated freezing and thawing, while in the second he added sodium deoxycholate to bacterial suspensions for lysis. Tra- gically, the scientific careers of both Griffith and Neufeld- the former British and the latter German-were cut short by incidents directly related to World War II [ 1361. It was not until 1944 that a landmark (and at that time controversial [ 1361) paper was published by Avery, MacLeod, and McCarty [ 1371. Their studies showed conclu- sively that DNA-and not some other molecule-consti- tuted the genetic material responsible for phenotypic changes during transformation. In a now-famous letter to his brother Roy [ 1381, Oswald Avery was cautiously optimistic: . [A]t last perhaps we have it. . . [T]his [fibrous] sub- stance is highly reactive and on elementary analysis conforms very closely to the theoretical values of pure desoxyribose nu- cleic acid (thymus) type (who could have guessed it).... If we are right, and of course that is not yet proven, then it means that nucleic acids are not merely structurally important but functionally active substances in determining the biochemical activities and specific characteristics ofcells and that by means ofa known chemical substance it is possible to produce predict- able and hereditary changes in cells. This is something that has long been the dream of geneticists. This observation later was strongly supported in two ways. First, after publication of the 1944 paper, McCarty, while still working in Avery's laboratory, showed that "treatment of the transforming principle with concentrations of DNase (a partially purified pancreatic enzyme which is capable of depolymerizing DNA) so small that only a slight fall in vis- cosity (of the DNA solution) occurs causes a marked loss of biological activity" [ 1391. This finding constituted further proof of the nucleic acid nature of the transforming princi- ple. In a brilliant foreshadowing of the future work on DNA by Watson and Crick, McCarty stated: "It remains one of the challenging problems for future research to determine what sort of configurational or structural differences can be dem- onstrated between desoxyribonucleates of separate specilici- ties" [ 1391. Later, Hotchkiss [ 1401 showed that, in addition to the genes encoding capsule production, those sequences specifying resistance to the powerful antibiotic penicillin could be transferred to a previously penicillin-sensitive pneumococcus by DNA isolated from a penicillin-resistant pneumococcus. Although Hotchkiss joined Avery's group in 1935, he did not become involved in the work on S. pneu- moniae transformation work until 1946, when (as recalled in an unpublished speech by Dr. Maclyn McCarty nominating Dr. Hotchkiss for an honorary doctorate in humane letters at the Rockefeller University in 1988) he quickly made a number of advances that clarified the trans- forming reaction and addressed the criticism that the apparent activity of the transforming DNA must be due to contaminat- ing protein (as suggested by Alfred Mirsky).... [Hotchkiss] an- swered the challenge ofcontaminating protein by further puri- fication of the pneumococcal DNA without loss of activity until only minute traces of protein remained. In other experi- ments initiated at this time, he broadened the genetic implica- tions of transformation by showing that traits other than cap- sule formation (e.g., antibiotic resistance) could be introduced by the transfer of DNA. As a result, all but the most hardened skeptics were convinced that DNA is the bearer of genetic information. In this instance, possibly as never before, the pneumococ- cus was at center stage in a critically important scientific discovery; one that in fact initiated the era of molecular biol- ogy and is arguably one of the single greatest achievements in biological science in the twentieth century. It is known that Hershey and Chase, who performed the classic experiment showing that infecting bacteriophages inject only DNA into their bacterial targets (an event that results in the production of progeny phages), were inspired by their knowledge of Avery's paper [48]. Moreover, Watson stated in two different passages of The Double Helix. the best-selling account of the discovery of the structure of DNA, that both he (through his mentor, Salvatore Luria) and Francis Crick became con- vinced that DNA was the genetic material by reading the paper by Avery et al. [ 1411. While Avery and associates showed that the transforming principle actually encoding the encapsulation phenotype of S. pneumoniae consisted exclusively of DNA, the genes re- sponsible for capsule production in the pneumococcus have never been cloned. In 1959 