4.5 Article

Protective efficacy against Chlamydophila psittaci by oral immunization based on transgenic rice expressing MOMP in mice

期刊

VACCINE
卷 31, 期 4, 页码 698-703

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.11.039

关键词

MOMP; Transgenic rice; Oral immunization; Edible vaccine

资金

  1. National Program for High Technology Research [2011AA10A215]
  2. Project of Science and Technology New Star of Zhu Jiang [2011J2200100]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30901067]
  4. Scientific and Technological Planning Project of Guangdong Province [2010B020307006]
  5. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20094404120016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Avian chlamydiosis is caused by Chlamydophila psittaci (Cp. psittaci) and major outer membrane protein (MOMP) of Cp. psittaci is an excellent vaccine candidate. In this study, the MOMP gene was expressed in rice callus by the Agrobacterium tumefaciens vector. The production of protein in transgenic rice seeds was confirmed and quantified by Western-blot and ELISA, the results demonstrating that the antigen was expressed stably. The transgenic rice seeds expressing the MOMP protein were administered by the oral route to BALB/c mice, which developed MOMP-specific serum IgG and fecal IgA antibodies and a splenocyte MOMP-specific proliferative response and significant levels of IFN-gamma, IL-2, IL-4, IL-5 and TGF-beta production. Immunization with MOMP transgenic seeds induced partial protection (50%) against a lethal challenge with the highly virulent Cp. psittaci 6BC strain. Lung function after challenge was less affected compared non-MOMP immunized animals. The results demonstrate the feasibility of using transgenic rice seeds as an oral vaccine to generate protective immunity and reduce the lung lesions in mice against virulent Cp. psittaci 6BC strain. This finding has implications for further development of an oral vaccine against avian chlamydiosis. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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