4.3 Article

Intranasal coinfection model allows for assessment of protein vaccines against nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae in mice

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 67, Issue 10, Pages 1527-1532

Publisher

MICROBIOLOGY SOC
DOI: 10.1099/jmm.0.000827

Keywords

acute otitis media; nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae; Protein D

Categories

Funding

  1. Rochester Institute of Technology
  2. Rochester Regional Health's Rochester General Hospital

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. Nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae (NTHi) is a commensal in the human nasopharynx and the cause of pneumonia, meningitis, sinusitis, acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute otitis media (AOM). AOM is the most common ailment for which antibiotics are prescribed in the United States. With the emergence of new strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, finding an effective and broad coverage vaccine to protect against AOM-causing pathogens has become a priority. Mouse models are a cost-effective and efficient way to help determine vaccine efficacy. Here, we describe an NTHi AOM model in C57BL/6J mice, which also utilizes a mouse-adapted H1N1 influenza virus to mimic human coinfection. Methodology. We tested our coinfection model using a protein vaccine formulation containing protein D, a well-studied NTHi vaccine candidate that can be found in the 10-valent Streptococcus pneumoniae conjugate vaccine. We verified the usefulness of our mouse model by comparing bacterial loads in the nose and ear between protein D-vaccinated and control mice. Results. While there was no measurable difference in nasal bacterial loads, we did detect significant differences in the bacterial loads of ear washes and ear bullae between vaccinated and control mice. Conclusion. The results from this study suggest that our NTHi AOM coinfection model is useful for assessing protein vaccines.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available