Skip to main page content

• HOME
• Current Issue
• Archive
• Alerts
• About ASM
• Contact us
• Tech Support
• Journals.ASM.org

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Supplemental material Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bannantine, J. P. Articles by Kapur, V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bannantine, J. P. Articles by Kapur, V.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Infection and Immunity, February 2008, p. 739-749, Vol. 76, No. 2
0019-9567/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/IAI.00915-07
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Profiling Bovine Antibody Responses to Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis Infection by Using Protein Arrays ^,

John P. Bannantine,^1* Michael L. Paustian,¹ W. Ray Waters,¹ Judith R. Stabel,¹ Mitchell V. Palmer,¹ Lingling Li,² and Vivek Kapur²

National Animal Disease Center, USDA-ARS, Ames, Iowa,¹ University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota²

Received 5 July 2007/ Returned for modification 8 August 2007/ Accepted 14 November 2007

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
With the genome sequence of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis determined, technologies are now being developed for construction of protein arrays to detect the presence of antibodies against M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis in host serum. The power of this approach is that it enables a direct comparison of M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis proteins to each other in relation to their immunostimulatory capabilities. In this study, 93 recombinant proteins, produced in Escherichia coli, were arrayed and spotted onto nitrocellulose. These proteins include unknown hypothetical proteins and cell surface proteins as well as proteins encoded by large sequence polymorphisms present uniquely in M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis. Also included were previously reported or known M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis antigens to serve as a frame of reference. Sera from healthy control cattle (n = 3) and cattle infected with either M. avium subsp. avium and Mycobacterium bovis were exposed to the array to identify nonspecific or cross-reactive epitopes. These data demonstrated a degree of cross-reactivity with the M. avium subsp. avium proteins that was higher than the degree of cross-reactivity with the more distantly related M. bovis proteins. Finally, sera from naturally infected cattle (n = 3) as well as cattle experimentally infected with M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis (n = 3) were used to probe the array to identify antigens in the context of Johne's disease. Three membrane proteins were the most strongly detected in all serum samples, and they included an invasion protein, an ABC peptide transport permease, and a putative GTPase protein. This powerful combination of genomic information, molecular tools, and immunological assays has enabled the identification of previously unknown antigens of M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis.

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Johne's disease is responsible for severe economic losses to the U.S. dairy industry totaling over $200 million annually (21). The causative agent of this significant animal disease is Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis. This bacterium can infect domestic ruminants, including cattle, sheep (27, 37), and goats (54, 55). Wildlife such as deer (22, 32, 33), antelope (9, 14), bison (59), and rabbits (7, 25) can also be colonized and may serve as a reservoir for this pathogen. Initial infection of young calves is followed by a lengthy subclinical stage of Johne's disease during which the animals are generally asymptomatic but may be shedding low numbers of organisms in feces or milk. The late stage of Johne's disease in cattle involves shedding high numbers of the pathogen in feces, along with cachexia and diarrhea as hallmark signs. Transmission of M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis is by ingestion of bacilli during grazing on contaminated pastures or through the milk of an infected cow.

Understanding the host immunity to M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis infection is critical to controlling the spread of this disease, as it is central to the development of better diagnostic tests and the identification of protective immunogens for use as vaccine candidates. During the early subclinical stage of infection, a cell-mediated response predominates in the host and can be characterized by strong delayed-type IV hypersensitivity reactions, lymphocyte-proliferative responses to select mycobacterial antigens, and production of cytokines stimulated by T cells (50). Through some unknown signal, the cell-mediated immune response wanes with progression of Johne's disease and a humoral immune response becomes measurable (49). However, there is recent evidence that suggests antibody production in cattle does occur early postinfection (26, 57).

Since the completion of the M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis genome sequencing project (29), this organism has been characterized for genomic diversity (34, 42) and unique diagnostic (2, 3, 11, 30) and subtyping (1, 36) targets as well as preliminary antigen screens (4, 11, 30, 41). In particular, the genetic diversity among M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis isolates has been extensively studied. By use of techniques from repetitive DNA sequences (1, 8) to amplified fragment length polymorphism and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis analysis (13, 39), differences on M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis chromosomes have been identified and utilized for discriminatory subtyping of isolates. Many of these studies have used the genome sequence of M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis to aid in the identification of genetic regions of variability (1, 40, 42, 46). Over 30 proteins encoded within these unique genetic regions, termed large sequence polymorphisms (LSPs), were produced and analyzed in this study.

Currently, all antigen-based tests that detect M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis use a complex, ill-defined mixture of proteins, such as a whole-cell sonicated extract (35), surface antigen extract (16), or purified protein derivative (51). These antigen preparations show variability in potency (52) and cross-react with closely related mycobacteria such as M. avium subsp. avium. Recognizing that these tests could potentially be improved if a few well-defined antigens were identified, our laboratories used genomic data to identify novel M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis antigens as candidates to be used to improve diagnosis of Johne's disease in antigen-based immunoassays, such as the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), an immunoblot, or a gamma interferon (IFN-) release assay. From these studies, we have identified at least four novel antigens (30, 41) but are not certain how these antigens compare with other proteins produced by M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis.

Clearly, a proteomic approach is necessary to define the most antigenic components. One method is to fractionate proteins from the whole-cell, membrane, or secreted fraction and resolve them via two-dimensional (2-D) gels. The secreted fraction of M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis has recently been analyzed by using this methodology (10, 24, 28). Another way is to express recombinant proteins from cloned M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis coding sequences and use them to construct a protein array. This array can then be used to probe sera from animals with Johne's disease and healthy controls. We pursued the second approach to develop a 96-dot protein array from M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis, because of the ease in identifying reactive proteins. Furthermore, this array would enable the direct comparison of known antigens with newly identified antigens. This systematic approach will lead most directly to new diagnostic tools for improved management of Johne's disease. Finally, the results described herein provide a unique examination of the humoral immune responses in cattle exposed to M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis as well as open new frontiers in vaccine and diagnostic development.

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Mycobacterial antigen preparation. A whole-cell sonicated lysate of M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis K-10 was prepared as described previously (57).

