4.6 Article

A reverse vaccinology approach to the identification and characterization of Ctenocephalides felis candidate protective antigens for the control of cat flea infestations

期刊

PARASITES & VECTORS
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13071-018-2618-x

关键词

Flea; Immunology; Proteomics; Transcriptomics; Vaccine; Vaccinology

资金

  1. CSIC [201440E098]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Despite the abundance of the domestic cat flea, Ctenocephalides felis (Bouche, 1835) and disease risks associated with them, flea control is difficult and requires the development of new control interventions such as vaccines. In this study, a reverse vaccinology approach was designed to achieve a rational selection of cat flea candidate protective antigens. Methods: Based on transcriptomics and proteomics data from unfed adult fleas it was possible to select more specific candidate protective antigens based on highly represented and functionally relevant proteins present in the predicted exoproteome. The protective capacity of the recombinant antigens was evaluated for the control of C. felis infestations in vaccinated cats. Results: Vaccination with recombinant antigens induced an antibody response in immunized cats. Furthermore, a correlation was obtained between the effect of vaccination (antibody levels) and vaccine efficacy on flea phenotype (egg hatchability). The results suggested that the main effect of vaccination with these antigens was on reducing cat flea egg hatchability and fertility, with an overall vaccine efficacy of 32-46%. Although vaccination with these antigens did not have an effect on flea infestations, vaccines affecting reproductive capacity could reduce cat flea populations, particularly under conditions of direct insect transmission between cats. Conclusions: These results support the development of vaccines with protective antigens affecting flea reproduction and development after feeding on immunized animals for the control of cat flea infestations.

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

4.6
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