Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Infection and Immunity, August 2007, p. 3758-3768, Vol. 75, No. 8
0019-9567/07/$08.00+0 doi:10.1128/IAI.00225-07
Copyright © 2007, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Seattle Biomedical Research Institute, Seattle, Washington 98109,1 Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology and The Malaria Research Institute, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205,2 Department of Pathobiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 981953
Received 11 February 2007/ Returned for modification 18 March 2007/ Accepted 9 May 2007
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Once deposited into the host skin by a mosquito bite, the motile sporozoites actively enter blood vessels and are transported by the blood circulation to the liver (34). In the liver, they cross the vascular endothelium by passage through resident Kupffer cells in order to reach the space of Disse (1, 6). This allows them free access to hepatocytes (11). Sporozoites traverse several hepatocytes (5, 20) before they infect a single hepatocyte by forming a replication-permissive parasitophorous vacuole (PV) compartment. The molecular mechanisms that control the parasites' complex journey and the final establishment of an intrahepatocytic niche are poorly understood, but a number of sporozoite proteins on the cell surface or in the secretory organelles have emerged as being critical for distinct steps (14). The best-studied proteins are the circumsporozoite protein (CSP) and the thrombospondin-related anonymous protein (TRAP). CSP and TRAP are involved in various steps of mammalian host infection such as gliding motility, host cell recognition, and host cell invasion. Parasites lacking CSP do not form sporozoites within oocysts (18), and parasites lacking TRAP completely lose the ability to infect the mosquito salivary glands and hepatocytes (29). More recently, sporozoite microneme protein essential for cell traversal 1 (SPECT1) (11), the Plasmodium perforin-like protein 1 (PPLP1) (9, 12), and the cell traversal protein for ookinete and sporozoite activity (CelTOS) (16) were specifically implicated in cell traversal. However, parasites with a targeted disruption of the genes encoding cell traversal-associated proteins retain their ability to infect and grow in hepatocytes. Recently, two additional proteins, P52 (also termed P36p) (15) and P36 (31), have been implicated in sporozoite infection of hepatocytes by Plasmodium berghei but not gliding motility or cell traversal (10, 35). P52 and P36 are members of the 6-Cys protein superfamily characterized by domains with six position-conserved cysteines, a structure unique to Plasmodium species (3). Eight genes from this family are arranged as paralogous gene pairs. The P52 and P36 genes are arranged in tandem in the genome of Plasmodium yoelii (contig MALPY00354) and other Plasmodium species. Different members of the 6-Cys superfamily are expressed in distinct parasite stages. The gametocyte-expressed members P48 and P45 are critical for gamete fertilization, and P230 is important for the interaction of male gametes with red blood cells (4, 36). Thus, 6-Cys proteins are likely parasite ligands that mediate interactions between gametes or the interaction of parasites and host cells. Interestingly, a recent structure prediction analysis showed similarity between 6-Cys proteins and Toxoplasma gondii SAG1 (surface antigen 1), a member of the glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI)-linked surface proteins, which mediates attachment to host cells (7). P52 and P36 are uniquely expressed in sporozoites. A lack of P52 that localized to the secretory micronemes shows a significant but not complete reduction of infectivity for the mammalian host (10, 35). Those two studies showed conflicting results concerning the phenotype of p52-deficient parasites. Ishino et al. (10) found that p52-deficient parasites significantly increased their cell traversal activity and could form a PV upon invasion. In contrast, van Dijk et al. (35) did not observe an increase in cell traversal and did not observe a PV late in infection. We have shown that UIS3 and UIS4 (up-regulated in infective sporozoite genes 3 and 4), small membrane proteins of the sporozoite secretory organelles (13), and the LS PV membrane (PVM) are essential for LS development of P. berghei (21, 22). P. yoelii uis3- and uis4-deficient sporozoites successfully invade host cells and form the early LS inside an intact PV, but they fail to develop and in consequence cannot initiate blood-stage infection (30). Strikingly, parasites that infect the liver but are unable to undergo growth make powerful vaccines. Immunizations with uis3- or uis4-deficient sporozoites completely protected mice against subsequent infectious sporozoite challenge (21, 22). The use of genetically attenuated parasites (GAPs) as a live attenuated malaria vaccine for humans may thus hold great promise, but a critical issue to be addressed is the proper complete attenuation of the vaccine (8, 26). Single-gene deletions may not be sufficient to completely attenuate the parasite, and therefore, vaccination could lead to breakthrough infections. For example, immunization of mice with p52-deficient sporozoites protected against subsequent infectious sporozoite challenge, but the immunizations led to sporozoite dose-dependent breakthrough infections in a substantial number of animals (10, 35).
