| Literature DB >> 33452891 |
Abolfazl Hajialibeigi1, Jafar Amani2, Seyed Latif Mousavi Gargari3.
Abstract
Shigellosis is a significant type of diarrhea that causes 160,000 deaths annually in a global scale. The mortality occurs mainly in children less than 5 years of age. No licensed vaccine is available, and conventional efforts for developing an effective and safe vaccine against shigellosis have not been succeeded yet. The reverse vaccinology is a novel promising method that screens genome or proteome of an organism for finding new vaccine candidates. In this study, through reverse vaccinology approach, new vaccine candidates against Shigella flexneri were identified and experimentally evaluated. Proteomes of S. flexneri were obtained from UniProt, and then outer membrane and extracellular proteins were predicted and selected for the evaluation of transmembrane domains, protein conservation, host homology, antigenicity, and solubility. From 103 proteins, 7 high-scored proteins were introduced as novel vaccine candidates, and after B- and T-cell epitope prediction, the best protein was selected for experimental studies. Recombinant protein was expressed, purified, and injected to BALB/c mice. The adhesion inhibitory effect of sera was also studied. The immunized mice demonstrated full protection against the lethal dose challenge. The sera remarkably inhibited S. flexneri adhesion to Caco-2 epithelial cells. The results indicate that identified antigen can serve for vaccine development against shigellosis and support reverse vaccinology for discovering novel effective antigens. KEY POINTS: • Seven Shigella new antigens were identified by reverse vaccinology (RV) approach. • The best antigen experimented demonstrated full protection against lethal dose. • In vivo results verified RV analyses and suggest FimG as a new potent vaccine candidate.Entities:
Keywords: Diarrhea; In silico; Recombinant vaccine; Reverse vaccinology; Shigella; Shigellosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33452891 PMCID: PMC7811352 DOI: 10.1007/s00253-020-11054-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol ISSN: 0175-7598 Impact factor: 4.813
Online servers used in this study
| Function | Program | Web address |
|---|---|---|
| Proteome acquisition | UniProtKB | |
| Subcellular localization | CELLO v.2.5 | |
| Subcellular localization | PSORTb v.3.0.2 | |
| Transmembrane prediction | TMHMM v.2.0 | |
| Transmembrane prediction | HMMTOP v.2.0 | |
| Homology analyses | BLASTp | |
| Antigenicity prediction | VaxiJen v.2.0 | |
| Antigenicity prediction | ANTIGENpro | |
| Solubility prediction | PROSO II | |
| Solubility prediction | Protein-Sol | |
| B-cell epitope | IEDB B-cells | |
| B-cell epitope | BCPred | |
| B-cell epitope | BcePred | |
| B-cell epitope | ABCpred | |
| T-cell epitope | IEDB T-cells | |
| T-cell epitope | MHCPred v.2.0 | |
| T-cell epitope | NetMHC v.4.0 | |
| T-cell epitope | NetCTL v.1.2 | |
| Motif prediction | MOTIF | |
| Protein characterization | ProtParam | |
| Signal peptide prediction | signal v.5.0 | |
| Virulence factor prediction | VirulentPred |
The subtractive process for the selection of outer membrane and extracellular proteins as new potential vaccine candidates
| Bacterial proteome | CELLO | PSORT | Both | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OM | EC | OM | EC | OM | EC | |
| 108 (2.63%) | 107 (2.61%) | 76 (1.85%) | 42 (1.02%) | 54 (1.32%) | 26 (0.63%) | |
| 129 (3.41%) | 141 (3.72%) | 72 (1.90%) | 37 (0.98%) | 57 (1.51%) | 29 (0.77%) | |
| 69 | 34 | |||||
| Number of removed proteins with TMD > 1, predicted by TMHMM and HMMTOP | 9 | 0 | ||||
| Number of removed proteins with TMD > 1, predicted by HMMTOP | 5 | 5 | ||||
| Proteins with TMD ≤ 1 | 60 | 29 | ||||
| Number of removed proteins with host homology determined by BLASTp | 7 | 0 | ||||
| Number of removed non-conserved proteins determined by BLASTp | 8 | 4 | ||||
| Conserved proteins without host homology | 45 | 25 | ||||
| Number of removed proteins with antigenicity scores < 0.7 predicted by VaxiJen and ANTIGENpro | 31 | 16 | ||||
| Probable antigenic proteins | 14 | 9 | ||||
| Number of removed insoluble proteins predicted by PROSO and Protein-Sol | 10 | 6 | ||||
| Predicted soluble proteins (novel identified vaccine candidates) | 4 | 3 | ||||
EC: FimG (NP_839596.1), FliC (NP_837536.1), YejO (NP_837803.1)
OM: Pal (NP_706493.2), OmpF (NP_836635.1), S3194 (NP_838478.1), S3195 (NP_838479.1)
The highlighted bands represent the resulted proteins after each step
The 7 new identified vaccine candidates with their accession numbers are shown in the last table row
OM outer membrane, EC extracellular, TMD transmembrane domain
The outer membrane and extracellular proteins that were eliminated in each step
The proteins with transmembrane domains > 1 predicted in TMMHM and HMMTOP.
The non-conserved proteins or host -homologous proteins determined by BLASTp.
The proteins with aAntigenicity score < 0.7 in VaxiJen and ANTIGENpro.
The insoluble proteins predicted by PROSO and Protein-Sol.
