Research Article, J Virol Antivir Res Vol: 7 Issue: 1

Nanoparticle Vaccine for Avian Influenza Virus: A Challenge Study against Highly Pathogenic H5N2 Subtype

Jianping Li¹, Zeinab Helal^1,4, Brian Ladman³,Christopher Karch², Jack Gelb Jr³, Peter Burkhard^2,5 and Mazhar I Khan^1*

¹Department of Pathobiology and Veterinary Science University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA

²Institute of Material Science, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA

³Avian Biosciences Center, Department of Animal and Food Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark DE 19716, USA

⁴Department of Microbiology and Immunology Faculty of Pharmacy, Al-azhar University, Cairo, Egypt

⁵Alpha-O-Peptide, Lörracherstrasse 50, 4125 Riehen, Switzerland

*Corresponding Author : Mazhar I. Khan
Department of Pathobiology and Veterinary Science, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA
Tel: +860 486 0228
E-mail: mazhar.khan@uconn.edu

Received: November 24, 2017 Accepted: May 22, 2018 Published: May 30, 2018

Citation: Li J, Helal Z, Ladman B, Karch C, Gelb J, et al. (2018) Nanoparticle Vaccine for Avian Influenza Virus: A Challenge Study against Highly Pathogenic H5N2 Subtype. J Virol Antivir Res 7:1. doi: 10.4172/2324-8955.1000179

Abstract

Keywords: Avian Influenza Virus; Vaccine; Nanoparticle; Flagellin; Adjuvant; SAPNs; Chicken

Introduction

Avian influenza (AI) can be a devastating disease of poultry. Low pathogenic viruses can cause little or no observable disease while highly pathogenic (HP) viruses can induce high mortality, resulting in massive economic losses for the poultry industry due to loss of birds, trade restrictions and disease control and response efforts. The 2014-2015 US HP outbreak cost producers and the US government an estimated 3.3 billion US dollars [1]. In previously rare cases, strains may pose a public health concern [2]. Outside of the US, vaccination has been shown to be an effective measure of controlling AI [3]. However, designing an effective vaccine against AI is challenging due to large number of subtypes, the highly mutable genome of the avian influenza virus (AIV), and the reassortment of genes among different strains [4]. These issues could easily cause mismatch problem between the antigen within the vaccine and circulating field strains, resulting in suboptimal vaccine efficacy [5]. To solve the problem, one practical strategy is to develop a universal vaccine comprised of multiple conserved epitopes against a wide range of AIV strains [4,6].

In recent years, designing novel biodegradable nanomaterials with well-defined structures that modulate immune responses has attracted substantial attention in vaccine development [7]. To improve drug delivery, nanosized lipid or polymer-based particle, liposomes, virosomes and virus-like particles (VLPs) have shown the ability to induce a robust immune response [8-11]. Self-assembling protein nanoparticles (SAPNs) are built by monomeric protein chains composed of coiled-coil oligomerization domains, in which the polymerization of peptide monomers is dictated by the intrinsic property of coiled-coil domains [12,13]. SAPNs are a biodegradable biomaterial with mechanical and chemical stability, which are well suited to repetitively present multiple antigenic epitopes linked to the N or C terminus of the coiled-coil domains, particularly in a conformation-specific manner [12]. SAPNs have the capability of eliciting long lasting antibody and cellular immune responses against a parasite from the genus Plasmodium, the causative parasite of malaria [14], but also are able to flexibly carry a built-in protein immune modulator as adjuvant [15]. The potential to induce a long lasting humoral and cellular immune response while displaying selfadjuvanted properties makes SAPNs a powerful platform in designing a universal AI vaccine.

