Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About IAI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Infection and Immunity
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About IAI
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Microbial Immunity and Vaccines

Salmonella DNA Adenine Methylase Mutants Elicit Protective Immune Responses to Homologous and Heterologous Serovars in Chickens

E. L. Dueger, J. K. House, D. M. Heithoff, M. J. Mahan
E. L. Dueger
Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California 95616;
Remedyne Corporation, Santa Barbara, California 93105;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. K. House
Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California 95616;
Remedyne Corporation, Santa Barbara, California 93105;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D. M. Heithoff
Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. J. Mahan
Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.69.12.7950-7954.2001
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Salmonella DNA adenine methylase (Dam) mutants that lack or overproduce Dam are highly attenuated for virulence in mice and confer protection against murine typhoid fever. To determine whether vaccines based on Dam are efficacious in poultry, aSalmonella Dam− vaccine was evaluated in the protection of chicken broilers against oral challenge with homologous and heterologous Salmonella serovars. A Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium Dam− vaccine strain was attenuated for virulence in day-of-hatch chicks more than 100,000-fold. Vaccination of chicks elicited cross-protective immune responses, as evidenced by reduced colonization (10- to 10,000-fold) of the gastrointestinal tract (ileum, cecum, and feces) and visceral organs (bursa and spleen) after challenge with homologous (Typhimurium F98) and heterologous (Enteritidis 4973 and S. entericaO6,14,24: e,h-monophasic) Salmonella serovars that are implicated in Salmonella infection of poultry. The protection conferred was observed for the organ or the maximum CFU/tissue/bird as a unit of analysis, suggesting that Dam mutant strains may serve as the basis for the development of efficacious poultry vaccines for the containment of Salmonella.

Salmonellosis resulting from the consumption of contaminated eggs and poultry meat poses a significant public health risk to consumers worldwide. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that there are approximately 2 million cases of human nontyphoid salmonellosis per year in the United States, resulting in up to 2,000 deaths (1). Most cases of salmonellosis in developed countries are zoonotic in origin and not due to person-to-person contamination. This disease is caused by exposure to products contaminated with Salmonella, e.g., animal products (such as eggs, milk, poultry), or the ingestion of food products that have been exposed to animal feces. Economic constraints associated with improved management of production and slaughter facilities suggest that on-farm control of Salmonella via a combination of antibiotics, competitive exclusion products, and/or vaccination may be the most practical and economically feasible methods toward reducing contamination of poultry products (34). Such a reduction in preharvest pathogen load may provide a means for decreasing the potential for transmission to humans.

Dam−Salmonella is attenuated for virulence in day-of-hatch chicks. Salmonella DNA adenine methylase (Dam) mutants are attenuated for virulence in mice and elicit protective (10, 16) and cross-protective (15) immune responses against murine typhoid fever. To examine whether Dam−Salmonella cells were attenuated for virulence, we challenged day-of-hatch chicks with either Dam− or Dam+Salmonella entericaserovar Typhimurium UK-1 (Table1). All chicks (15 out of 15) survived that were infected on the day of hatch with 1010Dam− UK-1 (MT2313) cells (Table2). In contrast, 8 of 15 chicks survived after challenge with 105 Dam+ UK-1 (MT2315) cells. These data indicate that a mutation in damattenuated the virulence of serovar Typhimurium UK-1 in day-of-hatch chickens by ≥100,000-fold.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Bacterial strains and phage used in this studya

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Dam−Salmonella is attenuated for virulence in chickensa

Immunization with Dam−Salmonella elicits protective immunity.To determine whether Dam−serovar Typhimurium elicited protective immune responses, chicks were orally vaccinated with 107 CFU of Dam−Typhimurium UK-1 (MT2313) within 10 h of hatching and again at 1 week of age. Chicks were challenged at 5 weeks of age with 108 CFU of serovar Typhimurium F98 (MT2318). Vaccine efficacy was determined by comparison of vaccinate (n = 62) and control (n = 62) quantitative cultures of the spleen, bursa of Fabricius, ileum, cecum, and feces; cultures were performed at 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 14 days postchallenge. The mean log10 CFU of homologous challenge with Typhimurium F98 by organ and day of termination for vaccinated birds relative to controls are presented in Fig. 1A. Vaccination with Dam− UK-1 (MT2313) resulted in significantly lower CFU (P < 0.05) in the spleen and feces of vaccinates on all 7 postchallenge days examined. Significantly lower CFU in vaccinates relative to controls were observed in the bursa on 4 out of 7 termination days, in the ileum on 5 of 7 days, and in the cecum on 3 of 7 days.