In this study, we asked whether the deletion of P52 and P36 in the same parasite would lead to a complete block of infectivity for the mammalian host, thus not causing a breakthrough blood-stage infection. The tandem arrangement of the genes allowed the deletion of both genes (double knockout) with a single genetic manipulation. We used P. yoelii because its low 50% infective dose in BALB/c mice (<10 sporozoites) provides a more sensitive malaria infectivity model in mice compared to P. berghei infectivity in mice (2). The simultaneous deletion of P52 and P36 causes a complete loss of P. yoelii sporozoite infectivity for the rodent host even with a high- dose sporozoite inoculum. Double-knockout p52/p36-deficient sporozoites enter and traverse host cells normally but cannot establish a PV early in hepatocyte infection. Using this double knockout as a vaccine in mouse immunizations, we show its efficacy to induce sterile protection against infectious sporozoite challenge by intravenous injection or by mosquito bite.
|
|
|---|
Generation of Py52/Py36-deficient parasites.
For the targeted deletion of the P52 and P36 genomic locus by replacement, two DNA fragments were amplified using P. yoelii 17XNL genomic DNA as a template: a 603-bp 5' untranslated region fragment of P. yoelii P52 (Py52) and a 414-bp fragment in the 3' end of the P. yoelii P36 (Py36) open reading frame (ORF). The primers used were Py52-5'RepF (5'-AATTGGTACCCAAATTAGTGCATGTATACAAGTAT-3' [the KpnI site is in italics]) and Py52-5'RepR (5'-ATATCCTGCAGGCAAACGGTAATAGTGGACATCAT-3' [the SbfI site is in italics]) for the first fragment and Py36-3'RepF (5'-AATTGGATCCTGAAATAGATGCATATCCTGGG-3' [the BamHI site is in italics]) and Py36-3'RepR (5'-AATTACTAGTGTATGAATTGCGTGAGAAATGC-3' [the SpeI site is in italics]) for the second fragment. Cloning into the plasmid b3D.DT
.
targeting vector (provided by Andy Waters) resulted in plasmid Py52/36Repb3D.DT
.
. Transfection was performed by using a Nucleofector device (Amaxa GmbH). Approximately 1.0 x 107 purified P. yoelii mature schizonts were mixed with 14 µg of the replacement fragment excised by KpnI/SacII digestion per 10 µl of Tris-EDTA (pH 8.0) and 100 µl of Human T Cell Nucleofector solution (Amaxa GmbH). Parasites were transfected using the electroporation program U-033, which is available with the Nucleofector device, and injected intravenously into naïve SW recipient mice. Drug-resistant parasites were selected by pyrimethamine administered in the drinking water of mice (70 µg/ml). DNA genotyping by PCR of wild-type (wt) and p52/p36-deficient parasites was performed using primers specific for the wt locus (sense primer5'-GAATCAAATGAGCGCACACACAATG-3' and antisense primer5'-GGTTTTCAATAATGTCATTCATGC-3') and the p52/p36-deficient locus (sense primer5'-TGATGTTTTTTCCTTCAATTTCG-3' and antisense primer5'-TTGTTCATACGCATATTTGTTATAG-3'). Two independent clones, p52/p36-deficient clone 1 (Cl1) and p52/p36-deficient Cl2, were obtained by limited dilution from independent transfection experiments. A wt clone that did not have the gene deletion but that underwent the same experimental manipulations was generated as a control parasite.
Reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR). To evaluate transcript expression, 1.0 x 106 salivary gland wt clone sporozoites and p52/p36-deficient Cl1 and Cl2 sporozoites were collected. RNA was extracted using TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen) and treated with TURBO DNase (Ambion). cDNA synthesis was performed using the Super Script III Platinum 2-step qRT-PCR kit (Invitrogen). Py52, Py36, and P. yoelii CSP (PyCSP) gene-specific oligonucleotide primers were used in a standard PCR amplification (30 cycles). Sequences were as follows: sense primer5'-GAATCAAATGAGCGCACACACAATG-3' and antisense primer5'-GGTTTTCAATAATGTCATTCATGC-3' for P52, sense primer5'-TTACATACACACTTTACCTGGAG-3' and antisense primer5'-GTATGAATTGCGTGAGAAATGC-3' for P36, and sense primer5'-AGCCCAAAGAAACTTAAACGAGC-3' and antisense primer5'-GCCAAGTAATCTGTTGACTATATTTCGA-3' for CSP.