In our previous studies, we have developed two versions of vaccine prototypes for avian influenza based on the SAPNs technology. The first SAPNs version was constructed by co-expressing nanoparticle core sequence and M2e linked to the N-terminus of a tetrameric coiled-coil domain [16], in which M2e is a conserved transmembrane protein across avian and mammal influenza viruses [17]. The SAPNs repetitively displayed M2e on the surface in its native tetrameric conformation state, showing its efficacy in reducing virus shedding in chickens co-administered of the SAPN with Freund’s adjuvant after challenge with a low pathogenic avian influenza virus (A/ Turkey/CA/D0208651-C/02 H5N2) [16]. To further improve the immunogenicity of the first version of SAPNs [17], we have added our second version SAPNs named SA-MC-Penn with the conserved epitope Hel C from the stalk region of hemagglutinin (HA), an epitope that has been demonstrated to induce broad neutralizing antibodies [18]. In addition, to make SA-MC-Penn self-adjuvanted, we added conserved D0 and D1domains of flagellin molecule from Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium at the C terminus [15]. Flagellin, a well-characterized molecular adjuvant, has been shown to improve the immunogenicity of vaccines [19,20]. In our SAPNs, the displayed flagellin domains interact with toll-like receptor 5 on the membrane of antigen presenting cells, interconnecting innate immunity and adaptive immunity, thus enhancing the presentation of vaccine immunogens [21]. We have shown our second iteration of design SA-MC-Penn induced high level of cross-neutralizing antibodies in immunized chickens [15]. Moreover, upon immunization of mice with the SAPNs based vaccine, namely SA-MC-PR8 presenting the H1N1 B cell epitopes, mice were completely protected from lethal challenge with H1N1 (A/Human/Puerto Rico/8/1934) [15]. However, the efficacy of SA-MC-Penn to protect chickens from a HP AIV challenge has yet to have been determined. Thus, this study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of SA-MC-Penn SAPNs vaccinated chickens to be protected from an H5N2 HP AIV (A/chicken/ Pennsylvania/1/1983) challenge.

Materials and Methods

Synthesis and characterization of vaccine prototype SA-MCPenn nanoparticles

The synthesis of SA-MC-Penn was according to the description of our previous work [15]. Briefly, two fusion genes encoding peptides as building blocks were synthesized and sub-cloned into two plasmids. One gene contained 6X histag at the 5’ end followed by an AIV M2e epitope sequence (residues2-23), a tetrameric coiled-coil sequence, a trimeric coiled-coil sequence with universal CD4+ T cell epitope, and an AIV Helix C epitope at the 3’ end (the HA stalk region, residues 165-197). It encoded monomeric peptide M2e/Helix C. The other gene encoded monomeric peptide chain so-called flagellin monomer. It contained additional sequences that were derived from the D0 and D1 domains (residues 1-177 and 249-372) of flagellin from Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium at the 3’ end. Genes encoding M2e/ Helix C and flagellin monomer were expressed in E.coli. The purified gene products were confirmed by SDS-PAGE analysis and were coassembled into the SA-MC-Penn SAPNs at a molar ratio of 58:2 for M2e/Helix C and flagellin monomers. The final concentration of flagellin molecules in molar mass in the SA-MC-Penn serving as an adjuvant was 3%. Particle size and shape were characterized by dynamic light scattering and transmission electron microscopy.

Virus, animals and immunization

Duplicate groups of 14 specific pathogen free (SPF) white leghorn chickens at four-weeks of age (Charles River Laboratories, Wilmington, MA) were vaccinated three times with the previously optimized dose (immunogenicity study data not shown) of 100 μg of the SAPN SA-MC-Penn via the intramuscular (IM) or eye drop (ED) routes. For comparative purposes, a commercial oil adjuvanted H5N2 vaccine of 0.5mL (Dodge Fort) was given (IM) three times at the same intervals as a control for the SAPN treatments following the manufacturers’ recommendations. Two groups of 14, non-vaccinated chickens were included as negative and challenge controls. Serum samples were collected from all birds at day 32 post vaccination. All birds in one of each treatment group were challenged with the HP AIV strain A/chicken/Pennsylvania/1/1983 (H5N2) by intranasal instillation of 104 embryo infectious dose 50% (EID50) and were observed for 14 days. Oropharyngeal (OP) and cloacal swabbing were collected 2, 4, 7, 10 and 14 days-post challenge (PC). All chickens had access to feed and water ad libitum. Chickens unable to reach food and/ or water were euthanized in accordance with the protocol approved by the University of Delaware Institutional Animal and Care Use Committee Gelb (9) 09-09-11R.

