4.5 Article

Comparison of the protective efficacy of yeast-derived and Escherichia coli-derived recombinant merozoite surface protein 4/5 against lethal challenge by Plasmodium yoelii

期刊

VACCINE
卷 19, 期 32, 页码 4661-4668

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0264-410X(01)00244-4

关键词

Plasmodium yoelii; immunisation; antibodies; merozoite surface protein 4/5

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The gene encoding the Plasmodium yoelii homologue of P. falciparum merozoite surface proteins 4 (MSP4) and 5 (MSP5) has been expressed in Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The protein contains a single epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like domain and is expressed in a form lacking the predicted N-terminal signal and glycosyl phosphatidylinositol (GPI) attachment sequences. The recombinant protein derived from E. coli (EcMSP4/5) was highly effective at protecting mice against lethal challenge with 10(5) parasites of the P. yoelii YM strain. In contrast, the protective efficacy of yeast-derived MSP4/5 (yMSP4/5) was considerably less. The antibody titres in both groups were significantly different with mice immunised with yeast-derived protein showing significantly lower pre-challenge antibody responses. There was a significant inverse correlation between antibody levels as measured by ELISA and peak parasitaemia. Mice immunised with EcMSP4/5 produced anti-PyMSP4/5 antibodies predominantly of the IgG2a and IgG2b isotypes, whereas, mice immunised with yMSP4/5 mainly produced antibodies of the IgG1 isotype. The differences in antibody titres and subtype distribution may account for the observed differences in protective efficacy of these protein preparations. Levels of protective efficacy of MSP4/5 were compared with that obtained using P. yoelii MSPI produced in S. cerevisiae. Levels of protection induced by E. coh derived MSP4/5 were superior to those induced by MSPI which in turn were better than those induced by yeast-derived MSP4/5. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science 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