Phenotypic analysis of Py52/Py36-deficient parasites in the mosquito. Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes were infected with Py52/Py36-deficient parasites and control wt clone parasites by blood feeding for 5 min on the first day and 15 min on the following day on infected SW mice and subsequently maintained under a cycle of 12.5 h light/11.5 h dark and 70% humidity at 24.5°C. Gametocyte exflagellation capacity was evaluated microscopically before mosquito blood meal. Infected mosquitoes were dissected (30 mosquitoes for each dissection) at days 10 and 14 (after the first infectious blood meal) to determine the mean number of midgut oocyst sporozoites and salivary gland sporozoites, respectively, per mosquito by using a hemocytometer.
In vitro analysis of infection. All the in vitro assays were conducted using the human hepatoma cell line HepG2 expressing the tetraspanin CD81 (HepG2-CD81) (28) cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium with 10% fetal calf serum at 37°C and 5% CO2. Infections were done by adding 5.0 x 104 sporozoites to 8.0 x 104 subconfluent HepG2-CD81 cells per well (Permanox eight-well chamber slide; Nalge Nunc International, Rochester, NY), except for the cell-wounding assay, where 3.0 x 104 sporozoites were used to infect 5.0 x 104 subconfluent HepG2-CD81 cells per well.
A double-staining test to differentiate sporozoites outside a host cell from sporozoites inside a host cell (hepatocyte entry) was performed as described previously (27), with modifications. After 60 min of incubation, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde, blocked with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)-1% fetal calf serum, and stained with anti-PyCSP 9D3 primary antibody (Ab), followed by Alexa Fluor 594 (red) goat anti-mouse immunoglobulin G (IgG) (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR). After washing with PBS, cell membranes were permeabilized with 100% methanol at room temperature. Cells were again blocked and then stained with anti-PyCSP Ab followed by Alexa Fluor 488 (green) goat anti-mouse IgG secondary Ab. For the cell-wounding assay, P. yoelii wt, p52/p36-deficient sporozoites, and uninfected salivary gland extracts (mock) were added to subconfluent HepG2-CD81 cell cultures with 2 mg/ml of fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-dextran (Invitrogen-Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR) in each culture. After a 3-min centrifugation at 500 x g, cultures were incubated for 1 h and washed three times with PBS to remove extracellular dextran. They were then further incubated for 3 h in normal medium. For qualitative microscopic evaluation, cell cultures were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and mounted. For flow cytometric analyses, cultures were washed twice and incubated with trypsin for 5 min at 37°C. Each trypsinized culture was mixed with 200 µl of complete medium and pelleted. Cell pellets were resuspended in 100 µl of complete medium and subjected to flow cytometry (Cytopia, Seattle, WA). Analysis of data was performed using the flow cytometry analysis program FlowJo version 7.0.3 (TreeStar, Inc., Ashland, OR).
For the infection assay, sporozoites were incubated for 2 h with HepG2-CD81 cells. The cultures were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde, followed by permeabilization with 100% methanol for 10 min at room temperature. Double staining was performed using anti-PyCSP 9D3 primary Ab, followed by Alexa Fluor 488 and anti-P. yoelii UIS4 (PyUIS4) primary Ab and Alexa Fluor 594 goat anti-rabbit IgG (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR).
For the LS development assay, infections were maintained for 43 h, and the medium was replaced both 3 h and 20 h postinfection (p.i.). Fixation and permeabilization conditions were identical to those of the infection assay described above. The double staining was performed using anti-PyUIS4 primary Ab following by Alexa Fluor 594 and anti-P. yoelii heat shock protein 70 (PyHsp70) Ab directly conjugated with Alexa Fluor 488. For each experiment, cells were stained with 4',6'-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) to visualize the DNA and mounted with antifade reagent (FluoroGuard; Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA). Preparations were analyzed using a fluorescence inverted microscope (Eclipse TE2000-E; Nikon), and images were acquired using Olympus 1X70 Delta Vision deconvolution microscopy.
