| Literature DB >> 35515004 |
Yaru Ning1,2,3, Yalin Huang1,2,3, Mingshu Wang1,2,3, Anchun Cheng1,2,3, Renyong Jia1,2,3, Mafeng Liu1,2,3, Dekang Zhu2,3, Shun Chen1,2,3, Xinxin Zhao1,2,3, Shaqiu Zhang1,2,3, Qiao Yang1,2,3, Ying Wu1,2,3, Juan Huang1,2,3, Bin Tian1,3, Xumin Ou1,2,3, Sai Mao1,2,3, Qun Gao1,2,3, Di Sun1,2,3, Yanlin Yu1,2,3, Ling Zhang1,2,3.
Abstract
Duck plague (DP) is an acute infectious disease in the duck industry. The duck plague virus (DPV) is the pathogen, a subfamily of alphaherpesvirinae. gE is a type I membrane protein that contains three parts: an extracellular domain, a transmembrane domain, and a cytoplasmic domain. gE is the major virulence determinant of α-herpesvirus. However, the functions of the gE extracellular and cytoplasmic domains have not been reported in DPV. In this study, a gE extracellular domain deletion mutant and a gE cytoplasmic domain deletion mutant were constructed from DPV. Virus replication kinetics showed that the growth titers of both the gE ectodomain-deleted mutant virus and the gE cytoplasmic domain-deleted virus in DEFs were lower than that of the parental virus CHv-50. DPV CHv-gEΔET and DPV CHv-gEΔCT were continuously passed to the 20th passage in DEFs and the 10th in ducklings. The mutant virus DNA after passage was extracted for identification. The results showed that the gE ectodomain and gE cytoplasmic domain deletion mutant viruses have good genetic stability. The ducklings in each group (n=10) were inoculated with the same titers of DPV CHv-gEΔET, DPV CHv-gEΔCT, DPV CHv-ΔgE, and parental CHv-50, respectively. Clinical symptoms and serum antibody levels were detected after inoculation. The results showed that the virulence of DPV CHv-gEΔCT to ducklings was reduced compared with parental CHv-50, while the virulence of DPV CHv-gEΔET to ducklings was significantly reduced. 105 TCID50 DPV CHv-gEΔET or DPV CHv-ΔgE can induce ducklings to produce DPV-specific antibodies, protect the ducklings from virulent CHv challenge. Therefore, DPV CHv-gEΔET may serve as a promising vaccine candidate to prevent and control duck plague.Entities:
Keywords: duck plague virus; extracellular domain; gE; genetic stability; pathogenicity; vaccine
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35515004 PMCID: PMC9067127 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.882796
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
The primers used to construct and identify deletion-mutant virus CHv-gEΔET and CHv-gEΔCT.
| Primer name | Sequence (5′-3′) | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| ΔET⁃Kan⁃F | CTGCCGGCCAGACTACGGAACCTCAACAATTGGTACGATGTAGGGATAACAGGGTAATCGATTT | Replacement of the |
| ΔET⁃Kan⁃R | TAATAGTCACGACCCCTAGTACTCCGAGACCGACTACAAACATCGTACCAATTGTTGAGGTTCCGTAGTCTGGCCGGCAGGCCAGTGTTACAACCAAT | |
| ΔCT⁃Kan⁃F | CGTGACTATTATAATCCTGGCTGTTTCATCCATCTTTTTATAGGGATAACAGGGTAATCGATTT | Replacement of the |
| ΔCT⁃Kan⁃R | CTATTTCACTAGTGAGTCATTAGTTCAACATCCATGATCATAAAAAGATGGATGAAACAGCCAGGATTATAATAGTCACGGCCAGTGTTACAACCAAT | |
| gE-F | TCTCAAGACGCTCTGGAATC | Identification of the |
| BAC⁃Kan⁃F | TTATTAATCTCAGGAGCCTGTGTAGCGTTTATAGGAAGTAGTGTTCTGTCATGATGCCTGCAAGCGGTAACGAAAACGATTGTTACAACCAATTAACC | Delete BAC miniF sequence and EGFP selection marker |
| BAC⁃Kan⁃R | ATCGTTTTCGTTACCGCTTGCAGGCATCATGACAGAACACTACTTCCTATTAGGGATAACAGGGTAATCGAT | |
| BAC⁃UL23⁃F | GCCTGCAAGCGGTAACGAAAACGATTCAATTAATTGTCATCTCGG | Delete BAC miniF sequence and EGFP selection marker |
| BAC⁃UL23⁃R | CCGCTCCACTTCAACGTAACACCGCACGAAGATTTCTATTGTTCCTGAAGGCATATTCAACGGACATATTAAAAATTGA | |
| UL30-F | GGACAGCGTACCACAGATAA | Identification of the DPV |
| UL30-R | ACAAATCCCAAGCGTAG | |
| UL23-F | GCCTGCAAGCGGTAACGAAAACGATTCAATTAATTGTCATCTCGG | ldentification of the |
| UL23-R | CCGCTCCACTTCAACGTAACACCGCACGAAGATTTCTATTGTTCCTGAAGGCATATTCAACGGACATATTAAAAATTGA | |
| BAC⁃F | GTTATCCACTGAGAAGCGAACG | Identification of the BAC miniF sequence deletion |
| BAC⁃R | GGCTGTAAAAGGACAGACCACA |
Figure 1Homologous recombination diagram. Schematic diagram of the construction of the deletion mutant virus CHv-gEΔET and CHv-gEΔCT using the Red recombination system. (A) Schematic diagram of the construction of the deletion mutant virus CHv-BAC-gEΔET and CHv-BAC-EΔCT using the Red recombination system. (B) Schematic diagram of the construction of the deletion mutant virus CHv-gEΔET and CHvg EΔCT using the Red recombination system again.
Figure 2Generation and identification of mutant viruses for DPV CHv-gEΔET and DPV CHv-gEΔCT. (A) Transfection of the plasmids DPV CHv-gEΔET-GS1783/DPV CHv-gEΔCT-GS1783 into DEFs resulted in numerous fluorescent spots and cytopathies, the mutant virus DPV CHv-gEΔET/DPV CHv-gEΔCT were rescued. (B) Cells with cytopathic but no fluorescent spots were picked into new DEFs, resulting in the non-fluorescent mutant virus. (C) PCR identification of mutant viruses: (a) UL30 gene identification primer, (b) BAC identification primer, (c) UL23 gene identification primer, (d) gE gene deletion identification primer. (D) DEFs were infected with DPV CHv-ΔgE, DPV CHv-gEΔCT, DPV CHv-gEΔET, and DPV CHv-50, and an anti-gE polyclonal antibody was used for WB.
Figure 3Determination of viral titers in growth kinetics. DEFs in 24-well plates were infected with 0.01 MOI of DPV CHv-gEΔCT, DPV CHv-gEΔET, and DPV CHv-50. Samples were collected at the indicated time points, and viral titers were determined. The data were presented as the mean ± standard deviation(SD) of three independent experiments.
Figure 4(A) Mutant viruses at passages 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th were collected to infect DEFs at a 1 MOI. The cell samples were collected for virus copy number detection, P>0.05. (B) The DNA of the 10th and 20th generation mutant viruses was extracted from DEFs, respectively, and then the primers for UL30 gene identification and gE gene identification primers were used for PCR identification. (C) Mutant viruses at passages 1st, 5th, and 10th were collected to infect ducklings at a 1 MOI. After 7 days of infection, the ducklings were slaughtered, 1 g of liver tissue was taken out, and the viral genome in the liver tissue was extracted for copy number determination, P>0.05. (D) DNAs of the 1st, 5th, and 10th generation mutant viruses were extracted from liver tissue, respectively, and PCR identification was performed with UL30 gene identification primers and gE gene identification primers, respectively.
The number of death ducklings for each group.
| Group | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | F9 | F10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPV CHv-gEΔET | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 |
| DPV CHv-gEΔCT | 0/5 | 1/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 1/5 | 2/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 |
| DPV CHv-ΔgE | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 |
| Control | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 |
The numerator is the mortality numbers, and the denominator is the number of ducks challenged with viruses.
Figure 5Pathological lesions of ducklings after challenge with the mutant virus at passages 1, 5, and 10. (A) Liver; (B) Spleen; (C) Duodenum.
Figure 6Survival percentage (left) and rectal temperatures (right) of ducklings. (A) Inoculated with a dose of 104 TCID50 of mutant viruses; (B) Inoculated with a dose of 105 TCID50 of mutant viruses; (C) Inoculated with a dose of 106 TCID50 of mutant viruses.
Mortality statistics of ducks.
| Group | Challenge dose (TCID50) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 104 | 105 | 106 | |
| CHv-50 | 0/10 | 5/10 | 6/10 |
| DPV CHv-gEΔET | 0/10 | 0/10 | 0/10 |
| DPV CHv-gEΔCT | 0/10 | 2/10 | 2/10 |
| DPV CHv-ΔgE | 0/10 | 0/10 | 0/10 |
| MEM | 0/10 | 0/10 | 0/10 |
The numerator is the mortality numbers, and the denominator is the number of ducks challenged with viruses.
Figure 7The ducklings were challenged after immunization, and the clinical symptoms of the ducklings after the challenge were observed. (A) Eyelid condition. (B) Rectal temperature (left) and survival rate (right).
Figure 8The determination of neutralizing antibody titer in ducks of different groups after immunization. ***P< 0.001, ****P< 0.0001.