Intranasal immunization of recombinant Lactococcus lactis induces protection against H5N1 virus in ferrets
Authors: Xiaojue Peng
Xinqi Ge
Jiexiu Ouyang
Han Lei
Daxian Zhao
Huifeng Jiao
Handing Shu
Journal: Virus research (2015)
Discipline: MICROBIOLOGY
Keywords: Ferrets; H5N1 virus; Intranasal immunization; L. lactis-pgsA-HA1.
Affiliations: Department of Biotechnology, College of Life Science and Food Engineering, Nanchang University, Jiangxi 330031, China; Department of Biomedical Engineering, State University of New York, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA. Electronic address: ., Department of Biotechnology, College of Life Science and Food Engineering, Nanchang University, Jiangxi 330031, China.

Abstract:  The increasing outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza A (HPAI) H5N1 viruses in birds and human bring out an urgent need to develop a safe and effective vaccine to control and prevent H5N1 infection. Lactococcus lactis (L. lactis) based vaccine platform is a promising approach for mucosal H5N1 vaccine development. Intranasal immunization is the potential to induce mucosal immune response which is associated with protective immunity. To develop a safe and effective mucosal vaccine against HAPI H5N1, we extended our previous study by evaluating the immunogenicity of L. lactis-psA-HA1 in the absence of adjuvant via intranasal route in the ferret model. Ferrets administered intranasally with L. lactis-pgsA-HA1 could elicit robust humoral and mucosal immune responses, as well as significant HI titers. Importantly, ferrets were completely protected from H5N1 virus challenge. These findings suggest that L. lactis-pgsA-HA1 can be considered an alternative mucosal vaccine during A/H5N1 pandemic. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Brought to my attention by a reader. This paper is one of a set of six papers that all share the same authors, were all published in 2014-2015, and that all share very similar plots. No matter what animal species (mouse, chicken, or ferret) or number of animals per group (6-25), the body weight loss in unprotected animals was all very similar (around 25% loss at day 6), while the protected animals all show a dip in body weight around 6 days, followed by an increase. In addition, the error bars (standard deviations in all papers) are unexpectedly small for these types of measurements. Could the authors please provide some explanation for these similarities? The 6 papers are the following: * Han Lei et al. Virology 476 (2015) 189u2013195, DOI: 10.1016 j.virol.2014.12.017, https: pubpeer.com publications E932C6D86F69113141665259EB4C79 * Han Lei et al. Arch Virol (2015) 160:3011u20133019, DOI: 10.1007 s00705-015-2587-8, https: pubpeer.com publications 4E88CDED2683B085DE9D52B7AD7700 * Han Lei et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2015) 11:85, DOI: 10.1186 s12917-015-0399-4, https: pubpeer.com publications B407285D6C4C238DC25A4FA0F28991 * Han Lei et al. Virus Research 196 (2015) 56u201359, DOI: 10.1016 j.virusres.2014.11.009, https: pubpeer.com publications 889BA6B1AE96E94614521AA9583E87 * Han Lei et al. Microb Cell Fact (2015) 14:111, DOI: 10.1186 s12934-015-0287-4, https: pubpeer.com publications A13874959B0962999C5A01039B8D02 * Han Lei et al. Journal of Medical Virology (2014), DOI: 10.1002 jmv.23983, https: pubpeer.com publications BFBF1A36BD6B9C54611A9727DA0206 And here are the graphs: ![file] ![file] ![file] ![file] ![file] ,