For thin-section transmission electron microscopy, 106 wt and p52/p36-deficient sporozoites were used to infect 106 subconfluent HepG2-CD81 cells. One hour p.i., cells were fixed with 2.5% glutaraldehyde (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA) in 0.1 M sodium cacodylate buffer (pH 7.4) for 1 h at room temperature and processed as described previously (25) before examination with a Philips (Eindhoven, The Netherlands) 410 electron microscope under 80 kV.
In vivo analysis of infection. To analyze in vivo sporozoite infection and LS development, mice were injected by intravenous (i.v.) injection with 2.0 x 106 wt or p52/p36-deficient sporozoites. For each parasite population, livers were harvested at time points 2 and 6 h postinjection. Livers were washed extensively with PBS and fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde. Several 50-µm sections were made from each liver using a Vibratome apparatus (Ted Pella Inc., Redding, CA). Preparations were stained with anti-PyUIS4 primary Ab followed by Alexa Fluor 594 and with anti-PyCSP 9D3 primary Ab followed by Alexa Fluor 488. Preparations were analyzed using a fluorescence inverted microscope (Eclipse TE2000-E; Nikon), and images were acquired using Olympus 1X70 Delta Vision deconvolution microscopy.
In vivo infectivity of Py52/Py36-deficient sporozoites. To determine the in vivo infectivity of Py52/Py36-deficient sporozoites, BALB/c mice were infected either by mosquito bite (1 mouse/15 mosquitoes/10-min feeding) or by i.v. injection of sporozoites (1.0 x 104, 5.0 x 104, or 1.0 x 105 sporozoites) resuspended in 100 µl of RPMI 1640. Wistar rats were infected by i.v. injection of 1.0 x 105 sporozoites resuspended in 100 µl of RPMI 1640. Parasitemia was evaluated by Giemsa-stained thin blood smears starting at the second day after sporozoite inoculation. Animals were evaluated up to 20 days after sporozoite injection.
Immunization and challenge experiments. Naïve BALB/c mice were immunized and boosted by i.v. injection of Py52/Py36-deficient Cl2 sporozoites. The immunized mice were challenged by infected mosquito bite (1 mouse/15 mosquitoes/10-min feeding) or with 1.0 x 104 wt sporozoites by i.v. injection. Animals were monitored for blood-stage parasitemia by daily blood smears.
|
|
|---|
![]() View larger version (20K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Targeted gene disruption of P52 and P36 using a single-replacement strategy. (A) P. yoelii P52 (PY01340) and P36 (PY01341) are located in tandem on contig MALPY00354. (B) Predicted protein structure of P52 and P36. Each protein exhibits a signal peptide (SP) followed by two 6-Cys domains. In addition, P52 possesses a putative GPI anchor transfer peptide. (C) Schematic representation of the replacement strategy to generate the p52/p36-deficient parasites. The wild-type (wt) P52/P36 genomic locus was targeted with a replacement plasmid containing a 5' untranslated region fragment of P52 and a 3' fragment of the P36 ORF that flank the Toxoplasma gondii dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate synthase-positive selectable marker. A recombination event (double crossover) resulted in the replacement of the P52 ORF and the 5' part of the P36 ORF by the selection marker. wt and replacement-specific oligonucleotide primer combinations used for genotyping are indicated by arrows, and expected fragments are shown by gray and black lines. (D) PCR genotyping. Amplification with oligonucleotide primer combinations that can amplify only from the recombinant locus (Rep) confirmed the gene replacement. The wt-specific oligonucleotide primer combinations confirmed the absence of residual wt parasites in p52/p36-deficient Cl1 and Cl2. (E) The p52/p36-deficient parasites do not transcribe P52 and P36. The absence of P52 and P36 transcripts in p52/p36-deficient parasites was shown by RT-PCR using gene-specific oligonucleotide primers and salivary gland sporozoite RNA as a template. Gene-specific oligonucleotide primers for CSP were used as a positive control and amplified from wt and p52/p36-deficient sporozoite RNA. – indicates reactions without RT, and + indicates reactions with RT.
|
p52/p36-deficient sporozoites develop normally in the mosquito vector. The successful selection of p52/p36-deficient parasites indicated that P52 and P36 are not involved in blood-stage replication. Also, the abilities of gametocytes to exflagellate in vitro were similar in wt and p52/p36-deficient parasites (data not shown). We next analyzed sporozoite development and salivary gland invasion of wt and p52/p36-deficient parasites in the mosquito. No significant difference was detected between the mean numbers of wt and p52/p36-deficient Cl1 and Cl2 sporozoites in midguts (data not shown) and in salivary glands (Table 1). RT-PCR confirmed the lack of P52 and P36 gene transcripts in p52/p36-deficient salivary gland sporozoites (Fig. 1E). RT-PCR using CSP gene oligonucleotide primers was used as a positive transcript control, and CSP expression appeared to be unchanged in p52/p36-deficient salivary gland sporozoites (Fig. 1E).
