Advertisement

Medical Microbiology and Immunology

, Volume 200, Issue 3, pp 165–175 | Cite as

A DNA vaccine expressing CFP21 and MPT64 fusion protein enhances BCG-induced protective immunity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in mice

  • Chun Wang
  • Zhenhua Chen
  • Ruiling Fu
  • Ying Zhang
  • Lingxia Chen
  • Li Huang
  • Jinjin Li
  • Chunwei Shi
  • Xionglin FanEmail author
Original Investigation

Abstract

The efficacy of Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing adult tuberculosis (TB) is highly variable. Genetic differences between BCG vaccine substrains, which can be divided into early strains and late strains based on the loss of region of difference two (RD2), may result in the variability and BCG substrains. The effect of lack of RD2 on the protective efficacy of BCG substrains against TB remains unknown. In this study, we demonstrated that CFP21 and MPT64(rCM) fusion protein, encoded by RD2 of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, could stimulate higher level of interferon (IFN)-γ in tuberculin skin test (TST)-positive healthy population than in TST-negative healthy population. Compared with naive mice challenged with virulent M. tuberculosis H37Rv, C57BL/6 mice vaccinated with pcD2164 DNA expressing rCM protein resulted in a greater decrease in the bacterial load of lung. Moreover, pcD2164 could boost the protective immunity in mice primed by BCG than BCG alone or DNA vaccination alone, as evidenced by lower bacterial load in the lung tissue and reduced lung pathology. The protection induced by BCG prime-DNA vaccine boost strategy was associated with significant increases in rCM protein-specific IFN-γ. Therefore, our results clearly indicate that the loss of RD2 has an important influence on the protective efficacy of different BCG substrains. These findings will benefit the optimal choice of BCG substrain for neonatal immunization and rational design of new vaccines for the prevention of TB.

Keywords

Tuberculosis DNA vaccine Mycobacterium tuberculosis BCG Prime-boost strategy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants of the Fok Ying Tung Education Foundation (No.114032), the National High Technology Research and Development of China (863 program No.2006AA02Z445), and the Important National Science and Technology Specific Projects (2009ZX09301-014).