Austrian and colleagues [ 142, 1431 showed that DNAs that were obtained from unencapsu- lated derivatives of two pneumococcal serotypes and that contained separate mutations in a common biosynthetic pathway could complement each other and produce "binary capsulation." The most important conclusion to be drawn from this work was that "the capsular genome appears to have a specific location in the total genome of the cell, this location being occupied by the capsular genome of whatever 920 Watson et al. CID 1993; I7 (November) capsular type is expressed by the cell... [and] the new capsu- lar genome is transferred to the transformed cell as a single particle of DNA" [ 1431. R avin [ 1441 demonstrated the same concept in the same year-namely, that DNA involved in encapsulation consists of a discrete contiguous unit, or cas- sette. Coffey et al. [ 1201 have recently presented indirect evidence for horizontal transfer of encapsulation genes to a penicillin-resistant pneumococcus in nature. The genetics of the encapsulation piocess has been investigated in a few other bacterial species, with E. coli K12 [ 145-1471 and H. inJluenzae type b [ 148- 15 l] most extensively studied. A se- quence putatively involved in encapsulation of S. pneumon- iae serotype 3 has recently been targeted [ 1521 and cloned in our laboratory [ 1531 and is currently the subject of intensive DNA sequencing efforts. Preliminary data suggest the pres- ence ofat least two loci: one unique to each serotype and one common to all serotypes. Proteins as Virulence Factors In recent years considerable effort has been directed to the question of whether accessory proteinaceous virulence fac- tors exist in the pneumococcus, as they do in many bacteria, including some streptococci. Boulnois [ 1541 has extensively reviewed a number of putative proteinaceous virulence fac- tors of the pneumococcus, two of which deserve mention here since they have been the subject of much recent work. The first is the sulfhydryl-activated but nonsecreted hemoly- sin referred to as pneumolysin [ 1541. During the 1980s a number of studies (see [ 1541 for references) convincingly showed that pneumolysin alone can produce all the manifes- tations of pneumococcal pneumonia. Since pneumolysin is liberated upon autolysis of pneumococci, it is not difficult to visualize a role for this toxin in disease. Pneumolysin may, in fact, eventually be shown to be the elusive toxin long consid- ered a major contributor to the morbidity and mortality asso- ciated with pneumococcal pneumonia. It remains to be seen, however, whether the amount of toxin produced per bacte- rial cell varies among strains. Such variation could begin to explain observed differences in virulence among strains of the same serotype ([ 1551 and authors' unpublished observa- tions). The surface-associated protein pspA [ 156, 1571 may also serve a still-unidentified function in virulence, given that isogenic pspA strains of some (but not all) serotypes examined to date exhibit greatly reduced virulence [ 1581. Future Trends in Pneumococcal Research Predicting the future is not a science, even when science is the subject under discussion. However, the study of what Avery called the sugar-coated microbe has yielded a number of unexpected and profoundly important basic biological dis- coveries (as outlined herein), and we are convinced that the jigsaw puzzle of pneumococcal pathogenesis will continue to attract investigators whose efforts will yield results with broad implications. Research on improved polysaccharide-protein conjugate vaccines will continue to be an area of great interest over the next several years, since a vaccine that is efficacious in very young children and other high-risk groups remains a high priority. Elucidation of the molecular basis for capsule pro- duction among pneumococci is a field in which we and other researchers are presently quite involved. The recent identifi- cation of short (154-base-pair) repeated-sequence elements strategically located with respect to virulence genes and to metabolically important genes in the S. pneumoniae genome [ 1591 immediately suggested to their discoverers the possibil- ity of coordinated regulation of important genes by these elements. Elucidation of the molecular machinery of such a control mechanism could add much to our understanding of pneumococcal pathogenesis. The trend toward an increased incidence of penicillin-re- sistant pneumococci shows no signs of reversing and is partic- ularly alarming in some locations. As has been discussed, resistant clones in the nasopharyngeal cavities of colonized travelers are probably being disseminated from continent to