Intranasal immunization with recombinant outer membrane protein A induces protective immune response against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection

Yan Li; Xueping Tang; Zunquan Zhao; Hui Wang; Xin Wang; Xueyi Shang; Peng Liu; Zhihua Kou; Yongqiang Jiang; Yan Li

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0214596

Abstract

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (S. maltophilia), a multi-drug resistant opportunistic pathogen, is associated with nosocomial and community-acquired infections. Preventive and therapeutic strategies for such infections are greatly needed. In this study, sequence alignment analysis revealed that Outer membrane protein A (OmpA) was highly conserved among S. maltophilia strains but shared no significant similarity with human and mouse proteomes. In mice, intranasal immunization with S. maltophilia recombinant OmpA (rOmpA) without additional adjuvant induced sustained mucosal and systemic rOmpA-specific antibody responses. Treatment with rOmpA stimulated significantly higher levels of secretion of IFN-γ, IL-2, and IL-17A (All P<0.05) from the primary splenocytes isolated from rOmpA-immunized mice than from the primary splenocytes isolated from PBS-immunized mice. Furthermore, mice immunized with rOmpA showed significantly reduced bacterial burden in the lung and reduced levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α and IL-6) in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) 24 hours after intranasal S. maltophilia infection, indicating that immunization with rOmpA may have protective effects against S. maltophilia challenge in mice. Our findings suggest that intranasal immunization with rOmpA may induce mucosal and systemic immune responses in mice, trigger Th1- and Th17-mediated cellular immune responses, and thus stimulate host immune defense against S. maltophilia infection. These results also demonstrate that intranasal vaccination may offer an alternative approach to current strategies since it induces a mucosal as well as a systemic immune response.

Citation: Li Y, Tang X, Zhao Z, Wang H, Wang X, Shang X, et al. (2019) Intranasal immunization with recombinant outer membrane protein A induces protective immune response against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection. PLoS ONE 14(4): e0214596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214596

Editor: Daniela Flavia Hozbor, Universidad Nacional de la Plata, ARGENTINA

Received: October 29, 2018; Accepted: March 17, 2019; Published: April 1, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 Li et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81571959, 81071399). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (S. maltophilia), a nonfermentative Gram-negative bacillus, has been recognized as one of the emerging opportunistic pathogen in both nosocomial and community-acquired infections [1]. It has been recovered from soils and plant roots, animals, lakes, hemodialysis water and dialysate samples [1]. A significant feature of S. maltophilia is its ability to adhere to mouse tracheal mucus and thus cause respiratory tract infections [2]. S. maltophilia-associated infection often causes high mortality, especially in immunocompromised patients [3]. In addition to the most common clinical presentation pneumonia, S. maltophilia infection can also cause bacteremia, urinary tract infections, meningitis, septic arthritis, endocarditis, and soft-tissue infection [4–10]. S. maltophilia resists antibiotics by intrinsic and acquired resistance mechanisms, such as poor membrane permeability to antibiotics and overexpression of multidrug resistance efflux pumps, β-lactamases, and antibiotics-modifying enzymes [11]. Thus, compared to antibiotic treatment, vaccination appears to be a more promising method to control S. maltophilia infection. However, effective vaccine against S. maltophilia infection is still unavailable.

Outer membrane proteins (Omps) are major surface proteins and antigens of Gram-negative bacteria and contribute substantially to induce host immune response [12–16]. In channel catfish, Omps are involved in inducing host defense against S. maltophilia infection [17]. Thus, Omps could be promising vaccine candidates. Previous studies have shown that compared with vaccines prepared from Omp complexes, Omp subunit vaccines are safer, more effective, and more easily for mass production [16, 18]. In our preliminary study, we used immunoproteomic approach to discover that outer membrane protein A (OmpA) was a strong immunogenic antigen and could be a good vaccine candidate against S. maltophilia infection [19]. OmpA and OmpA-like proteins, such as OmpA in Escherichia coli (E. coli) [20], OmpA in Klebsiella pneumonia [21], OmpA in Acinetobacter baumannii [22], and OprF in Pseudomonas aeruginosa [23] have been tested as vaccines against bacterial infections. MopB, a member of the OmpA family, is expressed the most abundantly on the cell surface of S. maltophilia and contribute to maintenance of cell membrane structure, and bacterial adhesion, and S. maltophilia with the MopB gene deletion cause milder L929 cell cytotoxicity compared with the wild type bacteria [24]. However, whether OmpA in S. maltophilia could be an effective vaccine against S. maltophilia infection remains unclear.

An ideal vaccine should be able to elicit sustained potent host defense locally at the infection site and systemically [25]. The initial infection route of S. maltophilia is usually at mucosal sites [2]. Thus, vaccines that can induce strong systemic immune responses but fail to stimulate host immune responses at mucosal sites may not be effective against S. maltophilia infection. Compared with other injection routes, such as subcutaneous, intramuscular and peritoneal injection, the intranasal route can induce both mucosal and systemic immune responses effectively [26]. Additionally, intranasal route has other advantages, such as an ease access to the respiratory tract and low onset-dose of an antigen [27]. Therefore, intranasal delivery is likely to improve the effectiveness of immunization against S. maltophilia infection. Previous studies have found that intranasal immunization with OmpA of Shigella flexneri 2a can induce protective immune response in a mouse model [28], and mucosal immunization with OmpA can stimulate host defense against multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infection [29]. Therefore, an intranasal delivery of OmpA as a vaccine could elicit effective systemic and mucosal immune responses against S. maltophilia infection. OmpA appears as a new type of pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMP) usable as a vector in anti-infectious [30]. Therefore, we investigate the protective efficacy of intranasal immunization with rOmpA without additional adjuvant against S. maltophilia.

In this study, we cloned the ompA gene of S. maltophilia strain K279a and expressed and purified recombinant OmpA (rOmpA) protein successfully. The rOmpA-induced hose defense against S. maltophilia infection and the underlying mechanism were investigated in a mouse model and primary mouse splenocytes.

