| Literature DB >> 29376059 |
Shanshan Liu1,2,3, Wei Sun1,4, Xuefei Huang1, Wen Zhang1,2, Changqing Jia1,2, Jie Luo1,2, Yihua Shen1, Saeed El-Ashram5, Cheng He3.
Abstract
The obligate intracellular Gram-negative bacterium Chlamydia psittaci often causes avian chlamydiosis and influenza-like symptoms in humans. However, the commercial subunit C. psittaci vaccine could only provide a partial protection against avian chlamydiosis due to poor cellular immune response. In our previous study, a recombinant herpesvirus of turkeys (HVT)-delivered vaccine against C. psittaci and Marek's disease based on human cytomegalovirus (CMV) promoter (rHVT-CMV-pmpD) was developed and provided an effective protection against C. psittaci disease with less lesions and reduced chlamydial loads. In this study, we developed another recombinant HVT vaccine expressing the N-terminal fragment of PmpD (PmpD-N) based on human elongation factor-1 alpha (EF-1α) promoter (rHVT-EF-pmpD) by modifying the HVT genome within a bacterial artificial chromosome. The related characterization of rHVT-EF-pmpD was evaluated in vitro in comparison with that of rHVT-CMV-pmpD. The expression of PmpD-N was determined by western blot. Under immunofluorescence microscopy, PmpD-N protein of both two recombinant viruses was located in the cytoplasm and on the cell surface. Growth kinetics of rHVT-EF-pmpD was comparable to that of rHVT-CMV-pmpD, and the growth rate of rHVT-EF-pmpD was apparently higher than that of rHVT-CMV-pmpD on 48, 72, and 120 h postinfection. Macrophages activated by rHVT-EF-pmpD could produce more nitric oxide and IL-6 than that activated by rHVT-CMV-pmpD. In this study, a recombinant HVT vaccine expressing PmpD-N based on EF-1α promoter was constructed successfully, and a further research in vivo was needed to analyze the vaccine efficacy.Entities:
Keywords: Chlamydia psittaci; Marek’s disease; PmpD-N; elongation factor-1 alpha promoter; herpesvirus of turkeys
Year: 2017 PMID: 29376059 PMCID: PMC5763144 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00221
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Vet Sci ISSN: 2297-1769
Figure 1Cytopathic effect of rHVT-EF-pmpD and rHVT-CMV-pmpD on chicken embryo fibroblast (CEF) cells. (A) Morphology of the infected CEF cells induced by rHVT-EF-pmpD or rHVT-CMV-pmpD (magnifications 100×). (B) Immunohistochemical staining of CEF cells post inoculation with rHVT-EF-pmpD or rHVT-CMV-pmpD (magnifications 100×).
Figure 2Confirmation of PmpD-N protein expression in herpesvirus of turkeys (HVT) vector by immunoblotting assay and indirect immunofluorescence. (A) The PmpD-N expression in rHVT-EF-pmpD was detected by immunoblot using Chlamydia psittaci strain 6BC-specific polyclonal antibodies. Lane M, pre-stained protein ladder; Lane 1, cell lysate post inoculation with rHVT-EF-pmpD; Lane 2, cell lysate post inoculation with rHVT-CMV-pmpD; Lane 3, cell lysate post inoculation with parental HVT. The black arrow indicates the approximate size of 43 kDa. (B) Indirect immunofluorescence analysis of PmpD-N expression in chicken embryo fibroblast (CEF) cells. CEF cells on glass coverslips were infected with rHVT-EF-pmpD, then incubated with mouse anti-PmpD-N polyclonal antibody of C. psittaci and chicken anti-HVT polyclonal serum, and then subsequently reacted with the goat anti-mouse IgG conjugated with Alexa Fluor 488 (green fluorescence, shown in the lower left panel) and goat anti-chicken IgY labeled with Alexa Fluor 568 (red fluorescence, shown in the lower right panel), respectively. Finally, cell nuclei were stained with diamidino-2-phenylindole (blue fluorescence, shown in the top right panel). The merged image is shown in the top left panel. The expression of the targeted protein is indicated by white arrows in the top left panel. (C) rHVT-CMV-pmpD control. CEF cells on glass coverslips were infected with rHVT-CMV-pmpD, and then the process of test and the panel meaning are the same as those shown in panel (B).
Figure 3One-step growth kinetics of rHVT-EF-pmpD and rHVT-CMV-pmpD in vitro. The virus growth was calculated as the fold increase at different time points compared with the 12th hour postinfection. The asterisk indicates significant differences of the growth kinetics between rHVT-EF-pmpD and rHVT-CMV-pmpD (P < 0.05). The values were shown as means ± SD.
Figure 4Nitric oxide (NO) responses of HD11 cells to rHVT-EF-pmpD. HD11 cells were subjected to 400 plaque-forming unit recombinant viruses for 1, 2, and 4 days. The supernatants were collected for NO analysis. Data were expressed as mean ± SE (n = 3) and were analyzed by Student’s t-test. Significance (*) was considered as P < 0.05 when compared with rHVT-CMV-pmpD.
Figure 5IL-6 responses of HD11 cells to rHVT-EF-pmpD. HD11 cells were subjected to 400 plaque-forming unit recombinant viruses for 1, 2, and 4 days. The cells were collected for IL-6 analysis using relative quantitative real time RT-PCR. The IL-6 increase fold of the recombinant viruses relative to chicken embryo fibroblast (CEF) cells was analyzed. Data were expressed as mean ± SE (n = 3) and were analyzed by Student’s t-test. Significance (*) was considered as P < 0.05 when compared with rHVT-CMV-pmpD.