4.5 Article

Detecting and preventing reversion to toxicity for a formaldehyde-treated C-difficile toxin B mutant

Journal

VACCINE
Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 252-259

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.06.032

Keywords

Toxoid vaccines; Clostridium difficile toxin B

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The toxicity of Clostridium difficile large clostridial toxin B (TcdB) can be reduced by many orders of magnitude by a combination of targeted point mutations. However, a TcdB mutant with five point mutations (referred to herein as mTcdB) still has residual toxicity that can be detected in cell-based assays and in-vivo mouse toxicity assays. This residual toxicity can be effectively removed by treatment with formaldehyde in solution. Storage of the formaldehyde-treated mTcdB as a liquid can result in reversion over time back to the mTcdB level of toxicity, with the rate of reversion dependent on the storage temperature. We found that for both the forward mTcdB detoxification reaction with formaldehyde, and the reverse reversion to toxicity reaction, mouse toxicity correlated with several biochemical assays including anion exchange chromatography retention time and appearance on SDS-PAGE. Maintenance of a low concentration of formaldehyde prevents reversion to toxicity in liquid formulations. However, when samples with 0.016% (v/v) formaldehyde were lyophilized and stored at 37 degrees C, formaldehyde continued to react with and modify the mTcdB in the lyophilized state. Lyophilization alone effectively prevented reversion to toxicity for formaldehyde-treated, formaldehyde-removed mTcdB samples stored at 37 degrees C for 6 months. Formaldehyde-treated, formaldehyde-removed lyophilized mTcdB showed no evidence of reversion to toxicity, appeared stable by several assays, and was immunogenic in mice, even after storage for 6 months at 37 degrees C. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available