continent. If resistance to vancomycin can be passed from enterococci to pneumococci via horizontal gene transfer, we may soon see multidrug-resistant pneumococcal infections that are virtually untreatable. New antibiotics and different therapeutic strategies obviously need to be developed. Con- current administration of new types of nonsteroidal anti-in- flammatory drugs and antibiotics may be promising for the treatment of pneumococcal meningitis. Given this wealth of possibilities, the future of pneumo- coccal research promises to be at least as exciting as its past. Acknowledgments The authors thank Drs. Rollin Hotchkiss and Vincent Fis- chetti for their suggestions and insights concerning research on the transforming principle; Dr. Maclyn McCarty for access to an unpublished speech and for encouragement of his younger col- leagues in the study of the pneumococcus; and Dr. Maurice Mufson for permission to adapt his tabulated data into a figure. References I. Pasteur L. Note sur la maladie nouvelle provoquee par la salive d'un enfant mort de la rage. Bulletin de I'Academie de Medicine (Paris) [series 21 1881;10:94-103. 2. Pasteur L. Chamberland MM, Roux. Sur une maladie nouvelle, pro- voquke par la salive d'un enfant mart de la rage. Compt Rend Acad d sci 1881;92:159-65. 3. Sternberg GM. A fatal form ofsepticaemia in the rabbit, produced by the subcutaneous injection of human saliva. Annual Reports of the National Board of Health 1881a;3:87-108. 4. Sternberg GM. A fatal form ofsepticaemia in the rabbit, produced by the subcutaneous injection of human saliva. National Board of Health Bulletin 1881b;2:781-3. CID 1993; I7 (November) The Pneumococcus in Biomedical Research 921 5. Klebs E. Beitrage zm Kenntniss der Schistomyceten. VII. Die Mona- dinen. Archiv Rir Experimentelle Pathologie und Pharmakologie (Leipzig) 1875;4:409-88. 6. Eberth CJ. Zur Kenntniss der mykotischen Processe. Deutsches Ar- chiv ftlr Klinische Medizin (Leipzig) 1880;28: l-42. 7. Sternberg GM. The pneumonia-coccus of Friedlander (Micrococcus Pasteuri. Sternberg). Am J Med Sci 1885;90: 106-23. 8. Fraenkel A. Weitere Beitrage zur Lehre von den Mikrococcen der genuinen fibrinosen Pneumonie. Zeitschrift filr Klinische Medicin 1886b; I 1:437-58. 9. Winslow CEA. Broadhurst J. Buchanan RE, Krumwiede C Jr. Rogers LA. Smith GH. The families and genera of the bacteria: final report of the committee of the Society ofAmerican Bacteriologists on char- acterization and classification of bacterial types. J Bacterial 1920;5:191-229. 10. Weichselbaum A. Aetiologie und pathologische Anatomie der akuten lungenentzundungen. Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift 1886a;36:1301-5. I I. Weichselbaum A. Aetiologie und pathologische Anatomie der akuten lungenentzundungen. Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift 1886b;36: 1339-44. 12. Weichselbaum A. Aetiologie und pathologische Anatomie der akuten lungenentzundungen. Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift 1886c;36: 1367-7 I. 13. Weichselbaum A. Ueber die Aetiologie der acuten Lungen- und Rip- penfellentzundungen. Medizinische Jahrbtlcher [series 31 1886d: 483-554. 14. Deibel RH. Seeley HW Jr. Family II: Streptococcuceae. Fam. nov. In: Buchanan RE, Gibbons NE. eds. Bergy's manual of determinative bacteriology. 8th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1974: 490-517. 15. Friedlander C. Die Mikrokokken der Pneumonie. Fortschritte der Me- dizin (Munchen) 1883b;l:7 15-33. 16. Talamon C. Coccus de la pneumonie. Bulletin de la Societe Anatomi- que de Paris 1883;58:475-8 I 17. Fraenkel A. Die genuine Pneumonie. Verh Cong Inn Med 1884;3: 17-31. 18. Fraenkel A. Bakteriologische Mittheilungen. Zeitschrift ftir Klinische Medicin 1885;10:401-61. 19. Netter. De la meningite due au pneumocoque (avec ou sans pneu- monie). Archives Gtnerales de Mtdecine [series 71 1887; 19:257- 77.434-55. 20. Zaufal E. Mikroorganismen im Secrete der Otitis media acuta. Prager Medicinische Wochenschrift 1887; 12:225-7. 2 I. Austrian R. Pneumococcus: the first one hundred years. Rev Infect Dis 1981:3:183-9. 22. Austrian R. Some observations on the pneumococcus and on the current status of pneumococcal disease and its prevention. Rev In- fect Dis 1981;3(suppl):SI-17. 23. Gram C. Ueber die isolierte F&bung der Schizomyceten in Schnitt- und Trockenpraparaten. Fortschr Med 1884;2: 185-9. 24. Klemperer G. Klemperer F. Versuche tlber Immunisirung und Hei- lung bei der Pneumokokkeninfection. Berliner Klinische Wo- chenschrift 1891a;28:869-75. 25. Klemperer G, Klemperer F. Versuche iiber lmmunisirung und Hei- lung bei der Pneumokokkeninfection. Berliner Klinische Wo- chenschrift 1891b;28:833-5. 