| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Unité de Génétique Virale et Biosécurité, Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments, Site Les Croix, BP 53, 22440 Ploufragan, France
Correspondence
Patrick Langlois
p.langlois{at}ploufragan.afssa.fr
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
), has led researchers to develop new kinds of vaccines. Various modalities are under study: subunit vaccines such as protein or naked DNA and recombinant vaccines using viruses or bacteria (Kesik et al., 2004; Lewis & Babiuk, 1999; Lo, 1987).
Members of the family Adenoviridae are non-enveloped, icosahedral viruses, with a linear, 26–45 kbp, double-stranded DNA molecule (Horwitz, 1996; Rekosh et al., 1977; Stewart et al., 1993). As their genome is delivered into the nucleus and can replicate very efficiently, adenoviruses represent advantageous candidates for the expression and delivery of therapeutic genes (Benihoud et al., 1999; Graham, 1990; Hitt et al., 1997; Zhang, 1999). Their genome can be easily modified, and they can be produced at high titres in vitro. Recombinant adenoviruses from various species (human, porcine, bovine, canine and avian species) have therefore been developed as gene delivery vectors for vaccination and gene therapy (Hammond et al., 2000; Klonjkowski et al., 1997; Michou et al., 1999; Paillard, 1997; Rasmussen et al., 1999; Reddy et al., 1999; Sheppard, 1999).
Among fowl adenoviruses (FAdV), the serotype I chicken embryo lethal orphan (CELO) virus or FAdV-1, has been widely studied (Chiocca et al., 1997; Laver et al., 1971; Lehrmann & Cotten, 1999; Michou et al., 1999). There are several advantages of using the CELO virus as a new viral vector for vaccination in poultry farming. It has never been associated with any economic losses or major pathologies in chickens. In fact, CELO virus can be isolated from healthy chickens, and does not cause any evident disease when it is experimentally introduced into chickens (Cowen et al., 1978). Its genome has been completely sequenced and its transcriptional organization has been established (Chiocca et al., 1996; Payet et al., 1998). Moreover, molecular tools have been developed in our laboratory to construct recombinant CELO strains (rCELO) expressing heterologous genes from various pathogens (Francois et al., 2001). We have shown recently that specific pathogen-free (SPF) chickens vaccinated with a rCELO virus expressing the gene encoding the major capsid protein VP2 of IBDV inserted in the left end of the CELO genome (rCELOa-VP2), were protected from a challenge with the pathogenic virus (Francois et al., 2004). Nevertheless, although the molecular biology of the CELO virus has been well characterized, virus–cell and virus–host interactions are still poorly understood. The mechanisms of CELO infection, target organs and immune responses induced by wild-type (wt) and rCELO strains need to be investigated.
We have previously examined the in vitro replication of the CELO virus and the effect of deletions at various regions of its genome on the in vitro growth of the virus (Francois et al., 2001). Three open reading frames (ORF) 9, 10 and 11 were deleted from the right end of the CELO genome: this 3·6 kbp deletion did not inhibit in vitro virus replication (rCELOd) (Francois et al., 2001; Michou et al., 1999). The aim of this study was to determine whether deletion of these three ORFs had any effects on in vivo virus replication, biodistribution and host immune responses. For this purpose, SPF chickens were inoculated oronasally to mimic the natural route of infection in poultry. We compared the replication and biodistribution of wtCELO virus and rCELOd strains expressing heterologous genes in infected chickens. The humoral responses directed to the various viruses were also analysed.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
). Briefly, the CELO genome was first cloned into plasmid pPolyII by homologous recombination in Escherichia coli to generate a viral genome with single restriction sites (i.e. PacI and AscI sites) at both ends. With the presence of other unique restriction sites (PmeI, NotI and FseI), the CELO genome can be divided into four fragments named A (PacI–PmeI 7430 bp), B (PmeI–NotI 9956 bp), C (NotI–FseI 18 298 bp) and D (FseI–AscI 8116 bp) (Fig. 1). A 3·6 kbp deletion, between positions 40065 and 43685 of the CELO genome, was created in the D-terminal region of the CELO genome. This strain has been described previously as CELO AIM70 to be replication competent in vitro (GenBank accession no. U46933) (Michou et al., 1999). Three ORFs were deleted: 9, 10 and 11. The reporter genes encoding the human secreted alkaline phosphatase (SEAP) or luciferase (luc) was inserted into the gap under the control of the immediate-early cytomegalovirus promoter (pCMV). The new rCELO strains were, respectively, called rCELOd-seap and rCELOd-luc (Fig. 1). After modification, the cloned CELO genome was excised from the plasmid and ligated with the cos
1 cosmid vector, which was linearized by PacI and AscI digestions. The ligation reaction generated concatenated DNA molecules, with cos sites separated by 50 kb from each other, which allowed for packaging into 
bacteriophage heads. The ligation product was then packaged and amplified in E. coli, resulting in the cos/CELO DNA cosmid that contained the full-length CELO genome.