Materials and methods

Bacterial strains and mice

S. maltophilia strain K279a was purchased from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) and routinely grown in lysogeny broth (LB) or on LB agar plates at 37°C. Because the whole genome of S. maltophilia K279a has been sequenced and S. maltophilia K279a was considered as a representative genome sequence strain [31], we used this strain for the study. E. coli BL21 (DE3) (Novagen) was used for expressing recombinant protein. Specific pathogen-free female C57BL/6 mice were housed at the animal care center of the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS), China. All mice were matched for age and maintained in a specific-pathogen free facility before being challenged by bacterial infection. All experiments were handled according to protocols approved by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of AMMS.

Bioinformatic analysis of the OmpA protein

The amino acid sequence of OmpA from S. maltophilia K279a strain was used as a reference for the alignment analysis [Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) analysis] as described previously [22]. Amino acid sequences of OmpA were manually aligned using ALIGNX (Vector NTI package version 9.0). Antigenicity was analyzed as described [32]. Antigen probability of OmpA was estimated by VaxiJen at http://www.ddg-pharmfac.net/vaxijen/VaxiJen/VaxiJen.html. Hydrophilicity, flexibility, and surface accessibility of OmpA were predicted by using the IEDB tools at http://tools.iedb.org/bcell/.

Preparation of recombinant OmpA (rOmpA)

The strategy for the construction, expression, and purification of the rOmpA was similar to the previous description [29]. Briefly, the ompA gene of S. maltophilia strain K279a was amplified and cloned into the expression vector pET-30a (+) (Takara, Japan). BL21 (DE3) cells transformed with the recombinant vector were grown in LB medium supplemented with kanamycin (50μg/mL) at 37°C until an optical density (OD₆₀₀nm) of 0.4–0.6 was achieved. rOmpA expression was induced by 1 mM isopropyl-β-D-thiogalactopyranoside (IPTG) (Sigma) at 30°C for 6h. The bacterial pellets were collected and lysed by sonication on ice. After centrifugation at 8000rpm 4°C for 15min, the supernatant was harvested. Subsequently, the 6×-His tagged recombinant protein was purified with a HiTrap Chelating HP column (GE Healthcare) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) contamination was then removed from the recombinant protein preparation using the Toxin Eraser endotoxin removal kit (Genscript Biotechnology, Inc.), and the residual LPS level was determined using the Chromogenic End-point Endotoxin Assay Kit (Chinese Horseshoe Crab Reagent Manufactory, Xiamen, China). Purified rOmpA was stored at -80°C before use.

The expression and purity of rOmpA were analyzed by 12% sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) and Coomassie blue staining. After electrophoresis, rOmpA was also transferred to polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) membranes, followed by blocking in 3% bovine serum albumin (BSA) for 2 hours at room temperature. After washing, the membrane was incubated with mouse pre-immune serum (1:2000), mouse anti-inactivated S. maltophilia serum (1:2000), or mouse anti-His primary antibody (1:2000) at 4°C overnight. Then, the membranes were incubated with a goat IRDye680RD-labelled anti-mouse IgG antibody (1:10000) (LI-COR) for 1 hour at room temperature. The blot was imaged using the LI-COR Odyssey Infra-Red Imager.

Immunization protocols and sample collection

In this study, 5-6-week-old female C57BL/6 mice with similar body weight were randomized into rOmpA group and control group. Typically, the mice in rOmpA group were intranasally immunized three times at 7-day intervals with 25μL sterile phosphate buffered solution (PBS) (Gibco) containing 20μg rOmpA. The control mice were immunized with PBS instead. Blood and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) were collected from mice at 7, 14, 21, 50, and 80 days after the first intranasal immunization. The BALF was obtained by lavaging the lung three times with 1mL sterile PBS. The serum samples were centrifuged at 4,000 × g for 10 min, and the BALF supernatants were centrifuged at 2,000 × g for 10 min. The supernatants were harvested. Oral, intestinal, and urethral washes were obtained from mice at 7 days after the last intranasal immunization according to a previously described method [33]. Oral, intestinal, and urethral washes were centrifuged at 2,000 × g for 10 min and the supernatants were harvested. All of these samples were collected in Eppendorf tubes and stored at -80°C for further studies.

Detection of anti-rOmpA antibodies by ELISA

The levels of anti-rOmpA antibodies in serum, BALF, and other mucosal washes samples were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Briefly, 96-well plates were coated with rOmpA at a concentration of 0.5μg/mL overnight at 4°C and blocked with 3% BSA in PBS for 2 h at 37°C. The serum samples were added to wells at a dilution of 1:10000, while oral, intestinal, urethral washes and BALF samples were added to wells at a dilution of 1:2. HRP-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG, IgG₁, IG_2a (diluted 1:8000) (Santa Cruz) and goat anti-mouse IgA (diluted 1:8000) (Santa Cruz) were used as the secondary antibody. Color was developed by adding 100μL 3, 3’, 5, 5’- tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) (Solarbio, China). The plates were kept at 37°C for 15 min and the color development was stopped by adding 100μL 1mmol/ mL H₂SO₄ in each well. The absorbance of the reaction system was measured at 450 nm by using a microplate reader (Thermo Fisher).