26. lssaeff B. Contribution B I'etude de l'immunitt acquise contre le pneu- mocoque. Annales de l'lnstitut Pasteur 1893;7:260-79. 27. MetchnikotT E. Etudes sur I'immunite. 4 memoire. L'immunite des cobayes vaccines contre le vibrio Metchnikowii. Annales de I'Insti- tut Pasteur 1891;5:465-78. 28. Neufeld F. Ueber die Agglutination der Pneumokokken und tlber die Theorien der Agglutination. Zeitschrift filr Hygiene und Infek- tionskrankheiten (Leipzig) 1902;40:54-72. 29. Lund E. Laboratory diagnosis of Pneumococcus infections. Bull World Health Organ 1960;23:5- 13. 30. Neufeld F. Rimpau W. Ueber die Antikorper des streptokokken- und pneumokokken-lmmunserums. Deutsche Mediciniihe Wochenschnh 1904;30: 1458-60. 3 I Dubos R. Avery OT. Decomposition of the capsular polysaccharide of pneumococcus type III by a bacterial enzyme. J Exp Med 1931;54:51-71. 32. Avery OT, Dubos R. The protective action of a specific enzyme against type III pneumococcus infections in mice. J Exp Med 1931;54:73-89. 33. Francis T Jr. Terre11 EE. Dubos R, Avery OT. Experimental type III pneumococcus pneumonia in monkeys: II. Treatment with an en- zyme which decomposes the specific capsular polysaccharide of pneumococcus type 111. J Exp Med 1934;59:641-68. 34. Ward HK. Enders JF. An analysis of the opsonic and tropic action of normal and immune sera based on experiments with the pneumo- coccus. J Exp Med 1933;57:527-47. 35. Johnston RB Jr, Klemperer MR. Alper CA, Rosen FS. The enhance- ment of bacterial phagocytosis by serum: the role of complement components and two cofactors. J Exp Med 1969; 129: 1275-90. 36. Winkelstein JA. Complement and the host's defense against the pneu- mococcus. CRC Crit Rev Microbial 1984; I I: 187-208. 37. Janoff EN, Breiman RF, Daley CL, Hopewell PC. Pneumococcal dis- ease during HIV infection: epidemiologic, clinical, and immuno- logic perspectives. Ann Intern Med 1992;l l7:3 14-24. 38. Neufeld F, Haendel L. Weitere Untersuchungen uber Pneumokok- ken-Heilsera. III. Mitteilung. Arbeiten aus dem Kaiserlichen Ge- sundheitsamte 1910;34:293-304. 39. Dochez AR, Gillespie LJ. A biologic classification of pneumococci by means ofimmunity reactions. JAMA 1913;61:727-32. 40. Lister FS. Specific serological reactions with pneumococci from differ- ent sources. Publications of the South African Institute for Medical Research 1913;1:1-14. 4 1. Lister FS. An experimental study of prophylactic inoculation in the rabbit and in man. Publications of the South African Institute for Medical Research 1916;1:23 l-87. 42. Hanes FM. An immunological study of Pnemnococcus ~rrucosus. J Exp Med 1914;19:38-51. 43. Knecht JC. Schiffman G, Austrian R. Some biological properties of pneumococcus type 37 and the chemistryofits capsular polysaccha- ride. J Exp Med 1970; 132:475-87. 44. van Dam JEG. Fleer A. Snippe H. Immunogenicityand immunochem- istry of Streptococcus pneurnoniae capsular polysaccharides. An- tonie Van Leeuwenhoek 1990;58: l-47. 45. Dochez AR, Avery OT. Soluble substance of pneumococcus origin in the blood and urine during lobar pneumonia. Proc Sot Exp Biol Med 1917;14:126-7. 46. Heidelberger M, Avery OT. The soluble specific substance of pneu- mococcus. J Exp Med 1923;38:73-9. 47. Heidelberger M. Immunologically specific polysaccharides. Chemical Reviews 1927;3:403-23. 48. Dubos RJ. The professor, the institute, and DNA. New York: The Rockefeller University Press, 1976. 49. Wright AE, Morgan WP, Colebrook L, Dodgson RW. Observations on prophylactic inoculation against pneumococcus infections, and on the resultswhich have been achieved by it. Lancet 1914;l: l-10. 87-95. 50. Heffron R. Pneumonia: with special reference to pneumococcus lobar pneumonia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979. 5 I. Dowling HF. Fighting infection: conquests of the twentieth century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977. 922 Watson et al CID 1993: 17 (November) 52. Felton LD. Baily GH. Biologic significance of the soluble specific substances of pneumococci. 3 Infect Dis 1926;38: 13 l-44. 53. Francis T Jr, Tillett WS. Cutaneous reactions in pneumonia: the devel- opment of antibodies following the intradermal injection of type- specific polysaccharide. J Exp Med 1930;52:573-85. 54. Finland M, Sutliff WD. Specific antibody response of human subjects to intracutaneous injection of pneumococcal products. J Exp Med 1932;55:853-65. 55. Finland M. Dowling HF. Cutaneous reactions and antibody response to intracutaneous injections of pneumococcus polysaccharides. J lmmunol 1935:29:285-99. 56. Finland M, Ruegsegger JM. Immunization of human subjects with the specific carbohydrates of type 111 and the related type VIII pneumo- coccus. J Clin Invest 1935;14:829-32. 