Recombinant protein production and purification. The cloning, protein production, and purification is described in detail previously (5). Briefly, maltose binding protein (MBP) fusions of M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis predicted coding sequences listed in Table 1 were constructed in Escherichia coli by using the pMAL-c2 vector (New England Biolabs, Beverly, MA). Primers were designed from the reading frame of each coding sequence and contained an XbaI site in the 5' primer and a HindIII site in the 3' primer for cloning purposes. The vector and amplification product were digested with XbaI and HindIII. Ligation of these restricted DNA fragments resulted in an in-frame fusion between the malE gene in the vector and the reading frame of interest. Following ligation, the products were transformed into E. coli DH5 and selected on LB agar plates containing 100 µg/ml ampicillin. Each MBP fusion protein (e.g., MBP-MAP4025) was overexpressed in 1-liter E. coli LB cultures by induction with 0.3 mM isopropyl-β-D-thiogalactopyranoside (Sigma, St. Louis, MO) and purified by affinity chromatography using an amylose resin supplied by New England Biolabs. A similar approach was used for production and purification of all MBP fusion proteins. E. coli DH5 harboring the parental plasmid pMAL-c2 was expressed, purified, and used as a control in all experiments. Purified protein from this control strain consists of an MBP fusion of the LacZ alpha peptide (MBP-LacZ). Selected fractions eluted from the amylose resin column were pooled and dialyzed using Slide-A-Lyzer cassettes (Pierce Biotechnology Inc.) in 1.5-liter phosphate-buffered saline (PBS; 150 mM NaCl, 10 mM NaPO₄, pH 7.4) with three exchanges at 4°C. Purified protein aliquots were stored at –20°C.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

TABLE 1. Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis proteins used in this study

Quality control assessment of purified proteins. All expression clones were sequenced to confirm that the cloned insert both matched the native M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis gene and was in frame with expression signals built into the pMAL-c2 expression vector. Furthermore, final protein concentrations of pooled fractions postdialysis were determined by NanoDrop spectrometry measurements at 280 nm. All recombinant proteins were further evaluated by GelCode Blue (Pierce Biotechnology Inc., Rockford, IL) stained sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) gels to assess purity and to ensure that they migrated at the expected size.

Animals, antibodies, and host serum. Sera from a rabbit that was exposed to live M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis ATCC 19698 by intraperitoneal injection was used in these studies. Sera from three clinical cattle (509, 3235, and 3494) and three uninfected control cattle (109, 110, and 111) were obtained from a herd dedicated to Johne's disease research activities at the National Animal Disease Center. The infection statuses and health histories of these animals were monitored quarterly by fecal culture, ELISA, and IFN- release assays (Table 2). All sera from these animals were diluted 1:500. Animals 5902, 5903, and 5904 were experimentally infected by intratonsillar inoculation by using four weekly doses of 4 x 10⁶ CFU (strain K-10) in two tonsillar crypts as described in a previous study (57). Sera from all three animals experimentally infected with M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis were collected at day 321 post-intratonsillar infection and diluted 1:500 in these experiments. Sera from cow 202, experimentally infected with M. bovis (10⁴ CFU of strain 95-1315 in each tonsillar crypt), was diluted 1:500 and sera from M. avium subsp. avium-infected cow 6137 (10¹⁰ CFU of strain 3988 split between the tonsillar crypts) were also diluted 1:500 (Table 2). A monoclonal antibody to the MBP affinity tag (diluted 1:3,000) was developed at the National Animal Disease Center and has been used in previous studies (6).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

TABLE 2. Cultures, ages, and immunological statuses of cattle used in this study

Protein array production. PBS was used as the spotting buffer and diluent for all M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis proteins. The protein array was constructed on a nitrocellulose membrane using a Bio-Dot 96-well manifold apparatus (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA). Diluted working stocks of purified proteins were stored in deep 96-well plates with a 1-ml capacity per round-bottom well (Nalgene Nunc International). Each well of the assembled 96-well dot blot apparatus was loaded with 100 µl of PBS containing the appropriate protein approximated to a final concentration of 0.5 mg/ml. The PBS-diluted samples were allowed to flow through the membrane by gravity flow. Each well was then washed in 200 µl of PBS with 0.1% Tween-20 (TPBS). A vacuum was engaged to pull the wash solution through, and the nitrocellulose membrane was removed from the apparatus and placed in a petri dish containing a blocking solution (PBS with 2% bovine serum albumin and 0.1% Tween 20). After 30 min in the blocking solution, the immunoblotting assay was performed. PBS was also included on the dot blot array as a spotting buffer control. MBP-LacZ was also added as a control to assess immunoreactivity to the affinity tag. Protein arrays were produced in groups of four with one of the arrays used as a control with the monoclonal antibody to MBP. This enabled tracking of spotting efficiency between experiments.

Immunoblot analysis of the protein array. Dot blot arrays were incubated with sera from several hosts exposed to M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis. Sera were diluted in blocking buffer and exposed to spotted arrays for 2 h at room temperature on a rocker platform. The rabbit sera were diluted 1:1,000. After three washes in TPBS, the nitrocellulose array was incubated with the appropriate horseradish peroxidase-conjugated anti-immunoglobulin G antibody diluted at 1:20,000 in TPBS-bovine serum albumin for 1.5 h. This was followed by a final three washes in TPBS. Assay development utilized SuperSignal detection reagents (Pierce) and Kodak BioMax MR film. A control strip containing unconjugated bovine antibody (heavy plus light chains; Pierce) was processed in parallel with arrays exposed to uninfected cow sera. The top spot (A) on the control strip contained 0.11 mg/ml bovine antibody, the B spot contained 0.02 mg/ml, the C spot contained 0.002 mg/ml, and so on.

Measurement of spot intensities. Quantitative spot intensities were obtained by performing a densitometric scan on autoradiograms containing antibody-probed arrays. LabWorks 4.5 software (UVP Bioimaging System; UVP Inc., Upland, CA) was used to obtain the integrated optical density values for each spot. This quantification software processes spot intensities on the array and determines the mean intensities of pixels within a spot as well as those of the background pixels around the spot. These local-background intensities are subtracted from the raw signals to obtain the local-background-corrected levels. The measured diameter that was selected for scans of different arrays was consistent for all arrays in this study. Adjusted intensities were obtained following normalization of each spot with the corresponding spot on the MBP array produced from that set of experiments. Statistical analysis included the binomial test in which the null hypothesis P value was set to 0.5. Under this null hypothesis, 46 proteins were predicted to show a stronger intensity in M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis-infected animals than in non-M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis-infected animals and 46 proteins would have a weaker signal in M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis-infected animals than in non-M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis-infected animals. Any deviance from this null model was considered nonrandom.

