| Literature DB >> 32322739 |
G Massei1, D Cowan1, D Eckery2, R Mauldin2, M Gomm1, P Rochaix3, F Hill3, R Pinkham1, L A Miller2.
Abstract
1. As human-wildlife conflicts increase worldwide, novel methods are required for mitigating these conflicts. Fertility control, based on immunocontraceptives, has emerged as an alternative option to lethal methods for managing wildlife. 2. Immunocontraceptives are vaccines that generate an immune response to key components of an animal's reproductive system. Some of these vaccines target the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) and have been used successfully as contraceptives for many wildlife species. However, the need to capture animals for treatment limits the field applications of injectable vaccines. The availability of orally delivered immunocontraceptives would increase the breadth of applications of fertility control for wildlife management. 3. This study explored a new approach to developing an oral immunocontraceptive, exploiting the bioadhesive and immunologically active properties of killed Mycobacterium avium cell wall fragments (MAF). The MAF was conjugated to a GnRH recombinant protein called IMX294, used as a GnRH-specific immunogen. 4. An initial trial using the MAF-IMX294 conjugate provided the first evidence that an orally delivered immunocontraceptive vaccine could generate anti-GnRH antibody titres in laboratory rats. 5. Increasing the dose and frequency of vaccine administered to rats, in a second trial, enhanced the immune response, eliciting titres that reduced the proportion of females giving birth. This provided the first evidence of the contraceptive effect of an oral anti-GnRH vaccine. 6. Future work is required to further increase the immunogenic effect of the oral vaccine and to establish a dosing schedule that is effective for practical field applications.Entities:
Keywords: Fertility control; Human-wildlife conflicts; Immune response; Immunocontraception; Immunology; Oral contraceptive vaccine; Vaccination; Wildlife management; anti-GnRH vaccine
Year: 2020 PMID: 32322739 PMCID: PMC7170952 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03781
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Experimental design used in Trial 1 and Trial 2 to test different formulations, concentrations, frequency of dosing and delivery routes of a novel immunocontraceptive vaccine (MAF-IMX294) on the fertility of laboratory rats. MAF-U = M. avium fragments (ultrasound), MAF-M = M. avium fragments (microfluidized).
| Trial | Group | N | Formulation | Route | Dose | Dose frequency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 10 | MAF-U-IMX294 | IM injection | 200 μg | 3 |
| 1 | 2 | 10 | MAF-U-IMX294 | Nasopharyngeal | 50 μg | 3 |
| 1 | 3 | 10 | MAF-U-IMX294 | Oral Lavage | 500 μg | 3 |
| 1 | 4 | 10 | MAF-M-IMX294 | IM injection | 200 μg | 3 |
| 1 | 5 | 10 | MAF-M-IMX294 | Nasopharyngeal | 50 μg | 3 |
| 1 | 6 | 10 | MAF-M-IMX294 | Oral Lavage | 500 μg | 3 |
| 1 | 7 | 5 | MAF-M | IM injection | 200 μg | 3 |
| 1 | 8 | 5 | MAF-M | Nasopharyngeal | 50 μg | 3 |
| 1 | 9 | 5 | MAF-M | Oral Lavage | 500 μg | 3 |
| 1 | 10 | 10 | GonaCon | IM injection | 200 μg | 1 |
| 2 | 1 | 10 | MAF-IMX294 Low concentration – Low frequency | Oral Lavage | 500 μg | 3 |
| 2 | 2 | 10 | MAF-IMX294 High concentration – Low frequency | Oral Lavage | 2500 μg | 3 |
| 2 | 3 | 10 | MAF-IMX294 High concentration – High frequency | Oral Lavage | 2500 μg | 6 |
| 2 | 4 | 10 | MAF-IMX294 Low concentration – High frequency | Oral Lavage | 500 μg | 6 |
| 2 | 5 | 10 | MAF-IMX294 | IM injection | 200 μg | 3 |
| 2 | 6 | 10 | Control (not treated) | - | - | - |
The number of female rats with anti-GnRH antibody titres (presented as the highest 1:X,000 dilution at which antibodies were detected 45 days after first dose was administered in Trial 1 and Trial 2. OL = Oral lavage; NP = Nasopharyngeal; IM = Intramuscular injection; LC = Low concentration; HC = High concentration; NT = No titre detectable.
