Acellular vaccines for ovine brucellosis: a safer alternative against a worldwide disease

References

• Seleem MN, Boyle SM, Sriranganathan N. Brucellosis: a re-emerging zoonosis. Vet. Microbiol.140, 392–398 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godfroid J, Cloeckaert A, Liautard JP et al. From the discovery of the Malta fever’s agent to the discovery of a marine mammal reservoir, brucellosis has continuously been a re-emerging zoonosis. Vet. Res.36, 313–326 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ridler AL, West DM. Control of Brucella ovis Infection in Sheep. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Food Animal Pract.27, 61–66 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zinsstag J, Schelling E, Roth F, Bonfoh B, de Savigny D, Tanner M. Human benefits of animal interventions for zoonosis control. Emerg. Infect. Dis.13, 527–531 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO /MZCP. Human and Animal Brucellosis. MZCP Report on the Third Workshop on Human and Animal Brucellosis Epidemiological Surveillance in the MZCP Countries. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland (1998).
   Google Scholar
• WHO EMC/ZDI/98.14. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Blasco JM, Diaz R. Brucella melitensis Rev-1 vaccine as a cause of human brucellosis. Lancet342, 805 (1993).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kamboj M, Sepkowitz KA. Risk of transmission associated with live attenuated vaccines given to healthy persons caring for or residing with an immunocompromised patient. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.28, 702–707 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blasco JM. A review of the use of B. melitensis Rev 1 vaccine in adult sheep and goats. Prev. Vet. Med.31, 275–283 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ariza J, Bosilkovski M, Cascio A et al. Perspectives for the treatment of brucellosis in the 21st century: the Ioannina recommendations. PLoS Med.4, 317 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schurig GG, Sriranganathan N, Corbel MJ. Brucellosis vaccines: past, present and future. Vet. Microbiol.90, 479–496 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marin CM, Barberan M, Jimenez de Bagues MP, Blasco JM. Comparison of subcutaneous and conjunctival routes of Rev1 vaccination for the prophylaxis of Brucella ovis infection in rams, Res. Vet. Sci.48, 209–215 (1990).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Muñoz MP, de Miguel MJ, Grilló MJ, Marín CM, Barberán M, Blasco JM. Immunopathological responses and kinetics of Brucella melitensis Rev 1 infection after subcutaneous or conjunctival vaccination in rams. Vaccine26, 2562–2569 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moriyón I, Grilló MJ, Monreal D et al. Rough vaccines in animal brucellosis: structural and genetic basis and present status. Vet. Res.35, 1–38 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schurig GG, Roop RM, Bagchi T, Boyle S, Buhrman D, Sriranganathan N. Biological properties of RB51; a stable rough strain of Brucella abortus. Vet. Microbiol.28(2), 171–188 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• el Idrissi AH, Benkirane A, el Maadoudi M, Bouslikhane M, Berrada J, Zerouali A. Comparison of the efficacy of Brucella abortus strain RB51 and Brucella melitensis Rev. 1 live vaccines against experimental infection with Brucella melitensis in pregnant ewes. Rev. Sci. Tech.20, 741–747 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jimenez de Bagues MP, Barberan M, Marin CM, Blasco JM. The Brucella abortus RB51 vaccine does not confer protection against Brucella ovis in rams. Vaccine13, 301–304 (1995).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Villarroel M, Grell M, Saenz R. Isolation and identification of Brucella abortus RB 51 in human: first report in Chile. Arch. Med. Vet.32, 89–91 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Cloeckaert A, Zygmunt MS, Nicolle J, Dubray G, Limet JN. O-chain expression in the rough Brucella melitensis strain B115: induction of O-polysaccharide-specific monoclonal antibodies and intracellular localization demonstrated by immunoelectron microscopy. J. Gen. Microb.138, 1211–1219 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Adone R, Francia M, Ciuchini F. Evaluation of Brucella melitensis B115 as rough-phenotype vaccine against B. melitensis and B. ovis infections. Vaccine26, 4913–4917 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Adone R, Francia M, Pistoia C, Pesciaroli M, Pasquali P. Brucella melitensis rough strain B115 is protective against heterologous Brucella spp. infections. Vaccine29, 2523–2529 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacques I, Verger JM, Laroucau K et al. Immunological responses and protective efficacy against Brucella melitensis induced by bp26 and OMP31 B. melitensis Rev.1 deletion mutants in sheep. Vaccine25, 794–805 