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Protein array content. All recombinant proteins represented on the M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis protein array were initially evaluated for purity by SDS-PAGE analysis. A selection of 25 proteins, representing a typical experiment, is shown in Fig. 1. The largest fusion protein purified was MAP1643 at 127 kDa (Fig. 1), and the smallest protein was MAP4228 at 50.4 kDa (data not shown). The protein with the highest yield obtained from all the purifications was MAP2155, which represents a putative transposase similar to IS6110. A total of 35 mg of this protein was purified from a 1-liter culture at a concentration of 9.57 mg/ml. The protein with the lowest yield obtained was also the smallest protein, MAP4228, which represents an IF-1 initiation factor. A complete listing of the proteins present on the array along with their sizes, purification yield and predicted function are listed in Table 1. Additional information surrounding each protein, including their similarity in other mycobacterial genomes, IPR number, and clusters of orthologous groups, etc., is listed in Table S1 in the supplemental material.

View larger version (61K): [in this window] [in a new window]

FIG. 1. SDS-PAGE analysis of purified recombinant fusion proteins. Two gels stained with GelCode Blue demonstrate the purity of 25 M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis recombinant fusion proteins plus the MBP-LacZ control. Most proteins show a single discrete band with limited contamination of E. coli host proteins. The MBP affinity tag is 42 kDa in size and the largest M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis protein, MAP1643, is 85 kDa in size. Therefore, this fusion protein migrates at the expected size of 127 kDa (lane 19). Protein size standards are indicated in kilodaltons in the left margin, and the migration position of the MBP-LacZ control is indicated in the right margin. Lane assignments: 1, protein size standards; 2, MBP-MAP1174c; 3, MBP-MAP1121c; 4, MBP-MAP3131; 5, MBP-MAP4198; 6, MBP-MAP2657; 7, MBP-MAP3121; 8, MBP-MAP1204; 9, MBP-MAP0961c; 10, MBP-MAP0853; 11, MBP-MAP3734c; 12, MBP-MAP2360; 13, MBP-MAP1388; 14, MBP-MAP0075; 15, MBP-LacZ; 16 and 17, protein size standards; 18, MBP-MAP3743; 19, MBP-MAP1643; 20, MBP-MAP3735c; 21, MBP-MAP3902c; 22, MBP-MAP0736; 23, MBP-MAP1609c; 24, MBP-MAP1087; 25, MBP-MAP1233; 26, MBP-MAP3761c; 27, MBP-MAP2740; 28, MBP-MAP0855; 29, MBP-MAP3751; 30, MBP-LacZ.

The 96-dot protein array was constructed on nitrocellulose filters. Represented among these spots are 89 MBP fusion proteins, 3 polyhistidine-tagged proteins, and 4 controls, including M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis sonicate (two spots; positive control), spotting buffer (one spot; negative control), and a LacZ alpha peptide fused to MBP (specificity control). The dot assignments for the protein array are shown in Fig. 2A. The three polyhistidine-tagged proteins (MAP0087, MAP2121c, and MAP3084c) are present on the upper right corner of the array (Fig. 2A, column 12). Note that MAP2121c, which represents a widely conserved and antigenic membrane protein (56), is represented twice on the array, once as an MBP fusion (spot 4F) and also a polyhistidine-tagged protein (spot 12B). Coding sequences that are present uniquely in LSPs previously reported by our laboratories (42) and others (45) are also represented on the array. In fact, nearly all the coding sequences in the initial two columns comprise the M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis-specific LSP4 segment (MAP0851 to MAP0866) reported by Behr and colleagues (45).

View larger version (45K): [in this window] [in a new window]

FIG. 2. Controls to test the performance of the 96-dot array. Shown are the dot assignments for the protein array (A) and two dot array (B) experiments. The dot assignments are consistent for all experiments in this study. The monoclonal antibody or serum sample used is indicated beneath each array. All MBP fusion proteins were detected by the MBP monoclonal antibody (MBP mAb), whereas the serum from uninfected cow 111 showed little to no reactivity with most of the proteins. Because background reactivity was so low with all three uninfected cow sera, a control strip (shown on the right side of the array) containing serial dilutions of unconjugated bovine antibody was processed in parallel with all arrays exposed to uninfected cow sera to ensure the experiment worked correctly. A whole-cell lysate representing a majority of the proteins produced by M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis is spotted in positions 12E and 12H for all dot arrays. Note that the MBP monoclonal antibody does not detect the three His-tagged proteins spotted in positions 12A, 12B, and 12C.

Antibody response in healthy control cattle. Because most proteins spotted on the dot array were produced as a fusion with the MBP affinity purification tag, probing with a monoclonal antibody to this affinity tag was performed to determine relative amounts of each protein spotted (Fig. 2B). The three uninfected cows (109, 110, and 111) showed weak reactivity or no reactivity to recombinant proteins or the whole-cell sonicate antigen (see Table S2 in the supplemental material). Of the three uninfected cows, cow 111 showed the most antibody reactivity to recombinant proteins on the array and is shown in Fig. 2B along with an array exposed to the MBP monoclonal antibody. These data demonstrate that all MBP-tagged fusion proteins are detectable by using the monoclonal antibody and that nonspecific reactivity is low for uninfected cattle.

Antibody profiles for M. bovis- and M. avium subsp. avium-infected cattle. In order to identify potentially cross-reactive epitopes, protein arrays were used to probe sera from M. bovis- and M. avium subsp. avium-infected cattle (Fig. 3). In general, there was more reactivity observed with M. avium subsp. avium-infected cow serum than with M. bovis-infected cow serum. These data agree with the fact that M. avium subsp. avium is more phylogenetically similar to M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis than it is to M. bovis and hence shows more antibody cross-reactivity than M. bovis. Five proteins were detected with sera from both types of infected animals (Fig. 3). The majority of M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis-specific coding sequences present within LSPs and spotted in columns 1 to 3 and elsewhere on the array were not detected with sera from either infected cow (Fig. 3 and Table 3). MAP1087 (11A) showed more reactivity in both the M. avium subsp. avium-infected and M. bovis-infected cows than any other protein present on the dot array. TBLASTn analysis of this protein with M. avium subsp. avium 104 showed 99% similarity over the full length of the protein but only 29% similarity over a partial length in the M. bovis protein (see Table S1 in the supplemental material). In conclusion, while sera from healthy, uninfected cows show little or no reactivity with the spotted proteins, some proteins do cross-react with sera from cattle exposed to other mycobacteria.

