| Literature DB >> 36146761 |
José Alejandro Bohórquez1,2,3,4, Miaomiao Wang1,2,3, Ivan Díaz1,2,3, Mònica Alberch1,2,3, Marta Pérez-Simó1,2,3, Rosa Rosell1,2,3,5, Douglas P Gladue6, Manuel V Borca6, Llilianne Ganges1,2,3.
Abstract
Control of classical swine fever virus (CSFV) in endemic countries relies on vaccination, mostly using vaccines that do not allow for differentiation of vaccinated from infected animals (DIVA). FlagT4G vaccine is a novel candidate that confers robust immunity and shows DIVA capabilities. The present study assessed the immune response elicited by FlagT4G and its capacity to protect pigs for a short time after vaccination. Five days after a single dose of FlagT4G vaccine, animals were challenged with a highly virulent CSFV strain. A strong, but regulated, interferon-α response was found after vaccination. Vaccinated animals showed clinical and virological protection against the challenge, in the absence of antibody response at 5 days post-vaccination. Upon challenge, a rapid rise in the titers of CSFV neutralizing antibodies and an increase in the IFN-γ producing cells were noticed in all vaccinated-challenged pigs. Meanwhile, unvaccinated pigs showed severe clinical signs and high viral replication, being euthanized before the end of the trial. These animals were unable to generate neutralizing antibodies and IFN-γ responses after the CSFV challenge. The results from the present study assert the fast and efficient protection by FlagT4G, a highly promising tool for CSFV control worldwide.Entities:
Keywords: CSFV; FlagT4G; antibody response; innate immunity; marker vaccine; vaccine efficacy; virological protection
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36146761 PMCID: PMC9502879 DOI: 10.3390/v14091954
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Viruses ISSN: 1999-4915 Impact factor: 5.818
Figure 1Clinical signs and rectal temperature in pigs during the trial. Individual rectal temperature (A) was recorded in FlagT4G-vaccinated (blue lines and symbols) and unvaccinated (red lines and symbols) pigs throughout the trial. Values above 40 °C (dotted line) were considered as fever. (B) A numeric clinical score value (represented in colorimetric scale) was assigned for each animal after CSFV challenge. Cross symbol indicates an animal that died during monitoring, despite not showing clinical signs.
Figure 2Antibody response after CSFV vaccination and challenge. Sera samples from FlagT4G-vaccinated (blue lines and symbols) and unvaccinated (red lines and symbols) animals were collected and evaluated for antibodies against the E2 (A) and Erns (B) glycoproteins. For the E2 ELISA test, results are expressed as blocking percentage, and values above 40% (red-shaded area) were considered positive. In the case of anti-Erns antibodies, results were expressed as the sample/positive value with samples above 0.5 (green shaded area) determined to be positive. * Euthanized for animal welfare reasons.
Neutralizing antibody titers against FlagT4G and Margarita strain.
| Pig ID | FlagT4G | CSFV Margarita Strain | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 DPV/Day of CSFV Challenge | 4 dpi | 7 dpi | 14 dpi | 5 DPV/Day of CSFV Challenge | 4 dpi | 7 dpi | 14 dpi | ||
| FlagT4G vaccinated pigs | 1 | (-) | (-) | 1:40 | 1:120 | (-) | (-) | (-) | 1:15 |
| 2 † | (-) | 1:15 | 1:80 | N/S | (-) | (-) | (-) | N/S | |
| 3 | (-) | 1:20 | 1:80 | 1:160 | (-) | (-) | 1:15 | 1:80 | |
| 4 | (-) | 1:15 | 1:30 | 1:60 | (-) | 1:10 | 1:20 | 1:30 | |
| 5 | (-) | 1:10 | 1:30 | 1:240 | (-) | (-) | (-) | 1:10 | |
| Unvaccinated pigs | 6 * | (-) | (-) | (-) | N/S | (-) | (-) | (-) | N/S |
| 7 * | (-) | (-) | (-) | N/S | (-) | (-) | (-) | N/S | |
| 8 * | (-) | (-) | (-) | N/S | (-) | (-) | (-) | N/S | |
| 9 * | (-) | (-) | (-) | N/S | (-) | (-) | (-) | N/S | |
| 10 * | (-) | (-) | (-) | N/S | (-) | (-) | (-) | N/S | |
* Animals were euthanized at 7 DPC. † Animal was euthanized at 10 DPC. N/S: No sample.
Figure 3Cytokine response after CSFV vaccination and challenge. (A) IFN-α concentration in sera samples was evaluated after vaccination and CSFV challenge, using an in-house ELISA test. Individual results for each sampling are represented as the mean value (in units/mL) of duplicates performed for each sample. (B) Sera samples from vaccinated (blue boxes) and unvaccinated (red boxes) animals were also evaluated by Luminex assay for the detection of nine different cytokines. Mean values for each group at every sampling time are represented and cytokine concentrations are shown as pg/mL. Asterisk indicates statistically significant differences between groups on that particular sampling (Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test; p < 0.05). Differences between a given sampling and the previous one within the same group (Friedman test) are represented by the letters on top of the bar: different letters show statistical difference (p < 0.05). Not represented: IFN-γ concentration in sera (not detected in any sample).
Figure 4Detection of viral RNA by RT-qPCR. Samples from vaccinated and unvaccinated pigs were evaluated by the pan-CSFV (A) and the specific Margarita strain (B) RT-qPCR assays. Results are shown in a colorimetric scale representing the Ct value in green and red for the pan-CSFV and Margarita tests, respectively.
Figure 5IFN-γ response in FlagT4G-vaccinated pigs. PBMCs from all the experimentally infected animals were stimulated by duplicate with the FlagT4G (green bars) and Margarita (Orange bars) viruses and evaluated by ELISPOT assay. Results are represented as the mean value of spots/106 cells for each stimulation at the respective time points. Unvaccinated and challenged animals remained unresponsive to either of the viral stimuli. Differences between a given sampling and the previous one within FlagT4G-vaccinated pigs (Friedman test) are represented by different letters (p < 0.05).
Figure 6Immunological phenotypic profile after CSFV vaccination and challenge. Myelomonocytic and lymphocytic cell surface markers were evaluated in PBMC from vaccinated (blue boxes) and unvaccinated (red boxes) pigs. Mean values and cell subset percentages for each group at every sampling time are represented. Flow cytometry assays were carried out in duplicates. Asterisk indicates statistically significant differences between groups on that particular sampling (Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test; p < 0.05). Differences between a given sampling and the previous one within the same group (Friedman test) are represented by the letters on top of the bar: different letters show statistical difference (p < 0.05).