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grillo MJ, Marin CM, Barberan M et al. Efficacy of bp26 and bp26/OMP31 B. melitensis Rev.1 deletion mutants against Brucella ovis in rams. Vaccine27, 187–191 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Arenas-Gamboa AM, Rice-Ficht AC, Kahl-McDonagh MM, Ficht TA. Protective efficacy and safety of Brucella melitensis 16MAmucR against Intraperitoneal and aerosol challenge in BALB/c mice. Infect. Immun.79, 3653–3658 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Magnani DM, Harms JS, Durward MA, Splitter GA. Nondividing but Metabolically active γ-irradiated Brucella melitensis is protective against virulent B. melitensis challenge in mice. Infect. Immun.77, 5181–5518 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• He Y, Xiang Z. Bioinformatics analysis of Brucella vaccines and vaccine targets using VIOLIN. Immunome Res.6(1), S5 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cassataro J, Pasquevich KA, Estein SM et al. A recombinant subunit vaccine based on the insertion of 27 amino acids from OMP31 to the N-terminus of BLS induced a similar degree of protection against B. ovis than Rev.1 vaccination. Vaccine25, 4437–4446 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vizcaíno N, Kittelberger R, Cloeckaert A, Marín CM, Fernández-Lago L. Minor nucleotide substitutions in the omp31 gene of Brucella ovis result in antigenic differences in the major outer membrane protein that it encodes compared to those of the other Brucella species. Infect. Immun.69, 7020–7028 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Da Costa Martins R, Irache JM, Blasco JM et al. Evaluation of particulate acellular vaccines against Brucella ovis infection in rams. Vaccine28, 3038–3046 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salas-Tellez E, Nunez del Arco A, Tenorio V, Diaz-Aparicio E, de la Garza M, Suarez-Guemes F. Subcellular fractions of Brucella ovis distinctively induce the production of interleukin-2, interleukin-4, and interferon-γ in mice. Can. J. Vet. Res.69, 53–57 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blasco JM, Gamazo C, Winter AJ et al. Evaluation of whole cell and subcellular vaccines against Brucella ovis in rams. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol.37, 257–270 (1993).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Munoz PM, Estevan M, Marin CM et al. Brucella outer membrane complex-loaded microparticles as a vaccine against Brucella ovis in rams. Vaccine24, 1897–1905 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tabatabai LB, Pugh GW Jr. Modulation of immune responses in BALB/c mice vaccinated with Brucella abortus Cu-Zn superoxide dismutase synthetic peptide vaccine. Vaccine12, 919–924 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassataro J, Velikovsky CA, de la Barrera S et al. A DNA vaccine coding for the Brucella outer membrane protein 31 confers protection against B. melitensis and B. ovis infection by eliciting a specific cytotoxic response. Infect. Immun.73, 6537–6546 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onate AA, Cespedes S, Cabrera A et al. A DNA vaccine encoding Cu,Zn superoxide dismutase of Brucella abortus induces protective immunity in BALB/c mice. Infect. Immun.71, 4857–4861 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beauclair KD, Khansari DN. Protection of mice against Brucella abortus by immunization with polyclonal anti-idiotype antibodies. Immunobiology180, 208–220 (1990).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gamazo C, Winter AJ, Moriyon I, Riezu-Boj JI, Blasco JM, Diaz R. Comparative analyses of proteins extracted by hot saline or released spontaneously into outer membrane blebs from field strains of Brucella ovis and Brucella melitensis. Infect. Immun.57, 1419–1426 (1989).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Estein SM, Cassataro J, Vizcaino N, Zygmunt MS, Cloeckaert A, Bowden RA. The recombinant OMP31 from Brucella melitensis alone or associated with rough lipopolysaccharide induces protection against Brucella ovis infection in BALB/c mice. Microbes. Infect.5, 85–93 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Edmonds MD, Cloeckaert A, Elzer PH. Brucella species lacking the major outer membrane protein OMP25 are attenuated in mice and protect against Brucella melitensis and Brucella ovis. Vet. Microbiol.88, 205–221 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berguer PM, Mundiñano J, Piazzon I et al. A polymeric bacterial protein activates dendritic cells via TLR4. J. Immunol.176, 2366–2372 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa Oliveira S, Souza de Oliveira F, Costa Macedo G et al. The role of innate immune receptors in the control of Brucella abortus infection: Toll-like receptors and beyond. Microbes. Infect.10, 1005–1009 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Velikovsky CA, Goldbaum FA, Cassataro J et al. Brucella lumazine