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]

FIG. 3. Cross-reactive antibodies from cattle infected with mycobacteria other than M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis. Each array was exposed to serum from an infected cow as indicated beneath the image. Antibodies from the M. avium subsp. avium (M. avium)-infected cow were observed to be more cross-reactive than those from the M. bovis-infected cow. Dot assignments are as shown in Fig. 2A.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

TABLE 3. Spot intensities for protein arrays exposed to cattle sera in this studya

Analysis of the humoral immune response in hosts exposed to M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis. The dot arrays were initially tested using sera from a rabbit infected with live M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis (Fig. 4A). MAP1204, a homolog of Rv1478 in Mycobacterium tuberculosis, which represents a putative exported p60 homolog possibly involved in virulence (18), was among the antigens most reactive with the rabbit sera. Likewise, the major membrane protein, MAP2121c, was also strongly detected in this host. The protein arrays were next used to obtain antibody profiles for cows with clinical signs of Johne's disease as well as for experimentally infected cows (Fig. 4B). The antibody profiles for all cattle were generally similar regardless of the infection mode or health status. In addition, all experiments using cattle sera were subjected to densitometry analysis to provide quantitation for reactivity at each spot, reported as spot intensities. The mean intensity measurements for the experimentally infected cattle (n = 3) as well as the naturally infected clinical cattle (n = 3) are listed in Table 3. The strongest antigens that were consistently reactive with all the cattle serum included MAP1087 and MAP1730c (Table 3), which represent an ABC peptide transport permease and a putative GTPase protein, respectively (29). MAP1087 showed the strongest intensity values in three of the six M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis-infected cows and showed the second-strongest intensities in the remaining three cows (see Table S2 in the supplemental material). The protein showing the third-strongest intensity, MAP1204, had the highest intensity value among the proteins from the rabbit (data not shown). The MAP1204 gene codes for a putative invasion protein that possesses an Nlpc_P60 domain of unknown function that is found in several lipoproteins. PSORTb analysis software predicts that MAP1730c is located in the cytoplasm, MAP1087 is in the membrane, and MAP1204 is extracellular (19).

View larger version (70K): [in this window] [in a new window]

FIG. 4. Protein arrays used to assess the humoral immune response to M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis. The protein arrays were processed by immunoblot analysis with various primary sera, as indicated in the margins. (A) Arrays probed with sera from a rabbit exposed to M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis and anti-MBP antibody. mAb, monoclonal antibody. (B) Antibody profiles from one experimentally infected cow (5903) and three clinical cattle (509, 3235, and 3494). Sera from cow 5903 were collected at 321 days post-intratonsillar infection with M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis and represent an early stage of disease. Sera were collected from the other three naturally infected cows during the appearance of clinical Johne's disease. Antibody profiles are generally similar among all four cattle despite the representation of distinct infection routes and disease stages. Dot assignments are as shown in Fig. 2A.

To test the significance of these findings, a binomial test was performed on all proteins and the null hypothesis P value was set to 0.5. These calculations showed that rather than an equal 50/50 distribution of proteins showing a stronger signal with the sera from M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis-infected cows than with non-M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis-infected cows, as the null hypothesis would suggest, it showed a nonrandom distribution of 72 proteins that had higher intensity values with the M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis-infected cattle sera than with the non-M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis-infected cattle sera and 24 proteins for which the reverse was observed.

Immunogenicity of proteins encoded within LSPs. A total of 40 proteins on the array are produced by coding sequences present within the 17 LSPs identified in the M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis K-10 genome. These LSPs comprise 187 total coding sequences and span over 226 kb of genomic DNA (45). Seven of the LSPs are not present in any of the 96 M. avium complex isolates tested (45). Overall, MAP1730c, encoded within LSP9, had the most consistently strong intensities among all six sera from the infected cattle tested (Table 3; see Table S2 in the supplemental material). However, LSP9 did show some cross-reactivity with M. avium complex isolates in PCR screens (45). The three most-immunogenic proteins encoded within LSPs that were observed to be 100% specific for M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis isolates included MAP0865 and MAP0857c (LSP4) and MAP3817c (LSP16). These proteins had the sixth (MAP0865)-, eighth (MAP3817c)-, and ninth (MAP0857c)-strongest mean intensities (Table 3) and thus are excellent candidates for an antigen-based diagnostic test.

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Although previous studies have correlated bovine immune responses to the 22-kDa protein (43), heat shock proteins (17), and others encoded by the MAP1272c (30), MAP1138c (15), or MAP3968 (44) gene, all these M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis proteins have been evaluated singly, not in comparison to other proteins. More recently, investigators have addressed the need to evaluate multiple mycobacterial antigens in parallel by recombinant expression and immunoreactivity studies through multiantigen print immunoassays (31, 58), immunoblot analysis (41), or ELISA (11, 38, 47, 60). However, these studies are limited by the printing capabilities, the number of wells on a polyacrylamide gel or microtiter plate, and therefore, only 15 or fewer proteins were analyzed. It would be more informative if dozens of proteins were compared not only with each other but also with known mycobacterial antigens and other M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis proteins. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of all M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis antigens at a whole-genome level in an unbiased assay system is ideal in order to fully determine the antigenic basis of host protective and pathogenic responses to M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis infection. The available M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis genome sequence (29) has made it possible to perform a comprehensive analysis of the antigenicities of all proteins encoded by this bacterium.

