4.5 Article

Structural basis and designing of peptide vaccine using PE-PGRS family protein of Mycobacterium ulcerans-An integrated vaccinomics approach

期刊

MOLECULAR IMMUNOLOGY
卷 120, 期 -, 页码 146-163

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.molimm.2020.02.009

关键词

Buruli ulcer; Mycobacterium ulcerans; PE-PGRS protein; Multi-epitope vaccine; Immunoinformatics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Buruli ulcer is an emerging tissue-necrosis infectious disease, caused by the pathogen Mycobacterium ulcerans, leading to permanent deformity if untreated. Despite this debilitating condition, no specific disease-modifying therapeutics or vaccination is available to date. Therefore, we aimed to design an effective multi-epitope vaccine against M. ulcerans using vaccinomics approach. Briefly, the highest antigenic PE-PGRS protein was selected from which the promiscuous T- and B-cell epitopes were predicted. After rigorous assessment, 15 promising Tand B-cell epitopes were selected. The identified T-cell epitopes showed marked interactions towards their HLA-binding alleles and provided 99.8 % world population coverage. Consequently, a vaccine chimera was designed by connecting these epitopes with suitable linkers and LprG adjuvant. The vaccine construct was highly anti-genic, immunogenic and non-allergenic; hence, subjected to homology modelling. The molecular docking and dynamics simulation revealed a strong and stable interaction between vaccine and toll-like receptor 2. The binding energy and dissociation constant were -15.3 kcal/mol and 5.9x10(-12) M, respectively. The computer-simulated immune responses showed abundance of immunoglobulins, increased interferon-gamma production, and macrophages activation which are crucial for immune response against M. ulcerans. Furthermore, disulfide bridging and in silico cloning were also performed. These results suggest that the vaccine, if validated experimentally, will be a promising candidate against M. ulcerans and prevent Buruli ulcer disease.

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