| Literature DB >> 23738120 |
Peter Hedlin1, Ryan Taschuk, Andrew Potter, Philip Griebel, Scott Napper.
Abstract
Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), or prion diseases, represent a unique form of infectious disease based on misfolding of a self-protein (PrP(C)) into a pathological, infectious conformation (PrP(Sc)). Prion diseases of food animals gained notoriety during the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) outbreak of the 1980s. In particular, disease transmission to humans, to the generation of a fatal, untreatable disease, elevated the perspective on livestock prion diseases from food production to food safety. While the immediate threat posed by BSE has been successfully addressed through surveillance and improved management practices, another prion disease is rapidly spreading. Chronic wasting disease (CWD), a prion disease of cervids, has been confirmed in wild and captive populations with devastating impact on the farmed cervid industries. Furthermore, the unabated spread of this disease through wild populations threatens a natural resource that is a source of considerable economic benefit and national pride. In a worst-case scenario, CWD may represent a zoonotic threat either through direct transmission via consumption of infected cervids or through a secondary food animal, such as cattle. This has energized efforts to understand prion diseases as well as to develop tools for disease detection, prevention, and management. Progress in each of these areas is discussed.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23738120 PMCID: PMC3658581 DOI: 10.5402/2012/254739
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISRN Vet Sci ISSN: 2090-4452
Comparative analysis of prion diseases of food animals.
| TSE | Age of onset (yr) | Disease variants | Mode of transmission | Genetic predisposition | Clinical signs | Cross-species infectivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scrapie | 2–4 [ | Classical atypical/Nor98 | Amniotic fluid and placenta [ | Susceptibility | Weight loss | Cattle, goat, mouse, hamster, rat, bank vole, deer, and elk [ |
|
| ||||||
| BSE | 4-5 [ | Classical | Contaminated feed [ | Susceptibility [ | Weight loss | Bison, sheep, goat, deer, pig, mink, marmoset, cat, mouse, human, nonhuman primates [ |
|
| ||||||
| CWD | 2–4 [ | Possible varied conformer population [ | Animal contact and environmental contamination [ | Susceptibility [ | Weight loss | Moose, cattle, sheep, goat, mouse, hamster, ferret, mink, and squirrel monkey [ |
Figure 1Regions of PrP targeted in the various immunotherapeutic investigations.
Comparative analysis of in vitro and ex vivo immunotherapeutic investigations of prion diseases.
| Region | Model | Efficacy | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| mAb 3F4 (109–113) | Cell-free conversion | pSera 219–232 disrupted formation of new PrPSc | Gilch et al. 2003 [ | |
| mAb 6H4 (144–152) | ScN2a cell line | Clearance of PrPSc from cell line following antibody treatment | Enari et al. 2001 [ | |
| Fab D18 (132–156) | ScN2a cell line | Blocked PrPSc formation and cleared existing PrPSc | Peretz et al. 2001 [ | |
|
| SAF34 (octarepeat) SAF61 (144–152) | ScN2a cell line overexpressing PrPC | Both Abs decreased PrPSc and PrPC in infected and uninfected cells | Perrier et al. 2004 [ |
| Panel of antibodies to PrPC and PrPSc generated in PrP0/0 mice | ScN2a cell line | Capacity for protection independent of epitope but dependent on ability to bind cell surface PrPC to prevent internalization | Kim et al. 2004 [ | |
| ER targeted scFv of 8H4 (175–185) and 8F9 (225–231) | Expression in PC12 cell line | Inhibition of PrPC translocation to cell surface; prevented PrPSc accumulation | Cardinale et al. 2005 [ | |
| mAbs to “YYR” motif | ScN2a cell line | Reduced content of PrPSc | Cashman and Caughey 2004 [ | |
|
| ||||
|
| PrPC poly Ab | Golden hamster | 2-log reduction | Gabizon et al. 1988 [ |
| Fab D18 (132–156) | ScN2a cell line | Mice lived 3 months longer (3-log reduction of infectivity) | Peretz et al. 2001 [ | |
Comparative analysis of in vivo immunotherapeutic investigations of prion diseases.
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Region | Model | Efficacy | Reference |
| Passive | scFv 8H4 (145–180) | Lysates from scFv PC12 cells i.c. injected into mice 35 days after scrapie exposure | 2/10 mice protected from 8/10 infection mice symptom-free after 300 days | Vetrugno et al. 2005 [ |
|
| ||||
| Passive | Anti-PrP IgG Abs ICSM 35 (94–105) | Mice challenged i.p. with scrapie, Ab treatment twice weekly | Signficant delay in prion symptoms. Reduction in splenic PrPsc and delayed transfer to brain | White et al. 2003 [ |
|
| ||||
| Passive | mAb 8B4 (34–52) | Mice challenged i.p. with scrapie, weekly treatment with Ab | 8H4 and 8B4 10% longer incubation period at high challenge dose. At low challenge dose, 8B4 prevented disease in 10% of animals | Sigurdsson et al. 2003 [ |
|
| ||||
| Passive (engineered) | Transgenic mice expressing 6H4 (144–152) as single chain-Ab | Mice challenged i.p. with scrapie | Prolonged survival by 120 days | Heppner et al. 2001 [ |
|
| ||||
| Passive (engineered) | PrPC
| Expression specifically in CNS with recombinant adenoassociated vector type 2 viral vector platform | Delayed onset in peripherally inoculated mice | Wuertzer et al. 2008 [ |
|
| ||||
| Active | rPrPC
| s.c. vaccination of mice | 10% increase in incubation time; correlated with Ab titres | Sigurdsson et al. 2003 [ |
|
| ||||
| Active | Peptide 105–125 rPrPC 90–230 | Mice immunized and orally challenged with infected brain homogenate | Peptide improved survival by 23 days; protein had no effect | Schwarz et al. 2003 [ |
|
| ||||
| Active (engineered) | Human PrPC | Transfer of adenotransduced dendritic cells. Mice challenged i.p. | Prolonged survival times | Rosset et al. 2009 [ |
|
| ||||
| Active (mucosal) | Salmonella expressing PrP | Four oral vaccinations with live salmonella; 2 with dead | 100% of mice expressing high IgA and IgG and 33% of mice with high-IgG and low-IgA symptom-free after 400 days | Goñi et al. 2008 [ |
Figure 2Potential points of impact of a prion vaccine. An effective CWD vaccine should decrease peripheral and CNS loads of individual animals, leading to decreased transmission both within and outside cervid populations, and decreased environmental shedding. These factors would lead to an overall reduction in available infectious prion and benefit both wild and food animals, as well as humans.