Fig. 1.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Dam−Salmonella elicits protective responses in chicken tissue sites. The protective capacity of Dam− serovar Typhimurium was assessed by orally immunizing 62 chicks with 107 CFU of Dam− UK-1 (MT2313) within 10 h of hatch and boosted with the same dose at 1 week of age (hatched bars); 62 additional chicks remained as nonvaccinated controls (filled bars). All chicks were challenged at 5 weeks of age with 108 CFU of serovar Typhimurium F98 (MT2318). Data are depicted as mean log10 CFU by organ. Nine control and nine vaccinated chickens were terminated at 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 12 days postchallenge; 8 birds per group were terminated 14 days postchallenge. Cross-protective immunity was assessed as follows. Sixty chicks were orally vaccinated with 107 Dam− UK-1 (MT2313) cells within 10 h of hatching and again at 1 week of age; 60 additional chicks remained as nonvaccinated controls. All chicks were challenged at 5 weeks of age with either 108 CFU of serovar Enteritidis 4973 (MT2314) or 109 CFU of S. enterica serovar O6,14,24:e,h-monophasic (MT2339). Ten control and 10 vaccinated chickens were terminated at 4, 5, and 6 days postchallenge for the serovar Enteritidis challenge or 5, 6, or 7 days postchallenge for theS. enterica serovar O6,14,24:e,h-monophasic challenge. For each experiment, a separate cohort of 8 to 14 nonvaccinated, nonchallenged negative control birds were maintained and necropsied as described below. Approximately 1 g of each organ was obtained in the following order: spleen, bursa of Fabricius, ileum and ileal contents, cecum and cecal contents, and rectum and feces. Organs were weighed, homogenized, and serially diluted, and 100 μl of each dilution was plated on 1% lactose MacConkey agar plates containing kanamycin. For detection of salmonellae at concentrations below 40 CFU/g, the 1:4 dilution homogenate sample was incubated for 24 h in 9 ml of tetrathionate solution, streaked for single colonies on lactose MacConkey agar, and incubated for 24 h at 37°C. Samples positive by selective enrichment in tetrathionate broth were recorded as 10 CFU, and negative samples were recorded as 0 CFU. For tissue experiments, bacterial titers were confirmed via serial dilutions plated on 1% lactose MacConkey agar; colony serotype was confirmed via standard biochemical tests (urea, triple sugar iron, and ONPG [O-nitrophenyl-β-d-galactopyranoside]) and agglutination with appropriate antisera on two randomly selected colonies from each organ of each bird. ∗, significant difference (P < 0.05) between vaccinates and controls as assessed by the Mann-Whitney test.

Vaccinated birds also had significantly lower CFU than controls following homologous challenge with serovar Typhimurium F98 (MT2318) with maximum CFU/tissue/bird as the unit of analysis (Fig.2). All control birds had at least 40 CFU of challenge organism in at least one organ following challenge. However, no salmonellae were isolated in any organ from 7 out of 62 (11%) vaccinates; an additional 7 out of 62 (11%) vaccinates had only 10 CFU isolated from at least one organ. In vaccinates, 32 out of 62 (52%) birds had ≤103 CFU in at least one organ, compared to 2 (3%) out of 62 controls in this category. Birds with ≤104 CFU in at least one organ included 46 (74%) out of 62 vaccinates compared to only 7 (11%) out of 62 controls. Taken together, these data indicate that immunization of chicks with Dam− serovar Typhimurium confers protection against homologous challenge with the organ or maximum CFU/tissue/bird as the unit of analysis.

Fig. 2.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Salmonella Dam− vaccine elicits protective responses as determined by the maximum CFU/tissue/bird analysis. Vaccinated (open boxes) and nonvaccinated (closed boxes) chicks were challenged as described in the Fig. 1 legend. The maximum CFU from the five tissues examined for each bird determined the category into which the bird was included. For example, if no CFU were found in the spleen, bursa, ileum, or cecum but 106 CFU were found in feces, the bird was included in the ≤106 CFU category.