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and quantitative real-time RT-PCR

ELISA assay was performed to evaluate the antibody response. Briefly, chicken sera were serial diluted (2-fold dilutions) and raised against the ELISA plates coated with 1 μg/mL of the SAPN SA-MCPenn and incubated for one-hour at room temperature (RT). Plates were washed 3X with PBST buffer (1× PBS, 0.05% Tween). Secondary antibody, anti-chicken Ig Y (1: 1000 in1×PBS/3%BSA), was added and incubated for one-hour at RT. Plates were washed 3X with PBST. Plates were developed by the addition of TMB developing solution (Thermo Scientific, USA) for 10 min for color development. Reaction was stopped by adding 50 μL of 0.5 M sulfuric acid. Colorimetric changes in each well were detected at 450 nm using a BioTek microplate reader. A cutoff point for a positive reaction by ELISA test was set the OD value at 450nm of a tested serum 3X times the negative control serum.

RNA extracted from OP swabs was quantified by quantitative real-time RT-PCR using the Qiagen one-step RT-PCR kit according to the protocol described by Spackman et al. [22]. Briefly, the primers and probe were used in the reaction as follows: forward primer- 5’ACG TAT GAC TAT CCA CAA TAC TCA G3’; reverse primer-5’ AGA CCA GCT ACC ATG ATT GC 3’; probe- FAM-TCA ACA GTG GCG AGT TCC CTA GCA-TAMRA. The reaction was conducted with a RT profile setting for 30 min at 50°C and 15 min at 94°C, and a H5-specific PCR for 40 cycles as follows: 94°C for 0 s, 57°C for 20 s, and 72°C for 5 s.

Statistics

Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA with Bonnferoni post-test in Graphpad Prism 6.0. Statistical significance was achieved at levels of P values<0.05 (*), <0.01 (**), and <0.001 (***).

Results

SA-MC-Penn elicited antibody response against AIV-M2e and Helix C

To evaluate the serum antibody responses, sera harvested at 10 weeks of age, 2 weeks after the third vaccination, were evaluated by ELISA in plates were coated with 1 μg/mL SA-MC-Penn. Chickens immunized IM with 100 μg SA-MC-Penn (Figure 1 red line) developed highest level of detectable antibodies compared to chickens vaccinated with the 0.5mL inactivated commercial vaccine IM route (Figure 1 blue line) or the 100 μg SA-MC-Penn ED route (Figure 1 green line). No antibodies were detected in non-vaccinated chickens (Figure 1 red line). The data showed that the IM route was superior to the ED route of immunization with the SAPNs vaccine, as it elicited higher levels of serum antibodies.

SA-MC-Penn nanoparticle vaccine prototype offered partially protection against HPAIV H5N2 challenge

Sixty percent of non-vaccinated chickens succumbed to infection by day 6 PC (Figure 2). In comparison, chickens immunized with 100 μg SA-MC-Penn via the IM or ED route showed a prolonged period of survival after challenge compared to the challenge control chickens. At 14 days PC, 63% and 30% chickens survived in SA-MCPenn IM and ED route vaccinated groups, respectively, numerically greater survival rates than the challenge control chickens. The survival chickens vaccinated via the IM route were twice that of the ED route and 3X that of chickens in the challenge control group. However, all chickens that received the commercial inactivated vaccine survived challenge.

