Comparison of mucosal and systemic humoral immune responses and subsequent protection in mice orally inoculated with a homologous or a heterologous rotavirus.
Rotaviruses are the single most important cause of severe diarrhea in young children worldwide, and vaccination is probably the most effective way to control the disease. Most current live virus vaccine candidates are based on the host range-restricted attenuation of heterologous animal rotaviruses in humans. The protective efficacy of these vaccine candidates has been variable. To better understand the nature of the heterologous rotavirus-induced active immune response, we compared the differences in the mucosal and systemic immune responses generated by heterologous (nonmurine) and homologous (murine) rotaviruses as well as the ability of these infections to produce subsequent protective immunity in a mouse model. Sucking mice were orally inoculated with a heterologous simian or bovine rotavirus (strain RRV or NCDV) or a homologous murine rotavirus (wild-type or tissue culture-adapted) strain EHP at various doses. Six weeks later, mice were challenged with a virulent murine rotavirus (wild-type strain ECW) and the shedding of viral antigen in feces was quantitated. Levels of rotavirus-specific serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) and fecal IgA prior to challenge were measured and correlated with subsequent viral shedding or protection. Heterologous rotavirus-induced active protection was highly dependent on the strain and dose of the virus tested. Mice inoculated with a high dose (10(7) PFU per mouse) of RRV were completely protected, while the protection was diminished in animals inoculated with NCDV or lower doses of RRV. The ability of a heterologous rotavirus to stimulate a detectable intestinal IgA response correlated with the ability of the virus to generate protective immunity. Serum IgG titer did not correlate with protection. Homologous rotavirus infection, on the other hand, was much more efficient at inducing both mucosal and systemic immune responses as well as protection regardless of the virulence of the virus strain or the size of the immunizing dose.
Feng
N
N
Department of Medicine, Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine, California 94305.
Burns
J W
JW
Bracy
L
L
Greenberg
H B
HB
D000284:Administration, Oral; D000818:Animals; D000833:Animals, Suckling; D000914:Antibodies, Viral / Q000097:blood; D000917:Antibody Formation; D000956:Antigens, Viral / Q000032:analysis; D002417:Cattle; D004797:Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; D005260:Female; D000882:Haplorhini; D007070:Immunoglobulin A / Q000032:analysis; D007074:Immunoglobulin G / Q000097:blood; D007413:Intestinal Mucosa / Q000276:immunology*; D051379:Mice; D008807:Mice, Inbred BALB C; D011247:Pregnancy; D012401:Rotavirus / Q000276:immunology* / Q000472:pathogenicity; D012400:Rotavirus Infections / Q000276:immunology* / Q000517:prevention & control; D013045:Species Specificity; D014765:Viral Vaccines / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000276:immunology*; D014774:Virulence; D017201:Virus Shedding
D000914:Antibodies, Viral; D000956:Antigens, Viral; D007070:Immunoglobulin A; D007074:Immunoglobulin G; D014765:Viral Vaccines