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Phenotypic analysis of Py52/Py36-deficient sporozoites and LSs
|
50% reduction compared to wt sporozoites (Table 1). We next examined the cell traversal ability of p52/p36-deficient sporozoites. This activity was evaluated by the quantification of wounded HepG2-CD81 cells that had taken up FITC-conjugated dextran (20) (Fig. 2A) by using flow cytometry. Several independent experiments with wt and p52/p36-deficient sporozoites consistently showed that
20% of the total number of cells per culture were fluorescent, i.e., had been wounded (Fig. 2B). These data demonstrate the ability of p52/p36-deficient sporozoites to traverse cells normally. The successful infection of hepatocytes that leads to productive LS development requires the formation of a PV compartment during invasion by sporozoites. To assess this activity, we performed immunofluorescence analysis to localize UIS4, a resident protein of the PVM and in its associated tubovesicular network (21). Two hours after infection of HepG2-CD81 cells with wt sporozoites, early LSs exhibiting circumferential UIS4 staining were easily detectable (Fig. 3A). Strikingly, p52/p36-deficient parasites did not show this UIS4 staining pattern (Fig. 3A). Quantitative analysis showed a complete absence of circumferential UIS4 staining in p52/p36-deficient parasites (Fig. 3B). In wt parasites, we found that
40% of the parasites had infected host cells and exhibited circumferential UIS4 staining. Further analysis using deconvolution microscopic observations at higher magnifications showed a strong UIS4 staining pattern entirely surrounding the invaded wt sporozoites (Fig. 3C). However, intracellular p52/p36-deficient sporozoites exhibited weak internal staining for UIS4 (Fig. 3C). Next, we investigated whether p52/p36-deficient parasites were able to develop as LS inside host cells by the incubation of infected HepG2-CD81 cells for 43 h. As expected, the wt parasite-infected cells showed a high number of late LS schizonts (Fig. 4A) fully surrounded by UIS4 (Fig. 4B). However, no p52/p36-deficient late-LS schizonts were detected after 43 h. We sporadically observed small growth-arrested parasites that did not show typical UIS4 staining (Fig. 4C and D).
![]() View larger version (38K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. p52/p36-deficient sporozoites traverse and wound cells normally. (A) Overview of infected HepG2-CD81 cultures showing FITC-positive (green) wounded cells as a result of wt or p52/p36-deficient sporozoite traversal. DAPI (blue) visualizes the nuclei. (B) Quantification of cell-wounding activity using flow cytometry reveals a similar level of traversal activity in wt and p52/p36-deficient sporozoites. The assay was repeated six times for each sample. Approximately 3.0 x 104 sporozoites were incubated with 5.0 x 104 subconfluent HepG2-CD81 cells per well in the presence of FITC-dextran. The x axis represents the forward-scatter properties of the cells, while the y axis represents the green fluorescence. The numbers of wounded cells (percent) are shown in the upper left corners of the graphs. Approximately 20% of the HepG2-CD81 cells inoculated with wt and p52/p36-deficient (Cl1 and Cl2) sporozoites were fluorescent, i.e., wounded. Mock infections were done by incubating HepG2-CD81 cells with uninfected mosquito salivary gland preparations.
|
![]() View larger version (50K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. p52/p36-deficient parasites fail to infect hepatocytes with the formation of a PV in vitro. Immunofluorescence assay with infected HepG2-CD81 cells using Abs to UIS4, a PVM-resident protein, allows the detection of the parasite PVM 2 h p.i. (A) Low-magnification images showing wt parasite staining with anti-UIS4 and anti-CSP Abs (left panels). UIS4 expression is not apparent in p52/p36-deficient parasites at the low magnification shown in the right panels (scale bar, 40 µm). (B) Microscopic quantification reveals that 40% of wt parasites show strong UIS4 staining of the PVM and show CSP staining of the parasite surface. The remaining 60% of wt parasites stained with CSP represent extracellular sporozoites and sporozoites in cell traversal mode. p52/p36-deficient parasites were detected by anti-CSP staining only. Numbers shown are means ± standard deviations of counting 1.0 x 103 parasites per well in three wells. (C) Higher magnification shows typical peripheral localization of UIS4 in the PVM surrounding an intracellular wt parasite. Intracellular p52/p36-deficient parasites occasionally exhibit a signal of UIS4 staining within the sporozoite (scale bar, 10 µm). Cells were labeled with DAPI (blue) to visualize the nuclei.