SA-MC-Penn reduced viral shedding in immunized chickens

Virus shedding from the respiratory (oral) and digestive tracts were evaluated by performing real time RT-PCR screening of OP and cloacal swabbings, respectively (Figure 3). Compared to nonvaccinated and challenged chickens, OP swabs collected from IM or ED SA-MC-Penn vaccinated chickens showed decreased virus shedding 2, 4 and 14 days PC. Oral virus shedding was generally both found on the surface of AIV, impact the development of effective vaccines for avian and mammalian species. Traditional vaccines are challenged by their effectiveness when the genetic profile of currently circulating strains of AIV change. More importantly, live attenuated vaccines are not utilized due to the possibility of reversion to virulence. In our previous studies, the SAPNs were successfully used as a delivery system for AIV protein. M2e and Helix C, AIV epitopes, can be repetitively displayed on SAPNs surface as a tetramer and trimer, respectively, which are native conformations in the AIV capsid [15]. Importantly, flagellin was co-assembled as a part of the SAPNs SA numerically lower in chickens vaccinated with SA-MC-Penn by the IM route compared to the ED route. A significant (P<0.05) reduction of one logarithm was observed in OP swabs collected from chickens vaccinated via the IM route with SA-MC-Penn at 2 days p.c. (Figure 3A). No significant reduction of cloacal virus shedding was observed in chickens vaccinated by either route with SA-MC-Penn (Figure 3B). Chickens receiving the commercial inactivated H5N2 vaccine significantly (P<0.05) reduced virus shedding from the respiratory and digestive tracts at all the time points as compared to the no vaccine group and the IM or ED SA-MC-Penn groups.

Discussion

The potential to undergo continuous and rapid evolution of the genes encoding the HA and neuraminidase (NA) envelope proteins, MC-Penn to increase interaction with dendritic cells via TLR 5 on cellular membranes and subsequently improve antigen presentation. Inclusion of flagellin gave the SAPNs the self-adjuvanted properties. Our previous studies demonstrated SAPNs vaccine prototypes induced levels of antibodies, especially cross-reactive antibodies, against AIV and more importantly, provided protection against LPAIV in chickens [15,16].

In this study, we demonstrated SA-MC-Penn partially protected chickens from challenge with an HP H5N2 strain of AIV. Route of administration can directly impact the efficacy of a vaccine [23]. Most currently available vaccines for AIV are inactivated vaccines and are administered parenterally [24]. In contrast, ED route of vaccine administration takes less effort. Moreover, ED administration stimulates the local lymphoid organ called Harderian gland located within the eye sac [25]. It has been proved an effective strategy to administrate inactivated AI vaccine inducing significantly systemic Ig G that protected chickens against HP AI [26]. However, our data showed ED was less antigenic (Figure 1) and protective (Figure 2) than the IM route. One possible reason for the impact on the effectiveness of SA-MC-Penn by IM or ED routes of administration could be due to a higher efficiency of vaccine-take of soluble protein antigen SA-MC-Penn via IM route than did ED route at the sites of inoculation. Numerically lower viral shedding from the oral cavity was observed in chickens vaccinated via the IM route vs. the ED route.

Vaccine group treated with whole virus inactivated vaccine with oil-emulsion showed complete protection against HP AIV challenge, and significantly (P<0.05) lower OP and cloacal virus shedding as compared to all other treatment group. This finding was not surprising since the whole AIV inactivated vaccine contains all antigenic epitopes capable of inducing a strong immune response. The presence of the virus and adjuvant in the inactivated virus vaccine strongly stimulated humoral immunity and further maximize the adaptive immune responses [24,27]. In comparison, SA-MC-Penn, a viral subunit SAPNs vaccine, achieved 63% livability when it was administered without additional adjuvants. Although the protection less than the whole virus inactivated vaccine, the subunit SAPNs vaccine demonstrated self-adjuvanted characteristics, which was in agreement with the previous malaria SAPNs vaccine prototype [14]. The adjuvant effect might be attributed to hydrophobic coiled-coil domains of protein-based polymers as well as the flagellin domains displayed on the SAPNs [28,29]. Our data also supports the longstanding concept that the application of flagellin as adjuvant in vaccine formulation [19,29].