Microbial proteomics typically involves performing 2-D SDS-PAGE separation followed by excision of spots either stained or identified in a corresponding immunoblot. The excised protein(s) is then identified by a mass spectrometry (MS) method, such as matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight MS or tandem MS. Using this approach, as many as 715 E. coli proteins of the total of approximately 5,000 predicted from the genome sequence have been identified in the E. coli proteome (23). However, with a complete genome sequence, the potential to construct a complete protein array representing all proteins encoded in the genome exists. The experiments herein represent the most comprehensive parallel analysis of multiple antigens of M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis. Novel findings emerge when many proteins are analyzed in this way. Investigators can unequivocally determine the strongest and weakest antigens in the set of proteins under analysis. The strongest antigens identified from this set of recombinant proteins included MAP1087, MAP1730c, and MAP1204. All three of these proteins have not been previously evaluated or reported in the literature. Furthermore, unlike with spot identification within 2-D gels, with this research tool, proteins that do not react with infected animals are also readily identified.

Three naturally infected cattle, all in the clinical stage of Johne's disease, were analyzed in conjunction with three experimentally infected animals. Sera collected at 321 days postinfection from the experimentally infected animals were used. The lengths of exposure to M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis of the naturally infected animals are not known; however, animals can have a lengthy subclinical phase for two to five years or more before showing clinical signs of Johne's disease (48). Despite the differences in disease introduction and length of exposure, the antibody profiles obtained from all cattle were strikingly similar. These data suggest that the humoral immune response to M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis in cattle is established relatively quickly after exposure and may remain consistent throughout the disease stages. This conclusion may seem to counter current hypotheses, which suggest that a strong cell-mediated immune response occurs initially while the humoral immune response begins in the later stages of disease in cattle. However, the more likely explanation is that a strong cell-mediated immune response occurs initially in addition to a developing humoral immune response that has historically been more difficult to measure. Data from this study show that the whole-cell sonicate preparation was poorly detected by cattle sera (Fig. 4B, spots 12E and 12H). This preparation is likely similar to other complex protein preparations used in ELISAs and underscores the need to identify alternate antigen preps to better detect the antibody response following infection.

The cattle and rabbit sera showed remarkably similar antibody response profiles. Notably, 6 of the top 10 strongest intensities in the rabbit experiment were also among the top 10 most-reactive antigens in the cattle experiments. For example, MAP1087 showed the strongest intensity in cattle and was the third strongest in the rabbit. Likewise, MAP1204 was the third-strongest antigen in cattle and the strongest in the rabbit. The consistency with which these proteins were detected by sera from all animals tested gives added strength to these results. Furthermore, those proteins that had weak reactivities in cattle also showed weak reactivities in the rabbit. The use of sera from the two different animal hosts was a tool to ensure that observed antibody responses were consistent and not the result of spurious cross-reactivity. Further work should be done to examine the use of rabbits as a model of humoral immunity for Johne's disease in cattle.

Second-generation protein arrays containing many additional M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis proteins, as well as proteins detected by M. bovis and M. avium subsp. avium only, will be used in future studies to better demonstrate the humoral immune responses in a panel of sera from cattle with well-characterized Johne's disease in comparison to those in sera from cattle infected with M. bovis or M. avium subsp. avium. In addition, the protein array can be used in studies to compare the antibody profiles for cattle to those for sheep, another ruminant animal of commercial interest that is affected by Johne's disease. It will be interesting to determine if specific and reproducible sets of antigens are associated with each host or disease state, as that information may provide clues to the pathogenesis of Johne's disease.

Data obtained from this study have even broader implications among the genus Mycobacterium. In silico analysis of the M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis genome identified >3,000 genes with homologs to genes of the human pathogen M. tuberculosis (29). One of these homolog products that has been identified as the strongest antigen in this study is MAP1087, a putative membrane protein with a possible role in peptide transport (29). The corresponding coding sequence in M. tuberculosis is designated Rv3665c (12), and that in M. bovis is designated Mb3698c (20). This antigen can now be immediately tested for diagnostic potential or perhaps as a subunit vaccine candidate against tuberculosis. The cross-reactivity observed with this protein is a benefit for subunit vaccine development, as it may protect against multiple mycobacterial diseases. The second-strongest antigen identified from these studies, MAP1730c, which represents a putative GTPase protein, has no homolog in either M. tuberculosis or M. bovis. Further studies are necessary to evaluate cell-mediated responses to these promising antigens.

Our previous work has shown that MAP0862 and MAP2963c are detected by sera from infected cattle (41). Leroy et al. also found MAP2963c to be weakly immunogenic in cattle (28). This study suggests that while both MAP2963c and MAP0862 are detected by sera from infected cattle, they are only weakly detected (Table 3), and that other proteins, identified from this more-comprehensive study, appear to be better antigens. The M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis-specific proteins, present in columns 1 and 2 on the array, were generally not detected by sera from cows infected with either M. bovis or M. avium subsp. avium. The exceptions include MAP0865, which was weakly detected by sera from the M. bovis-infected cow, and MAP0863, which was weakly detected by sera from the M. avium subsp. avium-infected cow. This suggests that not only are the coding sequences uniquely present in M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis, but most of the gene products also do not contain cross-reactive epitopes.

Among the proteins strongly detected in the experimentally infected cows were MAP0961c, MAP0865, MAP3743, MAP2151, and MAP3734c. MAP0961c is especially interesting. Annotated as a hypothetical protein, it contains a glycosyltransferase domain, and an ortholog of this protein was found in the recently completed Mycobacterium ulcerans genome sequence (53). Findings from this study show that it is not only among the 10 most-antigenic proteins, but it may also be detected early postinfection. This protein was strongly detected in the experimentally infected cows but was detected only weakly in the naturally infected cows (Table 3). It also showed some degree of cross-reactivity in serum from M. avium subsp. avium-infected cattle.

Data obtained from comparative genomic studies have uncovered 17 large genetic polymorphisms in M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis, termed LSPs. We produced 40 recombinant proteins that represent coding sequences contained within most of these LSPs. We specifically focused on LSP4, a 15.3-kb region containing 16 coding sequences that are not present in any of 276 non-M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis isolates tested (45). Furthermore, the genes contain no significant similarity with any sequences in public databases. Thirteen of the 16 coding sequences that comprise LSP4 are fully represented on the protein array. Data from this study suggest that at least some of these coding sequences, notably those coding for MAP0865 and MAP0857c, are produced during infection of cattle. MAP3817c, whose encoding gene is located on the M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis-specific LSP16 genomic island, is a putative membrane protein and also appears to be antigenic. These three promising proteins need to be tested further with additional cattle sera.

