| Literature DB >> 29347954 |
Marinela Contreras1, Margarita Villar1, Sara Artigas-Jerónimo1, Lidiia Kornieieva2, Sergіі Mуtrofanov2, José de la Fuente3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the abundance of the domestic cat flea, Ctenocephalides felis (Bouché, 1835) and disease risks associated with them, flea control is difficult and requires the development of new control interventions such as vaccines. In this study, a reverse vaccinology approach was designed to achieve a rational selection of cat flea candidate protective antigens.Entities:
Keywords: Flea; Immunology; Proteomics; Transcriptomics; Vaccine; Vaccinology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29347954 PMCID: PMC5774092 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-018-2618-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1Cat flea (Ctenocephalides felis) life cycle and vaccine efficacy. Representative images of different cat flea developmental stages were taken from the laboratory colony maintained at the LLC ACRO Vet Lab (Kyiv region, Ukraine) and used in this study. Vaccine efficacy (E) was determined by considering flea mortality (M, % mortality), flea fertility (F, No. of F1 adults per female), oviposition (O, No. of eggs oviposited), eggs hatchability (H, % of hatched eggs), flea viability (V, No. of viable females), and flea fecundity (U, % of fecund fleas)
Proteins selected as candidate protective antigens
| Sequence ID | Uniprot accession No. | Description | Transcript identified | Protein levels (PSMs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | C6H0K8 | Yes | 43b | |
| F2a | Q27766 | Yes | 3b; 62c | |
| F3 | Q8IS50 | No | 4b | |
| F4 | Q8MZR6 | Yes | 2c | |
| F5 | Q7KVA1 (de novo sequence locus 4025) | Yes | 2c | |
| F6 | Q9VAF0 (de novo sequence locus 4149) | Yes | 2c |
aThe F2 antigen could not be produced in E. coli and was not included in the vaccination trial
bIdentified after searching MS/MS raw files against the Neoptera Uniprot database
cIdentified by PIT using a database created from transcriptomics data of predicted transmembrane and secreted proteins
Fig. 2Transcripts in unfed cat flea encoding putative transmembrane and secreted proteins. Transcripts in cat flea encoding proteins with putative transmembrane and signal peptide in the exoproteome (n = 177) were functionally annotated and grouped according to the BP (a), MF (b) and CC (c) of the encoded proteins. The percent of proteins on each category is shown. GO annotation for BP, MF and CC was conducted using Blast2GO software (version 3.0; www.blast2go.com). Proteins selected as candidate protective antigens (F1-F6; Table 1) are shown. *The transcript for F3 was not identified in the cat flea transcriptome (Table 1), but was included in the figure to compare with other candidate protective antigens
Fig. 3Insect proteins identified in unfed cat flea plasma membrane. Proteomics of plasma membrane soluble and pellet fractions resulted in 218 flea proteins when MS/MS raw files were searched against the Neoptera and Carnivora Uniprot databases. The proteins were functionally annotated and grouped according to the BP (a), MF (b) and CC (c). The same protein could have several GO annotations, a fact that was included in the results shown in the graphs. GO annotation for BP, MF and CC was conducted using Blast2GO software (version 3.0; www.blast2go.com)
Fig. 4Host proteins identified in unfed cat flea plasma membrane. Proteomics of plasma membrane soluble and pellet fractions resulted in 82 host proteins when MS/MS raw files were searched against the Neoptera and Carnivora Uniprot databases. The proteins were functionally annotated and grouped according to the BP (a), MF (b), and CC (c). The same protein could have several GO annotations, a fact that was included in the results shown in the graphs. GO annotation for BP, MF and CC was conducted using Blast2GO software (version 3.0; www.blast2go.com)
Fig. 5Production and characterization of recombinant cat flea proteins. Samples of recombinant proteins produced in E.coli were taken after purification by Ni affinity chromatography. Ten μg proteins were loaded per well in an SDS-12% polyacrylamide gel. The gel was stained with Coomassie Brilliant Blue (CB) or used for Western blot analysis (WB) using sera from vaccinated cats collected at T3. The position of the recombinant proteins is indicated with arrows. Some of the other protein bands in some of the samples correspond to E. coli contamination proteins, and aggregation or degradation products of the recombinant antigens (red dots). Abbreviations: MW, molecular weight markers (spectra multicolor broad range protein ladder; Thermo Scientific)