Results from this study show that further optimization of experimental SAPNs vaccine SA-MC-Penn is required. The data suggest that a higher dose of SA-MC-Penn SPANs may be required to achieve protection similar to the whole virus inactivated vaccine. In addition, cellular immunity is required for the clearance of virus infection [30,31]. Therefore, the SAPNs vaccine may be improved by the addition of conserved T cell epitopes from the AIV nuclear protein. Adding such epitopes may stimulate cellular immunity against AIV thus reducing viral shedding.

To conclude, chickens immunized with the SAPNs SA-MC-Penn prototype vaccine administered without a commercial adjuvant were partially protected from challenge with the H5N2 HPAIV strain A/ chicken/Pennsylvania/1/1983.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the grant NIFA-USDA 10.310.

Conflict of Interests

PB has an interest in the company Alpha-O Peptides that has patents or patents pending on the technology. The other authors declare no competing interests.

References

1. Spackman E, Pantin-Jackwood MJ, Kapczynski DR, Swayne DE, Suarez DL (2016) H5N2 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Viruses from the US 2014-2015 outbreak have an unusually long pre-clinical period in turkeys. BMC Vet Res 12: 260.
2.  Liu D, Shi W, Shi Y, Wang D, Xiao H, et al. (2013) Origin and diversity of novel avian influenza A H7N9 viruses causing human infection: phylogenetic, structural, and coalescent analyses. The Lancet 381: 1926-1932.
3. El Aziz MN, El-Hamid HS, Ellkany HF, Nasef SA, Nasr SM, et al. (2016) Biological and Molecular Characterization of Newcastle Disease Virus Circulating in Chicken Flocks, Egypt, During 2014-2015. Zag Vet J 44.
4. Subbarao K, Joseph T (2007) Scientific barriers to developing vaccines against avian influenza viruses. Nat Rev Immunol 7: 267-278.
5. Krammer F, García-Sastre A, Palese P. Is It Possible to Develop a “Universal” Influenza Virus Vaccine? Toward a Universal Influenza Virus Vaccine: Potential Target Antigens and Critical Aspects for Vaccine Development. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology 9: 85-87.
6. Wang L, Zhang H, Compans RW, Wang B (2013) Universal Influenza Vaccines-A Short Review. Journal of Immunology & Clinical Research 1: 1003.
7. Zhao L, Seth A, Wibowo N, Zhao CX, Mitter N, et al. (2014) Nanoparticle vaccines. Vaccine 32: 327-337.
8. Latham T, Galarza JM (2001) Formation of wild-type and chimeric influenza virus-like particles following simultaneous expression of only four structural proteins. Journal of virology 75: 6154-6165.
9. Blom RAM, Amacker M, van Dijk RM, et al. (2017) Pulmonary Delivery of Virosome-Bound Antigen Enhances Antigen-Specific CD4+ T Cell Proliferation Compared to Liposome-Bound or Soluble Antigen. Front Immunol 8: 359.
10. Yoshizaki Y, Yuba E, Sakaguchi N, Koiwai K, Harada A, et al. (2017) pH-sensitive polymer-modified liposome-based immunity-inducing system: Effects of inclusion of cationic lipid and CpG-DNA. Biomaterials 141: 272-283.
11. Marasini N, Khalil ZG, Giddam AK, Ghaffar KA, Hussein WM, et al. (2016) Lipid core peptide/poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) as a highly potent intranasal vaccine delivery system against Group A streptococcus. International journal of pharmaceutics 513: 410-420.
12. Raman S, Machaidze G, Lustig A, Aebi U, Burkhard P (2006) Structure-based design of peptides that self-assemble into regular polyhedral nanoparticles. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine 2: 95-102.
13. Burkhard P, Stetefeld J, Strelkov SV (2001) Coiled coils: a highly versatile protein folding motif. Trends Cell Biol 11: 82-88.
14. Kaba SA, Brando C, Guo Q, Mittelholzer C, Raman S, et al. (2009) A nonadjuvanted polypeptide nanoparticle vaccine confers long-lasting protection against rodent malaria. J Immunol 183: 7268-7277.