|
![]() View larger version (36K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 4. p52/p36-deficient parasites show a severe defect in LS development in vitro. P. yoelii wt LSs grow in HepG2-CD81 cells and complete development, but p52/p36-deficient LSs do not grow and do not persist in infected cells. (A) Forty-three hours p.i., wt LSs have developed to the late schizont stage. LSs are visualized by staining with anti-UIS4 Abs (red) and anti-Hsp70 Abs (green). Nuclei were visualized with DAPI (scale bar, 30 µm). (B) Higher magnification shows a late wt LS with multiple nuclei entirely surrounded by a PVM that is revealed by anti-UIS4 staining (scale bar, 5 µm). (C) p52/p36-deficient parasites do not grow in HepG2-CD81 cells. A small p52/p36-deficient growth-arrested LS is indicated by the white arrow (scale bar, 30 µm). (D) Higher magnification of a growth-arrested p52/p36-deficient parasite 43 h p.i. does not show a typical PVM using UIS4 staining. Some UIS4-positive vesicular structures are visible (scale bar, 5 µm).
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 2. Py52/Py36-deficient sporozoites cannot infect the mammalian host
|
![]() View larger version (15K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 5. p52/p36-deficient parasites fail to establish infection in the host liver. (A) Indirect immunofluorescence assay of wt and p52/p36-deficient parasites detected in the host liver at 2 h p.i. The upper panels show intracellular wt parasite or p52/p36-deficient parasite staining with anti-CSP Abs. The PVM is visualized in wt parasites using anti-UIS4 Ab staining, but UIS4 staining is not discernable in p52/p36-deficient parasites, indicating a PVM deficiency (middle panels). The overlay of UIS4 staining, CSP staining, and nuclear DAPI staining is shown in the bottom panels (scale bar, 20 µm). (B) Quantification of liver infections. Numbers shown are means ± standard deviations of wt parasites and p52/p36-deficient parasites detected in three discontinuous sections of livers of BALB/c mice 2 h p.i. p52/p36-deficient parasites were detected at greatly reduced numbers ( 90% reduction) compared to wt parasites and did not show UIS4 staining (P < 0.0001, Fisher's exact test). Approximately 75% of wt parasites detected at 2 h p.i. showed UIS4-positive staining and CSP-positive staining.
|
![]() View larger version (115K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 6. Electron microscopic analysis confirms that p52/p36-deficient parasites cannot form a parasitophorous vacuole. (A) wt sporozoite (longitudinal view) within a HepG2-CD81 cell 1 h after infection. The parasite is surrounded by a PVM. (B) p52/p36-deficient sporozoite (transversal view) within a HepG2-CD81 cell 1 h after infection. The parasite lacks a PVM and appears to be in direct contact with the host cell cytoplasm. (C) A p52/p36-deficient sporozoite (transversal view) was also detected within the host cell nucleus, surrounded by nucleoplasm. All scale bars are 0.5 µm. The inset boxes show higher magnifications of the boxed areas within the overview images. ER, endoplasmic reticulum; IMC, inner membrane complex; M, microneme; NE, nuclear envelope; PPM, parasite plasma membrane; Spz, sporozoite; Rh, rhoptry.
