| Literature DB >> 31936741 |
Rakel Arrazuria1, Iraia Ladero1, Elena Molina1, Miguel Fuertes1, Ramón Juste1, Miguel Fernández2, Valentín Pérez2, Joseba Garrido1, Natalia Elguezabal1.
Abstract
Paratuberculosis (PTB) is an enteric granulomatous disease caused by Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (MAP) that mainly affects ruminants. Current vaccines have shown to be cost-effective control reagents, although they are restricted due to cross-interference with bovine tuberculosis (bTB). Therefore, novel vaccination strategies are needed and this study is focused on evaluating alternative vaccination routes and their effect on the local immune response. The MAP oral challenge rabbit model was used to evaluate and compare an experimental inactivated MAP vaccine through oral (VOR) and intradermal (VID) routes. The VID group presented the highest proportion of animals with no visible lesions and the lowest proportion of animals with MAP positive tissues. Immunohistochemistry analysis revealed that the VID group presented a dominantly M1 polarized response indicating an ability to control MAP infection. In general, all vaccinated groups showed lower calprotectin levels compared to the non-vaccinated challenged group suggesting less active granulomatous lesions. The VID group showed some degree of skin test reactivity, whereas the same vaccine through oral administration was completely negative. These data show that PTB vaccination has an effect on macrophage polarization and that the route influences infection outcome and can also have an impact on bTB diagnosis. Future evaluation of new immunological products against mycobacterial diseases should consider assaying different vaccination routes.Entities:
Keywords: Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis; macrophage polarization; rabbit model; skin test; vaccination routes
Year: 2020 PMID: 31936741 PMCID: PMC7157726 DOI: 10.3390/vetsci7010007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Sci ISSN: 2306-7381
Immune markers detected in the immunohistochemistry analysis.
| Antigen (Clone) | Specificity and Target Cells | Antigen Retreival Solution | Antibody Dilution | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bovine TNF-α (CC327) | Expressed in M1 macrophages. | 6 | 1:200 | [ |
| Bovine IFN-γ (CC330) | Released by lymphocytes, macrophages and dendritic cells. Induces M1 macrophage polarization. | 6 | 1:100 | [ |
| Human calprotectin (MAC387) | Expressed in activated, recently recruited macrophages among other cells. | 9 | 1:200 | [ |
| Human CD163 (EDHu-1) | Expressed in M2 macrophages. | 6 | 1:300 | [ |
Figure 1Weight gain during experimental period. Bars represent the mean and the error bars the standard error of the mean (SEM). * Significant differences were detected by Dunnet’s post hoc between the non-infected control group (NIC) and the control vaccine (VC) group (p = 0.024).
Infection outcome in MAP infected rabbits.
| MAP PCR | Histopathology Score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | ID | SR | VA | SR | VA | Gross Pathology Score |
| IC | 37 | + | − | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 38 | + | − | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
| 40 | − | + | 3 | 3 | 4 | |
| 43 | − | − | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| 44 | + | + | 2 | 4 | 0 | |
| VID | 16 | − | − | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| 17 | − | − | 2 | 1 | 0 | |
| 31 | + | + | 1 | 1 | 3 | |
| 32 | − | + | 2 | 2 | 0 | |
| 33 | − | − | 2 | 2 | 3 | |
| VOR | 18 | − | − | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 19 | − | + | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
| 34 | + | + | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
| 35 | + | − | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| 36 | − | + | 2 | 4 | 4 | |
| VC | 14 | − | − | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 15 | + | − | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| 28 | − | + | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 29 | + | + | 1 | 1 | 4 | |
| 30 | + | + | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
Figure 2ELISA index time course of the vaccinated animal groups.
Figure 3Histopathology index calculated as the sum of the scores per tissues divided by the number of examined tissues of the experimental groups. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. * p < 0.05.
Figure 4Macrophage polarization status. Mean immunohistochemistry score (IHC-score) in sacculus rotundus (SR) and vermiform appendix (VA) in the infected controls (IC), experimental intradermal vaccine (VID), experimental oral vaccine (VOR), and control vaccine (VC) animals for (a) IFNγ; (b) TNFα; (c) CD163; (d) calprotectin. Error bars represent the Confidence Interval of 95%. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 5Mean skin reaction measured values to avian and bovine purified protein derivative (PPD) after sensitization in experimental intradermal vaccine (VID), experimental oral vaccine (VOR) and control vaccine (VC) animal groups. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. * p < 0.01; ** p < 0.001.