4.4 Article

Effective plague vaccination via oral delivery of plant cells expressing F1-V antigens in chloroplasts

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 76, 期 8, 页码 3640-3650

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.00050-08

关键词

-

资金

  1. USDA [3611-21000-017-00D]
  2. NIH [5R01 GM 63879-06]
  3. DTRA research plan [A2-X002-04-RD-B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The chloroplast bioreactor is an alternative to fermentation-based systems for production of vaccine antigens and biopharmaceuticals. We report here expression of the plague FIN fusion antigen in chloroplasts. Site-specific transgene integration and homoplasmy were confirmed by PCR and Southern blotting. Mature leaves showed the highest level of transgene expression on the third day of continuous illumination, with a maximum level of 14.8% of the total soluble protein. Swiss Webster mice were primed with adjuvant-containing subcutaneous (s.c.) doses of F1-V and then boosted with either adjuvanted s.c. doses (s.c. FIN mice) or unadjuvanted oral doses (oral F1-V mice). Oral FIN mice had higher prechallenge serum immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) titers than s.c. F1-V mice. The corresponding serum levels of antigen-specific IgG2a and IgA were 2 and 3 orders of magnitude lower, respectively. After vaccination, mice were exposed to an inhaled dose of 1.02 X 10(6) CFU of aerosolized Yersinia pestis CO92 (50% lethal dose, 6.8 X 10(4) CFU). All control animals died within 3 days. F1-V given s.c. (with adjuvant) protected 33% of the immunized mice, while 88% of the oral F1-V mice survived aerosolized Y. pestis challenge. A comparison of splenic Y. pestis CFU counts showed that there was a 7- to 10-log reduction in the mean bacterial burden in survivors. Taken together, these data indicate that oral booster doses effectively elicit protective immune responses in vivo. In addition, this is the first report of a plant-derived oral vaccine that protected animals from live Y. pestis challenge, bringing the likelihood of lower-cost vaccines closer to reality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据