A Novel Mucosal Vaccine Against Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus Induces Protection in Mice and Swine

Abstract

Epitopes of a foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) capsid protein VP1 complex and a chimera of 6xHis-tagged cholera toxin B subunit (hCTB) were expressed in Hansenula polymorpha and used together as a mucosal vaccine. Antibody and cytokine responses to VP1-hCTB vaccine and protection against FMDV were evaluated by ELISA and a virus challenge test in mice, respectively. VP1-hCTB directly enhanced the expression of interleukin-5 (IL-5) both in serum and supernatants of cultured spleen cells. After challenging suckling mice with 10(5) FMDV (=50% lethal dosage per mouse) a greater protection was seen after intraperitoneal and intranasal vaccinations than after oral vaccination. In swine immunized with VP1-hCTB, immune responses were achieved after three administrations, and the vaccine protected swine (80%) when challenged with 10(6.5) FMDV (=50% infectious dosage per swine). These results demonstrated the possibility of using CTB as a mucosal adjuvant to elicit protective immune responses against FMDV.

Protection of Mice from Rabies by Intranasal Immunization with Inactivated Rabies Virus

“…For the practical application of a potential new rabies vaccine, five doses may not be acceptable, and many published studies have demonstrated successful intranasal immunization with less than three doses [1,25,26,29]. in our study, mice intranasally administered 3 times with crV/cT all died when intracerebrally infected with a lethal dose of virulent rabies virus, even though they showed some levels of anti-rabies virus ELisA antibodies and VNA (data not shown).…”

“…it is easier to vaccinate animals with the mucosal method than the parenteral method, and unlike parenteral vaccines, mucosal vaccination stimulates sigA production in mucosal tissues, which could effectively inhibit the entry of pathogens that invade their hosts via the mucosal route. The efficacy of mucosal immunization has been well documented for mucosal pathogens, such as influenza virus, Newcastle disease virus, foot and mouth disease virus, Aujeszky's disease virus, hiV and Ascaris suum [15,19,22,25,26,28,29,30]. Furthermore, mucosal immunization can also stimulate systemic immune responses, such as serum igG production and cytokine production by T cells [28,29].…”

“…recently, mucosal immunization using recombinant proteins or inactivated pathogens has been studied for both mucosal [15,19,22,25,26,28,29,30] and nonmucosal pathogens [1,2,16,23]. Due to the ease of administration and the efficacy against both mucosal and non-mucosal pathogens, a mucosal immunization strategy with recombinant protein is considered as one of the most promising alternative vaccination methods.…”

Production of vaccines and vaccine components in corn

“…The above mentioned studies are essential for complete characterization of corn-derived CT-B and LT-B to be able to assess safety of the product. pathogens that have had important economic impact on the swine industry (Nilubol et al 2004, Song et al 2005, Maurer et al 2005, Verdonck et al 2005, Joensuu et al 2004). In addition to the economic loss that they cause, the prevalence of these infectious diseases raises concerns about pork safety.…”

“…Recently, a significant amount of work has been done on the development of mucosal protein of transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) in a pre-immunize-oral boosting study (Lamphear et al 2004) and intranasal and oral vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease (Song et al 2005) have indicated promising results for success of mucosal vaccination in pigs.…”