| Trial | Group | Treatment | N | Titre (1:X,000) | % with titre | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NT | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 | 512 | 1024 | 2048 | |||||
| 1 | 1 | IM MAF-U-IMX294 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 90 | |||||||
| 1 | 4 | IM MAF-M-IMX294 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 100 | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | NP MAF-U-IMX294 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 50 | |||||||||
| 1 | 5 | NP MAF-M-IMX294 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 55.56 | |||||||||
| 1 | 3 | OL MAF-U-IMX294 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 60 | ||||||||
| 1 | 6 | OL MAF-M-IMX294 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 80 | |||||||
| 1 | 10 | IM GonaCon | 10 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 100 | |||||||||
| 1 | 7 | IM MAF-M only | 5 | 5 | 0 | ||||||||||||
| 1 | 8 | NP MAF-M only | 5 | 5 | 0 | ||||||||||||
| 1 | 9 | OL MAF-M only | 5 | 5 | 0 | ||||||||||||
| 2 | 1 | OL MAF-IMX294 LC x 3 | 10 | 10 | 0 | ||||||||||||
| 2 | 2 | OL MAF-IMX294 HC x 3 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 60 | |||||||||
| 2 | 3 | OL MAF-IMX294 HC x 6 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 60 | |||||||||
| 2 | 4 | OL MAF-IMX294 LC x 6 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 50 | |||||||||
| 2 | 5 | IM MAF-IMX294 x 3 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 100 | ||||||||||
| 2 | 6 | Control | 9 | 9 | 0 | ||||||||||||
a) “MAF-U” and “MAF-M” groups were pooled as no differences were found in anti-GnRH antibody titres between these groups.
b) Negative control groups (MAF only - IM, OL, and NP) were merged as no differences were found in anti-GnRH antibody titres between these groups.
Number of female rats breeding in each group and mean litter size (plus standard deviation, SD) of females that bred in Trial 1 and Trial 2. Abbreviations as in Table 2.
| Trial | Group | Treatment | Doses | n | n bred | % bred | Mean (SD) litter size of breeding rats |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | IM MAF-U-IMX294 | 3 | 10 | 7 | 70 | 8.43 (2.77) |
| 1 | 4 | IM MAF-M-IMX294 | 3 | 9 | 7 | 77.8 | 12.71 (2.31) |
| 1 | 2 | NP MAF-U-IMX294 | 3 | 10 | 9 | 90 | 10.77 (2.66) |
| 1 | 5 | NP MAF-M-IMX294 | 3 | 9 | 7 | 77.8 | 10.29 (2.81) |
| 1 | 3 | OL MAF-U-IMX294 | 3 | 10 | 7 | 70 | 11.71 (3.49) |
| 1 | 6 | OL MAF-M-IMX294 | 3 | 10 | 9 | 90 | 10.22 (4.52) |
| 1 | 10 | IM GonaCon | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 | - |
| 1 | 7 | IM MAF-M only | 3 | 5 | 5 | 100 | 9.4 (2.94) |
| 1 | 8 | NP MAF-M only | 3 | 5 | 4 | 80 | 7 (3.24) |
| 1 | 9 | OL MAF-M only | 3 | 5 | 5 | 100 | 10.6 (4.32) |
| 2 | 1 | OL MAF-IMX294 LC | 3 | 10 | 7 | 70 | 9.86 (2.85) |
| 2 | 2 | OL MAF-IMX294 HC | 3 | 10 | 9 | 90 | 9.67 (2.18) |
| 2 | 3 | OL MAF-IMX294 HC | 6 | 10 | 4 | 40 | 9.33 (3.06) |
| 2 | 4 | OL MAF-IMX294 LC | 6 | 10 | 7 | 70 | 9.14 (3.76) |
| 2 | 5 | IM MAF-IMX294 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 (0.00) |
| 2 | 6 | Control | - | 9 | 7 | 78 | 9.29 (3.64) |
Unknown if 1 female bred.
n = 3, litter size unknown for 1 female.
Figure 1Percentage of female rats that produced litters in relation to anti-GnRH antibody titre (1: X,000) across all treatment groups in Trial 1 and Trial 2. NT = No detectable titres. n = sample size.
Mean litter size of female rats that produced litters (bred) in relation to anti-GnRH antibody titre across all treatment groups in Trial 1 and Trial 2.
| Titre (1:X,000) | N bred | Mean litter size | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 51 | 9.72 | 3.31 |
| 1–128 | 39 | 10.46 | 3.7 |
| >128 | 4 | 9.5 | 1.29 |
| Total | 94 | 10.02 | 3.42 |
n = 50, litter size unknown for one female.