In summary, novel antigens have been identified by using a newly developed 96-dot protein array. These studies yield solid hints at candidates for a subunit vaccine as well as proteins that might be incorporated into an antigen-based diagnostic test. Furthermore, they have revealed novel immune-reactive paratuberculosis antigens, not only indicating that the hypothetical open reading frame-encoded proteins are expressed during infection in cattle and other hosts but also providing the proof of principle that the fusion protein-based approach can be used to profile humoral immune responses to infection at the whole-genome scale.

 
We are grateful to Janis K. Hansen for skillful technical assistance.

Portions of this study were funded by the USDA-CSREES-CAP grant (JDIP) and the USDA-Agricultural Research Service.

 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: National Animal Disease Center, ARS-USDA, 2300 North Dayton Avenue, Ames, IA 50010. Phone: (515) 663-7340. Fax: (515) 663-7458. E-mail: john.bannantine{at}ars.usda.gov

Published ahead of print on 26 November 2007.

Supplemental material for this article may be found at http://iai.asm.org/.

Editor: J. F. Urban, Jr.

Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 

1
1. Amonsin, A., L. L. Li, Q. Zhang, J. P. Bannantine, A. S. Motiwala, S. Sreevatsan, and V. Kapur. 2004. Multilocus short sequence repeat sequencing approach for differentiating among Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis strains. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42:1694-1702.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2
2. Bannantine, J. P., E. Baechler, Q. Zhang, L. Li, and V. Kapur. 2002. Genome scale comparison of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis with Mycobacterium avium subsp. avium reveals potential diagnostic sequences. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40:1303-1310.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3
3. Bannantine, J. P., R. G. Barletta, J. R. Stabel, M. L. Paustian, and V. Kapur. 2004. Application of the genome sequence to address concerns that Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis might be a foodborne pathogen. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 1:3-15.[CrossRef][Medline]
4
4. Bannantine, J. P., J. K. Hansen, M. L. Paustian, A. Amonsin, L. L. Li, J. R. Stabel, and V. Kapur. 2004. Expression and immunogenicity of proteins encoded by sequences specific to Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42:106-114.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5
5. Bannantine, J. P., and M. L. Paustian. 2006. Identification of diagnostic proteins in Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis by a whole genome analysis approach, p. 185-196. In L. O'Connor (ed.), Diagnostic bacteriology protocols, 2nd ed. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ.
6
6. Bannantine, J. P., T. J. Radosevich, J. R. Stabel, S. Berger, J. F. Griffin, and M. L. Paustian. 2007. Production and characterization of monoclonal antibodies against a major membrane protein of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 14:312-317.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7
7. Beard, P. M., M. J. Daniels, D. Henderson, A. Pirie, K. Rudge, D. Buxton, S. Rhind, A. Greig, M. R. Hutchings, I. McKendrick, K. Stevenson, and J. M. Sharp. 2001. Paratuberculosis infection of nonruminant wildlife in Scotland. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:1517-1521.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8
8. Bull, T. J., K. Sidi-Boumedine, E. J. McMinn, K. Stevenson, R. Pickup, and J. Hermon-Taylor. 2003. Mycobacterial interspersed repetitive units (MIRU) differentiate Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis from other species of the Mycobacterium avium complex. Mol. Cell. Probes 17:157-164.[CrossRef][Medline]
9
9. Burton, M. S., J. H. Olsen, R. L. Ball, and G. A. Dumonceaux. 2001. Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis infection in an addax (Addax nasomaculatus). J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 32:242-244.[Medline]
10
10. Cho, D., and M. T. Collins. 2006. Comparison of the proteosomes and antigenicities of secreted and cellular proteins produced by Mycobacterium paratuberculosis. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 13:1155-1161.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11
11. Cho, D., S. J. Shin, A. M. Talaat, and M. T. Collins. 2007. Cloning, expression, purification and serodiagnostic evaluation of fourteen Mycobacterium paratuberculosis proteins. Protein Expr. Purif. 53:411-420.[CrossRef][Medline]
12
12. Cole, S. T., R. Brosch, J. Parkhill, T. Garnier, C. Churcher, D. Harris, S. V. Gordon, K. Eiglmeier, S. Gas, C. E. Barry III, F. Tekaia, K. Badcock, D. Basham, D. Brown, T. Chillingworth, R. Connor, R. Davies, K. Devlin, T. Feltwell, S. Gentles, N. Hamlin, S. Holroyd, T. Hornsby, K. Jagels, B. G. Barrell, et al. 1998. Deciphering the biology of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from the complete genome sequence. Nature 393:537-544.[CrossRef][Medline]
13
13. de Juan, L., A. Mateos, L. Dominguez, J. M. Sharp, and K. Stevenson. 2005. Genetic diversity of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis isolates from goats detected by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Vet. Microbiol. 106:249-257.[CrossRef][Medline]
14
14. Dukes, T. W., G. J. Glover, B. W. Brooks, J. R. Duncan, and M. Swendrowski. 1992. Paratuberculosis in saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica) and experimental transmission to domestic sheep. J. Wildl. Dis. 28:161-170.[Abstract]
15
15. Dupont, C., K. Thompson, C. Heuer, B. Gicquel, and A. Murray. 2005. Identification and characterization of an immunogenic 22 kDa exported protein of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis. J. Med. Microbiol. 54:1083-1092.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16
16. Eda, S., J. P. Bannantine, W. R. Waters, Y. Mori, R. H. Whitlock, M. C. Scott, and C. A. Speer. 2006. A highly sensitive and subspecies-specific surface antigen enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for diagnosis of Johne's disease. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 13:837-844.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17
17. el-Zaatari, F. A., S. A. Naser, L. Engstrand, P. E. Burch, C. Y. Hachem, D. L. Whipple, and D. Y. Graham. 1995. Nucleotide sequence analysis and seroreactivities of the 65K heat shock protein from Mycobacterium paratuberculosis. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 2:657-664.[Medline]
18