Analysis of cellular immune response

In order to evaluate the cellular immune response induced by rOmpA, we isolated primary splenocytes. Mouse spleens isolated from mice 7 days after the last immunization were gently ground, and the spleen tissue homogenate were then filtered through a stainless steel mesh to collect splenocytes. The splenocytes were then washed, re-suspended, and seeded in 24-well culture plates at a density of 3 × 10⁶ cells per well. The cells were cultured in RPMI 1640 (Gibco) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum and 100U/mL streptomycin (Sigma), 100U/mL penicillin (Sigma) at 37°C in a 5% CO₂ incubator. After 4 h of incubation, the cells were stimulated with 5μg rOmpA. The levels of gamma interferon (IFN-γ), interleukin-2 (IL-2), interleukin-4 (IL-4), and interleukin-17A (IL-17A) in the harvested cell-free supernatants at 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after adding rOmpA were detected using ELISA kits (Neobioscience, China) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

S. maltophilia infection challenge in mice

As mentioned above, two groups of female C57BL/6 mice were immunized with PBS or rOmpA. Ten days after the final immunization, 10 mice from each group were challenged with intranasal administration of 25μL S. maltophilia K279a suspension at a dose of 4×10⁹ CFU/mL. Twenty-four hours after the challenge, mice were sacrificed and the lungs were removed aseptically and homogenized in sterile PBS immediately. Samples were serially diluted with sterile PBS and plated on LB agar medium. After overnight incubation, the colonies on agar plates were counted and the bacterial loads in lung were calculated. For pro-inflammatory cytokine assay, mice were sacrificed and BALF was collected at 6 h and 24 h post-challenge. The levels of TNF-a and IL-6 in BALF were measured by sandwich ELISA kits (Neobioscience, China) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Statistical analysis

Comparison between the rOmpA group and control group was analyzed by two-tailed Student’s t-test or Mann-Whitney rank test (for bacterial loads and levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines after the bacterial challenge) using GraphPad Software Prism 5. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median with interquartile range where applicable. The presented results were from at least three independent experiments. Statistical significance was assumed at p<0.05.

Results

Sequence analysis of OmpA

The amino acid sequence of OmpA from S. maltophilia strain K279a was obtained from NCBI. The OmpA protein of S. maltophilia K279a, deduced from the gene (1,098 bp; Smlt0955), is a 366-amino acid protein with an N-terminal signal peptide of 22 amino acids and a conserved C-terminal OmpA domain. BLAST analysis revealed that OmpA shared 86% to 99% sequence identity among S. maltophilia strains and no significant similarity with human and mouse proteomes. Besides, OmpA is widely present in Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, E. coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae strains. Sequence alignment revealed that S. maltophilia K279a OmpA shared a low degree of identity with OmpA from Acinetobacter baumannii (19.8%; AAR83911.1), OprF from P. aeruginosa PA01 (31.6%; NP_250468.1), OmpA from E. coli (21.7%; WP_011703519.1), and OmpA from Klebsiella pneumonia (21.3%;). Antigen probability of OmpA was predicted as 0.7119. The average score of flexibility, hydrophilicity, and surface accessibility for the designed construct were 1.005, 2.238, and 1.000, respectively.

Expression and purification of rOmpA

rOmpA was expressed in E. coli BL21 (DE3) system and purified through a nickel-chelating chromatography successfully. The SDS-PAGE showed that the purified protein was approximately 40 kDa, which is consistent with the calculated molecular weight of rOmpA protein with a poly-histidine tag (Fig 1A). The purity of rOmpA was above 90%, as determined by SDS-PAGE with Coomassie blue staining. Immunoblot analysis demonstrated that the purified rOmpA protein reacted with mouse anti-inactivated S. maltophilia serum and mouse anti-His antibody (Fig 1B). The total proteins of S. maltophilia strain K279a reacted with mouse anti-inactivated S. maltophilia serum, whereas the total proteins of E.coil harboring the empty plasmid induced by IPTG did not show any significant reaction (Fig 1B).

Download:

Fig 1. Representative images of SDS-PAGE and western blotting analysis of OmpA protein.

A: Recombinant OmpA protein was expressed in BL21 and purified using nickel-chelating chromatography. The eluted proteins were subjected to SDS-PAGE and detected by direct staining with Coomassie brilliant blue. Lane M, protein marker (12-80kDa); lane 1, total proteins of uninduced BL21 harboring pET-30a(+)-ompA; lane 2, total proteins of induced BL21 harboring pET-30a(+)-ompA; lane 3, supernatants of induced BL21 harboring pET-30a(+)-ompA; lane 4, precipitation of induced BL21 harboring pET-30a(+)-ompA; lanes 5–8, purified rOmpA (40 kDa). B: Western blotting analysis of rOmpA using mouse pre-immune serum, mouse anti-inactivated S. maltophilia serum, and mouse anti-His antibody. Lane 1, total proteins of induced BL21 harboring pET-30a(+); lane 2, rOmpA; lane 3, total proteins of S. maltophilia strain K279a.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214596.g001

Mouse mucosal immune response induced by intranasal immunization with rOmpA

We determined the levels of secretory IgA (sIgA) in oral, intestinal, urethral washes and BALF to estimate mucosal immune response to intranasal administration of rOmpA. Seven days after the last immunization, the levels of sIgA in oral, intestinal, and urethral washes and BALF from the mice immunized with rOmpA were significantly higher than those from the control mice (P<0.01; Fig 2A). Besides, the immune response, which was represented by the increased sIgA levels, remained at high levels till 80 days after the first immunization (Fig 2B). The sIgA levels in BALF from the rOmpA group increased continuously during immunization and reached a peak at 21 days after the first immunization (Fig 2B). In contrast, rOmpA-induced mucosal sIgA antibody was not detected in BALF from mice immunized with PBS (Fig 2B).

Download:

Fig 2. Mucosal sIgA antibody levels in the mucosal washes.

A: sIgA antibody levels in the oral, intestinal, urethral washes, and BALF from rOmpA-immunized group and control group (n = 5) were measured at 7 days after the last immunization. B: sIgA antibody levels in BALF were detected at 7, 14, 21, 50, and 80 days after the first immunization from mice (n = 5) intranasally immunized with rOmpA or PBS. Data are expressed as mean ± SD. Results are representative for three independent experiments. ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001 for the rOmpA group compared with the control group was analyzed by Student’s t-test (two-tailed).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214596.g002

Mouse systemic humoral immune response induced by intranasal immunization with rOmpA

In order to assess the humoral immune response in mice, we measure rOmpA-induced IgG and sIgA levels in serum samples. Compared with mice immunized with PBS, mice with intranasal immunization of rOmpA showed significantly increased serum levels of IgG (Fig 3A), IgA (Fig 3B), IgG₁ (Fig 3C), and IgG_2a (Fig 3D) at 7 days after the last immunization (All P<0.001). Besides, serum IgG remained at high levels in mice with intranasal immunization with rOmpA even two months after the last immunization (Fig 3E).