57. Finland M. Brown JW. Reactions of human subjects to the injection of purified type specific pneumococcus polysaccharides. J Clin In- vest 1938; I7:479-88. 58. Smillie WG, Warnock GH. White HJ. A studyofa type I pneumococ- cus epidemic at the state hospital at Worcester. Mass. Am J Public Health 1938;28:293-302, 59. Felton LD. Studies on immunizing substances in pneumococci: VII. Response in human beings to antigenic pneumococcus polysaccha- rides. types I and II. Public Health Rep 1938;53: 1855-77. 60. MacLeod CM. Hodges RG, Heidelberger M. Bernhard WG. Preven- tion of pneumococcal pneumonia by immunization with specific capsular polysaccharides. J Exp Med 1945;82:445-65. 61. Heidelberger M. MacLeod CM. di Lapi MM. The human antibody response to simultaneous injection of six specific polysaccharides of pneumococcus. J Exp Med 1948;88:369-72. 62. Kaufman P. Pneumonia in old age: active immunization against pneu- monia with pneumococcus polysaccharide: results of a six year study. Arch Intern Med 1947:79:5 IS-3 I. 63. Austrian R. Pneumococcal infection and pneumococcal vaccine. N Engl J Med 1977;297:938-9. 64. Austrian R, Douglas RM. Schiffman G. et al. Prevention of pneumo- coccal pneumonia by vaccination. Trans Assoc Am Physicians 1976;89: 184-94. 65. Robbins JB. Austrian R, Lee C-J. et al. Considerations for formulating the second generation pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide vac- cine with emphasis on the cross-reactive types within groups. J In- fect Dis 1983; 148: 1 136-59. 66. Musher DM. Watson DA. Dominguez EA. Pneumococcal vaccina- tion: work to date and future prospects. Am J Med Sci 1990;300:45-52. 67. Bruyn GAW. Zegers BJM. van Furth R. Mechanisms of host defense against infection with Srrep/ocorcus prteurnoniae. Clin Infect Dis 1992;14:251-62. 68. Broome CV. Breiman RF. Pneumococcal vaccine: past, present. and future. N Engl J Med 1991;325: 1506-S. 69. Bolan G, Broome CV. Facklam RR. Plikaytis BD, Fraser DW. Schlech WF III. Pneumococcal vaccine efficacy in selected populations in the United States. Ann Intern Med 1986;104:1-6. 70. Sims RV. Steinmann WC, McConville JH, King LR. Zwick WC. Schwartz JS. The clinical effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccine in the elderly. Ann Intern Med 1988;108:653-7. 7 I. Shapiro ED, Clemens JD. A controlled evaluation of the protective efficacy of pneumococcal vaccine for patients at high risk of serious pneumococcal infections. Ann Intern Med 1984; 101:325-30. 72. Shapiro ED, Berg AT. Austrian R. et al. The protective efficacy of polyvalent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine. N Engl J Med 1991;325:1453-60, 73. Makela PH. Sibakov M, Herva E, et al. Pneumococcal vaccine and otitis media. Lancet 1980;2:547-5 I. 74. Simberkoff MS, El Sadr W. Schiffman G. Rahal JJ Jr. S~repfococcus pneumoniae infections and bacteremia in patients with acquired im- mune deficiency syndrome with report of a pneumococcal vaccine failure. Am Rev Respir Dis 1984; 130: 1 174-6. 75. Rodriguez-Barradas MC. Musher DM, Lahart C, et al. Antibody to capsular polysaccharides ofS/reprococcuspneu/noniaeafter vaccina- tion of human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects with 23- valent pneumococcal vaccine. J Infect Dis 1992;165:553-6. 76. Beuvery EC, van Rossum F. Nagel J. Comparison of the induction of immunoglobulin M and G antibodies in mice with purified pneu- mococcal type 3 and meningococcal group C polysaccharides and their protein conjugates. Infect Immun 1982;37: 15-22. 77. Lin KT. Lee CJ. Immune response of neonates to pneumococcal poly- saccharide-protein conjugate. Immunology 1982:46:333-42. 78. Schneerson R, Robbins JB, Chu C, et al. Serum antibody responses of juvenile and infant rhesus monkeys injected with Haemophilus in- @enrae type b and pneumococcus type 6A capsular polysaccha- ride-protein conjugates. Infect Immun 1984;45:582-91. 79. Schneerson R. Robbins JB, Park JC Jr, et al. Quantitative and qualita- tive analyses of serum antibodies elicited in adults by Haemophilus injfuenzue type b and pneumococcus type 6A capsular polysaccha- ride-tetanus toxoid conjugates. Infect Immun 1986;52:5 19-28. 80. Morganroth J, Levy R. Chemotherapie der Pneumokokkeninfektion. Berliner Klinische Wochenschrift 1911;48: 1560- I. 8 1. Morganroth J, Kaufman" M. Arzneifestigkeit bei Bakterien (Pneumo- kokken). Zeitschrift fur lmmunitatsforschung und Experimentelle Therapie 1912;15:610-24. 82. Watson DA, Musher DM. Characterization of resistance to optochin among isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae [abstract no C- 191. In: Program and abstracts of the 92nd general meeting of the American Society for Microbiology. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology. 1992. 83. White B. The biology ofpneumococcus: the bacteriological, biochemi- cal, and immunological characters and activities of Dip/ococcus pneumoniae. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1979. 84. Moore HF. Chesney AM. A study of ethylhydrocuprein (optochin) in the treatment of acute lobar pneumonia. Arch Intern Med 1917;19:61 l-82. 85. Finland M, Sutliff WD. Specific cutaneous reactions and circulating antibodies in the course of lobar pneumonia: II. Cases treated with antipneumococcic sera. J Exp Med 1931;54:653-67. 86. Felton LD. A study of the isolation and concentration of the specific antibodies of antipneumococcus sera. Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 1924;190:8 19-25. 87. Barach AL. Immune transfusion in lobar pneumonia. Am J Med Sci 1931;182:81 I-21. 88. Whitby LEH. Chemotherapy of pneumococcal and other infections with 2+aminobenzenesulphonamido) pyridine. Lancet 1938;l: 1210-2. 89. Evans GM. Gaisford WF. Treatment of pneumonia with 2-(p- aminobenzenesulphonamido) pyridine. Lancet 1938;2: 14-9. 90. Tillett WS. Cambier MJ, Harris WH Jr. Sulfonamide-fast pneumo- cocci: a clinical report of two cases of pneumonia together with experimental studies on the effectiveness of penicillin and tyrothri- tin against sulfonamide-resistant strains. J Clin Invest 1943;22: 249-55. 91. Fleming A. On the antibacterial action of cultures of a Penicilliwn with special reference to their useful isolation ofE. influenme. Brit- ish Journal of Experimental Pathology 1929; 10:226-36. 92. Abraham EP, Gardner AD, Chain E. et al. Further observations on penicillin. Lancet 1941;2: 177-89. 93. Dubos RJ. Studies on a bactericidal agent extracted from a soil bacil- lus: Il. Protective effect of the bactericidal agent against experimen- tal pneumococcus infections in mice. J Exp Med 1939;70: I l-7. CID 1993; I7 (November) The Pneumococcus in Biomedical Research 923 94. Hotchkiss RD. Dubos RJ. Fractionation ofthe bactericidal agent from cultures of a soil bacillus [letter]. J Biol Chem 1940;132:791-2. 95. MacLeod CM. Mirick GS. Curnen EC. Toxicity for dogs of a bacteri- cidal substance derived from a soil bacillus. Proc Sot Exp Biol Med 1940;43:461-3. 96. Chain E. Jennings MA, Florey HW. et al. Penicillin as a chemothera- peutic agent. Lancet 1940;2:226-8. 97. Keefer CS. Blake FG. Marshall EK Jr. Lockwood JS, Wood WB Jr. Penicillin in the treatment of infections: a report of 500 cases. JAMA 1943; 122: 12 17-24. 98. Tillett WS, Cambier MJ, McCormack JE. The treatment of lobar pneumonia and pneumococcal empyema with penicillin. Bull N Y Acad Sci 1944;20: 142-78. 99. Mufson MA. Strepfococcuspneunloniae. In: Mandell GL, Douglas RG Jr, Bennett JE. eds. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990. 100. McKee CM, Houck CL. Induced resistance to penicillin ofcultures of staphylococci, pneumococci, and streptococci. Proc Sot Exp Biol Med 1943;53:33-4. 101. Schmidt LH, Sesler CL. Development of resistance to penicillin by pneumococci. Proc Sot Exp Biol Med 1943;52:353-7. 102. Hansman D. Bullen MM. A resistant pneumococcus [letter]. Lancet 1967:2:264-5. 103. Appelbaum PC, Koornhof HJ. Jacobs M, et al. Multiple-antibiotic resistance ofpneumococci: South Africa. MMWR 1977;26:285-6. 104. Appelbaum PC, Bhamjee A, Scragg JN, Hallett AF. Bowen AJ. Cooper RC. Strep/ococcus pneunzoniae resistant to penicillin and chloramphenicol. Lancet 1977;2:995-7. 105. Jacobs MR. Koornhof HJ, Robins-Browne RM, et al. Emergence of multiply resistant pneumococci. N Engl J Med 1978;299:735-40. 106. Waxman DJ. Strominger JL. Penicillin-binding proteinsand the mech- anism of action of beta-lactam antibiotics. Annu Rev Biochem 1983;52:825-69. 107. Spratt BG. Properties of the penicillin-binding proteins of Escherichia co/i K12. Eur J Biochem 1977;72:341-52. 108. Eagle H. The binding ofpenicillin in relation to its cytotoxic action: I. Correlation between the penicillin sensitivity and combining activ- ity of intact bacteria and cell-free extracts. J Exp Med 1954;99:207-26. 109. Eagle H. The bindingofpenicillin in relation to its cytotoxicaction: 11. The reactivity with penicillin of resistant variants of streptococci. pneumococci. and staphylococci. J Exp Med 1954; 100: 103- 15. I IO. Hakenbeck R, Tarpay M, Tomasz A. Multiple changes of penicillin- binding proteins in penicillin-resistant clinical isolates of Strep/o- coccus pneurrzoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1980; 17: 364-7 I. 1 1 I. Zighelboim S. Tomasz A. Penicillin-binding proteins of multiply anti- biotic-resistant South African strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1980; 17:434-42. I 12. Hakenbeck R. Ellerbrok H, Briese T. Handwerger S. Tomasz A. Peni- cillin-binding proteins of penicillin-susceptible and -resistant pneu- mococci: immunological relatedness of altered proteins and changes in peptides carrying the @-lactam binding site. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986;30:553-8. 113. Hakenbeck R. Ellerbrok H, Tornette S. van de Rijn I. Common anti- genie determinants of pneumococcal penicillin-binding protein (PBP) la and S~reprococcus pyogenes PBP 2. FEMS Microbial Lett 1987;48: 17 l-4. I 14. Chalkley LJ, Koornhof HJ. Penicillin-binding proteins of Srreptococ- cus pneumoniae. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988;22:79 I-800. I 15. Dowson CG, Hutchinson A, Spratt BG. Extensive re-modelling ofthe transpeptidase domain of penicillin-binding protein 2B of a penicil- lin-resistant South African isolate ofS/reptococcuspneumoniae. Mol Microbial 1989;3:95-102. I 16. Jabes D, Nachman S, Tomasz A. Penicillin-binding protein families: evidence for the clonal nature of penicillin resistance in clinical isolates of pneumococci. J Infect Dis 1989; 159: 16-25. 117. Dowson CG, Hutchison A. Woodford N, Johnson AP. George RC. Spratt BG. Penicillin-resistant viridans streptococci have obtained altered penicillin-binding protein genes from penicillin-resistant strains of Streplococcus pneutnoniue. Proc Nat1 Acad Sci USA 1990;87:5858-62. 118. Hakenbeck R, Laible G, Briese T, et al. Highly variable penicillin- binding proteins in penicillin-resistant strains ofStrep/ococcuspneu- moniae. In: Dunny GM, Cleary PP, McKay LL, eds. Genetics and molecular biology of streptococci, lactococci, and enterococci. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1991:92-5. 1 19. Dowson CG, Hutchison A, Brannigan JA. et al. Horizontal transfer of penicillin-binding protein genes in penicillin-resistant clinical iso- lates of Streptococcus pneumonine. Proc Nat1 Acad Sci USA 1989;86:8842-6. 120. Coffey TJ, Dowson CG, Daniels M, et al. Horizontal transferofmulti- ple penicillin-binding protein genes, and capsular biosynthetic genes, in natural populations of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Mol Mi- crobiol 1991;5:2255-60. 12 I, Mutioz R, Coffey TJ, Daniels M, et al. Intercontinental spread of a multiresistant clone of serotype 23F Streptococcus pnewnoniae. J Infect Dis 1991; 164:302-6. 122. Latorre C, Juncosa T, Sanfeliu 1. Antibiotic resistance and serotypes of 100 Streptococcus pneurnoniae strains isolated in a children's hospi- tal in Barcelona, Spain. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985;28: 357-9. 123. Klugman KP, Koornhof HJ. Drug resistance patterns and serogroups or serotypes of pneumococcal isolates from cerebrospinal fluid or blood, 1979-1986. J Infect Dis 1988;158:956-64. 124. Marton A, Gulyas M, Munoz R. Tomasz A. Extremely high incidence ofantibiotic resistance in clinical isolates ofS/reptococcuspneumon- iae in Hungary. J Infect Dis 1991;163:542-8. 125. Stryker LM. Variations in the pneumococcus induced by growth in immune serum. J Exp Med 1916;24:49-68. 126. Griffith F. The influence of immune serum on the biological proper- ties of pneumococci. In: Reports on public health and medical sub- jects. No. 18. Bacteriological studies. London: His Majesty's Sta- tionery Office. 1923: l-l 3. 127. Arkwright JA. Variation in bacteria in relation to agglutination both by salts and by specific serum. J Pathol Bacterial 1921;24:36-60. 128. Griffith F. The significance of pneumococcal types. J Hyg 1928;27: 1 13-59. 129. Neufeld F, Levinthal W. Beitrage zur Variabilitat der Pneumokokken. Zeitschrift fur Immunitatsforschung und Experimentelle Therapie 1928;55:324-40. 130. Dawson MH. The interconvertibility of "R" and "s" forms of pneu- mococcus. J Exp Med 1928;47:577-9 I. 13 I. Dawson MH, Sia RHP. In vitro transformation of pneumococcal types: 1. A technique for inducing transformation of pneumococcal types in vitro. J Exp Med 1931;54:681-99. 132. Dawson MH, Warbasse A. Further observations on the transforma- tion of type-specific pneumococci by in vitro procedures. Proc Sot Exp Biol Med 1931;29:149-51. 133. Sia RHP, Dawson MH. In vitro transformations of pneumococcal types: II. The nature of the factor responsible for the transformation of pneumococcal types. J Exp Med 1931;54:701-10. 134. Alloway JL. The transformation in vitro of R pneumococci into S forms of different specific types by the use of filtered pneumococcus extracts. J Exp Med 1932;55:91-9. 135. Alloway JL. Further observations on the use of pneumococcus ex- tracts in effecting transformation of type in vitro. J Exp Med 1933;57:265-78. 