Volume 25, Issue 7 (oct 2017)                   JSSU 2017, 25(7): 537-546 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Namvarpour M, Mansouri R, Tebianian M. Evaluation of three different administration routes (IM, SC and IN) on humoral immune responses against Mycobacterium Tuberculosis ESAT-6/CFP-10 fusion protein . JSSU. 2017; 25 (7) :537-546
URL: http://jssu.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-4059-en.html
Abstract:   (2947 Views)
Introduction: Tuberculosis (TB) has been considered as a main health problems of the present century. Unfortunately, it has been reported different protective responses against BCG vaccine, as only available vaccine against TB .The search for a new and improved vaccine against tuberculosis is currently a very active field of research. In this study, we have evaluated the relative effects of intranasal (i.n), subcutaneous (s.c) and intramuscular (i.m) routes of immunization on the induction of humoral immune responses against TB recombinant protein.
Methods: The recombinant ESAT-6/CFP-10 antigens has been assessed and confirmed preliminary, for this study. The Balb/C mice were immunized in 3 different routes, three times at 2-week intervals with recombinant protein, formulated with or without adjuvants (MF-59 for the i.m and s.c routes and CTB for i.n). Blood was collected from retro-orbital sinus 10 days after each immunization and after separation of sera, they were evaluated for specific antibodies against antigen by an indirect ELISA method, which had set up during the research.
Results: Mice vaccinated against recombinant proteins had high level of specific antibodies compared to the controls. Our results showed that although the i.m and s.c injections also induce immune responses, but the antibody titer in i.n rout had graduately elevated to reach in acceptable levels.
Conclusion: The results could be used for formulation of mucosal vaccines against tuberculosis in future studies.
Full-Text [PDF 904 kb]   (793 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original article | Subject: Immunology
Received: 2017/01/8 | Accepted: 2017/05/20 | Published: 2017/11/14