White table cells are remaining 7 proteins, selected for epitope mapping (FimG, FliC, OmpF, Pal, S3194, S3195, YejO)
Eeach protein name was hyperlinked to protein record in NCBI database. Additional data are presented in Online Resource ESM.xlsx
The results of antigenicity, solubility, and epitope prediction in 7 new vaccine candidates
| Protein Name | FimG | FliC | OmpF | Pal | S3194 | S3195 | YejO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amino acids | 167 | 550 | 362 | 173 | 297 | 706 | 836 |
| VaxiJen | 0.872 | 0.844 | 0.757 | 0.892 | 0.882 | 0.720 | |
| ANTIGENpro | 0.938 | 0.862 | 0.864 | 0.964 | 0.911 | 0.931 | |
| PROSO | 0.629 | 0.627 | 0.648 | 0.792 | 0.654 | 0.652 | |
| Protein-Sol | 0.637 | 0.614 | 0.696 | 0.541 | 0.452 | 0.606 | |
| ABCpred | 1.282 | 1.288 | 1.166 | 1.103 | 1.279 | 1.223 | |
| BCpred | 0.337 | 0.501 | 0.496 | 0.429 | 0.330 | 0.500 | |
| BcePred | 0.103 | 0.268 | 0.179 | 0.143 | 0.150 | 0.191 | |
| IEDB B-epitopes | 0.212 | 0.396 | 0.248 | 0.296 | 0.392 | 0.435 | |
| MHCPred | 1.975 | 1.983 | 1.827 | 1.875 | 1.948 | 1.992 | |
| NetMHC | 1.629 | 0.753 | 1.243 | 0.697 | 1.525 | 1.461 | |
| IEDB Class-I T-epitopes | 5.251 | 4.785 | 5.064 | 3.589 | 4.589 | 5.154 | |
| IEDB Class-II T-epitopes | 0.582 | 0.541 | 0.694 | 0.579 | 0.551 | 0.487 | |
| NetCTL | 0.365 | 0.222 | 0.301 | 0.162 | 0.249 | 0.275 |
*The underlined number in each column is the highest score predicted by the server
The detailed data are accessible in Online Resource ESM.xlsx
FimG properties
| Protein accession | NP_839596.1 | Protein length | 167 AA |
| Gene accession | MW_252166 | Protein note | Minor fimbrial subunit protein |
| Subcellular localization | Extracellular | Transmembrane domain | 1 (before AA 29) |
| Homology in host | 0% | Conservation | |
| Aignal peptide | N-terminal 1–23 | Functional domain | Pfam ID: Big_3_5 (Ig-like domain) |
| VirulentPred score | 1.016 (virulent) | Molecular weight | 17,335.39 Da |
| Theoretical pI | 5.48 (slightly acidic) | Instability index | 18.97 (stable) |
| Hydropathicity | 0.063 (hydrophobe) | Aliphatic index | 84.19 (thermostable) |
Fig. 1SDS-PAGE (15%) and western blotting results. Recombinant FimG protein containing His-tagged residues was expressed in E. coli BL21 (DE3), followed by purification byaffinity chromatography using Ni-NTA Agarose matrix. Protein expression was evaluated by SDS-PAGE and Coomassie blue staining (a) and was confirmed by western blotting using conjugated antibodies against His tag (b). (Lane 1: negative control result from non-induced bacteria, Lane 2: recombinant protein expression, Lane 3: purified recombinant protein Lane 4: negative control lysate)
Fig. 2ELISA analyses of antibody response against recombinant FimG protein. a Indirect ELISA: The sera from the test and control mice groups (n = 5/group) were prepared and tested in duplicate. The results indicated that in the second booster, the immunized mice (test group administered with FimG + adjuvant) in comparison with non-immunized mice (control group administered with PBS + adjuvant) produced significantly higher titer of IgG antibody. The error bars represent standard deviation from two separate experiments. b Antibodies raised against recombinant proteins as determined by whole-cell ELISA
Fig. 3a Survival plot of actively immunized mice with intraperitoneal administration of recombinant FimG. After 2 weeks of third administration, the mice (n = 5/group) were challenged with 2 × LD50, 4 × LD50, and 6 × LD50 of S. flexneri through intraperitoneal route and continuously monitored for 168 h (7 days). The immunized mice demonstrated full protection against 4 × LD50 dose of bacteria. b Survival plot of passive immunization. The mice (n = 5/group) received 100 μl of immunized or non-immunized mice sera through intravenous route and, after 3 h, intraperitoneally challenged with 2 × LD50 of S. flexneri. The mice were monitored for 168 h post challenge for mortality and morbidity. The passively immunized mice were significantly protected against 2 × LD50 of bacteria (survival rate 66%). Survival rates were analyzed using the non-parametric log-rank test (P < 0.001)
Fig. 4Adhesion assay results. Column A and B represents the colony numbers of S. flexneri pretreated with immunized and non-immunized mice sera, respectively, and demonstrate the remarkable sera effect on bacteria binding to Caco-2 cell lines (29.31%) (percentage of serum inhibitory effect on S. flexneri adhesion onto Caco-2 cell = (1 - (176/249)) × 100 = 29.31%)
Fig. 5The workflow of selection and experimental confirmation of selected vaccine candidate (FimG). At the end of the process, the vaccine candidate was verified as a potent vaccine candidate and therefore supports reverse vaccinology approach as an effective method for the development of new vaccines