Literature DB >> 21565244

Sublingually administered Bacillus subtilis cells expressing tetanus toxin C fragment induce protective systemic and mucosal antibodies against tetanus toxin in mice.

J Hellen Amuguni1, Sangun Lee, Kathryn O Kerstein, David W Brown, Boris R Belitsky, John E Herrmann, Gerald T Keusch, Abraham L Sonenshein, Saul Tzipori.   

Abstract

Sublingual (SL) immunization against infectious agents or bacterial toxins is not a common route for antigen delivery. However, in our continued search for a needle-free platform for vaccine administration, we evaluated the efficacy of SL immunization with Bacillus subtilis engineered to express tetanus toxin fragment C (TTFC). We compared the results obtained with those for intranasal (IN) immunization with the same vaccine, which we recently reported to induce complete protection in mice against a 2×LD100 challenge of tetanus toxin (Lee et al., Vaccine 28:6658-65). Groups of animals received 3-4 immunizations of 10(9)B. subtilis vegetative cells expressing TTFC given IN or SL. Other SL immunized groups received either purified recombinant TTFC (rTTFC) or B. subtilis placebo. A non-toxic mutant of Escherichia coli heat labile enterotoxin (mLT) was included as adjuvant in some of the studies. Mice inoculated by either IN or SL administration developed protective IgG antibodies against tetanus toxin challenge. Similar of higher IgA levels in saliva, vaginal wash and feces were detected in animals immunized SL with B. subtilis cells expressing TTFC compared with IN-immunized mice or mice immunized SL with rTTFC. SL immunization promoted a mixed Th1/Th2 response, based on cytokine analysis (IL-2, IL-4, IL-10 and INFγ). Antigen-stimulated tissues (lung, intestine, spleen and lymph nodes) revealed a dramatic increase in the density of MHC class II+ expressing cells compared to all other groups. The antibody response to TTFC was superior when the adjuvant mLT was excluded from IN and SL immunizations. However, SL administration of mLT induced strong systemic and mucosal antibody responses, indicating that successful use of this route of immunization is not specific to tetanus toxin. We conclude that SL immunization is a promising, effective, safe, non-invasive and convenient method for mucosal delivery of B. subtilis cells expressing tetanus vaccine and, potentially, other immunogens. SL immunization appears to induce both systemic and mucosal immune responses.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21565244     DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.04.083

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vaccine        ISSN: 0264-410X            Impact factor:   3.641


  13 in total

Review 1.  Microneedle-Mediated Vaccine Delivery to the Oral Mucosa.

Authors:  Rachel L Creighton; Kim A Woodrow
Journal:  Adv Healthc Mater       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 9.933

2.  Methylglycol chitosan and a synthetic TLR4 agonist enhance immune responses to influenza vaccine administered sublingually.

Authors:  Justin L Spinner; Hardeep S Oberoi; Yvonne M Yorgensen; Danielle S Poirier; David J Burkhart; Martin Plante; Jay T Evans
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 3.641

Review 3.  Mucosal vaccine delivery: Current state and a pediatric perspective.

Authors:  Akhilesh Kumar Shakya; Mohammed Y E Chowdhury; Wenqian Tao; Harvinder Singh Gill
Journal:  J Control Release       Date:  2016-02-06       Impact factor: 9.776

Review 4.  Bacillus subtilis: a temperature resistant and needle free delivery system of immunogens.

Authors:  Hellen Amuguni; Saul Tzipori
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Gut adhesive Bacillus subtilis spores as a platform for mucosal delivery of antigens.

Authors:  Milene Tavares Batista; Renata D Souza; Juliano D Paccez; Wilson B Luiz; Ewerton L Ferreira; Rafael C M Cavalcante; Rita C C Ferreira; Luís C S Ferreira
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  2014-01-13       Impact factor: 3.441

6.  Tetanus toxin fragment C fused to flagellin makes a potent mucosal vaccine.

Authors:  Shee Eun Lee; Chung Truong Nguyen; Soo Young Kim; Thinh Nguyen Thi; Joon Haeng Rhee
Journal:  Clin Exp Vaccine Res       Date:  2015-01-30

7.  Hard surface biocontrol in hospitals using microbial-based cleaning products.

Authors:  Alberta Vandini; Robin Temmerman; Alessia Frabetti; Elisabetta Caselli; Paola Antonioli; Pier Giorgio Balboni; Daniela Platano; Alessio Branchini; Sante Mazzacane
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-26       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Immune responses elicited against rotavirus middle layer protein VP6 inhibit viral replication in vitro and in vivo.

Authors:  Suvi Lappalainen; Ana Ruth Pastor; Kirsi Tamminen; Vanessa López-Guerrero; Fernando Esquivel-Guadarrama; Laura A Palomares; Timo Vesikari; Vesna Blazevic
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 9.  Vaccines as alternatives to antibiotics for food producing animals. Part 2: new approaches and potential solutions.

Authors:  Karin Hoelzer; Lisa Bielke; Damer P Blake; Eric Cox; Simon M Cutting; Bert Devriendt; Elisabeth Erlacher-Vindel; Evy Goossens; Kemal Karaca; Stephane Lemiere; Martin Metzner; Margot Raicek; Miquel Collell Suriñach; Nora M Wong; Cyril Gay; Filip Van Immerseel
Journal:  Vet Res       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 3.683

10.  Toxicity and immunogenicity of Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli heat-labile and heat-stable toxoid fusion 3xSTa(A14Q)-LT(S63K/R192G/L211A) in a murine model.

Authors:  Chengxian Zhang; David E Knudsen; Mei Liu; Donald C Robertson; Weiping Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-11       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.