4.6 Article

A DNA prime-live vaccine boost strategy in mice can augment IFN-γ responses to mycobacterial antigens but does not increase the protective efficacy of two attenuated strains of Mycobacterium bovis against bovine tuberculosis

期刊

IMMUNOLOGY
卷 108, 期 4, 页码 548-555

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2567.2003.01589.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Mycobacterium bovis bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine has variable efficacy for both human and bovine tuberculosis. There is a need for improved vaccines or vaccine strategies for control of these diseases. A recently developed prime-boost strategy was investigated for vaccination against M. bovis infection in mice. BALB/c and C57 BL/6 mice were primed with a DNA vaccine, expressing two mycobacterial antigens, ESAT-6 and antigen 85 A and boosted with attenuated M. bovis strains, BCG or WAg520, a newly attenuated strain, prior to aerosol challenge. Before challenge, the antigen-specific production of interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) was evaluated by ELISPOT and antibody responses were measured. The prime-boost stimulated an increase in the numbers of IFN-gamma producing cells compared with DNA or live vaccination alone, but this varied according to the attenuated vaccine strain, time of challenge and the strain of mouse used. Animals vaccinated with DNA alone generated the strongest antibody response to mycobacterial antigens, which was predominantly IgG1. BCG and WAg520 alone generally gave a 1-2 log(10) reduction in bacterial load in lungs or spleen, compared to non-vaccinated or plasmid DNA only control groups. The prime-boost regimen was not more effective than BCG or WAg520 alone. These observations demonstrate the comparable efficacy of BCG and WAg520 in a mouse model of bovine tuberculosis. However, priming with the DNA vaccine and boosting with an attenuated M. bovis vaccine enhanced IFN-gamma immune responses compared to vaccinating with an attenuated M. bovis vaccine alone, but did not increase protection against a virulent M. bovis infection.

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