4.7 Article

Norovirus capsid protein expressed in yeast forms virus-like particles and stimulates systemic and mucosal immunity in mice following an oral administration of raw yeast extracts

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY
卷 79, 期 1, 页码 74-83

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.20762

关键词

human calicivirus; norovirus; capsid protein; yeast expression; immune response; vaccine

类别

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI37093, R01 AI55649] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [P01 HD13021] Funding Source: Medline
  3. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [P01HD013021] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R01AI055649, R01AI037093, R01AI137093] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Norovirus (NV) gastroenteritis is a widespread disease affecting people of all ages worldwide. A simple, safe, and easily deliverable vaccine may be the key for the control and prevention of NV gastroenteritis. In this study, we demonstrated that a NV recombinant capsid protein (strain VA387, genogroup 11.4) expressed in yeast (Pichia pastoris) spontaneously formed virus-like particles (VLPs) like those expressed in other in vitro systems. Oral administration of raw material from the yeast cell lysates containing 0.1 mg of VLPs without an adjuvant resulted in systemic and mucosal immune responses in mice. Significantly higher and earlier responses were observed in mice receiving a higher dose 0 mg per dose) of the antigen. Both the serum and fecal antibodies blocked VA387 VLP binding to its histo-blood group antigen receptors. The animals did not reveal any side effect following the administration of the yeast lysates. Our results indicated that yeast is a simple, effective alternative for NV VLP production. The mice immunization study also indicated that the oral administration of raw yeast extracts without an adjuvant is a safe and simple way which is worth to be studied for vaccine delivery in humans.

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

4.7
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