2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.06.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Vaccination of mice with plasmids expressing processed capsid protein of foot-and-mouth disease virus—Importance of dominant and subdominant epitopes for antigenicity and protection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

2
8
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
2
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The differences in results between these two studies were attributed to either different vaccination approaches (DNA vaccine versus inactivated virus) or the animal species tested (mice versus cattle). However, the use of xenoepitope substitution of the decoy epitope in this work does appear to have broadened immunity to different epitopes found in the native virus (in the peptide group containing the PRRSV substitution), which is in keeping with the results of Frimann et al (16).Two similarities of our study with Frimann et al, which differ from those of Fowler et al, were the animal species used (mice versus cattle) and serotype of FMDV used (type O versus type A). Given the immense variation in G-H loop amino acid sequence between serotypes (with the exception of the RGD integrin-binding motif), it is possible that the region upstream of RGD is not as important for immunity against type A viruses (and may not even contain a decoy epitope).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The differences in results between these two studies were attributed to either different vaccination approaches (DNA vaccine versus inactivated virus) or the animal species tested (mice versus cattle). However, the use of xenoepitope substitution of the decoy epitope in this work does appear to have broadened immunity to different epitopes found in the native virus (in the peptide group containing the PRRSV substitution), which is in keeping with the results of Frimann et al (16).Two similarities of our study with Frimann et al, which differ from those of Fowler et al, were the animal species used (mice versus cattle) and serotype of FMDV used (type O versus type A). Given the immense variation in G-H loop amino acid sequence between serotypes (with the exception of the RGD integrin-binding motif), it is possible that the region upstream of RGD is not as important for immunity against type A viruses (and may not even contain a decoy epitope).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Capsid-based DNA vaccines bearing full or partial replacement of the G-H loop (including the decoy epitope) with glycine residues have been found to greatly enhance cross-reactivity of sera from inoculated mice to different serotypes of FMDV. Complete replacement of the G-H loop was inefficient at protecting mice from homologous challenge, but partial G-H loop replacement appears to have prevented viremia and death in vaccinated animals (16). In a related experiment, Fowler et al (14) determined that partial loss of the FMDV serotype A G-H loop, immediately upstream of RGD and through the downstream alpha-helix (the structure of which was predicted to be lost by computational analysis), in inactivated vaccines did not generate broadened immunity or immune refocusing in cattle.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It should be noted that the RGD sequence was deleted from the G-H loop. The three-dimensional and antigenic structures of many different serotypes of the FMDV have been examined [8]. In spite of losing the RGD sequence and acquiring a Asp 26 →Glu substitution in a beta sheet located in a small groove of the 3D pol protein, the virus grew in a BHK-21 suspension cell culture and exerted cytopathic effects after 16~18 h. Since this strain is used as a vaccine strain, it may be inferred that the RGD does not have a key role in the virus binding to cells during infection.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The VP1 capsid protein harbors the main neutralizing epitopes of EV71 [21-24] and its sequence variability is used to classify EV71 into subgenogroups [25]. In addition, neutralizing or antigenic epitopes on the VP0 and VP2 proteins have been described in other members of the picornavirus family including poliovirus [26,27], coxsackievirus A9 [28], foot-mouth-disease virus [29], and parechovirus [30]. Furthermore, VP0 has been proposed as a diagnostic tool to detect anti-human parechovirus 1 antibodies in patient sera [31,32].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%