4.6 Article

Identification of Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte Epitopes on Swine Viruses: Multi-Epitope Design for Universal T Cell Vaccine

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084443

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health Research Institutes, Taiwan [PH-101-PP-45]
  2. National Science Council, Taiwan [NSC101-2319-B-400-001, NSC101-2313-B-020-017-MY3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Classical swine fever (CSF), foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) are the primary diseases affecting the pig industry globally. Vaccine induced CD8(+) T cell-mediated immune response might be long-lived and cross-serotype and thus deserve further attention. Although large panels of synthetic overlapping peptides spanning the entire length of the polyproteins of a virus facilitate the detection of cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) epitopes, it is an exceedingly costly and cumbersome approach. Alternatively, computational predictions have been proven to be of satisfactory accuracy and are easily performed. Such a method enables the systematic identification of genome-wide CTL epitopes by incorporating epitope prediction tools in analyzing large numbers of viral sequences. In this study, we have implemented an integrated bioinformatics pipeline for the identification of CTL epitopes of swine viruses including the CSF virus (CSFV), FMD virus (FMDV) and PRRS virus (PRRSV) and assembled these epitopes on a web resource to facilitate vaccine design. Identification of epitopes for cross protections to different subtypes of virus are also reported in this study and may be useful for the development of a universal vaccine against such viral infections among the swine population. The CTL epitopes identified in this study have been evaluated in silico and possibly provide more and wider protection in compared to traditional single-reference vaccine design. The web resource is free and open to all users through http://sb.nhri.org.tw/ICES.

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