An evaluation of the role of antibodies to Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae serovar 1 and 15 in the protection provided by sub-unit and live streptomycin-dependent pleuropneumonia vaccines
An evaluation of the role of antibodies to Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae serovar 1 and 15 in the protection provided by sub-unit and live streptomycin-dependent pleuropneumonia vaccines
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1751-0813.2004.tb13248.x
复制
发表时间：
2004-12-01
影响因子：
1.1
通讯作者：
Blackall, PJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tumamao, JQ;Bowles, RE;Blackall, PJ
目的评价猪接种Porcilis APP疫苗或基于链霉素依赖性（SD）胸膜肺炎放线杆菌（Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae）菌株的改良活疫苗后的血清学应答，然后用血清型1或15的胸膜肺炎放线菌澳大利亚分离株攻击，作为理解两种疫苗提供的针对血清型1但不针对血清型15的保护的手段。评价的是血清型特异性多糖ELISA试验（血清型1和15）、针对三种胸膜肺炎放线菌毒素（ApxI、ApxII和ApxIII）以及42kDa外膜蛋白（OMP）的抗体的ELISA试验、溶血素中和（HN）测定和免疫印迹。结果在多糖抗原ELISA试验中，两种疫苗均能显著提高血清型1的抗体滴度，但对血清型15的抗体滴度无显著影响。Porcilis APP接种猪在ApxI、ApxIII和42 kDa OMP ELISA中显示出显著应答。在ApxII ELISA中，所有检测的猪（Porcilis APP疫苗接种组和对照组）在进入试验时均呈阳性。在HN试验中，Porcilis APP接种猪在一次给药后显示出显著应答，而SD接种猪在诱导滴度显著升高前需要接种两次疫苗。免疫印迹结果显示，两种疫苗均未产生能识别15型Apx Ⅲ的抗体。结论15型Apx Ⅲ疫苗对15型Apx Ⅲ的免疫失败可能与15型Apx Ⅲ具有新的毒力因子有关，血清型15的ApxIII毒素与Porcilis APP疫苗中存在的ApxIII毒素之间存在显著差异，或两种疫苗均未能诱导针对血清型15的抗体特异性多糖。
Objective To evaluate the serological response of pigs receiving either the Porcilis APP vaccine or a modified live vaccine based on a streptomycin-dependent (SD) strain of Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, and then challenged with an Australian isolate of A pleuropneumoniae of either serovar 1 or 15 as a means of understanding the protection provided by both vaccines against serovar 1 but not against serovar 15.Design The serological tests evaluated were serovar-specific polysaccharide ELISA tests (for serovar 1 and 15), ELISA tests for antibodies to three A pleuropneumoniae toxins (ApxI, ApxII and ApxIII) as well as to a 42 kDa outer membrane protein (OMP), a haemolysin neutralisation (HN) assay and immunoblotting. The tests were used to detect antibodies in vaccinated pigs that had been shown to be protected against serovar 1 but not serovar 15.Results In the polysaccharide antigen ELISA assays, both vaccines resulted in a significant rise in the titre in the serovar 1 ELISA but not the serovar 15 ELISA. The Porcilis APP vaccinated pigs showed a significant response in the ApxI, ApxIII and 42 kDa OMP ELISA. In the ApxII ELISA, all pigs tested (the Porcilis APP vaccinates and the controls) were positive on entry to the trial. In the HN assay, the Porcilis APP vaccinated pigs showed a significant response after one dose while the SD vaccinated pigs required two doses of vaccine before a marked rise in titre was induced. Immunoblotting revealed that neither vaccine generated antibodies that recognised the ApxIII produced by serovar 15.Conclusions The failure of these vaccines to provide protection against serovar 15 may be due to novel virulence factors possessed by serovar 15, significant differences between the ApxIII toxin of serovar 15 and those present in the Porcilis APP vaccine or failure by both vaccines to induce antibodies to the serovar 15 specific polysaccharide.