18. Gao, L. Y., M. Pak, R. Kish, K. Kajihara, and E. J. Brown. 2006. A mycobacterial operon essential for virulence in vivo and invasion and intracellular persistence in macrophages. Infect. Immun. 74:1757-1767.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19
19. Gardy, J. L., M. R. Laird, F. Chen, S. Rey, C. J. Walsh, M. Ester, and F. S. Brinkman. 2005. PSORTb v. 2.0: expanded prediction of bacterial protein subcellular localization and insights gained from comparative proteome analysis. Bioinformatics 21:617-623.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20
20. Garnier, T., K. Eiglmeier, J. C. Camus, N. Medina, H. Mansoor, M. Pryor, S. Duthoy, S. Grondin, C. Lacroix, C. Monsempe, S. Simon, B. Harris, R. Atkin, J. Doggett, R. Mayes, L. Keating, P. R. Wheeler, J. Parkhill, B. G. Barrell, S. T. Cole, S. V. Gordon, and R. G. Hewinson. 2003. The complete genome sequence of Mycobacterium bovis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100:7877-7882.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21
21. Garry, F., S. Wells, S. Ott, and D. Hansen. March 1999. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service info sheet: who can afford a $200 loss per cow? or Johne's disease—what do I need to know? USDA, Washington, DC. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/ncahs/nahms/dairy/dairy96/johnsart.htm.
22
22. Godfroid, J., C. Delcorps, L. M. Irenge, K. Walravens, S. Marche, and J. L. Gala. 2005. Definitive differentiation between single and mixed mycobacterial infections in red deer (Cervus elaphus) by a combination of duplex amplification of p34 and f57 sequences and Hpy188I enzymatic restriction of duplex amplicons. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43:4640-4648.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23
23. Han, M. J., and S. Y. Lee. 2006. The Escherichia coli proteome: past, present, and future prospects. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 70:362-439.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24
24. Hughes, V., S. Smith, A. Garcia-Sanchez, J. Sales, and K. Stevenson. 2007. Proteomic comparison of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis grown in vitro and isolated from clinical cases of ovine paratuberculosis. Microbiology 153:196-205.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25
25. Judge, J., I. Kyriazakis, A. Greig, D. J. Allcroft, and M. R. Hutchings. 2005. Clustering of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in rabbits and the environment: how hot is a hot spot? Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:6033-6038.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26
26. Koets, A. P., V. P. Rutten, M. de Boer, D. Bakker, P. Valentin-Weigand, and W. van Eden. 2001. Differential changes in heat shock protein-, lipoarabinomannan-, and purified protein derivative-specific immunoglobulin G1 and G2 isotype responses during bovine Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis infection. Infect. Immun. 69:1492-1498.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27
27. Lambeth, C., L. A. Reddacliff, P. Windsor, K. A. Abbott, H. McGregor, and R. J. Whittington. 2004. Intrauterine and transmammary transmission of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in sheep. Aust. Vet. J. 82:504-508.[Medline]
28
28. Leroy, B., V. Roupie, I. Noel-Georis, V. Rosseels, K. Walravens, M. Govaerts, K. Huygen, and R. Wattiez. 2007. Antigen discovery: a postgenomic approach to paratuberculosis diagnosis. Proteomics 7:1164-1176.[CrossRef][Medline]
29
29. Li, L., J. P. Bannantine, Q. Zhang, A. Amonsin, B. J. May, D. Alt, N. Banerji, S. Kanjilal, and V. Kapur. 2005. The complete genome sequence of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102:12344-12349.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30
30. Li, L., S. Munir, J. P. Bannantine, S. Sreevatsan, S. Kanjilal, and V. Kapur. 2007. Rapid expression of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis recombinant proteins for antigen discovery. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 14:102-105.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
31
31. Lyashchenko, K. P., M. Singh, R. Colangeli, and M. L. Gennaro. 2000. A multi-antigen print immunoassay for the development of serological diagnosis of infectious diseases. J. Immunol. Methods 242:91-100.[CrossRef][Medline]
32
32. Machackova-Kopecna, M., M. Bartos, M. Straka, V. Ludvik, P. Svastova, J. Alvarez, J. Lamka, I. Trcka, F. Treml, I. Parmova, and I. Pavlik. 2005. Paratuberculosis and avian tuberculosis infections in one red deer farm studied by IS900 and IS901 RFLP analysis. Vet. Microbiol. 105:261-268.[CrossRef][Medline]
33
33. Mackintosh, C. G., G. W. de Lisle, D. M. Collins, and J. F. Griffin. 2004. Mycobacterial diseases of deer. N. Z. Vet. J. 52:163-174.[Medline]
34
34. Marsh, I. B., J. P. Bannantine, M. L. Paustian, M. L. Tizard, V. Kapur, and R. J. Whittington. 2006. Genomic comparison of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis sheep and cattle strains by microarray hybridization. J. Bacteriol. 188:2290-2293.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
35
35. McKenna, S. L., G. P. Keefe, H. W. Barkema, and D. C. Sockett. 2005. Evaluation of three ELISAs for Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis using tissue and fecal culture as comparison standards. Vet. Microbiol. 110:105-111.[CrossRef][Medline]
36
36. Motiwala, A. S., M. Strother, A. Amonsin, B. Byrum, S. A. Naser, J. R. Stabel, W. P. Shulaw, J. P. Bannantine, V. Kapur, and S. Sreevatsan. 2003. Molecular epidemiology of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis: evidence for limited strain diversity, strain sharing, and identification of unique targets for diagnosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 41:2015-2026.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
37
37. Muskens, J., D. Bakker, J. de Boer, and L. van Keulen. 2001. Paratuberculosis in sheep: its possible role in the epidemiology of paratuberculosis in cattle. Vet. Microbiol. 78:101-109.[CrossRef][Medline]
38
38. Olsen, I., M. Tryland, H. G. Wiker, and L. J. Reitan. 2001. AhpC, AhpD, and a secreted 14-kilodalton antigen from Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis distinguish between paratuberculosis and bovine tuberculosis in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 8:797-801.[CrossRef][Medline]
39
39. O'Shea, B., S. Khare, K. Bliss, P. Klein, T. A. Ficht, L. G. Adams, and A. C. Rice-Ficht. 2004. Amplified fragment length polymorphism reveals genomic variability among Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis isolates. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42:3600-3606.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
40