Immunization of chicks with Dam−Salmonella elicits cross-protective immunity.Next, we examined the cross-protective capacity of chicks immunized with Dam−Salmonella. Sixty chicks were orally vaccinated with 107 Dam− UK-1 (MT2313) cells within 10 h of hatching and again at 1 week of age; 60 additional chicks remained as nonvaccinated controls. All chicks were challenged at 5 weeks of age with either 108 CFU of serovar Enteritidis 4973 (serogroup D; MT2314) or 109 CFU of serovar S. enterica O6,14,24:e,h-monophasic (serogroup H; MT2339). Figure 1B and C show the mean log10 CFU of serovars Enteritidis 4973 and S. entericaO6,14,24:e,h-monophasic challenge organisms by organ and day of termination for vaccinated birds relative to nonvaccinated controls. Six days postchallenge with serovar Enteritidis 4973 (MT2314), vaccinates had significantly lower CFU in the spleen, bursa, cecum, and feces: no challenge organisms were recovered from any vaccinated bird organs, whereas 50 to 60% of control organs were positive forSalmonella. No challenge organisms were recovered from the spleens of vaccinates on day 6 or 7 postchallenge withS. enterica serovar O6,14,24:e,h-monophasic (MT2339); in contrast, salmonellae were recovered from 19 out of 20 control spleens on these 2 days.

Vaccinated birds had significantly lower CFU than controls following heterologous challenge when the maximum CFU/tissue/bird was used as the unit of analysis (Fig. 2). No serovar Enteritidis 4973 was recovered from 18 out of 30 (60%) challenged vaccinates compared to only 7 out of 30 (23%) noninfected control birds. Vaccinated birds also showed protection against challenge with serovar S. entericaO6,14,24:e,h-monophasic, as 7 out of 30 (23%) vaccinates had ≤100 CFU in at least one organ; no control birds were in this category. Taken together, these data indicate that chicks vaccinated with Dam− serovar Typhimurium UK-1 elicited cross-protective immune responses to challenge with serovars Enteritidis 4973 andS. enterica O6,14,24:e,h-monophasic for the organ or maximum CFU/tissue/bird as the unit of analysis.

The safety of the food supply can be compromised by large-scale animal husbandry, agricultural methods, and distribution practices that are prone to microbial contamination. This public health problem has been recently exacerbated by the emergence of pathogens that are resistant to multiple antibiotics and/or cause more debilitating forms of disease (e.g., Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonellaserovars Enteritidis and Typhimurium DT104). Vaccination of chickens offers a practical and economically feasible approach to reducing contamination of poultry products. Here, we show that anS. enterica serovar Typhimurium Dam− mutant was severely attenuated for virulence in day-of-hatch chicks. Additionally, chicks immunized with this Salmonella Dam−vaccine strain exhibit protective immune responses against homologous and heterologous Salmonella serotypes that are implicated inSalmonella infection of poultry. Vaccines based on altered levels of Dam activity may prove effective in controllingSalmonella contamination of poultry, meat, and dairy products derived from animals susceptible to Salmonellainfection and colonization.

Enumeration of salmonellae isolated from the visceral organs and intestinal tract of vaccinated and nonvaccinated chickens challenged with virulent serovars Typhimurium or Enteritidis or S. enterica O6,14,24:e,h-monophasic was used to determine the degree of protection associated with vaccination. Significantly lower mean log10 CFU were observed in visceral organs and the gastrointestinal tract of vaccinates versus nonvaccinates. Comparison of these results with challenge studies for other vaccines is problematic as the outcome of infection varies greatly with challenge strain, inoculation and immunization dose, use of multiple (booster) immunizations, the age of the birds at vaccination and challenge, statistical analysis of the data, etc. (11, 17, 18). Previous studies using live attenuated Salmonella aroA(11, 17, 18) and Δcya Δcrpmutants (12) showed reduced visceral invasion and colonization of the gastrointestinal tract in chickens by homologous and, to a lesser extent, heterologous challenge strains. Oral vaccination with attenuated aroA mutants of serovar Typhimurium (3) or Enteritidis (6, 7) reduced fecal shedding following homologous challenge, but not heterologous challenge (8). Vaccination with serovar Typhimurium Δcya Δcrp conferred protection against intestinal and visceral invasion by both homologous and heterologous challenge serotypes (12). Moreover, this vaccine also provided protection against intestinal, visceral, reproductive tract and egg colonization by Salmonella for at least 11 months postvaccination, with no effect on egg production (13).