924 Watson et al. CID 1993; 17 (November) 136. McCarty M. The transforming principle: discovering that genes are made of DNA. New York: WW Norton, 1985. 137. Avery OT, MacLeod CM. McCarty M. Studies on the chemical nature of the substance inducing transformation of pneumococcal types: induction of transformation by a desoxyribonucleic acid fraction isolated from pneumococcus type 111. J Exp Med 1944;79: 137-57. 138. Hotchkiss RD. Gene, transforming principle, and DNA. In: Cairns J, Stent G. Watson JD, eds. Phage and the origins of molecular biol- ogy. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Press. 1966. 139. McCarty M. Avery OT. Studies on the chemical nature of the sub- stance inducing transformation of pneumococcal types: II. Effect of desoxyribonuclease on the biological activity of the transforming substance. J Exp Med 1946;83:89-96. 140. Hotchkiss RD. Transfer ofpenicillin resistance in pneumococci by the desoxyribonucleate derived from resistant cultures. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 1951;16:457-61. 14 I, Watson JD. The double helix: a personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. New York: Atheneum. 1968. 142. Austrian R. Bernheimer HP. Simultaneous production of two capsular polysaccharides by pneumococcus: I. Properties ofa pneumococcus manifesting binary capsulation. J Exp Med 1959; 1 IO:57 l-84. 143. Austrian R. Bernheimer HP, Smith EEB, Mills GT. Simultaneous pro- duction of two capsular polysaccharides by pneumococcus: II. The genetic and biochemical bases of binary capsulation. J Exp Med 1959; 110:585-602. 144. Ravin AW. Reciprocal capsular transformations of pneumococci. J Bacterial 1959;77:296-309. 145. Orskov I, Sharma V, Orskov F. Genetic mapping of the Kl and K4 antigens (L) of Escherichia co/i. Acta Path01 Microbial Stand [B] 1976;84: 125-3 1. 146. Silver RP, Vann WF, Aaronson W. Genetic and molecular analyses of Escherichia co/i Kl antigen genes. J Bacterial 1984; 157:568-75. 147. Boulnois GJ. Roberts IS, Hodge R, Hardy KR, Jann KB, Timmis KN. Analysis of the Kl capsule biosynthesis genes of Escherichia co/i: definition of three functional regions for capsule production. Mol Gen Genet 1987;208:242-6. 148. Moxon ER. Deich RA. Connelly C. Cloning of chromosomal DNA from Haenwphilus influetmze: its use for studying the expression of type b capsule and virulence. J Clin Invest 1984;73:298-306. 149. Hoiseth SK, Moxon ER, Silver RP. Genes involved in Hnemophilus inJluenzae type b capsule expression are part of an IS-kilobase tan- dem duplication. Proc Nat1 Acad Sci USA 1986;83: 1106-10. 150. Kroll JS, Hopkins I, Moxon ER. Capsule loss in Haemophilus iujuen- zae type b occurs by recombination-mediated disruption of a gene essential for polysaccharide export. Cell 1988;53:347-56. I5 I. Kroll JS, Zamze S, Loynds B, Moxon ER. Common organization of chromosomal loci for production of different capsular polysaccha- rides in Haemophilus in@enzae. J Bacterial 1989; 17 1:3343-7. 152. Watson DA, Musher DM. Interruption of capsule production in Sueptococcus pneumoniae serotype 3 by insertion of transposon Tn9/6. Infect lmmun 1990;58:3135-8. 153. Watson DA, Musher DM, Jacobson JW. Initial characterization of a cloned sequence required for encapsulation of Sfreptococcus pneu- moniae serotype 3 [abstract no B-l 651. In: Program and abstracts of the 9 1 st annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1991. 154. Boulnois GJ. Pneumococcal proteins and the pathogenesis of disease caused by Srreptococcus pneumoniae. J Gen Microbial 1992; 138:249-59. 155. Briles DE, Grain MJ, Gray BM, Forman C. Yother J. Strong associa- tion between capsular type and virulence for mice among human isolates of Srreprococcus pneumoniae. Infect Immun 1992;60: 111-6. 156. McDaniel LS, Scott G, Widenhofer K. Carroll JM. Briles DE. Analy- sis of a surface protein of Sfrepfococcus pneumoniae recognised by protective monoclonal antibodies. Microb Pathog 1986; I:5 19-3 I. 157. Yother J, McDaniel LS, Crain MJ, Talkington DF, Briles DE. Pneu- mococcal surface protein A: structural analysisand biological signif- icance. In: Dunny GM, Cleary PP. McKay LL. eds. Genetics and molecular biology of streptococci, lactococci. and enterococci. Washington. DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1991:88-9 1. 158. McDaniel LS, Sheffield JS. Delucchi P, Briles DE. PspA, a surface protein of Strepmmccus pneumoniae, is capable of eliciting protec- tion against pneumococci of more than one capsular type. Infect Immun 1991;59:222-8. 159. Martin B, Humbert 0. Camara M, et al. A highly conserved repeated DNA element located in the chromosome of Streptococcus pneu- moniae. Nucleic Acids Res 1992;20:3479-83.