40. Overduin, P., L. Schouls, P. Roholl, A. van der Zanden, N. Mahmmod, A. Herrewegh, and D. van Soolingen. 2004. Use of multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis for typing Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42:5022-5028.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
41
41. Paustian, M. L., A. Amonsin, V. Kapur, and J. P. Bannantine. 2004. Characterization of novel coding sequences specific to Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis: implications for diagnosis of Johne's disease. J. Clin. Microbiol. 42:2675-2681.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
42
42. Paustian, M. L., V. Kapur, and J. P. Bannantine. 2005. Comparative genomic hybridizations reveal genetic regions within the Mycobacterium avium complex that are divergent from Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis isolates. J. Bacteriol. 187:2406-2415.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
43
43. Rigden, R. C., D. M. Jandhyala, C. Dupont, D. Crosbie-Caird, N. Lopez-Villalobos, N. Maeda, B. Gicquel, and A. Murray. 2006. Humoral and cellular immune responses in sheep immunized with a 22 kilodalton exported protein of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis. J. Med. Microbiol. 55:1735-1740.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
44
44. Sechi, L. A., N. Ahmed, G. E. Felis, I. Dupre, S. Cannas, G. Fadda, A. Bua, and S. Zanetti. 2006. Immunogenicity and cytoadherence of recombinant heparin binding haemagglutinin (HBHA) of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis: functional promiscuity or a role in virulence? Vaccine. 24:236-243.[CrossRef][Medline]
45
45. Semret, M., D. C. Alexander, C. Y. Turenne, P. de Haas, P. Overduin, D. van Soolingen, D. Cousins, and M. A. Behr. 2005. Genomic polymorphisms for Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis diagnostics. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43:3704-3712.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
46
46. Semret, M., G. Zhai, S. Mostowy, C. Cleto, D. Alexander, G. Cangelosi, D. Cousins, D. M. Collins, D. van Soolingen, and M. A. Behr. 2004. Extensive genomic polymorphism within Mycobacterium avium. J. Bacteriol. 186:6332-6334.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
47
47. Shin, S. J., H. S. Yoo, S. P. McDonough, and Y. F. Chang. 2004. Comparative antibody response of five recombinant antigens in related to bacterial shedding levels and development of serological diagnosis based on 35 kDa antigen for Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis. J. Vet. Sci. 5:111-117.[Medline]
48
48. Stabel, J. R. 2006. Host responses to Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis: a complex arsenal. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 7:61-70.[CrossRef][Medline]
49
49. Stabel, J. R. 1998. Johne's disease: a hidden threat. J. Dairy Sci. 81:283-288.[Abstract]
50
50. Stabel, J. R. 2000. Transitions in immune responses to Mycobacterium paratuberculosis. Vet. Microbiol. 77:465-473.[CrossRef][Medline]
51
51. Stabel, J. R., and R. H. Whitlock. 2001. An evaluation of a modified interferon-gamma assay for the detection of paratuberculosis in dairy herds. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 79:69-81.[CrossRef][Medline]
52
52. Steadham, E. M., B. M. Martin, and C. O. Thoen. 2002. Production of a Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis purified protein derivative (PPD) and evaluation of potency in guinea pigs. Biologicals 30:93-95.[CrossRef][Medline]
53
53. Stinear, T. P., T. Seemann, S. Pidot, W. Frigui, G. Reysset, T. Garnier, G. Meurice, D. Simon, C. Bouchier, L. Ma, M. Tichit, J. L. Porter, J. Ryan, P. D. Johnson, J. K. Davies, G. A. Jenkin, P. L. Small, L. M. Jones, F. Tekaia, F. Laval, M. Daffe, J. Parkhill, and S. T. Cole. 2007. Reductive evolution and niche adaptation inferred from the genome of Mycobacterium ulcerans, the causative agent of Buruli ulcer. Genome Res. 17:192-200.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
54
54. Storset, A. K., I. Berg, and B. Djonne. 2005. Evaluation of the gamma interferon test for diagnosis of paratuberculosis in goats. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 107:87-94.[CrossRef][Medline]
55
55. Storset, A. K., H. J. Hasvold, M. Valheim, H. Brun-Hansen, G. Berntsen, S. K. Whist, B. Djonne, C. M. Press, G. Holstad, and H. J. Larsen. 2001. Subclinical paratuberculosis in goats following experimental infection. An immunological and microbiological study. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 80:271-287.[CrossRef][Medline]
56
56. Triccas, J. A., N. Winter, P. W. Roche, A. Gilpin, K. E. Kendrick, and W. J. Britton. 1998. Molecular and immunological analyses of the Mycobacterium avium homolog of the immunodominant Mycobacterium leprae 35-kilodalton protein. Infect. Immun. 66:2684-2690.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
57
57. Waters, W. R., J. M. Miller, M. V. Palmer, J. R. Stabel, D. E. Jones, K. A. Koistinen, E. M. Steadham, M. J. Hamilton, W. C. Davis, and J. P. Bannantine. 2003. Early induction of humoral and cellular immune responses during experimental Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis infection of calves. Infect. Immun. 71:5130-5138.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
58
58. Waters, W. R., M. V. Palmer, J. P. Bannantine, D. L. Whipple, R. Greenwald, J. Esfandiari, P. Andersen, J. McNair, J. M. Pollock, and K. P. Lyashchenko. 2004. Antigen recognition by serum antibodies in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) experimentally infected with Mycobacterium bovis. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 11:849-855.[CrossRef][Medline]
59
59. Whittington, R. J., I. B. Marsh, and R. H. Whitlock. 2001. Typing of IS 1311 polymorphisms confirms that bison (Bison bison) with paratuberculosis in Montana are infected with a strain of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis distinct from that occurring in cattle and other domesticated livestock. Mol. Cell. Probes 15:139-145.[CrossRef][Medline]
60
60. Willemsen, P. T., J. Westerveen, A. Dinkla, D. Bakker, F. G. van Zijderveld, and J. E. Thole. 2006. Secreted antigens of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis as prominent immune targets. Vet. Microbiol. 114:337-344.[CrossRef][Medline]

---

Infection and Immunity, February 2008, p. 739-749, Vol. 76, No. 2
0019-9567/08/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/IAI.00915-07
Copyright © 2008, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Supplemental material Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bannantine, J. P. Articles by Kapur, V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bannantine, J. P. Articles by Kapur, V.