Results of this study are promising in that significant protection was observed following homologous and heterologous challenge at high challenge doses. It should be noted that a single challenge may not reflect the field situation wherein animals can be exposed to various doses of several virulent serovars alone and in combination. That said, multiple and/or continuous exposures to several serovars in the field situation do not necessarily result in susceptibility of immunized animals to disease: repeated exposures may contribute to the maintenance of heightened levels of protection in vaccinated hosts.

The data presented here suggest that vaccines based on altered DNA methylation may reduce preharvest Salmonella contamination in poultry, ultimately decreasing the potential for food-borne transmission of this pathogen to humans. DNA methylation plays a role in the virulence of a wide variety of pathogens of the gamma subdivision of proteobacteria, including Salmonella (murine typhoid; 10, 15), Yersinia pseudotuberculosis(murine bacteremia; 21), and Vibrio cholerae(cholera; 21). Additionally, DNA methylation is required for the virulence of Brucella abortus (fetal calf abortion;30) via CcrM, a cell-cycle regulated DNA adenine methyltransferase present in members of the alpha group of proteobacteria (28, 33). Since Dam and CcrM affect the virulence of such distantly related pathogens, the function of DNA methylation in virulence may emerge as a general theme in bacterial pathogenesis.

The role of DNA methylation in virulence and the elicitation of protective immune responses may rely on its capacity as a global regulator of gene expression (16, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29). Dam regulates the production of a number of adhesins in E. coli (23, 32) and Salmonella(27), as well as several genes required forSalmonella infection (14, 16). Such ectopic gene expression may result in the production of an expanded repertoire of antigens that contribute to the heightened immunity seen in vaccinated animals (15, 16, 21). Thus, dysregulation of Dam activity may be a means to elicit protective immune responses directed against diverse pathogens that infect a wide variety of animal hosts (24, 25).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Steve Julio for critically reviewing the manuscript.

This work was supported by USDA grant 2000-02539 (to J.K.H and M.J.M.), a grant from Remedyne Corporation (to J.K.H.), private donations from Jim and Deanna Dehlsen, the Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital Research Program (to M.J.M.), and a postdoctoral grant from the Cancer Center of Santa Barbara (to D.M.H.).