|
) preparation using the Polyfect transfection reagent kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer's recommendations. LMH cells were seeded the day before transfection into six-well plates at 6x105 cells per well in 2 ml Williams' Medium E (Invitrogen) supplemented with 10 % fetal calf serum (FCS), 2 mM L-glutamine, 100 U penicillin ml–1 and 100 µg streptomycin ml–1. Transfection efficiency was assessed by transfecting cells with pcDNA3.1/zeo(+) (Invitrogen) containing the gene encoding the enhanced green fluorescent protein (eGFP). Cell fluorescence was observed 12–18 h post-transfection. After 4–12 days, cytopathic effects were observed depending on the rCELO strain. Cells were lysed by three freeze–thaw cycles and lysate clarified by centrifugation. Supernatants containing viruses were used to infect freshly plated LMH cells. After this second in vitro passage, viral stocks were stored at –80 °C. Before use, DNA restriction endonuclease digestion profiles of viruses were analysed.
Titration of infectious viral particles.
Viral stocks were titrated using a standard p.f.u. counting method (Francois et al., 2001; Graham & Prevec, 1995). LMH cells were seeded 2 days before infection into six-well plates at 6x105 cells per well in 2 ml Williams' Medium E supplemented as described above. Serial dilutions of viral stocks were prepared in Williams' Medium E supplemented with 2 % FCS, and added to confluent LMH cells. After a 2 h adsorption step at 37 °C, cells were washed in PBS and covered with 2·5 ml Williams' Medium E supplemented with 10 % FCS and 1 % low-melting-point agarose (SeaPlaque agarose; FMC Bioproducts). Living cells were stained with 0·05 % neutral red solution (Sigma) 4 days after infection, and the plaques were counted (Fig. 2).
|
) and by the p.f.u. counting method as described above. It was observed that 1 in 100 virus particles was infectious.
Virus challenge.
Three in vivo trials were carried out on either 1-day-old or 5-week-old SPF White Leghorn chickens (AFSSA Ploufragan) (Table 1). Chickens were challenged with the wtCELO virus, rCELOd-luc (trial b) or rCELOd-seap (trials a and c). Chickens were inoculated oronasally using 105 or 107 p.f.u. of viruses per animal. Fifteen non-inoculated animals were used as negative controls.
|
PCR analyses of in vivo CELO distribution.
PCR analyses were performed to test the presence of CELO viral DNA extracted from several tissues (i.e. trachea, thymus, liver, spleen, caeca, intestine and bursa of Fabricius) sampled at 1, 4, 6, 10, 20 and 30 days post-inoculation (p.i.) with wtCELO virus and rCELOd-seap. DNA was extracted using the Qiagen DNeasy tissue kit according to the manufacturer's recommendations. PCR primers, forward 5'-CCGGAACGGTTTCCACACAGC-3' and reverse 5'-GTTGAAGGGATTGATTGACGTTGTC-3', were designed from the sequence encoding the hexon capsid protein of CELO and generated a 284 bp product. Amplification reactions were performed in a 50 µl mixture containing 0·2 µM each primer, 0·1 mM each dNTP, 0·3 U AmpliTaq Gold (Applied Biosystem) with the following cycling parameters: 10 min denaturation step at 95 °C followed by 35 cycles of denaturation at 94 °C for 30 s, annealing at 60 °C for 30 s and elongation at 72 °C for 30 s with a final elongation step at 72 °C for 10 min. PCR products were analysed on a 2 % agarose gel in 1xTAE (40 mM Tris-acetate, 1 mM EDTA). Samples were considered positive for the presence of CELO genome when a 284 bp product was detected.