References

  1. 1.
    Rodrigues LC, Diwan VK, Wheeler JG (1993) Protective effect of BCG against tuberculous meningitis and miliary tuberculosis: a meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 22:1154–1158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Colditz GA, Brewer TF, Berkey CS et al (1994) Efficacy of BCG vaccine in the prevention of tuberculosis. Meta-analysis of the published literature. JAMA 271:698–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fine PEM, Carneiro IAM, Milstien JB, Clements CJ (1999) Issues relating to the use of BCG in immunization programmes. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brandt L, Feino Cunha J, Weinreich Olsen A et al (2002) Failure of the Mycobacterium bovis BCG vaccine: some species of environmental mycobacteria block multiplication of BCG and induction of protective immunity to tuberculosis. Infect Immun 70:672–678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fernando SL, Britton WJ (2006) Genetic susceptibility to mycobacterial disease in humans. Immunol Cell Biol 84:125–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Behr MA, Wilson MA, Gill WP et al (1999) Comparative genomics of BCG vaccines by whole-genome DNA microarray. Science 284:1520–1523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leung AS, Tran V, Wu Z et al (2008) Novel genome polymorphisms in BCG vaccine strains and impact on efficacy. BMC genomics 9:413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brosch R, Gordon SV, Garnier T et al (2007) Genome plasticity of BCG and impact on vaccine efficacy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:5596–5601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carmen Garcia Pelayo M, Uplekar S, Keniry A et al (2009) Comprehensive survey of single nucleotide polymorphisms across Mycobacterium bovis and BCG vaccine strains refines the genealogy and defines a minimal set of SNPs that separate virulent M. bovis and BCG. Infect Immun 77(5):2230–2238Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Behr MA, Small PM (1999) A historical and molecular phylogeny of BCG strains. Vaccine 17:915–922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewis KN, Liao R, Guinn KM et al (2003) Deletion of RD1 from Mycobacterium tuberculosis mimics bacille Calmette-Guérin attenuation. J Infect Dis 187(1):117–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hsu T, Hingley-Wilson SM, Chen B et al (2003) The primary mechanism of attenuation of bacillus Calmette-Guérin is a loss of secreted lytic function required for invasion of lung interstitial tissue. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(21):12420–12425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gheorghiu M (1990) The present and future role of BCG vaccine in tuberculosis control. Biologicals 18:135–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Behr MA (2002) BCG—different strains, different vaccines? Lancet Infect Dis 2:86–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yakuwa E (1953) Comparative studies on the Japanese and French strain of BCG. Sci Rep Res Inst Tohoku Univ Med 5(1):35–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang GZ, Balasubramanian V, Smith DW (1988) The protective and allergenic potency of four BCG substrains in use in China determined in two animal models. Tubercle 69(4):283–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yamamoto T, Phalen S, Uchida K et al (2000) Protective efficacy of BCG Tokyo 172 in the guinea pig model of pulmonary tuberculosis. Kekkaku 75(5):379–388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horwitz MA, Harth G, Dillon BJ et al (2009) Commonly administered BCG strains including an evolutionarily early strain and evolutionarily late strains of disparate genealogy induce comparable protective immunity against tuberculosis. Vaccine 27:441–445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lagranderie MR, Balazuc AM, Deriaud E et al (1996) Comparison of immune responses of mice immunized with five different Mycobacterium bovis BCG vaccine strains. Infect Immun 64:1–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Castillo-Rodal AI, Castañón-Arreola M, Hernández-Pando R et al (2006) Mycobacterium bovis BCG substrains confer different levels of protection against Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in a BALB/c model of progressive pulmonary tuberculosis. Infect Immun 74:1718–1724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pym AS, Brodin P, Majlessi L et al (2003) Recombinant BCG exporting ESAT-6 confers enhanced protection against tuberculosis. Nat Med 9:533–539PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fan X, Gao Q, Fu R (2007) DNA vaccine encoding ESAT-6 enhances the protective efficacy of BCG against Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in mice. Scand J Immun 66:523–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maue AC, Waters WR, Palmer MV et al (2007) An ESAT-6:CFP10 DNA vaccine administered in conjunction with Mycobacterium bovis BCG confers protection to cattle challenged with virulent M. bovis. Vaccine 25:4735–4746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kalra M, Grover A, Mehta N et al (2007) Supplementation with RD antigens enhances the protective efficacy of BCG in tuberculous mice. Clinical Immunol 125:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fu R, Wang C, Shi C et al (2009) An improved whole blood interferon-gamma assay based on the CFP21-MPT64 fusion protein. Clinical Vaccine Immunol 16(5):686–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Horton RM, Hunt HD, Ho SN et al (1989) Engineering hybrid genes without the use of restriction enzymes: gene splicing by overlap extension. Gene 77:61–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shi C, Chen L, Chen Z et al (2010) Enhanced protection against tuberculosis by vaccination with recombinant BCG over-expressing HspX protein. Vaccine 28(32):5237–5244Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaufmann SHE, Hussey G, Lambert P (2010) New vaccines for tuberculosis. Lancet 375:2110–2119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    WHO/UNICEF (2010) estimates of national immunization coverage. http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/routine/immunization_coverage/en/index4.html. Accessed 12 August 2010
  30. 30.
    Davids V, Hanekom WA, Mansoor N et al (2006) The effect of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine strain and route of administration on induced immune responses in vaccinated infants. J Infect Dis 193:531–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wu B, Huang C, Garcia L et al (2007) Unique gene expression profiles in infants vaccinated with different Strains of Mycobacterium bovis bacille Calmette-Guérin. Infect Immun 75(7):3658–3664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Seki M, Honda I, Fujita I et al (2009) Whole genome sequence analysis of Mycobacterium bovis bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) Tokyo 172: a comparative study of BCG vaccine substrains. Vaccine 27:1710–1716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang J, Qie Y, Zhu B et al (2009) Evaluation of a recombinant BCG expressing antigen Ag85B and PPE protein Rv3425 from DNA segment RD11 of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in C57BL/6 mice. Med Microbiol Immunol 198(1):5–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kozak RA, Alexander DC, Liao R et al (2010) Region of difference 2 contributes to virulence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Infect Immun. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00824-10

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chun Wang
    • 1
  • Zhenhua Chen
    • 1
  • Ruiling Fu
    • 1
  • Ying Zhang
    • 2
  • Lingxia Chen
    • 1
  • Li Huang
    • 1
  • Jinjin Li
    • 1
  • Chunwei Shi
    • 1
  • Xionglin Fan
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Pathogen Biology, Tongji Medical CollegeHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Bloomberg School of Public HealthJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations