Comparison of Immunogenicity and Protective Efficacy of the Intranasal and Intraperitoneal Immunization Routes of <i>Escherichia albertii</i> Strain DM104 in Mouse Model

Abstract

In recent years, our group isolated the Escherichia albertii strain DM104 and characterized it as a vaccine strain against Shigella dysenteriae type 4 in the guinea pig eye model. Protective efficacy of different routes of immunization such as intranasal, oral, and intrarectal routes were also determined and compared by challenging immunized guinea pigs against live S. dysenteriae. In the current study, we compared the intranasal and intraperitoneal routes of immunizations with the DM104 vaccine strain in mice to understand the better route of administration of the DM104 vaccine and its immunogenicity as well as protective efficacy in mouse model. The results indicate that the immune response elicited by the DM104 strain is strongly dependent on the immunization route, with the intranasal route being more effective than the intraperitoneal route following intraperitoneal live S. dysenteriae challenge. Intranasal immunization yielded 80% protective efficacy in immunized mice whereas, intraperitoneal immunization could not provide any protection. Protection generated by intranasal immunization was accompanied by high titre of anti-whole cell lysate IgG and IgA in DM104 immunized sera compared to sera collected from mice of control group. All these data demonstrate the intranasal route of the vaccine DM104 strain in mouse model to be a better immunization route to protect the animals against live S. dysenteriae challenge.&#x0D; Bangladesh J Microbiol, Volume 37 Number 2 December 2020, pp 38-41

Oral immunization of Escherichia albertii strain DM104 induces protective immunity against Shigella dysenteriae type 4 in mouse model

“…The protective immunity provided by the E. albertii strain DM104 in guinea pig model [7,8] and mouse model [9] challenged with S. dysenteriae type 4 was previously reported by our group. In the present study, vaccination of mouse model with E. albertii strain DM104 conferred protection against S. dysenteriae type 4 infection.…”

“…In respect of antibody response and protective efficacy, intranasal immunization was found to show promising results. The immunogenicity and protective efficacy of DM104 strain using intranasal and intraperitoneal routes of immunizations were also determined and compared in mouse model against live S. dysenteriae type 4 challenge [9]. In the present study, we evaluated the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of the DM104 strain in orally immunized mice model against S. dysenteriae type 4 challenge and found that the DM104 bacterial strain provided 90% protection and also induced effective mucosal as well as humoral immune response in mice and proved to be a better route of immunization.…”