Notes

Editor: D. L. Burns

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 26 June 2001.
    • Returned for modification 4 September 2001.
    • Accepted 21 September 2001.
  • Copyright © 2001 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Altekruse S. F.,
    2. Cohen M. L.,
    3. Swerdlow D. L.
    Emerging food borne diseases.Emerg. Infect. Dis.31997285293
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.
    1. Barrow P. A.,
    2. Smith H. W.,
    3. Tucker J. F.
    The effect of feeding diets containing avopracin on the excretion of Salmonella by chickens experimentally infected with natural sources of Salmonella organisms.J. Hyg.931984439444
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Barrow P. A.,
    2. Hassan J. O.,
    3. Berchieri A. Jr.
    Reduction in faecal excretion of Salmonella typhimurium strain F98 in chickens vaccinated with live and killed S. typhimurium organisms.Epidemiol. Infect.1041990413426
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.
    1. Chan R. K.,
    2. Botstein D.,
    3. Watanabe T.,
    4. Ogata Y.
    Specialized transduction of tetracycline resistance by phage P22 in Salmonella typhimurium. II. Properties of a high-frequency-transducing lysate.Virology501972883898
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.
    1. Conner C. P.,
    2. Heithoff D. M.,
    3. Julio S. M.,
    4. Sinsheimer R. L.,
    5. Mahan M. J.
    Differential patterns of acquired virulence genes distinguish Salmonella strains.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA95199846414645
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Cooper G. L.,
    2. Venables L. M.,
    3. Nicholas R. A.,
    4. Cullen G. A.,
    5. Hormaeche C. E.
    Vaccination of chickens with chicken-derived Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 aroA live oral Salmonella vaccines.Vaccine101992247254
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Cooper G. L.,
    2. Venables L. M.,
    3. Nicholas R. A.,
    4. Cullen G. A.,
    5. Hormaeche C. E.
    Further studies of the application of live Salmonella enteritidis aroA vaccines in chickens.Vet. Rec.13319933136
    OpenUrlAbstract
  8. 8.↵
    1. Cooper G. L.,
    2. Venables L. M.,
    3. Woodward M. J.,
    4. Hormaeche C. E.
    Vaccination of chickens with strain CVL30, a genetically defined Salmonella enteritidis aroA live oral vaccine candidate.Infect. Immun.62199447474754
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.
    1. Davis R. W.,
    2. Botstein D.,
    3. Roth J. R.
    Advanced bacterial genetics. 1980 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Plainview, N.Y
  10. 10.↵
    1. Garcia-Del Portillo F.,
    2. Pucciarelli M. G.,
    3. Casadesus J.
    DNA adenine methylase mutants of Salmonella typhimurium show defects in protein secretion, cell invasion, and M cell cytotoxicity.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA9619991157811583
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Harrison J. A.,
    2. Villarreal-Ramos B.,
    3. Mastroeni P.,
    4. Demarco de Hormaeche R.,
    5. Hormaeche C. E.
    Correlates of protection induced by live Aro-Salmonella typhimurium vaccines in the murine typhoid model.Immunology901997618625
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    1. Hassan J. O.,
    2. Curtiss R. III.
    Development and evaluation of an experimental vaccination program using a live avirulent Salmonella typhimurium strain to protect immunized chickens against challenge with homologous and heterologous Salmonella serotypes.Infect. Immun.62199455195527
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Hassan J. O.,
    2. Curtiss R. III.
    Efficacy of a live avirulent Salmonella typhimurium vaccine in preventing colonization and invasion of laying hens by Salmonella typhimurium and Salmonella enteritidis.Avian Dis.411997783791
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Heithoff D. M.,
    2. Conner C. P.,
    3. Hanna P. C.,
    4. Julio S. M.,
    5. Hentschel U.,
    6. Mahan M. J.
    Bacterial infection as assessed by in vivo gene expression.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA941997934939
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Heithoff D. M.,
    2. Enioutina E. Y.,
    3. Daynes R. A.,
    4. Sinsheimer R. L.,
    5. Low D. A.,
    6. Mahan M. J.
    Salmonella DNA adenine methylase mutants confer cross-protective immunity.Infect. Immun.69200167256730
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Heithoff D. M.,
    2. Sinsheimer R. L.,
    3. Low D. A.,
    4. Mahan M. J.
    An essential role for DNA adenine methylation in bacterial virulence.Science2841999967970
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Hormaeche C. E.,
    2. Joysey H. S.,
    3. Desilva L.,
    4. Izhar M.,
    5. Stocker B. A. D.
    Immunity conferred by AroA- Salmonella live vaccines.Microb. Pathog.101991149158
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    1. Hormaeche C. E.,
    2. Mastroeni P.,
    3. Harrison J. A.,
    4. Demarco de Hormaeche R.,
    5. Svenson S.,
    6. Stocker B. A. D.
    Protection against oral challenge three months after i.v. immunization of BALB/c mice with live Aro Salmonella typhimurium and Salmonella enteritidis vaccines is serotype (species)-dependent and only partially determined by the main LPS O antigen.Vaccine141996251259
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.
    1. Jones F.,
    2. Axtell R. C.,
    3. Tarver F. R.,
    4. Rives D. V.,