Fig. 6Antibody response in cats vaccinated with cat flea recombinant proteins. Antibody levels were determined by ELISA in vaccinated and control cats against the recombinant F1 (a), F3 (b), F4 (c), F5 (d) or F6 (e) proteins used for vaccination. Serum samples were collected before first immunization (T1) and cat flea infestations (T3), and after adult flea counts at days 36–38 (T4). Antibody levels in vaccinated cats were expressed as the average ± SD. OD450nm (ODcat sera – ODPBS control) at 1:500 dilution of primary antibodies, and compared between vaccinated and control groups by ANOVA test (*P < 0.05; n = 3)
Effect of cat vaccination with recombinant proteins on C. felis infestations. Results are shown for each infested cat (n = 3 per group) with average (Ave) ± SD. The M, H and U were compared between groups by a Fisher’s exact test (aP < 0.05). Additionally, data were analyzed statistically to compare results between cat fleas fed on vaccinated and control cats by Student’s t-test with unequal variance (bP ≤ 0.05). Vaccine efficacy (E) was determined by considering flea mortality (M, % mortality), flea fertility (F, No. of F1 adults per female), oviposition (O, No. of eggs oviposited), egg hatchability (H, % of hatched eggs), flea viability (V, No. of viable females), and flea fecundity (U, % of fecund fleas)
| Group | Cat no. | Parameter | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | DMa | V | DVb | O | DOc | H | DHd | F | DFe | U | DUf | Eg | ||
| F1 | 66326 | 33 | -55 | 50 | -15 | 1950 | -11 | 80 | +16 | 28 | +19 | 100 | 0 | 32 |
| 67437 | 6 | 74 | 1930 | 92 | 16 | 100 | ||||||||
| 63522 | 21 | 63 | 1877 | 72 | 20 | 100 | ||||||||
| Ave ± SD | 20 ± 14 | 62 ± 12 | 1919 ± 38 | 81 ± 10a,b | 21 ± 6 | 100 ± 0 | ||||||||
| F3 | 69095 | 16 | -244 | 66 | -28 | 2586 | -8 | 96 | +6 | 27 | +31 | 100 | 0 | 35 |
| 70317 | 2 | 70 | 1283 | 80 | 12 | 100 | ||||||||
| 83184 | 10 | 71 | 1735 | 96 | 16 | 100 | ||||||||
| Ave ± SD | 9 ± 7 | 69 ± 3 | 1868 ± 662 | 91 ± 9 | 18 ± 8 | 100 ± 0 | ||||||||
| F4 | 66125 | 24 | 0 | 55 | +4 | 1400 | +6 | 84 | +8 | 17 | +23 | 100 | 0 | 32 |
| 57297 | 13 | 65 | 1510 | 84 | 15 | 100 | ||||||||
| 68830 | 57 | 36 | 1944 | 100 | 28 | 100 | ||||||||
| Ave ± SD | 31 ± 23 | 52 ± 15 | 1618 ± 288 | 89 ± 9a | 20 ± 7 | 100 ± 0 | ||||||||
| F5 | 90839 | 16 | -94 | 64 | -22 | 2576 | -14 | 100 | +27 | 26 | +23 | 100 | 0 | 44 |
| 69835 | 31 | 58 | 2102 | 88 | 22 | 100 | ||||||||
| 66988 | 0 | 75 | 1256 | 24 | 11 | 100 | ||||||||
| Ave ± SD | 16 ± 16 | 66 ± 9 | 1978 ± 669 | 71 ± 41a | 20 ± 8 | 100 ± 0 | ||||||||
| F6 | 53329 | 14 | -48 | 63 | -15 | 1429 | +23 | 80 | +6 | 18 | +42 | 100 | 0 | 46 |
| 69949 | 23 | 64 | 791 | 92 | 9 | 100 | ||||||||
| 67895 | 26 | 58 | 1778 | 100 | 19 | 100 | ||||||||
| Ave ± SD | 21 ± 6 | 62 ± 3 | 1333 ± 501 | 91 ± 10 | 15 ± 6 | 100 ± 0 | ||||||||
| Control | 67996 | 34 | – | 56 | – | 2379 | – | 96 | – | 30 | – | 100 | – | – |
| 65041 | 25 | 59 | 1528 | 100 | 20 | 100 | ||||||||
| 71307 | 35 | 47 | 1286 | 96 | 21 | 100 | ||||||||
| Ave ± SD | 31 ± 6 | 54 ± 6 | 1731 ± 574 | 97 ± 2 | 26 ± 6 | 100 ± 0 | ||||||||
aDM (% increase in flea mortality) = 100 – [(Mc, % flea mortality in control cats × 100) / Mv, % flea mortality in vaccinated cats]
bDV (% reduction in viable females) = 100 – [(Vv, No. viable females in vaccinated cats × 100) / Vc, No. viable females in control cats]
cDO (% reduction in oviposition) = 100 – [(Ov, No. eggs oviposited by flea in vaccinated cats × 100) / Oc, No. eggs oviposited by flea in control cats]
dDH (% reduction in egg hatchability) = 100 – [(Hv, % hatched eggs in vaccinated cats × 100) / Hc, % hatched eggs in control cats]
eDF (% reduction in flea fertility) = 100 - [(Fv, % hatched eggs in vaccinated cats × 100) / Fc, % hatched eggs in control cats]
fDU (% reduction in flea fecundity) = 100 – [(Uv, % fecund females in vaccinated cats × 100) / Uc, % fecund females in control cats]
gE (% vaccine efficacy) = 100 × [1- (DM × DV × DH × DF × DU)]
Fig. 7Effect of cat vaccination on flea biology. Antibody levels negatively correlated with vaccine efficacy on flea egg hatchability (a) and flea fertility (b) in cats vaccinated with recombinant antigens. The correlation analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel (version 12.0) to compare the vaccine effects on flea biology after feeding on vaccinated (blue marks) and control (red marks) cats with antibody levels (1:500 dilution of primary antibodies) at time of flea infestation (T3). The linear correlation coefficients (R2) and Pearson correlation coefficient are shown (*r < -0.5; n = 6)
Fig. 8Expression of cat flea candidate protective antigens. Representative images of midguts from unfed (stained with methylene blue) and fed cat fleas from the laboratory colony maintained at the LLC ACRO Vet Lab (Kyiv region, Ukraine) and used in this study. Total RNA was extracted from midguts dissected from unfed and fed cat flea and used for RT-PCR suing gene-specific oligonucleotide primers. The mRNA levels were normalized against cat flea 18S rRNA, presented as average + SD, and normalized Ct values were compared between unfed and fed fleas by Student's t-test with unequal variance (*P < 0.05; n = 3 biological replicates)