Download:

Fig 3. Systemic antibody levels in serum from mice intranasally immunized with rOmpA or PBS.

IgG (A) and IgA (B) antibody levels in serum were detected 7 days after the last immunization from the rOmpA mice and control mice (n = 10). IgG₁ (C) and IgG_2a (D) antibody levels in serum were also detected 7 days after the last immunization from the rOmpA-immunized mice and control mice (n = 9) (C and D). E. IgG antibody levels in serum were detected at 7, 14, 21, 50, and 80 days after the first immunization from the rOmpA-immunized mice and control mice (n = 5). Data are shown as mean ± SD. The results are representative for at least three independent experiments. *** P < 0.001 for the rOmpA group compared with control group was analyzed by Student’s t-test (two-tailed).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214596.g003

Cellular immune response induced by intranasal immunization with rOmpA

We subsequently evaluated the cellular immune response to rOmpA by analyzing cytokine production of primary splenocytes isolated from mice 7 days after the first immunization. The primary splenocytes were isolated from control and rOmpA-immunized mice and then stimulated in vitro with rOmpA (5μg/mL). The levels of IFN-γ, IL-2, IL-4, and IL-17A in the culture media were analyzed by ELISA. The levels of IFN-γ (Fig 4A) and IL-2 (Fig 4B) in the culture supernatant from the rOmpA group were significantly higher than those from the control group (All P<0.05), whereas the IL-4 levels were lower than the limit of detection in this experiment. Besides, 48 and 72 hours after the treatment with rOmpA, the primary splenocytes isolated from rOmpA-immunized mice secreted significantly higher levels of IL-17A than the primary splenocytes isolated from control mice (All P<0.05, Fig 4C).

Download:

Fig 4. Effect of intranasal immunization with rOmpA on cytokine production from primary mouse splenocytes.

Primary splenocytes were harvested from mice immunized with rOmpA or PBS for the detection of IFN-γ (A), IL-2 (B), and IL-17A (C) levels by ELISA. Data are shown as the mean ± SD (n = 4). Results are representative for three independent experiments. * P <0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001 for the rOmpA group compared with control group was analyzed by Student’s t-test (two-tailed).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214596.g004

rOmpA immunization protected mice against respiratory S. maltophilia challenge

In order to determine whether intranasal immunization with rOmpA-induced mucosal and systemic immune response can provide protection against respiratory S. maltophilia infection, we challenged mice with intranasal administration of S. maltophilia 10 days after the last immunization. Twenty-four hours after the challenge, the S. maltophilia loads in lung from the rOmpA group were significantly lower than those from the control group (P<0.01; Fig 5A). Six hours after the challenge, the levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines TNF-α (Fig 5B) and IL-6 (Fig 5C) in BALF were similar in both groups and reduced 24 hours after the challenge. Notably, TNF-α (Fig 5B), and IL-6 (Fig 5C) levels in BALF were significantly lower in mice immunized with rOmpA than in the control mice (All P<0.05) 24 hours after the challenge.

Download:

Fig 5. Bacterial loads in lung and pro-inflammatory cytokine levels after intranasal challenge with S. maltophilia.

A. Mice were challenged intranasally with S. maltophilia 10 days after the last immunization. Twenty four hours after the challenge, S. maltophilia loads in lung homogenate were detected. Data are shown as the median with interquartile range. Results are representative for at least three independent experiments. ** P < 0.01 for the rOmpA group (n = 9) compared with control group (n = 10) was analyzed by Mann-Whitney rank test. The levels of TNF-α (B) and IL-6 (C) in BALF were measured from rOmpA group and control group at 6h and 24h post-challenge. Data are shown as the mean ± SD. Results are representative for three independent experiments. * P <0.05 for the rOmpA group compared with control group (PBS) was analyzed by Mann-Whitney rank test (two-tailed).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214596.g005

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, the current study first investigated rOmpA-mediated immune response and protection against respiratory S. maltophilia infection in mice. We found that intranasal immunization with S. maltophilia rOmpA without additional adjuvant significantly induced systemic and mucosal antibody responses in C57BL/6 mice. The rOmpA immunization-mediated stimulation in serum IgG and BALF mucosal sIgA remained at high levels for a long time. These results indicate intranasal rOmpA immunization may induce strong and sustained systemic and mucosal immune responses in mice. These findings are consistent with the results of previous studies showing that mucosal immunization with recombinant outer membrane protein can induce protective systemic and mucosal immune responses against infections by other Gram-negative bacteria [23, 28, 34, 35]. Serum IgG antibodies are important in systemic humoral immune function, and mucosal sIgA antibodies are the first line of defense against pathogen infection [28]. In this study, mice with intranasal rOmpA immunization also showed significantly increased sIgA levels in the oral, intestinal, and urethral washes, indicating that intranasal delivery of rOmpA may induce immune responses at various mucosal sites. These results are also consistent with the previous study [33].

Previous studies have shown that nasal delivery of an antigen can induce both systemic humoral and cellular immune responses in hosts [33, 36]. In this study, we evaluated the cellular immune response in mice with intranasal rOmpA immunization by analyzing rOmpA-induced IFN-γ, IL-2, IL-4, and IL-17A secretion from primary splenocytes. We found that rOmpA treatment induced significantly and substantially higher IFN-γ secretion from the primary splenocytes of rOmpA-immuned mice than from the primary splenocytes isolated from PBS-immunized mice. However, IL-4 levels were too low to be detected in our study. One of the major cytokines associated with Th1 cells is IFN-γ, while Th2 cells mainly secrete IL-4 [36, 37]. Thus, our results suggest that intranasal rOmpA immunization may mainly induce Th1-type cellular immune response, which activates the phagocytic function of macrophages and natural killer cells and directly stimulates CD8⁺ T cell cytotoxicity. Additionally, Th1 cells can secrete IL-2 as well, which can then further stimulate IFN-γ production and enhance cytotoxicity [33]. In our study, rOmpA-induced increase in IL-2 levels occurred at 12 hours after splenocytes were exposed to rOmpA, whereas rOmpA-induced IFN-γ elevation became significant 24 hours after the exposure. Furthermore, our results showed the IL-17A secretion from primary splenocytes of rOmpA-immuned mice was significantly stimulated by rOmpA. Th17 cells are key mediators of barrier immunity [38], and IL-17 response from mucosal γδ T cells is essential to local immunity [39]. Other studies also reported the IL-17A-mediated production of sIgA in the small intestine and lung [36].

Our findings showed that intranasal immunization with rOmpA induced mucosal and systemic antibody responses and robust Th1- and Th17-mediated cellular immune responses. These immune responses could provide protection against respiratory S. maltophilia challenge. In fact, our results showed that intranasal immunization with rOmpA did reduce the bacterial burden in mouse lung at 24h after respiratory S. maltophilia infection challenge in mice. Moreover, respiratory infections could induce cytokine storm, which may lead to severe damage and potentially fatal to the host. In our study, vaccination with rOmpA significantly reduced the levels of TNF-α and IL-6 in BALF at 24 hours after respiratory S. maltophilia challenge in mice. Therefore, intranasal immunization with rOmpA could protect host against S. maltophilia infection by reducing bacterial load and preventing excessive pro-inflammatory response in hosts.

Conclusions

Intranasal immunization with rOmpA of S. maltophilia without additional adjuvant induced mucosal, systemic, and Th1- and Th17-mediated cellular immune responses, which in turn protected mice against nasal S. maltophilia infection. Therefore, rOmpA could be a promising and effective vaccine candidate against S. maltophilia infection. In fact, intranasal vaccination may offer an alternative approach to current strategies since it induces a mucosal as well as a systemic immune response.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was performed in accordance with national guidelines and regulations, and all animal experiments were approved by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS).

