| Literature DB >> 29216932 |
Charlotte Vanmarsenille1,2,3,4, Inés Díaz Del Olmo1,2,3, Jelle Elseviers5, Gholamreza Hassanzadeh Ghassabeh5, Kristof Moonens1,2, Didier Vertommen6, An Martel4, Freddy Haesebrouck4, Frank Pasmans4, Jean-Pierre Hernalsteens3, Henri De Greve7,8.
Abstract
Campylobacter infections are among the most prevalent foodborne infections in humans, resulting in a massive disease burden worldwide. Broilers have been identified as the major source of campylobacteriosis and reducing Campylobacter loads in the broiler caeca has been proposed as an effective measure to decrease the number of infections in humans. Failure of current methods to control Campylobacter in broilers stresses the urgency to develop novel mitigation measures. We obtained six nanobodies with a broad specificity, that recognize strains belonging to the two most relevant species, Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli. The target of the nanobodies was identified as the major outer membrane protein, a porin that contributes to bacterial virulence and viability. Multimerization of the nanobodies led to agglutination of C. jejuni cells, which may affect colonization in the chicken gut. These Campylobacter-specific nanobodies may be useful to develop a strategy for preserving chickens from Campylobacter colonization.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29216932 PMCID: PMC5721652 DOI: 10.1186/s13567-017-0491-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Res ISSN: 0928-4249 Impact factor: 3.683
Bacterial strains used in this study
| Species | Strain | Source |
|---|---|---|
|
| KC40 | Environment chickena*+ |
| 7P-6.12 | Chickena+ | |
| 10C-6.1 | Chickena+ | |
| 10KF-1.16 | Chickena+ | |
| 10KF-4.12 | Chickena+ | |
| 10VTDD-8 | Chickena+ | |
| KC59.1 | Chickena* | |
| KC64.1 | Chickena* | |
| KC67.1 | Chickena* | |
| KC84.1 | Chickena* | |
| KC96.1 | Chickena* | |
| KC101 | Environment chickena* | |
| Cam12/0214 | Humanb | |
| Cam12/0231 | Humanb | |
| Cam12/0146 | Humanb | |
| Cam12/0152 | Humanb | |
| Cam12/0173 | Humanb | |
| Cam12/0197 | Humanb | |
| Cam12/0156 | Humanb | |
| Cam12/0190 | Humanb | |
| Cam12/0202 | Humanb | |
| Cam12/0222 | Humanb | |
| Cam12/0183 | Humanb | |
|
| 52/P | Chickenc |
| 70/P | Chickenc | |
| K43/5 | Chickenc | |
| KC7 | Chickenc | |
| MB3361 | Chickenc | |
|
| TG1 | [ |
| DH5α | [ | |
| WK6 | [ |
* The fla-DGGE analysis is described in Najdenski et al. [51].
+The MLST results are described in Hermans et al. [30].
aIsolates obtained from a poultry farm or a slaughterhouse, provided by Dr. Marc Heyndrickx (Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Technology and Food Science Unit—Food Safety, Melle, Belgium).
bClinical isolates obtained from faeces of infected patients, provided by Dr. D. Martiny (Microbiology Department, Iris-lab, Brussels, Belgium). MLST analysis showed that the isolates belong to different clonal complexes (CC-21, CC-464, CC-21, CC-206, CC-48, CC-45) (D. Martiny, personal communication).
cIsolates obtained from chickens, provided by Dr. Marc Heyndrickx (Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Technology and Food Science Unit—Food Safety, Melle, Belgium).
Figure 1Amino acid sequence alignment of anti- nanobodies selected for their broad specificity. The structural framework regions are indicated by FR1–FR4 and the red boxes specify the CDRs. On the basis of the variation of the amino acid sequence of the CDR3, the nanobodies were divided in twelve unique groups.
Figure 2Anti- nanobodies interact with native outer membrane proteins. Serial tenfold dilutions of the nanobodies were used in ELISA to assess the binding with linear or conformational epitopes. OMPs (1 µg/mL) were coated in a 96-well plate and the interaction of His-tagged nanobodies with native, untreated OMP, and with denatured protein extract was measured. Binding of A Nb5, B Nb22, C Nb23, D Nb24, E Nb49 and F Nb84 was measured. For detection, mouse anti-Histidine tag monoclonal antibody and goat anti-mouse IgG conjugated to alkaline phosphatase were used. The error bars represent the standard deviations.
Figure 3Confirmation of the binding of Nb84 with native MOMP. The purified MOMP monomer was subjected to non-denaturing (A) and denaturing (B) SDS-PAGE and transferred to a PVDF membrane for western blotting in which the membrane was first incubated with Nb84. Nb84 shows clear interaction with folded but not with unfolded MOMP. His-tagged Nb84 was added as a positive control. The interaction of the native protein with Nb84 was analysed using a mouse anti-Histidine tag monoclonal antibody and goat anti-mouse IgG conjugated to alkaline phosphatase. The PageRuler™ prestained protein ladder was used as a molecular weight marker.
Figure 4MST analysis of the binding of anti- Nb84 with the purified MOMP monomer. The binding curve of Nb84 with the MOMP monomer was obtained in a saturation binding experiment. The formation of Nb84-MOMP complexes was measured at constant concentrations of the fluorescently labelled Nb84 (32 nM) and varying concentrations of unlabelled MOMP (0.3 nM–5 µM). Data were normalized to ΔFnorm [‰]. The competitive binding curves visualise the inhibition of binding of the fluorescently labelled Nb84 (32 nM) with MOMP (0.3 nM–5 µM) by unlabelled A Nb5, B Nb22 and C Nb84 (10 µM). The error bars represent the standard deviations.
Figure 5Interaction between Nb84 and purified MOMP. To obtain the saturation binding curve, ELISA plates were coated with purified MOMP monomers (1 µg/mL) and the interaction with increasing concentrations of His-tagged Nb84 (1 × 10−6 to 1 × 102 µg/mL) was measured. A competition assay was performed to assess the inhibition of the interaction of His-tagged Nb84 with MOMP by increasing amounts of strep-tagged Nb84. His-tagged Nb84 (5 × 10−2 µg/mL) and a serial dilution of strep-tagged Nb84 (1 × 10−6 to 1 × 102 µg/mL) were added to ELISA plates coated with MOMP (1 µg/mL). The ELISA was developed using a mouse anti-Histidine tag monoclonal antibody and goat anti-mouse IgG conjugated to alkaline phosphatase. The error bars represent the standard deviations.
Figure 6Detection of the interaction of anti- nanobodies and KC40 by immunofluorescence microscopy. The interaction was detected by (A, C, E, G) immunofluorescence microscopy and the C. jejuni cells (B, D, F, H) were visualised by bright field microscopy. A, B A nanobody specific for F4-fimbriated enterotoxigenic E. coli shows no binding with the C. jejuni cells. C, D; E, F and G, H The anti-Campylobacter nanobodies Nb22, Nb23 and Nb84 respectively, binds specifically with the C. jejuni cells.
Figure 7Nanobody-coated beads agglutinate KC40 cells. The His-tagged nanobodies were coupled to magnetic dynabeads, leading to multimerization. A Nb84 coupled to dynabeads causes agglutination of KC40 cells. B As a negative control, dynabeads coated with anti-E. coli nanobodies were mixed with KC40 cells. No agglutination was observed in this case. C The C. jejuni KC40 bacteria and D the beads coated with Nb84. The results were observed by phase contrast microscopy, using a ×100 oil immersion objective.