Isolation of viral particles.
Whole organs and tissue samples isolated from experiments b and c were homogenized using a Mixer Mill MM 300 (Qiagen). Briefly, organs were cut into small pieces of 100 mg and dispersed in 1 ml Williams' Medium E supplemented with 10 % FCS containing two 3 mm diameter beads. Samples were homogenized twice for 2 min at 20 Hz and centrifuged for 5 min at 11 000 g at 4 °C. After two further 2 min cycles at 20 Hz, samples were centrifuged for 10 min at 11 000 g at 4 °C. Supernatants were collected and filtered through a 0·45 µm filter. Samples were stored at –20 °C until titration.
Measurement of luciferase activity.
Twenty milligrams of each organ collected from chickens at day 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 15 and 20 p.i. were homogenized in 500 µl lysis buffer supplied by the luciferase assay system (Promega). Freeze–thaw cycles achieved complete cell lysis, and supernatants were stored at –70 °C. Each sample (20 µl) was incubated with 100 µl luciferase reagent buffer, and light emission was measured immediately on a microplate luminometer LB 96P (Berthold) for 5 s, with the signal summed over that time period. Positive results were expressed in relative light units (RLU) compared with negative samples, treated under identical conditions.
Humoral immune responses induced in serum by wtCELO and rCELO-seap.
Purified human placental alkaline phosphatase (0·5 µg; SEAP) (Sigma), 10 µg UV-inactivated wtCELO virus or 10 µg total LMH proteins were coated overnight at 4 °C in carbonate buffer (0·05 M NaHCO3, pH 9·6) in 96-well Maxisorp Nunc immunoplates (Rochester). Plates were washed three times with 200 µl 0·05 % Tween 20 in PBS (PBST), and blocked with 3 % bovine serum albumin (BSA) and PBST solution for 1 h at 37 °C to reduce non-specific reactions. After three washes with PBST, 100 µl of serially diluted sera in 1 % BSA and PBST were added to wells. Plates were first incubated for 2 h at 37 °C and then washed three times in PBST. After a 2 h incubation with 1 : 4000 diluted goat anti-chicken IgG antibody, labelled with horseradish peroxidase, plates were washed three times and 100 µl O-phenylenediamine dihydrochloride substrate (Sigma) in urea buffer was added. Plates were incubated for 15 min at 37 °C before the addition of 50 µl 0·5 M H2SO4 to stop the reaction. Absorbance was measured at 492 nm. Titres were compared with negative sera, treated under identical conditions.
Statistics.
Statistical analyses were performed using the two sample KS (Kolmogorov–Smirnov) or the Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric tests from the SYSTAT 9 computer software package (SPSS).
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
lane a). However, the results showed that wtCELO and rCELOd-seap replicate in ovo. Moreover, no significant differences in viral titre were observed between the different viral strains or the different treatments.
|
, experiment a). Five chickens from each group were sacrificed at each time point up to 30 days p.i. and tissue samples (i.e. trachea, thymus, liver, spleen, intestine, caeca and bursa of Fabricius) were grossly examined. No obvious macroscopic lesions were observed in these organs. DNA of tissue samples from three of these chickens was extracted and subjected to PCR analyses. Results are expressed as the number of PCR-positive chickens/total tested chickens (Table 2).
|
In vivo replication of wtCELO and rCELOd-seap
The presence of infectious viral particles was then assessed in all organs, collected in the same experiment describe above (Table 1, experiment a), from wtCELO and rCELOd-seap-infected chickens (Fig. 4). At 1 day p.i., no infectious particles were detected in samples from chickens inoculated with either wtCELO virus or rCELOd-seap strain. Infectious viral particles were detected for the first time at 4 days p.i. in the two inoculated groups. The highest titres were obtained in tracheal or caecal tissues from chickens inoculated with wtCELO virus or rCELOd-seap strain. However, the infectious particle load was higher in the wtCELO-inoculated group (6x105 p.f.u. g–1) than in the rCELOd-seap-inoculated group (2·3x103 p.f.u. g–1). Viral titres ranging from 2x101 to 4·41x102 p.f.u. g–1 were detected in liver, spleen, intestine and bursa of Fabricius from the two inoculated groups (Fig. 4).
|
After 6 days p.i., viral particle level rapidly declined in all tissues from both inoculated groups. At 8 days p.i., tracheal and caecal titres decreased to 7·57x102 and 1·72x104 p.f.u. g–1, respectively. Infectious viral particles were still no longer detected in liver except in one chicken (3x101 p.f.u. g–1), whereas bursal titres remained stable at 6x102 p.f.u. g–1. At 11 days p.i., viral particles were only detected in caecal tissues, ranging from 2·1x101 to 9·9x101 p.f.u. g–1. No more infectious particles were observed after 11 days p.i. No viral particles were detected in organs from the non-inoculated group at any time points (data not shown).
Expression of heterologous genes is detected in chickens inoculated with rCELOd-luc
To test the capacity of CELO recombinants to promote transgene in vivo, 35 1-day-old SPF chickens were inoculated with either wtCELO or rCELOd-luc (Table 1, experiment b). The measure of the luciferase activity was assessed in trachea, thymus, liver, spleen, intestine, caeca and bursa of Fabricius at day 1, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 20 p.i. Results are shown in Fig. 5. The background level, expressed as RLUs, was determined in tissue samples collected from chickens inoculated with wtCELO virus (21 RLU) and from the non-inoculated group (19 RLU) (data not shown).
|
). A lower activity was also detected in the bursa (1·35x102 RLU), whereas no significant increase of activity was observed in spleen, liver or intestine. At 4 days p.i., luciferase activity decreased in the trachea while activity increased in caecal and bursal tissues. No changes were observed in spleen, intestine and liver. At 6 days p.i., luciferase activity declined in all tested samples except in the intestine. In the trachea, luciferase activity decreased to 1·92x102 RLU, and the activity in the bursa fell to a background level. However, the luciferase activity measured in caecal samples was less markedly decreased (1·48x103 RLU). After 8 days p.i., luciferase activity was no longer observed in any of the tested samples (results not shown for 10 and 20 days p.i.).
Humoral immune responses induced against the CELO virus and heterologous antigens
One approach to evaluate the suitability of the CELO virus as a gene vector for vaccination is to measure antibody responses against the heterologous protein and the wtCELO vector. Five-week-old chickens were inoculated oronasally with rCELOd-seap and wtCELO. The antibody responses were analysed in sera from each chicken, collected every week for 4 weeks.
As shown in Fig. 6(a), no anti-CELO antibodies were detected during the first week in both inoculated groups. At 2 weeks p.i., IgGs were detected in wtCELO immunized chickens, whereas no anti-CELO antibodies were detected in chickens inoculated with the rCELO strain. At 3 and 4 weeks p.i., antibody titres continued to increase. Serum antibodies to rCELOd-seap appeared at week 3 (Fig. 6a), they were significantly three times lower than the antibody responses observed in the sera of the wtCELO-inoculated group (P<0·08). No anti-CELO antibodies were detected in sera from non-inoculated chickens.
|
): antibodies were detected 3 weeks p.i. and tended to decrease at the fourth week. No anti-SEAP antibodies were detected in sera from chickens inoculated with wtCELO or in sera from non-inoculated chickens. No response were detected against LMH protein extracts (Fig. 6c). |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
In order to evaluate the impact of LMH cell supernatant on virus replication from viral stocks, in ovo inoculations with the different purified or clarified viral strains were performed. The results showed that the titres detected in allantoic fluids from both wtCELO and rCELOd-seap inoculated eggs were equal after 3 days of infection. These results confirmed that LMH cell supernatant had no effect on virus replication, and allowed the use of clarified cell lysate to inoculate chickens compared to, in a first step, the growth kinetics of the recombinant strain.
PCR performed on tissue samples from inoculated chickens showed that the wt and recombinant virus biodistribution was mainly tracheal, caecal and bursal. Most of the positive PCR results were obtained in these organs. Up to 4 days p.i., PCR products were also detected in spleen and intestine, but the number of positive samples rapidly declined. These results suggest that the virus had a transient occurrence in these organs. Moreover, the use of the rCELO-luc showed the presence of the recombinant viruses in tracheae, caeca and bursae of Fabricius. Luciferase detection also demonstrated that rCELO strains were able to produce a functional heterologous protein.
However, although PCR analysis is a sensitive and qualitative method to assess the presence of the CELO genome, it does not provide any quantitative information. CELO virus titres were therefore determined on organs from inoculated chickens. The results showed that wtCELO virus multiplied in tracheae, caeca and, to a lesser extent, bursae of Fabricius, while few infectious viral particles were observed in intestines and livers. Surprisingly, no viral particles were detected on the first day p.i., with either wtCELO or rCELO strain. The threshold of detection appeared not to be sensitive enough to detect low levels of infectious viral particles.
Nevertheless, titres obtained in tissues from chickens inoculated with the wtCELO virus rapidly increased up to 6 days p.i., and declined until 11 days p.i. while the levels in organs from chickens inoculated with the rCELO strain were very low and only detectable at 4 days p.i. This result indicates that replication of recombinant viruses is significantly decreased by the 3·6 kb deletion of the CELO genome and the insertion of a transgene.
Indeed, the recombinant strains were constructed by inserting genes in the gap at the right end of the CELO genome (Francois et al., 2001). Three ORFs were deleted: 9, 10 and 11. Recently, Washietl & Eisenhaber (2003) identified these ORFs as a cluster of genes encoding three putative type-1 transmembrane glycoproteins with Ig-like domains. Ig-like domains are known to interact with proteins involved in the recognition processes in the immune system (Williams & Barclay, 1988). The E3 region of the genome of human adenoviruses has been reported to be involved in the escape from the host's immune responses, and several E3 products have been characterized as Ig-like domains (Deryckere & Burgert, 1996; Windheim & Burgert, 2002). However, no similar E3 region was found in the CELO genome. These ORFs could therefore be significant candidates to substitute the immunosuppressive functions of the CELO virus. Moreover, comparison of the ORF9 sequence and a chicken library showed similarities with an expressed sequence tag (Washietl & Eisenhaber, 2003), suggesting the hypothesis that the CELO virus has acquired an immune receptor from the host and has used it to escape immune mechanism. E3 proteins are involved in the inhibition of presentation of antigenic protein via the major class I histocompatibility complex (MHC-I). It has also been shown that within 1 week human adenoviruses are able to induce MHC-I cytotoxic lymphocytes directed to adenoviral proteins (Yang et al., 1994, 1995). The analyses of viral titres, performed on organs from chickens inoculated with wtCELO virus or rCELO strains, established that the wtCELO virus replicated more efficiently in vivo than the recombinant viruses, while no major differences were observed in the in vitro growth of the virus on LMH cell culture (Francois et al., 2001). This could be explained by the putative immunosuppressive role played by these three ORFs.
The use of PCR-based detection and viral titrations directly from tissues demonstrated the absence of differences in the in vivo targets of the CELO virus and its recombinant strains, as all strains showed a similar viral tropism. Infection tropism is related to the presence of fibres on the virus surface (Nakamura et al., 2003), and no genomic modifications were performed in the genes encoding the fibres of the CELO capsid. One particularity of the CELO virus is the presence of two fibres of different lengths on each penton base (Chiocca et al., 1996). It has already been shown that human adenoviruses serotype 40 and 41 also have two fibres (Favier et al., 2002). These adenoviruses infect gastrointestinal epithelial cells (Brandt et al., 1979; Uhnoo et al., 1984) and, recently, the enteric tropism was related to the particular physico-chemical properties of these fibres (Favier et al., 2004).
Actually, bursa of Fabricius and caecal tonsils are both lymphoid organs but no clinical signs of immunodeficiency were observed in poultry. The results of the CELO virus biodistribution suggest that the main target cells could be epithelial cells. However, in vitro infection of isolated lymphoid cells from caeca or bursa demonstrated that some cells are also permissive to the virus (Le Goff et al., 2003). These cells could correspond to secondary targets or vehicles for viral propagation. Histological studies would confirm this hypothesis.
With the aim to use the CELOd based vector in poultry vaccination, antibody responses against the CELO virus after inoculation with wt virus and rCELOd-seap were examined. Only limited data are currently available concerning the basic immunology of avian adenovirus viral infection and further studies are required in this field. Our results agree with those of previous studies, indicating that the kinetics of appearance of avian adenovirus antibodies are characterized by higher titres 3 or 4 weeks after oral inoculation (Maiti & Sarkar, 1997; Ojkic & Nagy, 2003).
However, the kinetics of appearance of anti-CELO antibodies differed between the wtCELO virus and the recombinant strain. Antibody titres were three times higher in sera from wtCELO-inoculated chickens and were observed 2 weeks p.i. whereas anti-rCELOd antibodies appeared 3 weeks p.i. This difference observed between the two strains was probably related to viral propagation, which was decreased by the deletion performed at the right end of the CELO genome. Nevertheless, the significant level of anti-SEAP antibodies is a promising element in favour of the use the rCELOd strain as a gene delivery vector despite the fact that virus replication is significantly decreased.
In this study, we examined the biodistribution of the CELO virus and its rCELOd strains. No differences in tropism were observed, but the production level of viral particles and the immune responses appeared to be decreased significantly. Viruses replicate less efficiently with deletion of ORFs 9, 10 and 11 at the right end of the CELO genome. Nevertheless, the production of antibodies against an heterologous antigen was observed. Based on these results, the CELO virus represents an advantageous candidate for avian vaccination. We are now interested in identifying the type of cells that are infected by the CELO virus, to define viral–host interactions and to understand the immune response induced by the CELO-based vectors.
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Brandt, C. D., Kim, H. W., Yolken, R. H., Kapikian, A. Z., Arrobio, J. O., Rodriguez, W. J., Wyatt, R. G., Chanock, R. M. & Parrott, R. H. (1979). Comparative epidemiology of two rotavirus serotypes and other viral agents associated with pediatric gastroenteritis. Am J Epidemiol 110, 243–254.
Brown, M. D., Green, P. & Skinner, M. A. (1994). VP2 sequences of recent European ‘very virulent’ isolates of infectious bursal disease virus are closely related to each other but are distinct from those of ‘classical’ strains. J Gen Virol 75, 675–680.
Chiocca, S., Kurzbauer, R., Schaffner, G., Baker, A., Mautner, V. & Cotten, M. (1996). The complete DNA sequence and genomic organization of the avian adenovirus CELO. J Virol 70, 2939–2949.[Abstract]
Chiocca, S., Baker, A. & Cotten, M. (1997). Identification of a novel antiapoptotic protein, GAM-1, encoded by the CELO adenovirus. J Virol 71, 3168–3177.[Abstract]
Cowen, B., Calnek, B. W., Menendez, N. A. & Ball, R. F. (1978). Avian adenoviruses: effect on egg production, shell quality, and feed consumption. Avian Dis 22, 459–470.[CrossRef][Medline]
Deryckere, F. & Burgert, H. G. (1996). Early region 3 of adenovirus type 19 (subgroup D) encodes an HLA-binding protein distinct from that of subgroups B and C. J Virol 70, 2832–2841.[Abstract]
Favier, A. L., Schoehn, G., Jaquinod, M., Harsi, C. & Chroboczek, J. (2002). Structural studies of human enteric adenovirus type 41. Virology 293, 75–85.[CrossRef][Medline]
Favier, A. L., Burmeister, W. P. & Chroboczek, J. (2004). Unique physicochemical properties of human enteric Ad41 responsible for its survival and replication in the gastrointestinal tract. Virology 322, 93–104.[CrossRef][Medline]
Francois, A., Eterradossi, N., Delmas, B., Payet, V. & Langlois, P. (2001). Construction of avian adenovirus CELO recombinants in cosmids. J Virol 75, 5288–5301.
Francois, A., Chevalier, C., Delmas, B., Eterradossi, N., Toquin, D., Rivallan, G. & Langlois, P. (2004). Avian adenovirus CELO recombinants expressing VP2 of infectious bursal disease virus induce protection against bursal disease in chickens. Vaccine 22, 2351–2360.[Medline]
Graham, F. L. (1990). Adenoviruses as expression vectors and recombinant vaccines. Trends Biotechnol 8, 85–87.[CrossRef][Medline]
Graham, F. L. & Prevec, L. (1995). Methods for construction of adenovirus vectors. Mol Biotechnol 3, 207–220.[Medline]
Hammond, J. M., McCoy, R. J., Jansen, E. S., Morrissy, C. J., Hodgson, A. L. & Johnson, M. A. (2000). Vaccination with a single dose of a recombinant porcine adenovirus expressing the classical swine fever virus gp55 (E2) gene protects pigs against classical swine fever. Vaccine 18, 1040–1050.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hitt, M. M., Addison, C. L. & Graham, F. L. (1997). Human adenovirus vectors for gene transfer into mammalian cells. Adv Pharmacol 40, 137–206.
Horwitz, M. S. (1996). Adenoviridae, the viruses and their replication. In Fields Virology. Edited by D. M. Knipe, B. N. Fields, P. M. Howley et al. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven.
Kesik, M., Saczynska, V., Szewczyk, B. & Plucienniczak, A. (2004). Inclusion bodies from recombinant bacteria as a novel system for delivery of vaccine antigen by the oral route. Immunol Lett 91, 197–204.[Medline]
Klonjkowski, B., Gilardi-Hebenstreit, P., Hadchouel, J., Randrianarison, V., Boutin, S., Yeh, P., Perricaudet, M. & Kremer, E. J. (1997). A recombinant E1-deleted canine adenoviral vector capable of transduction and expression of a transgene in human-derived cells and in vivo. Hum Gene Ther 8, 2103–2115.[Medline]
Laver, W. G., Younghusband, H. B. & Wrigley, N. G. (1971). Purification and properties of chick embryo lethal orphan virus (an avian adenovirus). Virology 45, 598–614.[CrossRef][Medline]
Le Goff, F., Mederle, I., Girard-Misguich, F. & Langlois, P. (2003). Preliminary data of adenovirus CELO localisation in chicken. Br Poult Sci 44, 823–824.[Medline]
Lehrmann, H. & Cotten, M. (1999). Characterization of CELO virus proteins that modulate the pRb/E2F pathway. J Virol 73, 6517–6525.
Lemay, P., Boudin, M. L., Milleville, M. & Boulanger, P. (1980). Human adenovirus type 2 protein IIIa. I. Purification and characterization. Virology 101, 131–143.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lewis, P. J. & Babiuk, L. A. (1999). DNA vaccines: a review. Adv Virus Res 54, 129–188.[Medline]
Lo, R. Y. (1987). The development of subunit and synthetic vaccines using recombinant DNA technology. Biotechnol Adv 5, 235–256.[Medline]
Maiti, N. K. & Sarkar, P. (1997). Humoral immune response of chicks to different clinical isolates of avian adenovirus type-1. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 20, 59–62.[Medline]
Michou, A. I., Lehrmann, H., Saltik, M. & Cotten, M. (1999). Mutational analysis of the avian adenovirus CELO, which provides a basis for gene delivery vectors. J Virol 73, 1399–1410.
Nakamura, T., Sato, K. & Hamada, H. (2003). Reduction of natural adenovirus tropism to the liver by both ablation of fiber-coxsackievirus and adenovirus receptor interaction and use of replaceable short fiber. J Virol 77, 2512–2521.
Ojkic, D. & Nagy, E. (2003). Antibody response and virus tissue distribution in chickens inoculated with wild-type and recombinant fowl adenoviruses. Vaccine 22, 42–48.[Medline]
Paillard, F. (1997). Advantages of non-human adenoviruses versus human adenoviruses. Hum Gene Ther 8, 2007–2009.[Medline]
Payet, V., Arnauld, C., Picault, J. P., Jestin, A. & Langlois, P. (1998). Transcriptional organization of the avian adenovirus CELO. J Virol 72, 9278–9285.
Rasmussen, U. B., Benchaibi, M., Meyer, V., Schlesinger, Y. & Schughart, K. (1999). Novel human gene transfer vectors: evaluation of wild-type and recombinant animal adenoviruses in human-derived cells. Hum Gene Ther 10, 2587–2599.[CrossRef][Medline]
Reddy, P. S., Idamakanti, N., Hyun, B. H., Tikoo, S. K. & Babiuk, L. A. (1999). Development of porcine adenovirus-3 as an expression vector. J Gen Virol 80, 563–570.[Abstract]
Rekosh, D. M., Russell, W. C., Bellet, A. J. & Robinson, A. J. (1977). Identification of a protein linked to the ends of adenovirus DNA. Cell 11, 283–295.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sheppard, M. (1999). Viral vectors for veterinary vaccines. Adv Vet Med 41, 145–161.[Medline]
Stewart, P. L., Fuller, S. D. & Burnett, R. M. (1993). Difference imaging of adenovirus: bridging the resolution gap between X-ray crystallography and electron microscopy. EMBO J 12, 2589–2599.[Medline]
Uhnoo, I., Wadell, G., Svensson, L. & Johansson, M. E. (1984). Importance of enteric adenoviruses 40 and 41 in acute gastroenteritis in infants and young children. J Clin Microbiol 20, 365–372.
Washietl, S. & Eisenhaber, F. (2003). Reannotation of the CELO genome characterizes a set of previously unassigned open reading frames and points to novel modes of host interaction in avian adenoviruses. BMC Bioinformatics 4, 55.[CrossRef][Medline]
Williams, A. F. & Barclay, A. N. (1988). The immunoglobulin superfamily – domains for cell surface recognition. Annu Rev Immunol 6, 381–405.[Medline]
Windheim, M. & Burgert, H. G. (2002). Characterization of E3/49K, a novel, highly glycosylated E3 protein of the epidemic keratoconjunctivitis-causing adenovirus type 19a. J Virol 76, 755–766.
Yang, Y., Ertl, H. C. & Wilson, J. M. (1994). MHC class I-restricted cytotoxic T lymphocytes to viral antigens destroy hepatocytes in mice infected with E1-deleted recombinant adenoviruses. Immunity 1, 433–442.[CrossRef][Medline]
Yang, Y., Xiang, Z., Ertl, H. C. & Wilson, J. M. (1995). Upregulation of class I major histocompatibility complex antigens by interferon 
is necessary for T-cell-mediated elimination of recombinant adenovirus-infected hepatocytes in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92, 7257–7261.
Zhang, W. W. (1999). Development and application of adenoviral vectors for gene therapy of cancer. Cancer Gene Ther 6, 113–138.[CrossRef][Medline]
Received 6 January 2005;
accepted 29 March 2005.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| INT J SYST EVOL MICROBIOL | MICROBIOLOGY | J GEN VIROL |
| J MED MICROBIOL | ALL SGM JOURNALS | |