References

1. Brooke JS. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: an emerging global opportunistic pathogen. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012;25(1):2–41. pmid:22232370
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Zgair AK, Chhibber S. Adhesion of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia to mouse tracheal mucus is mediated through flagella. J Med Microbiol. 2011;60(Pt 7):1032–1037. pmid:21415208
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Cho SY, Lee DG, Choi SM, Park C, Chun HS, Park YJ, et al. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia bloodstream infection in patients with hematologic malignancies: a retrospective study and in vitro activities of antimicrobial combinations. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:69. pmid:25887489
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Rousseau A, Morcos M, Amrouche L, Fois E, Casetta A, Rio B, et al. Lethal pulmonary hemorrhage caused by a fulminant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia respiratory infection in an acute myeloid leukemia patient. Leuk Lymphoma. 2004;45(6):1293–1296. pmid:15360016
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Cha MK, Kang CI, Kim SH, Cho SY, Ha YE, Chung DR, et al. Emergence of fluoroquinolone-resistant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in blood isolates causing bacteremia: molecular epidemiology and microbiologic characteristics. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016;85(2):210–212. pmid:27117514
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
6. Khassawneh M, Hayajneh W. Treatment of Stenotrophomonas neonatal urinary tract infection with instillation of ciprofloxacin. Pediatr Nephrol. 2010;25(7):1377. pmid:20165887
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Correia CR, Ferreira ST, Nunes P. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: rare cause of meningitis. Pediatr Int. 2014;56(4):e21–22. pmid:25252064
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Belzunegui J, De Dios JR, Intxausti JJ, Iribarren JA. Septic arthritis caused by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in a patient with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2000;18(2):265. pmid:10812507
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Subhani S, Patnaik AN, Barik R, Nemani L. Infective endocarditis caused by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: A report of two cases and review of literature. Indian Heart J. 2016;68 Suppl 2:S267–S270.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Lopez-Cardenas S, Perez-Cortes S, Reguera-Garcia A, Alados-Arboledas JC. [Community acquired Stenotrophomonas maltophilia soft-tissue infection in a previously healthy patient]. Med Clin (Barc). 2012;138(9):411–412.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Nicodemo AC, Paez JI. Antimicrobial therapy for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007;26(4):229–237. pmid:17334747
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Koebnik R, Locher KP, Van Gelder P. Structure and function of bacterial outer membrane proteins: barrels in a nutshell. Mol Microbiol. 2000;37(2):239–253. pmid:10931321
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Bertot GM, Restelli MA, Galanternik L, Aranibar Urey RC, Valvano MA, Grinstein S. Nasal immunization with Burkholderia multivorans outer membrane proteins and the mucosal adjuvant adamantylamide dipeptide confers efficient protection against experimental lung infections with B. multivorans and B. cenocepacia. Infect Immun. 2007;75(6):2740–2752. pmid:17296759
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Huntley JF, Conley PG, Rasko DA, Hagman KE, Apicella MA, Norgard MV. Native outer membrane proteins protect mice against pulmonary challenge with virulent type A Francisella tularensis. Infect Immun. 2008;76(8):3664–3671. pmid:18505805
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Kim DK, Kim JJ, Kim JH, Woo YM, Kim S, Yoon DW, et al. Comparison of two immunization schedules for a Pseudomonas aeruginosa outer membrane proteins vaccine in burn patients. Vaccine. 2000;19(9–10):1274–1283. pmid:11137267
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. McConnell MJ, Dominguez-Herrera J, Smani Y, Lopez-Rojas R, Docobo-Perez F, Pachon J. Vaccination with outer membrane complexes elicits rapid protective immunity to multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Infect Immun. 2011;79(1):518–526. pmid:20974823
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Wang X, Peng L, Wang K, Wang J, He Y, Wang E, et al. The outer membrane proteins of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia are potential vaccine candidates for channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2016;57:318–324. pmid:27574827
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. McConnell MJ, Pachon J. Active and passive immunization against Acinetobacter baumannii using an inactivated whole cell vaccine. Vaccine. 2010;29(1):1–5. pmid:21044668
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Xu G, Tang X, Shang X, Li Y, Wang J, Yue J, et al. Identification of immunogenic outer membrane proteins and evaluation of their protective efficacy against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18, 347. pmid:30053835
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Guan Q, Wang X, Wang X, Teng D, Mao R, Zhang Y, et al. Recombinant outer membrane protein A induces a protective immune response against Escherichia coli infection in mice. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015;99(13):5451–5460. pmid:25567514
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Chalifour A, Jeannin P, Gauchat JF, Blaecke A, Malissard M, N'Guyen T, et al. Direct bacterial protein PAMP recognition by human NK cells involves TLRs and triggers alpha-defensin production. Blood. 2004;104(6):1778–1783. pmid:15166032
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Luo G, Lin L, Ibrahim AS, Baquir B, Pantapalangkoor P, Bonomo RA, et al. Active and passive immunization protects against lethal, extreme drug resistant-Acinetobacter baumannii infection. PLoS one. 2012;7(1):e29446. pmid:22253723
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Cui Z, Han D, Sun X, Zhang M, Feng X, Sun C, et al. Mannose-modified chitosan microspheres enhance OprF-OprI-mediated protection of mice against Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection via induction of mucosal immunity. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015;99(2):667–680. pmid:25381907
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
24. Chen YY, Wu HC, Lin JW, Weng SF. Functional properties of the major outer membrane protein in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. J Microbiol. 2015;53(8):535–543. pmid:26224456
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Takahashi I, Nochi T, Yuki Y, Kiyono H. New horizon of mucosal immunity and vaccines. Curr Opin Immunol. 2009, 21(3):352–358. pmid:19493665
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Davis SS. Nasal vaccines. Advanced drug delivery reviews. 2001;51(1–3):21–42. pmid:11516777
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. O'Hagan DT, Valiante NM. Recent advances in the discovery and delivery of vaccine adjuvants. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003;2(9):727–735. pmid:12951579
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Pore D, Mahata N, Pal A, Chakrabarti MK. Outer membrane protein A (OmpA) of Shigella flexneri 2a, induces protective immune response in a mouse model. PLoS one. 2011;6(7):e22663. pmid:21818362
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Zhang X, Yang T, Cao J, Sun J, Dai W, Zhang L. Mucosal immunization with purified OmpA elicited protective immunity against infections caused by multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Microb Pathog. 2016;96:20–25. pmid:27133268
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Jeannin P1, Magistrelli G, Goetsch L, Haeuw JF, Thieblemont N, Bonnefoy JY, et al. Outer membrane protein A (OmpA): a new pathogen-associated molecular pattern that interacts with antigen presenting cells—impact on vaccine strategies. Vaccine. 2002;20 Suppl 4:A23–27.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. Crossman LC, Gould VC, Dow JM, Vernikos GS, Okazaki A, Sebaihia M, et al. The complete genome, comparative and functional analysis of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia reveals an organism heavily shielded by drug resistance determinants. Genome Biol. 2008;9(4):R74. pmid:18419807
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Jahangiri A, Rasooli I, Owlia P, Fooladi AA, Salimian J. In silico design of an immunogen against Acinetobacter baumannii based on a novel model for native structure of Outer membrane protein A. Microb Pathog. 2017;105:201–210. pmid:28242426
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Liu Z, Yin L, Li Y, Yuan F, Zhang X, Ma J, et al. Intranasal immunization with recombinant Toxoplasma gondii actin depolymerizing factor confers protective efficacy against toxoplasmosis in mice. BMC Immunol. 2016;17(1):37. pmid:27716047
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Yagnik B, Sharma D, Padh H, Desai P. Immunization with r-Lactococcus lactis expressing outer membrane protein A of Shigella dysenteriae type-1: evaluation of oral and intranasal route of administration. J Appl Microbiol. 2017;122(2):493–505. pmid:27860045
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Hongying F, Xianbo W, Fang Y, Yang B, Beiguo L. Oral immunization with recombinant Lactobacillus acidophilus expressing the adhesin Hp0410 of Helicobacter pylori induces mucosal and systemic immune responses. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2014;21(2):126–132. pmid:24285819
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Liu Y, Wang H, Zhang S, Zeng L, Xu X, Wu K, et al. Mucosal immunization with recombinant fusion protein DnaJ-DeltaA146Ply enhances cross-protective immunity against Streptococcus pneumoniae infection in mice via interleukin 17A. Infect Immun. 2014;82(4):1666–1675. pmid:24491576
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Iliev ID, Leonardi I. Fungal dysbiosis: immunity and interactions at mucosal barriers. Nat Rev Immunol. 2017;17(10):635–646. pmid:28604735
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Dutzan N, Abusleme L, Bridgeman H, Greenwell-Wild T, Zangerle-Murray T, Fife ME, et al. On-going Mechanical Damage from Mastication Drives Homeostatic Th17 Cell Responses at the Oral Barrier. Immunity. 2017;46(1):133–147. pmid:28087239
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. St Leger AJ, Desai JV, Drummond RA, Kugadas A, Almaghrabi F, Silver P, et al. An Ocular Commensal Protects against Corneal Infection by Driving an Interleukin-17 Response from Mucosal gammadelta T Cells. Immunity. 2017;47(1):148–158 e145. pmid:28709803
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Brooke JS. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: an emerging global opportunistic pathogen. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012;25(1):2–41. pmid:22232370
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Zgair AK, Chhibber S. Adhesion of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia to mouse tracheal mucus is mediated through flagella. J Med Microbiol. 2011;60(Pt 7):1032–1037. pmid:21415208
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Cho SY, Lee DG, Choi SM, Park C, Chun HS, Park YJ, et al. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia bloodstream infection in patients with hematologic malignancies: a retrospective study and in vitro activities of antimicrobial combinations. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:69. pmid:25887489
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Rousseau A, Morcos M, Amrouche L, Fois E, Casetta A, Rio B, et al. Lethal pulmonary hemorrhage caused by a fulminant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia respiratory infection in an acute myeloid leukemia patient. Leuk Lymphoma. 2004;45(6):1293–1296. pmid:15360016
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] PubMed/NCBI

[16] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Cha MK, Kang CI, Kim SH, Cho SY, Ha YE, Chung DR, et al. Emergence of fluoroquinolone-resistant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in blood isolates causing bacteremia: molecular epidemiology and microbiologic characteristics. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016;85(2):210–212. pmid:27117514
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] PubMed/NCBI

[20] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Khassawneh M, Hayajneh W. Treatment of Stenotrophomonas neonatal urinary tract infection with instillation of ciprofloxacin. Pediatr Nephrol. 2010;25(7):1377. pmid:20165887
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[22] View Article

[23] PubMed/NCBI

[24] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Correia CR, Ferreira ST, Nunes P. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: rare cause of meningitis. Pediatr Int. 2014;56(4):e21–22. pmid:25252064
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] PubMed/NCBI

[28] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Belzunegui J, De Dios JR, Intxausti JJ, Iribarren JA. Septic arthritis caused by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in a patient with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2000;18(2):265. pmid:10812507
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Subhani S, Patnaik AN, Barik R, Nemani L. Infective endocarditis caused by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia: A report of two cases and review of literature. Indian Heart J. 2016;68 Suppl 2:S267–S270.
View Article
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Lopez-Cardenas S, Perez-Cortes S, Reguera-Garcia A, Alados-Arboledas JC. [Community acquired Stenotrophomonas maltophilia soft-tissue infection in a previously healthy patient]. Med Clin (Barc). 2012;138(9):411–412.
View Article
Google Scholar

[37] View Article

[38] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Nicodemo AC, Paez JI. Antimicrobial therapy for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007;26(4):229–237. pmid:17334747
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[40] View Article

[41] PubMed/NCBI

[42] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Koebnik R, Locher KP, Van Gelder P. Structure and function of bacterial outer membrane proteins: barrels in a nutshell. Mol Microbiol. 2000;37(2):239–253. pmid:10931321
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] PubMed/NCBI

[46] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Bertot GM, Restelli MA, Galanternik L, Aranibar Urey RC, Valvano MA, Grinstein S. Nasal immunization with Burkholderia multivorans outer membrane proteins and the mucosal adjuvant adamantylamide dipeptide confers efficient protection against experimental lung infections with B. multivorans and B. cenocepacia. Infect Immun. 2007;75(6):2740–2752. pmid:17296759
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[48] View Article

[49] PubMed/NCBI

[50] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Huntley JF, Conley PG, Rasko DA, Hagman KE, Apicella MA, Norgard MV. Native outer membrane proteins protect mice against pulmonary challenge with virulent type A Francisella tularensis. Infect Immun. 2008;76(8):3664–3671. pmid:18505805
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[52] View Article

[53] PubMed/NCBI

[54] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Kim DK, Kim JJ, Kim JH, Woo YM, Kim S, Yoon DW, et al. Comparison of two immunization schedules for a Pseudomonas aeruginosa outer membrane proteins vaccine in burn patients. Vaccine. 2000;19(9–10):1274–1283. pmid:11137267
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] PubMed/NCBI

[58] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. McConnell MJ, Dominguez-Herrera J, Smani Y, Lopez-Rojas R, Docobo-Perez F, Pachon J. Vaccination with outer membrane complexes elicits rapid protective immunity to multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Infect Immun. 2011;79(1):518–526. pmid:20974823
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[60] View Article

[61] PubMed/NCBI

[62] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Wang X, Peng L, Wang K, Wang J, He Y, Wang E, et al. The outer membrane proteins of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia are potential vaccine candidates for channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2016;57:318–324. pmid:27574827
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[64] View Article

[65] PubMed/NCBI

[66] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. McConnell MJ, Pachon J. Active and passive immunization against Acinetobacter baumannii using an inactivated whole cell vaccine. Vaccine. 2010;29(1):1–5. pmid:21044668
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[68] View Article

[69] PubMed/NCBI

[70] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Xu G, Tang X, Shang X, Li Y, Wang J, Yue J, et al. Identification of immunogenic outer membrane proteins and evaluation of their protective efficacy against Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18, 347. pmid:30053835
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[72] View Article

[73] PubMed/NCBI

[74] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Guan Q, Wang X, Wang X, Teng D, Mao R, Zhang Y, et al. Recombinant outer membrane protein A induces a protective immune response against Escherichia coli infection in mice. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015;99(13):5451–5460. pmid:25567514
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[76] View Article

[77] PubMed/NCBI

[78] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Chalifour A, Jeannin P, Gauchat JF, Blaecke A, Malissard M, N'Guyen T, et al. Direct bacterial protein PAMP recognition by human NK cells involves TLRs and triggers alpha-defensin production. Blood. 2004;104(6):1778–1783. pmid:15166032
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[80] View Article

[81] PubMed/NCBI

[82] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Luo G, Lin L, Ibrahim AS, Baquir B, Pantapalangkoor P, Bonomo RA, et al. Active and passive immunization protects against lethal, extreme drug resistant-Acinetobacter baumannii infection. PLoS one. 2012;7(1):e29446. pmid:22253723
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[84] View Article