References
1. Hoft DF. Tuberculosis vaccine development: goals, immunological design, and evaluation. The Lancet 2008; 372(9633): 164-75.
2. Frothingham R, Stout JE, Hamilton CD. Current issues in global tuberculosis control. International j infectious diseases: Int J Infect Dis 2005; 9(6): 297-311.
3. Kaufmann SH, Parida SK. Changing funding patterns in tuberculosis. Nat med 2007; 13(3): 299-303.
4. Li W, Deng G, Li M, Zeng J, Zhao L, Liu X, et al. A recombinant adenovirus expressing CFP10, ESAT6, Ag85A and Ag85B of Mycobacterium tuberculosis elicits strong antigen-specific immune responses in mice. Mol immunol 2014; 62(1): 86-95.
5. Baumann S, Nasser Eddine A, Kaufmann SH. Progress in tuberculosis vaccine development. Curr Opin Immunol 2006; 18(4): 438-48.
6. Hawkridge T, Mahomed H. Prospects for a new, safer and more effective TB vaccine. Paed resp rev. 2011; 12(1): 46-51.
7. Verbon A, Kuijper S, Jansen HM, Speelman P, Kolk AH. Antigens in culture supernatant of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: epitopes defined by monoclonal and human antibodies. J gen microbiol 1990; 136(5): 955-64.
8. Sable SB, Plikaytis BB, Shinnick TM. Tuberculosis subunit vaccine development: impact of physicochemical properties of mycobacterial test antigens. Vaccine 2007; 25(9): 1553-66.
9. Berthet FX, Rasmussen PB, Rosenkrands I, Andersen P, Gicquel B. A Mycobacterium tuberculosis operon encoding ESAT-6 and a novel low-molecular-mass culture filtrate protein (CFP-10). Microbiology 1998; 144 (Pt 11): 3195-203.
10. Brandt L, Elhay M, Rosenkrands I, Lindblad EB, Andersen P. ESAT-6 subunit vaccination against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Infect Immun 2000; 68(2): 791-5.
11. Olsen AW, Hansen PR, Holm A, Andersen P. Efficient protection against Mycobacterium tuberculosis by vaccination with a single subdominant epitope from the ESAT-6 antigen. Eur J Immunol 2000; 30(6): 1724-32.
12. De Magistris MT. Mucosal delivery of vaccine antigens and its advantages in pediatrics. Adv drug deliv rev 2006 20; 58(1): 52-67.
13. Partidos CD. Intranasal vaccines: forthcoming challenges. Pharm Sci Technolo Today 2000; 3(8): 273-81.
14. Baldauf KJ, Royal JM, Hamorsky KT, Matoba N. Cholera toxin B: one subunit with many pharmaceutical applications. Toxins 2015; 7(3): 974-96.
15. O'Hagan DT, Ott GS, De Gregorio E, Seubert A. The mechanism of action of MF59 - an innately attractive adjuvant formulation. Vaccine 2012; 30(29): 4341-8.
16. Agnolon V, Bruno C, Leuzzi R, Galletti B, D'Oro U, Pizza M,et al. The potential of adjuvants to improve immune responses against TdaP vaccines: A preclinical evaluation of MF59 and monophosphoryl lipid A. Int j pharm 2015 ;492(1-2): 169-76.
17. Ko EJ, Lee YT, Kim KH, Jung YJ, Lee Y, Denning TL, et al. Effects of MF59 Adjuvant on Induction of Isotype-Switched IgG Antibodies and Protection after Immunization with T-Dependent Influenza Virus Vaccine in the Absence of CD4+ T Cells. J virol 2016; 90(15): 6976-88.
18. Valensi JP, Carlson JR, Van Nest GA. Systemic cytokine profiles in BALB/c mice immunized with trivalent influenza vaccine containing MF59 oil emulsion and other advanced adjuvants. J immunol 1994; 153(9): 4029-39.
20. Ott G, Barchfeld GL, Van Nest G. Enhancement of humoral response against human influenza vaccine with the simple submicron oil/water emulsion adjuvant MF59. Vaccine 1995; 13(16): 1557-62.
21. Heinemann L, Woodfield L, Amer M, Hibma M. Effective induction of type 1 helper IgG2a and cytotoxic T-cell responses in mice following immunization with human papillomavirus type 16 E2 in MF59. Viral immunol 2008; 21(2): 225-33.
22. Mohanan D, Slutter B, Henriksen-Lacey M, Jiskoot W, Bouwstra JA, et al. Administration routes affect the quality of immune responses: A cross-sectional evaluation of particulate antigen-delivery systems. J Control Release 2010; 147(3): 342-9.
23. Giri PK, Khuller GK. Is intranasal vaccination a feasible solution for tuberculosis? Expert review of vaccines 2008; 7(9): 1341-56.
24. Lagranderie M, Balazuc AM, Abolhassani M, Chavarot P, Nahori MA, Thouron F,et al. Development of mixed Th1/Th2 type immune response and protection against Mycobacterium tuberculosis after rectal or subcutaneous immunization of newborn and adult mice with Mycobacterium bovis BCG. Scand J immunol 2002; 55(3): 293-303.
25. Hunter J. Intramuscular injection techniques. Nurs stand 2008; 22(24): 35-40.
26. Tanghe A, Denis O, Lambrecht B, Motte V, van den Berg T, Huygen K. Tuberculosis DNA vaccine encoding Ag85A is immunogenic and protective when administered by intramuscular needle injection but not by epidermal gene gun bombardment. Infect immun 2000; 68(7): 3854-60.
27. Smith GN, Griffiths B, Mollison D, Mollison PL. Uptake of IgG after intramuscular and subcutaneous injection. Lancet 1972; 1(7762): 1208-12.
28. Smith A. Subcutaneous injection. Nurs stand 2015; 29(38): 61.
29. Higgins D. Subcutaneous injection. Nurs times 2004; 100(50): 32-3.
30. Giudice EL, Campbell JD. Needle-free vaccine delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2006; 58(1): 68-89

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


© 2021 All Rights Reserved | SSU_Journals

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb