| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, University of Saskatchewan, SK S7N 5E3, Canada
2 Virology Section, Lethbridge Laboratory, Animal Diseases Research Institute, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Lethbridge, AB T1J 3Z4, Canada
Correspondence
S. van Drunen Littel-van den Hurk
sylvia.vandenhurk{at}usask.ca
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
-secreting cells in the peripheral blood. Depletion studies showed that CD4+ T cells were responsible for IFN- production. Furthermore, the calves vaccinated with either the E2.2 or the E2.1+E2.2 vaccines were very well protected from challenge with BVDV-2, having little leukopenia and showing no weight loss or temperature response. In addition, the animals vaccinated with the E2.1 vaccine were partially protected, so there was a certain level of cross-protection. These data demonstrate that a vaccination strategy consisting of priming with E2.2 or E2.1+E2.2 DNA and boosting with E2.2 or E2.1+E2.2 protein fully protects cattle from BVDV-2 challenge. |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
; Houe, 1995).
BVDV is a single-stranded RNA virus of positive polarity with a non-segmented genome of 
12.5 kb, which encodes a single polyprotein precursor that is co- and post-translationally processed by host and viral proteases to produce mature structural and non-structural proteins of the virus. The viral proteins are sequentially designated Npro-C-Erns-E1-E2-P7-NS2–3-NS4a-NS4b-NS5a-NS5b (Collett et al., 1988, 1991). Based on sequence comparison of the 5'-untranslated region (UTR) of the genome, BVDV could be classified into two genotypes by phylogenetic analysis, genotypes 1 and 2 (Pellerin et al., 1994; Ridpath et al., 1994). Genotype 1 BVDV isolates collected from around the world have been further clustered into 11 phylogenetic groups (BVDV-1a–BVDV-1k) (Vilcek et al., 2005). A highly virulent BVDV genotype 2 was identified in severe outbreaks of acute haemorrhagic disease in Canada and the USA (Bolin & Ridpath, 1992; Pellerin et al., 1994). Analysis of BVDV field isolates indicated that BVDV-2 has also spread across Europe, for instance into Germany (Wolfmeyer et al., 1997), Italy (Pratelli et al., 2001), France (Vilcek et al., 2001), Belgium (Couvreur et al., 2002), Austria (Vilcek et al., 2003) and the UK (Wakeley et al., 2004), as well as South America (Canal et al., 1998) and Asia (Kim et al., 2006; Shimazaki et al., 1998). However, BVDV-2 is mainly a problem in North America, where type 2 BVDV is currently isolated nearly as frequently as BVDV-1 (Bolin & Ridpath, 1998; Evermann & Ridpath, 2002).
Most modified-live virus (MLV) and killed virus (KV) BVDV vaccines licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and marketed commercially contain type 1a strains with different antigenic properties compared with other type 1 and type 2 phylogenetic groups. However, there is evidence that type 1a vaccines fail to protect calves from BVDV type 2 infection, although there appears to be some cross-protection (Fulton & Burge, 2000). Furthermore, antigenic differences observed between BVDV-1 and BVDV-2 have led to the conclusion that protection may be improved by inclusion of both type 1 and type 2 strains in BVDV vaccines (Ridpath, 2005).
Glycoprotein E2 is a major protective antigen of BVDV. In our previous studies, we compared different type 1 E2 DNA vaccines (Liang et al., 2005) and determined that a DNA prime–protein boost is an optimal vaccination strategy for induction of protective immunity against BVDV-1 in cattle (Liang et al., 2006). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential for a similar vaccination strategy to induce protection from BVDV-2 challenge in calves. Since an effective BVDV vaccine needs to protect from BVDV-1 as well, we also evaluated the efficacy of a mixture of type 1 and type 2 E2 vaccines. We were particularly interested in evaluating whether mixing type 1 and type 2 E2 vaccines would have any effect on the immunogenicity of the individual components. To determine whether a DNA prime–protein boost would protect animals from challenge with BVDV type 2, calves were vaccinated with individual plasmids encoding type 1 E2 (E2.1) or type 2 E2 (E2.2) or a mixture of these plasmids, followed by boosting with E2.1 and/or E2.2 proteins formulated with 10 % Emulsigen (Em), a mineral oil in water emulsion, and CpG oligodeoxynucleotide (ODN). The calves were challenged with BVDV-2 strain 1373. The results demonstrate that a vaccination strategy consisting of priming with plasmid encoding E2.2 or E2.1+E2.2 followed by boosting with E2.2 or E2.1+E2.2 protein fully protected animals from a BVDV-2 challenge.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Construction, purification and expression of plasmids.
The construction of a plasmid that encodes a truncated secreted version of type 1 E2 with a tissue plasminogen activator signal sequence (tPAs), designated pMASIA-tPAs-
E2.1, has been described previously (Liang et al., 2005). A plasmid encoding a truncated secreted version of type 2 E2, designated pMASIA-tPAs-E2.2, was constructed by cloning a truncated version of the E2 gene from BVDV strain Q140 (Pellerin et al., 1994) into pMASIA. Briefly, the full-length E2.2 gene was resynthesized to optimize the codon bias in favour of expression in bovine cells (http://www.kazusa.or.jp/codon/) (Nakamura et al., 2000), and then inserted into pUC19 to create pUC19-E2.2. The E2.2 gene without a membrane anchor (E2.2) was amplified by PCR from pUC19-E2.2 using a pair of primers, 5'-CTAGCTAGCATGTTCCCTGAATGCAAGGAG-3' and 5'-GGCGAAGATCTTCAGATGAACTCTGAGAAGTAG-3'. The PCR product was digested with NheI and BglII, cloned into pSLIA-tPAs and then subcloned into pMASIA to create pMASIA-tPAs-E2.2.
In order to construct plasmids for production of E2.1 and E2.2 proteins, the tPAs-E2.1 and tPAs-E2.2 genes were amplified by PCR from pMASIA-tPAs-E2.1 and pMASIA-tPAs-E2.2 and cloned into pCDNA6/HA-His(B) (kindly provided by Dr Z. Chang, Department of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China) to obtain pCDNA-tPAs-E2.1-His and pCDNA-tPAs-E2.2-His.
All constructs were confirmed by restriction enzyme digestion and agarose gel electrophoresis and sequenced for cloning accuracy. The plasmids were grown in Escherichia coli DH5
cells and purified with Endofree Plasmid Giga kits (Qiagen). Expression of the E2 proteins was confirmed by transient transfection of COS-7 cells and Western blotting as described previously (Liang et al., 2005, 2006).
Purification of recombinant E2 protein from transfected COS-7 cells.
COS-7 cells were transiently transfected with pCDNA-tPAs-E2.1-His or pCDNA-tPAs-E2.2-His by using a Bio-Rad Gene Pulser (Bio-Rad Laboratories). After addition of DMEM with 10 % FBS immediately after transfection, the transfected COS-7 cells were incubated overnight in a CO2 incubator at 37 °C. Subsequently, the cell layer was washed twice with PBS (140 mM NaCl, 10 mM NaHPO4/Na2HPO4, 2.7 mM KCl, pH 7.2) and then OPTI-MEM (Gibco/Invitrogen) was added. After 48 h, the media were collected, cleared by centrifugation and concentrated. The E2–His proteins were purified from the concentrated supernatants under native conditions using ProBond nickel-chelating resin (Gibco/Invitrogen). The E2 yields were determined by using a Bio-Rad protein assay, and the E2 purity was assessed by SDS-PAGE, followed by densitometry.
Immunizations.
Hereford and Angus crossbred calves (8–9 months old) were screened with the HerdChek BVDV antigen/serum test kit and the HerdChek BVDV antibody test kit (IDEXX Laboratories). Twenty-four BVDV antigen-negative and BVDV antibody-negative calves were selected and randomly allocated to four groups of six animals each and immunized with 285 pmol (1 mg) pMASIA (placebo), pMASIA-tPAs-E2.1 (E2.1), pMASIA-tPAs-E2.2 (E2.2), or a mixture of pMASIA-tPAs-E2.1 and pMASIA-tPAs-E2.2 (E2.1+E2.2). The plasmids were delivered transdermally by needle-free injection with a Biojector (Bioject Medical Technologies). Since one of the calves in the E2.1 group had seroconverted to BVDV between screening and the first vaccination, this animal was eliminated from the trial. Three weeks after the second DNA vaccination, all calves received a subcutaneous vaccination with 50 µg E2.1 or E2.2, or 50 µg each of E2.1 and E.2.2 proteins formulated with 10 % Em (MVP Laboratories) and 1 mg CpG ODN 2007 (5'-TCGTCGTTGTCGTTTTGTCGTT-3') in 2 ml. The diluent for the antigens and CpG ODN was PBS. The CpG ODN was provided by Merial. The calves in the placebo group received 10 % Em and 1 mg CpG ODN 2007. The animals received the DNA vaccinations on days 0 and 21 and the protein boost on day 42, and they were challenged with BVDV-2 on day 58.
Challenge and clinical evaluation.
Two weeks after the protein immunization, BVDV strain 1373 [6x106.2 50% tissue culture infective dose (TCID50) in 4 ml PBS] was administered to each calf (2 ml into each nostril) using an intranasal cannula (Pfizer). Body temperatures and weights were measured, and clinical signs including fever, depression, anorexia, cough and diarrhoea were monitored on the day of challenge and for 13 days afterwards by a veterinarian who was unaware of the vaccination status of the animals. Blood for haematological assays and nasal swabs for virus isolation were collected on the day of challenge and for 13 days afterwards. Sera were collected prior to each immunization, on the challenge day and on day 12 post-challenge. All procedures were performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Canadian Council for Animal Care.
ELISA.
Bovine IgG titres were determined as described previously (Liang et al., 2005). Briefly, 96-well Immulon 2 High Binding U-bottom polystyrene microtitre plates (Thermo Electron Corporation) were coated overnight with E2.1 or E2.2 protein at 4 ng per well and incubated for 1.5 h at room temperature with fourfold diluted bovine sera. Alkaline phosphatase (AP)-conjugated goat anti-bovine IgG (Kirkgaard & Perry Laboratories) was used to detect bound IgG. The reaction was visualized with p-nitrophenyl phosphate (Sigma-Aldrich). ELISA titres were calculated as the highest dilution, resulting in a reading of two SD above the value of a negative control serum.
Virus neutralization (VN) assay.
Sera were heat-inactivated at 56 °C for 30 min. Two hundred TCID50 of BVDV strain NADL or 1373 were pre-incubated with fourfold serum dilutions for 1.5 h at 37 °C. Fifty microlitres of these mixtures were added to duplicate microtitre plates containing 80–90 % confluent MDBK cells for 1.5 h at 37 °C. One hundred and fifty microlitres of MEM with 2 % FBS were added to each well. The plates were incubated in a CO2 incubator at 37 °C for 4 days for the NADL assay and for 6 days for the 1373 assay. The reciprocal of the highest dilution that completely inhibited viral cytopathic effect in the two test wells was reported as the VN titre.
Viral sampling and virus isolation.
Nasal secretions were collected 2 days prior to challenge and daily from day 1 until day 13 post-challenge with cotton swabs in 1 ml MEM supplemented with antibiotic–antimycotic solution (Gibco/Invitrogen) and stored at –80 °C. White blood cells (WBCs) were isolated from blood by adding ammonium chloride lysis buffer (0.14 M NH4Cl, 0.017 M Tris-HCl, pH7.2) to lyse the erythrocytes, followed by two washes with PBS. The pellet was resuspended in 1 ml Eagle's MEM (Gibco-BRL) and stored at –80 °C. To detect virus shedding, twofold diluted nasal secretions or WBCs were added to MDBK cells in duplicate in 96-well microtitre plates. Six days after infection, the cells were fixed with 80 % acetone and permeabilized with 0.5 % Triton X-100 in PBS for 10 min. Subsequently, E2.2-specific rabbit antibody at a dilution of 1 : 500 was added to the cells. This antibody was generated in-house to purified E2.2 protein. After incubation for 1–2 h at room temperature, AP-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (Kirkgaard & Perry Laboratories) was added. Finally, 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl phosphate/nitro blue tetrazolium (BCIP/NBT; Sigma-Aldrich) was used for detection. Virus staining was observed with an Olympus CKX31 microscope. The reciprocal of the highest dilution still showing virus in both wells was reported as the virus titre.
Lymphocyte proliferation and IFN- ELISPOT assay.
Peripheral blood was collected immediately prior to the protein boost, 2 days prior to challenge, and 12 days after challenge. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were isolated, and E2.1- and E2.2-specific lymphocyte proliferation and IFN- ELISPOT assays were performed as described previously (Liang et al., 2006). Briefly, for the lymphocyte proliferation assays, 3.5x105 PBMCs per well were added to triplicate wells and restimulated in vitro for 72 h in the absence or presence of 0.5 µg E2.1 or 0.75 µg E2.2 protein per well. After 3 days, the cells were pulsed with 0.4 µCi (14.8 kBq) [methyl-3H] thymidine (Amersham Biosciences) per well. Cells were collected 18 h later, and thymidine uptake was measured by scintillation counting. Proliferation results were calculated as the means of triplicate wells and expressed as a stimulation index (SI) where SI=counts min–1 in the presence of antigen/counts min–1 in the absence of antigen. For the IFN- ELISPOT assays, nitrocellulose plates (Millipore) were coated overnight with a bovine IFN--specific monoclonal antibody 2-2-1 (Raggo et al., 2000). PBMCs were dispensed at 5x105 cells per well in triplicate wells in medium or in medium with 1 µg E2.1 or E2.2 protein, or 10 µg BVDV strain 1373-infected MDBK cell lysate per well and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. IFN--secreting cells were detected with a rabbit anti-bovine IFN- antibody 92-131 (Raggo et al., 2000), followed by AP-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (Kirkegaard & Perry Laboratories). Spots representing IFN--secreting cells were visualized with BCIP/NBT substrate. The numbers of IFN--secreting cells were expressed as the difference between the number of spots per 106 cells in E2.1–His or E2.2–His-stimulated cultures and the number of spots in control cultures.
Magnetic cell sorting.
Peripheral blood was collected from one animal from each of the E2.1+E2.2, E2.2 and placebo groups immediately prior to challenge as well as 14 and 60 days post-challenge. PBMCs were isolated as described previously (Liang et al., 2005), counted and resuspended at a concentration 1x108 cells ml–1. The cell suspensions were incubated on ice with mAb (VMRD) specific for bovine CD4 (IL-A11, IgG2a isotype; VMRD) or CD8 (CACT80C, IgG1 isotype; VMRD) at a concentration of 1 µg per 106 PBMCs for 20 min. Cells were washed and then incubated with goat anti-mouse IgG-coated microbeads (Miltenyi Biotech) at a bead : target cell ratio of 5 : 1. Bead-bound cells were removed on MACS separation 25LS columns (Miltenyi Biotech). The CD4-depleted cells (CD4–) and CD8-depleted cells (CD8–), as well as CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, were counted and resuspended at 1x107 cells ml–1 in FAC buffer (0.01 M PBS with 0.2 % gelatin and 0.03 % sodium azide pH 7.2) for flow cytometry or in culture medium for ELISPOT assays.
Flow cytometry.
PBMCs and CD4+/– and CD8+/– T-lymphocyte subsets were resuspended at a concentration of 1x107 cells ml–1 in FAC buffer. Cell suspension (50 µl) was added to the wells of 96-well polystyrene U-bottom microtitre plates (Costar) and stained with CD4-specific (IL-A11) or CD8-specific (CACT80C) mAb. The level of specific mAb staining was defined by setting the threshold with an irrelevant isotype (IgG2a-FITC for CD4 or IgG1-FITC for CD8) and concentration-matched mAb. After three washes in FAC buffer, cells were resuspended in a 50 µl volume and incubated with FITC-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG2a or FITC-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG1 (Gibco/Invitrogen) to detect cell-bound antibodies. After three washes, cells were fixed with 2 % formaldehyde. Samples were analysed with a FACScan (BD Biosciences) using CellQuest software (BD Biosciences).
Haematological analysis.
Blood samples obtained immediately prior to challenge and daily from days 1 to 13 after challenge were sent to Prairie Diagnostic Services to quantify total WBC counts and differential leukocyte counts including lymphocytes, monocytes and segregates as described previously (Liang et al., 2006).
Statistical analysis.
All data were analysed with the aid of GraphPad Prism 4.0 (GraphPad Prism Software) and STATISTIX 7.0 software (Analytical Software). In general, the antibody data were not normally distributed and, therefore, median values and ranges are reported. The differences in immune responses among the vaccine groups were examined using the Kruskal–Wallis test. If the result of an ANOVA proved significant, then multiple post-test comparisons between medians were performed using Dunn's test. The clinical data were normally distributed (means reported), while the haematological data were not normally distributed (medians reported). Dependent upon their distribution, differences in haematological and clinical data among vaccine groups were initially assessed by parametric or non-parametric ANOVA with repeated measures over time. Means of normally distributed or rank-transformed data were then compared using Tukey's test. Where appropriate, differences between the vaccine and placebo groups were compared at individual time points using two-sample t-tests or the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results were considered significant when P<0.05.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
E2.1 (Fig. 1a) and pMASIA-tPAs-E2.2 (Fig. 1b) were constructed and confirmed to express secreted versions of E2.1 and E2.2 (data not shown). In order to produce histidine-tagged recombinant E2.1 and E2.2 proteins, COS-7 cells were transfected with pCDNA6-tPAs-E2.1-His or pCDNA6-tPAs-E2.2-His. The E2.1–His and E2.2–His proteins were purified from the culture supernatants on nickel resin. The purified proteins were analysed by SDS-PAGE followed by Coomassie brilliant blue staining or Western blotting (Fig. 1c and d), which demonstrated that the E2.1–His and E2.2–His proteins had apparent molecular masses as expected. The apparent difference in size between E2.1–His (50 kDa) and E2.2–His (57 kDa) is probably due to differences in glycosylation, since E2.2–His has two more N-linked glycosylation sites. The purity of the His-tagged E2 proteins was 
90 %.
|
) (P<0.01for both groups) and NADL (type 1)-specific VN titres (Fig. 3a) (P<0.05 for both groups) compared with those in the placebo group. Calves immunized with plasmid encoding E2.2, with and without plasmid encoding E2.1, developed higher E2.2-specific IgG titres (Fig. 2b) (P>0.05 and P<0.001, respectively) and strain 1373 (type 2)-specific VN titres (Fig. 3b) (P<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively) compared with those in the placebo group. Furthermore, after the protein boost, the vaccinated calves developed 10–13-fold higher E2.1-specific and E2.2-specific IgG titres (Fig. 2c and d) and 10–30-fold higher type 1-specific and type 2-specific VN titres (Fig. 3c and d) compared with the titres prior to the protein boost. In both assays, there was some cross-reactivity between type 1 and type 2. There were no differences before or after the protein boost in IgG or VN titres to the respective homologous viruses between the calves immunized with E2.1+E2.2 and the animals immunized with E2.1 or E2.2 individually. The fact that the placebo group appeared to have very low titres is likely to be due to non-specific background as there were no virus-neutralizing antibody titres in this group.
|
|
) and VN (Fig. 3e and f) assays showed that there was a strong E2.2-specific anamnestic response in the three E2-vaccinated groups. However, there were no significant differences between animals immunized with E2.1+E2.2 and those immunized with E2.1 or E2.2 individually. These results suggest that there was no interference or competition between the E2.1 and E2.2 vaccine.
Cell-mediated immune responses
The cell-mediated immune responses were evaluated based on lymphocyte proliferation and number of IFN--secreting cells in PBMCs. Low or no cell-mediated responses were detected before the protein boost on day 42 (data not shown). However, after the protein boost, calves immunized with E2.1 alone developed significantly higher lymphocyte proliferative responses (P<0.01) in comparison to the placebo group (Fig. 4a). The low SI in the placebo group is probably due to non-specific stimulation, which sometimes occurs in an outbred population. Prior to challenge no proliferative responses were detected for E2.2 (Fig. 4b). Furthermore, after immunization with E2.1, E2.2, or both E2.1 and E2.2 proteins, the calves developed increased numbers of IFN--secreting cells compared with the placebo-treated animals (P<0.05, for E2.1-induced IFN- in the E2.1 and E2.1+E2.2 groups and P<0.01 for E-2.2-induced IFN- in the E2.2 group, respectively) (Fig. 5a and b). After challenge with BVDV strain 1373, the lymphoproliferative responses increased significantly in the E2.1 and E2.2 groups (P<0.01 and P<0.05, respectively) (Fig. 4c and d). Similarly, the numbers of IFN--secreting cells in the E2.1, E2.2 and E2.1+E2.2 groups increased (P<0.01 and P<0.05 for E2.1-induced IFN- in the E2.1 and E2.1+E2.2 groups and P<0.01 for E-2.2-induced IFN- in the E2.2 group, respectively) (Fig. 5c and d). There were no significant differences in cell-mediated immune responses between animals immunized with E2.1+E2.2 and those immunized with E2.1 or E2.2 individually before or after challenge. This further confirms that the E2.1 and E2.2 vaccines are compatible.
|
|
in response to E2 protein and live BVDV secretion, CD4+, CD4–, CD8+ and CD8– T-cell populations of the PBMCs were isolated. There were 15–20 % CD4+ cells and 7–15 % CD8+ T cells in the PBMCs (Fig. 6a and d). The purity of the CD4– and CD8– cells was >99 % (Fig. 6b and e) and that of the CD4+ and CD8+ T cells was >92 % (Fig. 6c and f). Representative ELISPOT results are shown for one calf from the E2.2 group (Fig. 6g and h) and one calf from the E2.1+E2.2 group (Fig. 6i and j). CD4 T-cell-depleted PBMCs did not secrete IFN- in response to E2.1 or E2.2, and there was a dose-dependent increase when 5, 10, 15 or 20 % CD4+ T cells were added to the CD4-depleted PBMCs (Fig. 6g and i). In contrast, depletion of CD8+ lymphocytes did not affect the number of IFN--secreting cells in the PBMCs, and there was no increase when 2.5, 5, 10 or 15 % CD8+ T cells were added to the CD8+-depleted PBMCs (Fig. 6h and j), regardless of whether the depleted PBMCs were restimulated in vitro with E2 protein or live BVDV. Consequently, the depletion studies showed that the cells responsible for IFN- production were CD4+ T cells.
|
). In contrast, the immunized calves had significantly lower temperatures than the placebo-treated group (P<0.001). There was no significant difference among the vaccine groups
|
, the calves immunized with placebo lost weight between days 2 and 11, and those immunized with E2.1 lost weight between days 2 and 9 post-challenge, whereas the calves immunized with E2.2 or E2.1+E2.2 gained weight. There was a significant difference between the E2.2 or E2.1+E2.2 groups and the placebo group (P<0.01). However, there was no significant difference in weights among the vaccine groups.
In addition, the amount of virus shedding in the nasal fluids was determined. No virus was detected in any of the vaccinated groups (Fig. 7c). However, the calves in the placebo-treated groups shed virus from the nasal fluids between days 5 and 12, with a total of 29 days of virus shedding out of 66 days (Fig. 7c), whereas virus was recovered from the WBCs of one animal on day 6 and two other animals on days 6–8.
Haematological analyses including WBCs and differential leukocyte counts were performed daily from the day of challenge to day 13 (Fig. 8). The calves immunized with placebo had markedly decreased WBCs, monocytes, lymphocytes and segregated neutrophils in comparison to the vaccinated calves (P<0.01, 0.001, 0.01 and 0.01, respectively). The E2.1+E2.2 and E2.2 groups had significantly higher WBC (P=0.006) and neutrophil (P=0.004) counts than the placebo group, whereas the monocyte and lymphocyte counts for the E2.1+E2.2 group were significantly greater than those of the placebo group (P=0.001 and P=0.01, respectively). In contrast, there was no difference between the E2.1 group and the placebo group in WBCs, lymphocytes, monocytes or segregated neutrophils.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Previous reports have suggested that BVDV-1 vaccines induce protection from BVDV-2 strains. For example, a type 1 MLV vaccine (strain WRL), provided protection from challenge with BVDV type 2 strain 890 (Dean & Leyh, 1999). Similarly, commercial inactivated BVDV-1 vaccines have been reported to afford cross-protection from BVDV-2 challenge (Ellis et al., 2001; Hamers et al., 2003). However, another study in which eight commercial MLV and KV vaccines were compared demonstrated that calves vaccinated with type 1 BVDV developed antibodies to a broad range of BVDV type 1 strains, but low or no titres to type 2 BVDV strains (Fulton & Burge, 2000). Similarly, a recent study with a BVDV type 1 vaccine demonstrated low cross-over titres to BVDV strain 890 (Reber et al., 2006). Furthermore, antigenic differences observed between BVDV-1 and BVDV-2 support the contention that both type 1 and type 2 BVDV should be included in vaccines to induce protection against both strains (Ridpath, 2005). Consequently, in recent vaccine trials generally both a BVDV-1 and a BVDV-2 vaccine strain is included (Ellsworth et al., 2006; Fairbanks et al., 2004; Ficken et al., 2006a, b; Fulton et al., 2006). Indeed, Ficken et al. (2006b) demonstrated that one dose of MLV vaccine containing both BVDV type 1 and type 2 reduced the incidence of persistent BVDV infection, whereas one or two doses of BVDV-1 did not induce protection. The results of the trial reported here support the need to include BVDV-2 components in a vaccine to be able to induce solid protection against type 2 BVDV challenge.
Based on previous reports it appears that mixing of plasmids in one vaccine formulation may result in interference, enhancement or no difference in the immune responses induced by individual plasmids. Multigene and multiclade DNA vaccines containing components from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) A, B and C Env and Gag–Pol–Nef fusion protein, induced a broadened antiviral immune response without immune interference (Kong et al., 2003). Similarly, there was no evidence for interference between the components of a denguevirus tetravalent DNA vaccine consisting of plasmids expressing premembrane and envelope genes of each of the four serotypes of dengue virus. Indeed, higher antibody levels against denguevirus tetravalent DNA were shown compared with monovalent-vaccine-immunized mice (Konishi et al., 2006). In other instances interference between plasmids has been demonstrated. A nine-plasmid DNA vaccine encoding malaria antigens from the sporozoite, exoerythrocytic and erythrocytic stages of the parasite elicited dramatically reduced immune responses to the component antigens compared with the responses to the plasmids given singly (Sedegah et al., 2004). Furthermore, a plasmid encoding bovine herpesvirus-1 glycoprotein D interfered with plasmids encoding parainfluenzavirus-3 HN or influenza HA, when co-delivered in a mixture, whereas the HN- and HA-encoding plasmids did not cause interference (Braun et al., 1998). The bias of the immune response may also be altered, as shown for plasmids encoding measles virus HA and NP (Cardoso et al., 1998). Overall, this leads to the conclusion that without a rationale for making predictions, each new plasmid combination needs to be evaluated.
Heterologous prime–boost strategies have been used to increase immune responses to a number of DNA vaccines. Immunization regimens comprised of a DNA prime and a viral vector boost for instance for vaccinia virus (Dunachie et al., 2006; McConkey et al., 2003; Mwau et al., 2004), adenovirus (Shiver et al., 2002), fowlpox (Webster et al., 2006), and retrovirus (Anson, 2004), have been most frequently tested. Priming with DNA and boosting with protein is another promising approach. This regimen has been studied for HIV (Pal et al., 2006; Barnett et al., 1997), hepatitis C virus (Yu et al., 2004), anthrax (Galloway et al., 2004), tuberculosis (Li et al., 2006), Streptococcus pneumoniae (Moore et al., 2006) and BVDV (Liang et al., 2006). DNA vaccines and recombinant protein vaccines utilize different mechanisms to elicit antigen-specific responses. Due to the production of antigen in transfected cells of the host, a DNA vaccine induces robust T-cell responses, which are critical for the development of T-cell-dependent antibody responses (Liang et al., 2005; Martin et al., 2006). DNA immunization is also highly effective in priming antigen-specific memory B cells. In contrast, a recombinant protein vaccine generally is more effective at eliciting antibody responses than cell-mediated immune responses and may directly stimulate antigen-specific memory B cells to differentiate into antibody-secreting cells, resulting in production of high titre antigen-specific antibodies (Lu, 2006). Therefore, a DNA prime plus protein boost is a complementary approach that overcomes each of their respective shortcomings. In order to make this viable as a vaccination strategy against BVDV in cattle it would be necessary to develop a slow- or pulsed-release delivery system, possibly based on microparticles (O'Hagan et al., 2006), which would mimic the DNA prime and protein boost. Another important criterion that needs to be addressed in the future is the ability of this strategy to protect against fetal infection with both types of BVDV. Modified live vaccines have been tested and shown to induce protection from fetal infection, in particular when given prior to breeding (Kovacs et al., 2003). However, MLV vaccines can also induce adverse effects including abortion, fetal infection, immunosuppression and respiratory signs (van Oirschot et al., 1999), so the development of non-replicating vaccines that induce fetal protection might be desirable. Indeed, there is evidence that inactivated BVDV vaccines can provide adequate protection (Brownlie et al., 1995), which suggests that the DNA prime–protein boost strategy reported here might also be protective.
It has been reported that in BVDV-seropositive animals, IFN- levels are significantly higher than in BVDV-seronegative animals (Waldvogel et al., 2000), and that there is a significant positive correlation between the IFN- levels and antibody titres. Similar results were obtained in the current study. Thus, IFN- may play an important role in protection from BVDV. In order to identify which T-lymphocyte subpopulation is responsible for secreting IFN-, we performed CD4+ T-cell and CD8+ T-cell depletion ELISPOT assays using E2.1, E2.2 or live BVDV strain 1373 for in vitro stimulation. The CD4+ T-cell-depleted PBMCs did not secrete any IFN-, whereas depletion of CD8+ lymphocytes did not affect the number of IFN--secreting cells in the PBMCs, so we concluded that the cells responsible for IFN- production were CD4+ T cells and not CD8+ T cells. Since the cell-mediated and humoral immune responses showed a concurrent increase after protein boost and virus challenge in our study, we hypothesize that the CD4+ T-cell responses were critical for the development of T-cell-dependent antibody responses, CD4+ T-helper cells, as well as CD4+ memory T cells being involved in regulating B-cell functions.
In conclusion, our data demonstrate that a vaccination strategy consisting of priming with E2.2 DNA or E2.1+E2.2 DNA and boosting with E2.2 protein or E2.1+E2.2 protein fully protected calves from BVDV-2 challenge. Interestingly, vaccination with type 1 E2 induced some cross-protection from BVDV type 2 challenge. However, these results confirmed that type 2 E2 is needed for optimal protection from BVDV-2 infection. Furthermore, vaccination with both type 1 and type 2 E2 also induced effective protection from BVDV-2 and can be expected to provide protection from BVDV-1 as well, so a combination of E2.1 and E2.2 should protect cattle from both BVDV-1 and BVDV-2 strains. Since mixing of plasmids or proteins produced according to the same manufacturing protocols is a very simple approach, new vaccine strains could be added with relative ease, which would allow us to adapt BVDV vaccines according to the prevalent strains.
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Baker, J. C. (1995). The clinical manifestations of bovine viral diarrhea infection. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 11, 425–445.[Medline]
Barnett, S. W., Rajasekar, S., Legg, H., Doe, B., Fuller, D. H., Haynes, J. R., Walker, C. M. & Steimer, K. S. (1997). Vaccination with HIV-1 gp120 DNA induces immune responses that are boosted by a recombinant gp120 protein subunit. Vaccine 15, 869–873.[CrossRef][Medline]
Bolin, S. R. & Ridpath, J. F. (1992). Differences in virulence between two noncytopathic bovine viral diarrhea viruses in calves. Am J Vet Res 53, 2157–2163.[Medline]
Bolin, S. R. & Ridpath, J. F. (1998). Prevalence of bovine viral diarrhea virus genotypes and antibody against those viral genotypes in fetal bovine serum. J Vet Diagn Invest 10, 135–139.
Braun, R., Babiuk, L. A. & van Drunen Littel-van den Hurk, S. (1998). Compatibility of plasmids expressing different antigens in a single DNA vaccine formulation. J Gen Virol 79, 2965–2970.[Abstract]
Brownlie, J., Clarke, M. C., Hooper, L. B. & Bell, G. D. (1995). Protection of the bovine fetus from bovine viral diarrhoea virus by means of a new inactivated vaccine. Vet Rec 137, 58–62.[Abstract]
Canal, C. W., Strasser, M., Hertig, C., Masuda, A. & Peterhans, E. (1998). Detection of antibodies to bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) and characterization of genomes of BVDV from Brazil. Vet Microbiol 63, 85–97.[CrossRef][Medline]
Cardoso, A. I., Sixt, N., Vallier, A., Fayolle, J., Buckland, R. & Wild, T. F. (1998). Measles virus DNA vaccination: antibody isotype is determined by the method of immunization and by the nature of both the antigen and the coimmunized antigen. J Virol 72, 2516–2518.
Collett, M. S., Larson, R., Belzer, S. K. & Retzel, E. (1988). Proteins encoded by bovine viral diarrhea virus: the genomic organization of a pestivirus. Virology 165, 200–208.[CrossRef][Medline]
Collett, M. S., Wiskerchen, M., Welniak, E. & Belzer, S. K. (1991). Bovine viral diarrhea virus genomic organization. Arch Virol Suppl 3, 19–27.[Medline]
Couvreur, B., Letellier, C., Collard, A., Quenon, P., Dehan, P., Hamers, C., Pastoret, P. P. & Kerkhofs, P. (2002). Genetic and antigenic variability in bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) isolates from Belgium. Virus Res 85, 17–28.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dean, H. J. & Leyh, R. (1999). Cross-protective efficacy of a bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) type 1 vaccine against BVDV type 2 challenge. Vaccine 17, 1117–1124.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dunachie, S. J., Walther, M., Vuola, J. M., Webster, D. P., Keating, S. M., Berthoud, T., Andrews, L., Bejon, P., Poulton, I. & other authors (2006). A clinical trial of prime–boost immunisation with the candidate malaria vaccines RTS,S/AS02A and MVA-CS. Vaccine 24, 2850–2859.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ellis, J., West, K., Cortese, V., Konoby, C. & Weigel, D. (2001). Effect of maternal antibodies on induction and persistence of vaccine-induced immune responses against bovine viral diarrhea virus type II in young calves. J Am Vet Med Assoc 219, 351–356.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ellsworth, M. A., Fairbanks, K. K., Behan, S., Jackson, J. A., Goodyear, M., Oien, N. L., Meinert, T. R. & Leyh, R. D. (2006). Fetal protection following exposure to calves persistently infected with bovine viral diarrhea virus type 2 sixteen months after primary vaccination of the dams. Vet Ther 7, 295–304.[Medline]
Evermann, J. F. & Ridpath, J. F. (2002). Clinical and epidemiologic observations of bovine viral diarrhea virus in the northwestern United States. Vet Microbiol 89, 129–139.[CrossRef][Medline]
Fairbanks, K. K., Rinehart, C. L., Ohnesorge, W. C., Loughin, M. M. & Chase, C. C. (2004). Evaluation of fetal protection against experimental infection with type 1 and type 2 bovine viral diarrhea virus after vaccination of the dam with a bivalent modified-live virus vaccine. J Am Vet Med Assoc 225, 1898–1904.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ficken, M. D., Ellsworth, M. A. & Tucker, C. M. (2006a). Evaluation of the efficacy of a modified-live combination vaccine against bovine viral diarrhea virus types 1 and 2 challenge exposures in a one-year duration-of-immunity fetal protection study. Vet Ther 7, 283–294.[Medline]
Ficken, M. D., Ellsworth, M. A., Tucker, C. M. & Cortese, V. S. (2006b). Effects of modified-live bovine viral diarrhea virus vaccines containing either type 1 or types 1 and 2 BVDV on heifers and their offspring after challenge with noncytopathic type 2 BVDV during gestation. J Am Vet Med Assoc 228, 1559–1564.[CrossRef][Medline]
Fulton, R. W. & Burge, L. J. (2000). Bovine viral diarrhea virus types 1 and 2 antibody response in calves receiving modified live virus or inactivated vaccines. Vaccine 19, 264–274.[CrossRef][Medline]
Fulton, R. W., Johnson, B. J., Briggs, R. E., Ridpath, J. F., Saliki, J. T., Confer, A. W., Burge, L. J., Step, D. L., Walker, D. A. & Payton, M. E. (2006). Challenge with bovine viral diarrhea virus by exposure to persistently infected calves: protection by vaccination and negative results of antigen testing in nonvaccinated acutely infected calves. Can J Vet Res 70, 121–127.[Medline]
Galloway, D., Liner, A., Legutki, J., Mateczun, A., Barnewall, R. & Estep, J. (2004). Genetic immunization against anthrax. Vaccine 22, 1604–1608.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hamers, C., Couvreur, B., Dehan, P., Letellier, C., Fischer, L., Brun, A. J., Lewalle, P., Michaux, C., Pastoret, P. P. & Kerkhofs, P. (2003). Assessment of the clinical and virological protection provided by a commercial inactivated bovine viral diarrhoea virus genotype 1 vaccine against a BVDV genotype 2 challenge. Vet Rec 153, 236–240.
Houe, H. (1995). Epidemiology of bovine viral diarrhea virus. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 11, 521–547.[Medline]
Kim, I. J., Hyun, B. H., Shin, J. H., Lee, K. K., Lee, K. W., Cho, K. O. & Kang, M. I. (2006). Identification of bovine viral diarrhea virus type 2 in Korean native goat (Capra hircus). Virus Res 121, 103–106.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kong, W. P., Huang, Y., Yang, Z. Y., Chakrabarti, B. K., Moodie, Z. & Nabel, G. J. (2003). Immunogenicity of multiple gene and clade human immunodeficiency virus type 1 DNA vaccines. J Virol 77, 12764–12772.
Konishi, E., Kosugi, S. & Imoto, J. (2006). Dengue tetravalent DNA vaccine inducing neutralizing antibody and anamnestic responses to four serotypes in mice. Vaccine 24, 2200–2207.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kovacs, F., Magyar, T., Rinehart, C., Elbers, K., Schlesinger, K. & Ohnesorge, W. C. (2003). The live attenuated bovine viral diarrhea virus components of a multi-valent vaccine confer protection against fetal infection. Vet Microbiol 96, 117–131.[CrossRef][Medline]
Li, Z., Zhang, H., Fan, X., Zhang, Y., Huang, J., Liu, Q., Tjelle, T. E., Mathiesen, I., Kjeken, R. & Xiong, S. (2006). DNA electroporation prime and protein boost strategy enhances humoral immunity of tuberculosis DNA vaccines in mice and non-human primates. Vaccine 24, 4565–4568.[CrossRef][Medline]
Liang, R., van den Hurk, J. V., Zheng, C., Yu, H., Pontarollo, R. A., Babiuk, L. A. & van Drunen Littel-van den Hurk, S. (2005). Immunization with plasmid DNA encoding a truncated, secreted form of the bovine viral diarrhea virus E2 protein elicits strong humoral and cellular immune responses. Vaccine 23, 5252–5262.[CrossRef][Medline]
Liang, R., van den Hurk, J. V., Babiuk, L. A. & van Drunen Littel-van den Hurk, S. (2006). Priming with DNA encoding E2 and boosting with E2 protein formulated with CpG oligodeoxynucleotides induces strong immune responses and protection from bovine viral diarrhea virus in cattle. J Gen Virol 87, 2971–2982.
Lu, S. (2006). Combination DNA plus protein HIV vaccines. Springer Semin Immunopathol 28, 255–265.[CrossRef][Medline]
Martin, J. E., Sullivan, N. J., Enama, M. E., Gordon, I. J., Roederer, M., Koup, R. A., Bailer, R. T., Chakrabarti, B. K., Bailey, M. A. & other authors (2006). A DNA vaccine for Ebola virus is safe and immunogenic in a phase I clinical trial. Clin Vaccine Immunol 13, 1267–1277.
McConkey, S. J., Reece, W. H., Moorthy, V. S., Webster, D., Dunachie, S., Butcher, G., Vuola, J. M., Blanchard, T. J., Gothard, P. & other authors (2003). Enhanced T-cell immunogenicity of plasmid DNA vaccines boosted by recombinant modified vaccinia virus Ankara in humans. Nat Med 9, 729–735.[CrossRef][Medline]
Moore, Q. C., Bosarge, J. R., Quin, L. R. & McDaniel, L. S. (2006). Enhanced protective immunity against pneumococcal infection with PspA DNA and protein. Vaccine 24, 5755–5761.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mwau, M., Cebere, I., Sutton, J., Chikoti, P., Winstone, N., Wee, E. G., Beattie, T., Chen, Y. H., Dorrell, L. & other authors (2004). A human immunodeficiency virus 1 (HIV-1) clade A vaccine in clinical trials: stimulation of HIV-specific T-cell responses by DNA and recombinant modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) vaccines in humans. J Gen Virol 85, 911–919.
Nakamura, Y., Gojobori, T. & Ikemura, T. (2000). Codon usage tabulated from international DNA sequence databases: status for the year 2000. Nucleic Acids Res 28, 292
O'Hagan, D. T., Singh, M. & Ulmer, J. B. (2006). Microparticle-based technologies for vaccines. Methods 40, 10–19.[CrossRef][Medline]
Pal, R., Kalyanaraman, V. S., Nair, B. C., Whitney, S., Keen, T., Hocker, L., Hudacik, L., Rose, N., Mboudjeka, I. & other authors (2006). Immunization of rhesus macaques with a polyvalent DNA prime/protein boost human immunodeficiency virus type 1 vaccine elicits protective antibody response against simian human immunodeficiency virus of R5 phenotype. Virology 348, 341–353.[CrossRef][Medline]
Pellerin, C., van den Hurk, J., Lecomte, J. & Tussen, P. (1994). Identification of a new group of bovine viral diarrhea virus strains associated with severe outbreaks and high mortalities. Virology 203, 260–268.[CrossRef][Medline]
Pratelli, A., Martella, V., Cirone, F., Buonavoglia, D., Elia, G., Tempesta, M. & Buonavoglia, C. (2001). Genomic characterization of pestiviruses isolated from lambs and kids in southern Italy. J Virol Methods 94, 81–85.[CrossRef][Medline]
Raggo, C., Habermehl, M., Babiuk, L. A. & Griebel, P. (2000). The in vivo effects of recombinant bovine herpesvirus-1 expressing bovine interferon-. J Gen Virol 81, 2665–2673.
Reber, A. J., Tanner, M., Okinaga, T., Woolums, A. R., Williams, S., Ensley, D. T. & Hurley, D. J. (2006). Evaluation of multiple immune parameters after vaccination with modified live or killed bovine viral diarrhea virus vaccines. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 29, 61–77.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ridpath, J. F. (2005). Practical significance of heterogeneity among BVDV strains: impact of biotype and genotype on US control programs. Prev Vet Med 72, 17–30 (discussion 215–219).[CrossRef][Medline]
Ridpath, J. F., Bolin, S. R. & Dubovi, E. J. (1994). Segregation of bovine viral diarrhea virus into genotypes. Virology 205, 66–74.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sedegah, M., Charoenvit, Y., Minh, L., Belmonte, M., Majam, V. F., Abot, S., Ganeshan, H., Kumar, S., Bacon, D. J. & other authors (2004). Reduced immunogenicity of DNA vaccine plasmids in mixtures. Gene Ther 11, 448–456.[CrossRef][Medline]
Shimazaki, T., Sekiguchi, H., Nakamura, S., Taguchi, K., Inoue, Y. & Satoh, M. (1998). Segregation of bovine viral diarrhea virus isolated in Japan into genotypes. J Vet Med Sci 60, 579–583.[CrossRef][Medline]
Shiver, J. W., Fu, T. M., Chen, L., Casimiro, D. R., Davies, M. E., Evans, R. K., Zhang, Z. Q., Simon, A. J., Trigona, W. L. & other authors (2002). Replication-incompetent adenoviral vaccine vector elicits effective anti-immunodeficiency-virus immunity. Nature 415, 331–335.[CrossRef][Medline]
van Oirschot, J. T., Bruschke, C. J. & van Rijn, P. A. (1999). Vaccination of cattle against bovine viral diarrhoea. Vet Microbiol 64, 169–183.[CrossRef][Medline]
Vilcek, S., Paton, D. J., Durkovic, B., Strojny, L., Ibata, G., Moussa, A., Loitsch, A., Rossmanith, W., Vega, S. & other authors (2001). Bovine viral diarrhoea virus genotype 1 can be separated into at least eleven genetic groups. Arch Virol 146, 99–115.[CrossRef][Medline]
Vilcek, S., Greiser-Wilke, I., Durkovic, B., Obritzhauser, W., Deutz, A. & Kofer, J. (2003). Genetic diversity of recent bovine viral diarrhoea viruses from the southeast of Austria (Styria). Vet Microbiol 91, 285–291.[CrossRef][Medline]
Vilcek, S., Durkovic, B., Kolesarova, M. & Paton, D. J. (2005). Genetic diversity of BVDV: consequences for classification and molecular epidemiology. Prev Vet Med 72, 31–35 (discussion 215–219).[CrossRef][Medline]
Wakeley, P. R., Turner, J. L., Ibata, G., King, D. P., Sandvik, T., Howard, P. & Drew, T. W. (2004). Characterisation of a type 2 bovine viral diarrhoea virus isolated from cattle in the UK. Vet Microbiol 102, 19–24.[CrossRef][Medline]
Waldvogel, A. S., Hediger-Weithaler, B. M., Eicher, R., Zakher, A., Zarlenga, D. S., Gasbarre, L. C. & Heussler, V. T. (2000). Interferon- and interleukin-4 mRNA expression by peripheral blood mononuclear cells from pregnant and non-pregnant cattle seropositive for bovine viral diarrhea virus. Vet Immunol Immunopathol 77, 201–212.[CrossRef][Medline]
Webster, D. P., Dunachie, S., McConkey, S., Poulton, I., Moore, A. C., Walther, M., Laidlaw, S. M., Peto, T., Skinner, M. A. & other authors (2006). Safety of recombinant fowlpox strain FP9 and modified vaccinia virus Ankara vaccines against liver-stage P. falciparum malaria in non-immune volunteers. Vaccine 24, 3026–3034.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wolfmeyer, A., Wolf, G., Beer, M., Strube, W., Hehnen, H. R., Schmeer, N. & Kaaden, O. R. (1997). Genomic (5'UTR) and serological differences among German BVDV field isolates. Arch Virol 142, 2049–2057.[CrossRef][Medline]
Yu, H., Babiuk, L. A. & van Drunen Littel-van den Hurk, S. (2004). Priming with CpG-enriched plasmid and boosting with protein formulated with CpG oligodeoxynucleotides and Quil A induces strong cellular and humoral immune responses to hepatitis C virus NS3. J Gen Virol 85, 1533–1543.
Received 19 June 2007;
accepted 6 October 2007.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| INT J SYST EVOL MICROBIOL | MICROBIOLOGY | J GEN VIROL |
| J MED MICROBIOL | ALL SGM JOURNALS | |
, 
=Days when E2.1, E2.1+E2.2 and E2.2 (respectively) varied significantly from the placebo group P<0.05. (b) Mean weight changes of vaccine groups E2.1+E2.1 and E2.2 were significantly greater than those of the placebo group (P=0.007). *=Days when both E2.1+E2.1 and E2.2 varied significantly from the placebo group (P<0.05). (c) Virus in nasal secretions.