15. Karch CP, Li J, Kulangara C, Paulillo SM, Raman SK, et al (2017) Vaccination with self-adjuvanted protein nanoparticles provides protection against lethal influenza challenge. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine 13: 241-251.
16. Babapoor S, Neef T, Mittelholzer C, Girshick T, Garmendia A, et al. (2011) A novel vaccine using nanoparticle platform to present immunogenic M2e against avian influenza infection. Influenza research and treatment 11: 1-12.
17. Ito T, Gorman OT, Kawaoka Y, Bean WJ, Webster RG (1991) Evolutionary analysis of the influenza A virus M gene with comparison of the M1 and M2 proteins. J Virol 65: 5491-5498.
18.  Wang TT, Tan GS, Hai R, Pica N, Ngai L, et al. (2010) Vaccination with a synthetic peptide from the influenza virus hemagglutinin provides protection against distinct viral subtypes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 18979-18984.
19. Liu G, Song L, Reiserova L, Trivedi U, Li H, et al. (2012) Flagellin-HA vaccines protect ferrets and mice against H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) infections. Vaccine 30: 6833-6838.
20. Huleatt JW, Jacobs AR, Tang J, Desai P, Kopp EB, et al. (2007). Vaccination with recombinant fusion proteins incorporating Toll-like receptor ligands induces rapid cellular and humoral immunity. Vaccine 25: 763-775.
21. Black M, Trent A, Tirrell M, Olive C (2010) Advances in the design and delivery of peptide subunit vaccines with a focus on toll-like receptor agonists. Expert review of vaccines 9: 157-173.
22. Spackman E, Senne DA, Myers TJ, Bulaga LL, Garber LP, et al. (2002) Development of a real-time reverse transcriptase PCR assay for type A influenza virus and the avian H5 and H7 hemagglutinin subtypes. Journal of clinical microbiology 40: 3256-3260.
23. Beard CW, Schnitzlein WM, Tripathy DN (1992) Effect of route of administration on the efficacy of a recombinant fowlpox virus against H5N2 avian influenza. Avian Dis 36: 1052-1055.
24. Swayne DE, Kapczynski DR (2008) Vaccines, vaccination, and immunology for avian influenza viruses in poultry. Avian influenza, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, USA.
25. van Ginkel FW, De-chu CT, Gulley SL, Toro H (2009) Induction of mucosal immunity in the avian Harderian gland with a replication-deficient Ad5 vector expressing avian influenza H5 hemagglutinin. Developmental & Comparative Immunology 33: 28-34.
26. Hikono H, Mase M, Matsuu A, Nakayama M, Saito T (2013) Intraocular vaccination with an inactivated highly pathogenic avian influenza virus induces protective antibody responses in chickens. Veterinary immunology and immunopathology 151: 83-89.
27. Sander LE, Davis MJ, Boekschoten MV, Amsen D, Dascher CC, et al. (2011) Detection of prokaryotic mRNA signifies microbial viability and promotes immunity. Nature 474: 385-389.
28. Todd CW, Balusubramanian M, Newman MJ (1998) Development of adjuvant-active nonionic block copolymers.  Adv Drug Deliv Rev 32: 199-223.
29. Huleatt JW, Nakaar V, Desai P, Huang Y, Hewitt D, et al. (2008) Potent immunogenicity and efficacy of a universal influenza vaccine candidate comprising a recombinant fusion protein linking influenza M2e to the TLR5 ligand flagellin. Vaccine 26: 201-214.
30. Seo SH, Webster RG (2001) Cross-reactive, cell-mediated immunity and protection of chickens from lethal H5N1 influenza virus infection in Hong Kong poultry markets. J Virol 75: 2516-2525.
31. Seo SH, Peiris M, Webster RG (2002) Protective cross-reactive cellular immunity to lethal A/Goose/Guangdong/1/96-like H5N1 influenza virus is correlated with the proportion of pulmonary CD8+ T cells expressing gamma interferon. Journal of virology 76: 4886-4890.