    5. Scheideler S. E.,
    6. Wineland M. J.
    Experimental factors contributing to Salmonella colonization of chickens Colonization control of human bacterial enteropathogens in poultry. Blankenship L. C., Bailey J. S., Cox N. A., Stern N. J., Meinersmann R. J. 1991 3 21 Academy Press, Inc. New York, N.Y
  20. 20.
    1. Julio S. M.,
    2. Conner C. P.,
    3. Heithoff D. M.,
    4. Mahan M. J.
    Directed formation of chromosomal deletions in Salmonella typhimurium: targeting of specific genes induced during infection.Mol. Gen. Genet.2581998178181
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    1. Julio S. M.,
    2. Heithoff D. M.,
    3. Provenzano D.,
    4. Klose K. E.,
    5. Sinsheimer R. L.,
    6. Low D. A.,
    7. Mahan M. J.
    DNA adenine methylase is essential for viability and plays a role in the pathogenesis of Yersinia pseudotuberculosis and Vibrio cholerae.Infect. Immun.69200176107615
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Kahng L. S.,
    2. Shapiro L.
    The CcrM DNA methyltransferase of Agrobacterium tumefaciens is essential, and its activity is cell cycle regulated.J. Bacteriol.183200130653075
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Krabbe M.,
    2. Weyand N.,
    3. Low D.
    Environmental control of pilus gene expression Bacterial stress responses. Storz G., Hengge-Aronis R. 2000 305 321 ASM Press Washington, D.C.
  24. 24.↵
    1. Low D. A.,
    2. Weyand N. J.,
    3. Mahan M. J.
    The roles of DNA methylation in the control of bacterial gene expression and virulence.Infect. Immun.69200171977204
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Mahan M. J.,
    2. Low D. A.
    DNA methylation regulates bacterial gene expression and virulence.ASM News67200117
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Marinus M. G.
    Methylation of DNA Escherichia coli and Salmonella: cellular and molecular biology 2nd ed. Neidhardt F. C., Curtiss R. III, Ingraham J. L., Lin E. C. C., Low K. B., Magasanik B., Reznikoff W. S., Riley M., Schaechter M., Umbarger H. E. 1996 782 791 ASM Press Washington, D.C.
  27. 27.↵
    1. Nicholson B.,
    2. Low D. A.
    DNA methylation-dependent regulation of pef expression in Salmonella typhimurium.Mol. Microbiol.352000728742
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Reisenauer A.,
    2. Kahng L. S.,
    3. McCollum S.,
    4. Shapiro L.
    Bacterial DNA methylation: a cell cycle regulator? J. Bacteriol. 181 1999 5135 5139
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Reisenauer A.,
    2. Quon K.,
    3. Shapiro L.
    The CtrA response regulator mediates temporal control of gene expression during the Caulobacter cell cycle.J. Bacteriol.181199924302439
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Robertson G. T.,
    2. Reisenauer A.,
    3. Wright R.,
    4. Jensen R. B.,
    5. Jensen A.,
    6. Shapiro L.,
    7. Roop R. M. II.
    The Brucella abortus CcrM DNA methyltransferase is essential for viability, and its overexpression attenuates intracellular replication in murine macrophages.J. Bacteriol.182200034823489
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.
    1. Schmeiger H.
    Phage P22-mutants with increased or decreased transduction abilities.Mol. Gen. Genet.11919727588
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    1. van der Woude M.,
    2. Braaten B.,
    3. Low D.
    Epigenetic phase variation of the pap operon in Escherichia coli.Trends Microbiol.4199659
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. 33.↵
    1. Wright R.,
    2. Stephens C.,
    3. Shapiro L.
    The CcrM DNA methyltransferase is widespread in the alpha subdivision of proteobacteria, and its essential functions are conserved in Rhizobium meliloti and Caulobacter crescentus.J. Bacteriol.179199758695877
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Zhang-Barber L.,
    2. Turner A. K.,
    3. Barrow P. A.
    Vaccination for control of Salmonella in poultry.Vaccine17199925382545
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Salmonella DNA Adenine Methylase Mutants Elicit Protective Immune Responses to Homologous and Heterologous Serovars in Chickens
E. L. Dueger, J. K. House, D. M. Heithoff, M. J. Mahan
Infection and Immunity Dec 2001, 69 (12) 7950-7954; DOI: 10.1128/IAI.69.12.7950-7954.2001

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Infection and Immunity article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Salmonella DNA Adenine Methylase Mutants Elicit Protective Immune Responses to Homologous and Heterologous Serovars in Chickens
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Infection and Immunity
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Infection and Immunity.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Salmonella DNA Adenine Methylase Mutants Elicit Protective Immune Responses to Homologous and Heterologous Serovars in Chickens
E. L. Dueger, J. K. House, D. M. Heithoff, M. J. Mahan
Infection and Immunity Dec 2001, 69 (12) 7950-7954; DOI: 10.1128/IAI.69.12.7950-7954.2001
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • Notes
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Salmonella Infections, Animal
Salmonella Vaccines
Salmonella Typhimurium
Site-Specific DNA-Methyltransferase (Adenine-Specific)
Vaccination

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About IAI
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #IAIjournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0019-9567; Online ISSN: 1098-5522