synthase elicits a mixed Th1–Th2 immune response and reduces infection in mice challenged with Brucella abortus 544 independently of the adjuvant formulation used. Infect. Immun.71(10), 5750–5755 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velikovsky CA, Cassataro J, Giambartolomei GH et al. A DNA vaccine encoding lumazine synthase from Brucella abortus induces protective immunity in BALB/c mice. Infect. Immun.70(5), 2507–2511 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassataro J, Pasquevich KA, Estein SM et al. DNA vaccine coding for the chimera BLSOmp31 induced a better degree of protection against B. ovis and a similar degree of protection against B. melitensis than Rev.1 vaccination. Vaccine25(22), 4437–4446 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estein SM, Fiorentino MA, Paolicchi FA, Clausse M, Manazza J. The polymeric antigen BLSOmp31 confers protection against Brucella ovis infection in rams. Vaccine27, 6704–6711 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mallapragada SK, Narasimhan B. Immunomodulatory biomaterials. Int. J. Pharm.364, 265–271 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorvel JP. Brucella: a Mr “Hide” converted into Dr Jekyll. Microbes. Infect.10, 1010–1013 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pulendran B, Ahmed R. Immunological mechanisms of vaccination. Nat. Immunol.12, 509–517 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ardavin C. Origin, precursors and differentiation of mouse dendritic cells. Nat. Rev. Immunol.3, 582–590 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degen WG, Jansen T, Schijns VE. Vaccine adjuvant technology: from mechanistic concepts to practical applications. Expert Rev. Vaccines2(2), 327–335 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eisenbarth SC, Colegio OR, O’Connor W, Sutterwala FS, Flavell RA. Crucial role for the Nalp3 inflammasome in the immunostimulatory properties of aluminium adjuvants. Nature453, 1122–1126 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson LB, Norton EB, Clements JD. Defending the mucosa: adjuvant and carrier formulations for mucosal immunity. Curr. Opin. Immunol.23(3), 414–420 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavelle EC. Generation of improved mucosal vaccines by induction of innate immunity. Cell Mol. Life Sci.62, 2750–2770 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrovsky N, Aguilar JC. Vaccine adjuvants: current state and future trends. Immunol. Cell Biol.82, 488–496 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasquevich KA, Estein SM, Garcia Samartino C et al. Immunization with recombinant Brucella species outer membrane protein OMP16 or OMP19 in adjuvant induces specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells as well as systemic and oral protection against Brucella abortus infection. Infect. Immun.77, 436–445 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasquevich KA, Ibañez AE, Coria LM et al. An oral vaccine based on U-OMP19 induces protection against B. abortus mucosal challenge by inducing an adaptive IL-17 immune response in mice. PLoS ONE6(1), e16203 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamayo I, Irache JM, Mansilla C, Ochoa-Reparaz J, Lasarte JJ, Gamazo C. Poly(anhydride) nanoparticles act as active Th1 adjuvants through Toll-like receptor exploitation. Clin. Vacc. Immunol.17, 1356–1362 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Lubben IM, Kersten G, Fretz MM, Beuvery C, Coos Verhoef J, Junginger HE. Chitosan microparticles for mucosal vaccination against diphtheria: oral and nasal efficacy studies in mice. Vaccine21, 1400–1408 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adair BM. Nanoparticle vaccines against respiratory viruses. Wiley. Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol.1, 405–414 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiarella P, Massi E, De Robertis M, Signori E, Fazio VM. Adjuvants in vaccines and for immunisation: current trends. Expert. Opin. Biol. Ther.7, 1551–1562 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahmy TM, Demento SL, Caplan MJ, Mellman I, Saltzman WM. Design opportunities for actively targeted nanoparticle vaccines. Nanomedicine3, 343–355 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadwick S, Kriegel C, Amiji M. Nanotechnology solutions for mucosal immunization. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.62, 394–407 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Audran R, Peter K, Dannull J et al. Encapsulation of peptides in biodegradable microspheres prolongs their MHC class-I presentation by dendritic cells and macrophages in vitro. Vaccine21, 1250–1255 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiele L, Rothen-Rutishauser B, Jilek S, Wunderli-Allenspach H, Merkle HP, Walter E. Evaluation of particle uptake in human blood monocyte-derived cells in vitro. Does phagocytosis activity of dendritic cells measure up with macrophages? J. Control. Release76, 59–71 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murillo M, Grillo MJ, Rene J et al. A Brucella ovis antigenic complex bearing poly-epsilon-caprolactone microparticles confer protection against experimental brucellosis in mice. Vaccine19, 4099–4106 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arenas-Gamboa AM, Ficht TA, Davis DS et al. Oral vaccination with microencapsuled strain 19 vaccine confers enhanced protection against Brucella abortus strain 2308 challenge in red deer (Cervus elaphus elaphus). J. Wildlife Dis.45, 1021–1029 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cassataro J, Pasquevich KA, Estein SM et al. A DNA vaccine coding for the chimera BLSOMP31 induced a better degree of protection against B. ovis and a similar degree of protection against B. melitensis than Rev.1 vaccination. Vaccine25, 5958–5967 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosas G, Fragoso G, Ainciart N et al. Brucella spp. lumazine synthase: a novel adjuvant and antigen delivery system to effectively induce oral immunity. Microbes. Infect.8, 1277–1286 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ficht TA, Kahl-McDonagh M, Arenas-Gamboa M, Rice-Ficht AC. Brucellosis: the case for live, attenuated vaccines. Vaccine27, D40–D43 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nepom GT. Mucosal matters. Foreword. Nat. Rev. Immunol.8, 409 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Arbos P, Campanero MA, Arangoa MA, Irache JM. Nanoparticles with specific bioadhesive properties to circumvent the pre-systemic degradation of fluorinated pyrimidines. J. Control. Release96, 55–65 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irache JM, Huici M, Konecny M, Espuelas S, Campanero MA, Arbos P. Bioadhesive properties of Gantrez nanoparticles. Molecules10, 126–145 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez S, Gamazo C, San Roman B et al. A novel nanoparticulate adjuvant for immunotherapy with Lolium perenne. J. Immunol. Methods348, 1–8 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomez S, Gamazo C, San Roman B et al. Allergen immunotherapy with nanoparticles containing lipopolysaccharide from Brucella ovis . Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm.70, 711–717 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen H. Recent advances in mucosal vaccine development. J. Control. Release67, 117–128 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Clark MA, Blair H, Liang L, Brey RN, Brayden D, Hirst BH. Targeting polymerised liposome vaccine carriers to intestinal M cells. Vaccine20, 208–217 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salman HH, Gamazo C, de Smidt PC, Russell-Jones G, Irache JM. Evaluation of bioadhesive capacity and immunoadjuvant properties of vitamin B(12)-Gantrez nanoparticles. Pharm. Res.25, 2859–2868 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salman HH, Irache JM, Gamazo C. Immunoadjuvant capacity of flagellin and mannosamine-coated poly(anhydride) nanoparticles in oral vaccination. Vaccine27, 4784–4790 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salman HH, Gamazo C, Campanero MA, Irache JM. Bioadhesive mannosylated nanoparticles for oral drug delivery. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol.6, 3203–3209 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keler T, Ramakrishna V, Fanger MW. Mannose receptor-targeted vaccines. Expert. Opin. Biol. Ther.4, 1953–1962 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apostolopoulos V, McKenzie IF. Role of the mannose receptor in the immune response. Curr. Mol. Med.1(4), 469–474 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jain SK, Gupta Y, Jain A, Saxena AR, Khare P. Mannosylated gelatin nanoparticles bearing an anti-HIV drug didanosine for site-specific delivery. Nanomedicine4, 41–48 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salman HH, Gamazo C, Agueros M, Irache JM. Bioadhesive capacity and immunoadjuvant properties of thiamine-coated nanoparticles. Vaccine25, 8123–8132 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosser E, Mueller M, Fischer S et al. TLR ligands and antigen need to be coencapsulated into the same biodegradable microsphere for the generation of potent cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses. Vaccine26, 1626–1637 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camacho AI, Da Costa Martins R, Tamayo I et al. Poly(methyl vinyl ether-co-maleic anhydride) nanoparticles as innate immune system activators. Vaccine29(41), 7130–7135 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lumsden JM, Pichyangkul S, Srichairatanakul U et al. Evaluation of the safety and immunogenicity in Rhesus monkeys of a recombinant malaria vaccine for Plasmodium vivax with a synthetic Toll-Like receptor 4 agonist formulated in an emulsion. Infect. Immun.79, 3492–3500 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar