4.4 Article

Designing multi-epitope vaccine candidates against functional amyloids in Pseudomonas aeruginosa through immunoinformatic and structural bioinformatics approach

期刊

INFECTION GENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 93, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104982

关键词

Immunoinformatics; Structural bioinformatics; Multi-epitope vaccines; Functional amyloid; P; aeruginosa infections

资金

  1. CSIR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pseudomonas aeruginosa displays high drug resistance and biofilm-mediated adaptability, making infections difficult to treat. Studying the biofilm component Fap has led to the identification of potential intervention targets, with vaccine candidates showing promising immunostimulation effects.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) displays high drug resistance and biofilm-mediated adaptability, which makes its infections difficult to treat. Alternative intervention methods and targets have made such infections treatment manageable. One of the biofilm components, functional amyloids of Pseudomonas (Fap) is correlated positively with virulence and mucoidy phenotype found in infection in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Extracellular accessibility, conservation across P. aeruginosa isolates and linkage with lung infections phenotype in CF patients, makes Fap a promising intervention target. Furthermore, the reported effect of bacterial amyloid on neuronal function and immune response makes it a targetable candidate. In the current study, Fap C protein and its im-mediate interactions were explored to extract antigenic T-cell and B-cell epitopes. A combination of epitopes and peptide adjuvants has been linked to derive vaccine candidate structures. The vaccine candidates were validated for antigenicity, allergenicity, physiochemical properties, stability and interactions with TLRs and MHC alleles. Immunosimulation studies have demonstrated that vaccines elicit Th1 dominated response, which can assist in good prognosis of infection in CF patients.

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