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 3. Protection of BALB/c mice immunized with Py52/Py36-deficient sporozoites against challenge with wt P. yoelii sporozoites
|
|
|
|---|
40% of rats inoculated with 3.0 x 103 p36-deficient sporozoites became blood-stage parasitemic. The rate of blood-stage infection increased with the inoculation of higher sporozoite doses and reached 60% in the case of 1.0 x 105 p52-deficient sporozoites and 100% in the case of 3.0 x 104 p36-deficient sporozoites (10). The partial infectivity of P. berghei P52 (p52)-deficient sporozoites was also shown by using C57BL/6 mice, with 10% of mice becoming parasitemic (35). Although the p52-deficient sporozoites conferred protection against infectious sporozoite challenge (35), they were not sufficiently attenuated to consider them as a candidate GAP vaccine because of the relatively high incidence of breakthrough infections. We have shown herein that the simultaneous deletion of P52 and P36 creates completely attenuated parasites. Despite the fact that previous studies and our study used distinct Plasmodium rodent models, the significant differences between the single- and double-knockout sporozoite infectivity profiles may allow us to think that P52 and P36 have partially redundant functions. However, P36 is a predicted secreted protein, while P52 is a predicted GPI-anchored protein, thus making it difficult to envision how each protein could partially compensate for the loss of the other. A similar case where individual disruptions of paralogous genes showed a comparable but not complete phenotypic defect was described for P. berghei ookinete surface proteins P25 and P28 (32). These proteins are partially redundant, with similar functions during the ookinete/oocyst transition. The simultaneous disruption of these genes showed an almost complete loss (>99%) of oocysts. A phenotypic analysis of p52- and p36-deficient sporozoites reported previously by Ishino et al. (10) showed that the single-knockout P. berghei parasites could infect HepG2 cells with the formation of a PVM albeit with reduced efficiency. That group also observed a significant increase in the cell traversal activity of single-knockout parasites. Those authors speculated that disrupted parasites fail to switch to the "infection mode" and keep traversing host cells. Our observations with P. yoelii p52/p36-deficient sporozoites did not show an increase in traversal activity upon rigorous quantification by flow cytometry. Importantly, by studying the PVM early in infection, we demonstrate that p52/p36-deficient parasites fail to form a PVM. Thus, it is likely that P52 and P36 are critical in a pathway that leads to the formation of the PVM. We have used HepG2 cells expressing human CD81, which support efficient infection and complete development by P. yoelii. This is not the case for HepG2 cells that lack CD81. wt P. yoelii sporozoites traverse HepG2 cells normally but fail to form a PV (28). Here, we have shown that p52/p36-deficient sporozoites traverse HepG2-CD81 cells but fail to form a PV. Therefore, it is tempting to speculate on potential ligand-receptor interactions between P52/P36 proteins and CD81, which may be needed for PV induction. However, this needs to be addressed experimentally. p52/p36-deficient parasites remain free in the host cell cytoplasm or move on to penetrate the host cell nucleus. It is possible that the absence of the PVM as a controlled and highly organized LS-hepatocyte interface prevents the parasites' ability to establish an efficient system of nutrient uptake and that this leads to growth arrest. In addition, PVM-free LS could be prone to attack by the host cell and may therefore quickly be eliminated. In agreement with this scenario, we did not observe any growth-arrested parasites in vivo 6 h p.i. Whether the host hepatocyte containing the p52/p36-deficient parasites undergoes apoptosis, as has been observed previously by van Dijk et al. for p52-deficient-parasite-infected hepatocytes (35), or whether the host cell remains viable and eliminates the PVM-free parasite requires further investigation.
Parasites carrying deletions of the LS PVM proteins UIS3 or UIS4 showed severe defects in LS growth (21, 22) and thus appear superficially similar to p52/p36-deficient parasites. However, we have recently shown that uis3- and uis4-deficient parasites do form a PVM upon hepatocyte entry (30). Thus, the growth deficiencies of uis3- and uis4-deficient parasites are caused by the absence of the respective proteins in the PVM but not the absence of the PVM itself, as shown here for p52/p36-deficient parasites.
Immunizations with uis3- and uis4-deficient sporozoites completely protected against subsequent infectious sporozoite challenge (21, 22, 30). In the present study, a triple-immunization regimen with p52/p36-deficient sporozoites completely protected against intravenous sporozoite injection and mosquito bite challenge. Thus, GAPs with distinct biological characteristics could be used as protective vaccines. It will be of interest to compare the vaccine potencies of the now available GAPs and the relationship of protection and their biological characteristics. This will improve our understanding of the immune mechanisms that mediate sterile protection against malaria infection and will provide critical information on the path forward to a safe Plasmodium falciparum GAP vaccine that effectively protects humans.
This work is partially supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation through the Foundation at the National Institutes of Health Grand Challenges in Global Health Initiative. S.H.I.K. is an inventor listed on U.S. patent 7,22,179 and international patent application PCT/US2004/043023, each titled "Live Genetically Attenuated Malaria Vaccine."
Published ahead of print on 21 May 2007. ![]()
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»