4.5 Article

Partial protection against classical swine fever virus elicited by dendrimeric vaccine-candidate peptides in domestic pigs

期刊

VACCINE
卷 29, 期 26, 页码 4422-4429

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.03.095

关键词

Classical swine fever virus; Dendrimeric peptide vaccine; Cellular and humoral immune response; Marker (DIVA) vaccine

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN) [BIO2008-04487-C03-01, BIO2008-04487-C03-02, BIO2008-04487-C03-03]
  2. MICINN [CSD2006-0007]
  3. Fundacion Areces for CBMSO
  4. Generalitat de Catalunya [SGR2009-492]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report the immunogenicity of three dendrimeric peptide vaccine candidates for classical swine fever virus (CSFV). Each dendrimeric construct contained four copies of a B-cell epitope from the E2 glycoprotein of CSFV [construct 1: E2 (694-712); 2: E2 (712-727); 3: E2 (829-842)1 joined to a T-cell epitope from the NS3 protein (residues 1446-1460). Intramuscular immunization of domestic pigs with the different constructs significantly reduced the clinical score after lethal challenge with CSFV. In contrast, control pigs developed severe clinical signs of the disease. All pigs vaccinated with construct 1, containing a B-cell epitope from the E2 B-C domain, developed an antibody response that recognized not only the original dendrimeric immunogen but also its constituting E2 epitope in linear form, albeit no neutralizing antibodies were detected prior to viral challenge. Two of these pigs were partially protected, which associated with the induction of IFN-gamma producing cells and of neutralizing antibodies upon challenge. Interestingly, the serological response elicited by construct 1 lacked antibodies to E2 A domain, used as infection markers. The dendrimeric approach could therefore provide a basis for the development of CSFV marker (DIVA) vaccines, and contribute to a better understanding of the immune responses against CSFV. (C) 2011 Elsevier 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