[85] PubMed/NCBI

[86] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Cui Z, Han D, Sun X, Zhang M, Feng X, Sun C, et al. Mannose-modified chitosan microspheres enhance OprF-OprI-mediated protection of mice against Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection via induction of mucosal immunity. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015;99(2):667–680. pmid:25381907
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[88] View Article

[89] PubMed/NCBI

[90] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Chen YY, Wu HC, Lin JW, Weng SF. Functional properties of the major outer membrane protein in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. J Microbiol. 2015;53(8):535–543. pmid:26224456
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[92] View Article

[93] PubMed/NCBI

[94] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Takahashi I, Nochi T, Yuki Y, Kiyono H. New horizon of mucosal immunity and vaccines. Curr Opin Immunol. 2009, 21(3):352–358. pmid:19493665
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[96] View Article

[97] PubMed/NCBI

[98] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Davis SS. Nasal vaccines. Advanced drug delivery reviews. 2001;51(1–3):21–42. pmid:11516777
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] PubMed/NCBI

[102] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. O'Hagan DT, Valiante NM. Recent advances in the discovery and delivery of vaccine adjuvants. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003;2(9):727–735. pmid:12951579
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] PubMed/NCBI

[106] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Pore D, Mahata N, Pal A, Chakrabarti MK. Outer membrane protein A (OmpA) of Shigella flexneri 2a, induces protective immune response in a mouse model. PLoS one. 2011;6(7):e22663. pmid:21818362
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[108] View Article

[109] PubMed/NCBI

[110] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Zhang X, Yang T, Cao J, Sun J, Dai W, Zhang L. Mucosal immunization with purified OmpA elicited protective immunity against infections caused by multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Microb Pathog. 2016;96:20–25. pmid:27133268
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[112] View Article

[113] PubMed/NCBI

[114] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Jeannin P1, Magistrelli G, Goetsch L, Haeuw JF, Thieblemont N, Bonnefoy JY, et al. Outer membrane protein A (OmpA): a new pathogen-associated molecular pattern that interacts with antigen presenting cells—impact on vaccine strategies. Vaccine. 2002;20 Suppl 4:A23–27.
View Article
Google Scholar

[116] View Article

[117] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Crossman LC, Gould VC, Dow JM, Vernikos GS, Okazaki A, Sebaihia M, et al. The complete genome, comparative and functional analysis of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia reveals an organism heavily shielded by drug resistance determinants. Genome Biol. 2008;9(4):R74. pmid:18419807
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[119] View Article

[120] PubMed/NCBI

[121] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Jahangiri A, Rasooli I, Owlia P, Fooladi AA, Salimian J. In silico design of an immunogen against Acinetobacter baumannii based on a novel model for native structure of Outer membrane protein A. Microb Pathog. 2017;105:201–210. pmid:28242426
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[123] View Article

[124] PubMed/NCBI

[125] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Liu Z, Yin L, Li Y, Yuan F, Zhang X, Ma J, et al. Intranasal immunization with recombinant Toxoplasma gondii actin depolymerizing factor confers protective efficacy against toxoplasmosis in mice. BMC Immunol. 2016;17(1):37. pmid:27716047
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] PubMed/NCBI

[129] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Yagnik B, Sharma D, Padh H, Desai P. Immunization with r-Lactococcus lactis expressing outer membrane protein A of Shigella dysenteriae type-1: evaluation of oral and intranasal route of administration. J Appl Microbiol. 2017;122(2):493–505. pmid:27860045
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[131] View Article

[132] PubMed/NCBI

[133] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Hongying F, Xianbo W, Fang Y, Yang B, Beiguo L. Oral immunization with recombinant Lactobacillus acidophilus expressing the adhesin Hp0410 of Helicobacter pylori induces mucosal and systemic immune responses. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2014;21(2):126–132. pmid:24285819
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[135] View Article

[136] PubMed/NCBI

[137] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Liu Y, Wang H, Zhang S, Zeng L, Xu X, Wu K, et al. Mucosal immunization with recombinant fusion protein DnaJ-DeltaA146Ply enhances cross-protective immunity against Streptococcus pneumoniae infection in mice via interleukin 17A. Infect Immun. 2014;82(4):1666–1675. pmid:24491576
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[139] View Article

[140] PubMed/NCBI

[141] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Iliev ID, Leonardi I. Fungal dysbiosis: immunity and interactions at mucosal barriers. Nat Rev Immunol. 2017;17(10):635–646. pmid:28604735
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[143] View Article

[144] PubMed/NCBI

[145] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Dutzan N, Abusleme L, Bridgeman H, Greenwell-Wild T, Zangerle-Murray T, Fife ME, et al. On-going Mechanical Damage from Mastication Drives Homeostatic Th17 Cell Responses at the Oral Barrier. Immunity. 2017;46(1):133–147. pmid:28087239
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[147] View Article

[148] PubMed/NCBI

[149] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. St Leger AJ, Desai JV, Drummond RA, Kugadas A, Almaghrabi F, Silver P, et al. An Ocular Commensal Protects against Corneal Infection by Driving an Interleukin-17 Response from Mucosal gammadelta T Cells. Immunity. 2017;47(1):148–158 e145. pmid:28709803
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[151] View Article

[152] PubMed/NCBI

[153] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Bacterial strains and mice

Bioinformatic analysis of the OmpA protein

Preparation of recombinant OmpA (rOmpA)

Immunization protocols and sample collection

Detection of anti-rOmpA antibodies by ELISA

Analysis of cellular immune response

S. maltophilia infection challenge in mice

Statistical analysis

Results

Sequence analysis of OmpA

Expression and purification of rOmpA

Mouse mucosal immune response induced by intranasal immunization with rOmpA

Mouse systemic humoral immune response induced by intranasal immunization with rOmpA

Cellular immune response induced by intranasal immunization with rOmpA

rOmpA immunization protected mice against respiratory S. maltophilia challenge

Discussion

Conclusions

Ethics approval and consent to participate

References