3.9 Article

Lipopolysaccharide as an Antigen Target for the Formulation of a Universal Vaccine against Escherichia coli O111 Strains

期刊

CLINICAL AND VACCINE IMMUNOLOGY
卷 17, 期 11, 页码 1772-1780

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/CVI.00232-10

关键词

-

资金

  1. CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico), Brazil [4796506-06]
  2. National Institute for Science and Technology-Vaccine (INCT-V)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A promising approach to developing a vaccine against O111 strains of diarrheagenic Escherichia coli that exhibit different mechanisms of virulence is to target either the core or the polysaccharide chain (O antigen) of their lipopolysaccharide (LPS). However, due to structural variations found in both these LPS components, to use them as antigen targets for vaccination, it is necessary to formulate a vaccine able to induce a humoral immune response that can recognize all different variants found in E. coli O111 strains. In this study, it was demonstrated that, despite differences in composition of oligosaccharide repeat units between O111ab and O111ac LPS subtypes, antibodies against one O111 subtype can recognize and inhibit the adhesion to human epithelial cells of all categories of O111 E. coli (enteropathogenic E. coli [EPEC], enterohemorrhagic E. coli [EHEC], and enteroaggregative E. coli [EAEC]) strains regardless of the nature of their flagellar antigens, mechanisms of virulence, or O111 polysaccharide subtypes. These antibodies were also able to increase the clearance of different strains of O111 E. coli by macrophages. PCR analyses of the pathways involved in O111 LPS core biosynthesis showed that all EAEC strains have core type R2, whereas typical EPEC and EHEC have core type R3. In contrast, atypical EPEC strains have core types R2 and R3. In summary, the results presented herein indicate that the O111 polysaccharide and LPS core types R2 and R3 are antigen targets for panspecific immunotherapy against all categories of O111 E. coli.

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

3.9
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