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
Fungal and Parasitic Infections

Two Epitopes Shared by Taenia crassiceps andTaenia solium Confer Protection against Murine T. crassiceps Cysticercosis along with a Prominent T1 Response

Andrea Toledo, Gladis Fragoso, Gabriela Rosas, Marisela Hernández, Goar Gevorkian, Fernando López-Casillas, Beatriz Hernández, Gonzalo Acero, Mirna Huerta, Carlos Larralde, Edda Sciutto
Andrea Toledo
Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gladis Fragoso
Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gabriela Rosas
Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marisela Hernández
Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Goar Gevorkian
Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fernando López-Casillas
Instituto de Fisiologı́a Celular, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Beatriz Hernández
Facultad de Medicina, UNAM, México D. F., and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gonzalo Acero
Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mirna Huerta
Facultad de Medicina, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, México
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carlos Larralde
Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edda Sciutto
Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.69.3.1766-1773.2001
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Taenia crassiceps recombinant antigens KETc1 and KETc12 have been shown to induce high level of protection against experimental murine T. crassiceps cysticercosis, an experimental model successfully used to test candidate antigens for use in vaccination against porcine Taenia solium cysticercosis. Based on the deduced amino acid sequence, KETc1 and KETc12 were chemically synthesized in linear form. Immunization with KETc1 induced 66.7 to 100% protection against murine cysticercosis, and immunization with KETc12 induced 52.7 to 88.1% protection. The elicited immune response indicated that both peptides contain at least one B-cell epitope (as demonstrated by their ability to induce specific antibodies) and one T-cell epitope that strongly stimulated the proliferation of T cells primed with either the free peptide or total cysticercal T. crassiceps antigens. The high percentage of spleen cells expressing inflammatory cytokines points to the likelihood of a T1 response being involved in protection. The protective capacity of the peptides and their presence in all developmental stages of T. solium point to these two epitopes as strong candidates for inclusion in a polyepitopic synthetic vaccine against T. solium pig cysticercosis.

Taenia soliumcysticercosis is a common parasitic disease of the central nervous system of humans in several countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, where it represents a major health and economic problem (2, 28). The life cycle of this parasite includes a larval phase (cysticercus) that affects both pigs and humans after the ingestion ofT. solium eggs. The parasite's life cycle is completed when humans consume improperly cooked cysticercotic pork and the adult intestinal tapeworm develops and, in turn, produces millions of eggs that are shed in human feces. In regions of endemic infection, transmission is clearly related to prevailing low standards of personal hygiene and environmental sanitation control (i.e., open air fecalism) in areas where rustic rearing of pigs is practiced by the rural population (pigs roaming about freely in search of edibles and/or deliberately fed with human feces [11]). Regrettably, control of transmission by general improvement of the social, economical, and educational status in developing countries or by proper and strict meat inspection programs is not within reach in the near future. However, since the pig is an indispensable intermediate host, transmission could be hindered by lowering the prevalence of pig cysticercosis through vaccination. Development of an effective vaccine to be used in pigs is being pursued by a number of scientists, with promising results (9, 15-17).

Because of the high costs of experimentation in pigs, murine cysticercosis caused by Taenia crassiceps has been used to test and select promising antigens before they are tested in pigs (13, 21). Thus, it has been shown that total T. crassiceps antigens can cross-protect pigs against T. solium cysticerosis. However, the effects of vaccination with whole-antigen extracts were strongly dose dependent; besides, some antigens were found to be protective while others led to facilitation of the infection (22). Such complications with the use of whole-antigen extracts led us to redirect our research to the identification of individual protective antigens (14, 26). Using recombinant DNA technology, several vaccine candidates were identified in murine T. crassiceps cysticercosis with crude lysates of the respective clones as the immunogen (13, 14). One of them, KETc7, which has a protective capacity confirmed by DNA immunization (1, 20), includes at least one protective epitope of 17 amino acids (GK1). GK1 is also expressed in T. solium oncospheres (25), the parasite's developmental stage most vulnerable to immunological attack (19). Two additional protective clones, KETc1 and KETc12 (14), were also identified. Herein we report the protective capacity against T. crassiceps murine cysticerosis of the peptides deduced from these last two clones. Furthermore, we describe the localization of the peptides in each parasite stage of T. solium and T. crassiceps, the immune response they elicit in immunized mice—where T1 is most prominent—and propose them as additional components for a synthetic vaccine to be tested in pigs in an attempt to block T. solium transmission.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Peptides.Two T. crassiceps-derived peptides (14) that are shared by T. solium(24), KETc1 [APMSTPSATSVR(G)] and KETc12 [GNLLLSCL(G)], were synthesized by stepwise solid-phase synthesis with Nα-tert-butyloxycarbonyl derivatives ofl-amino acids on phenyl-acetamidomethyl resin (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, Mo.). The peptides were 95% pure as judged by high-pressure liquid chromatography in an analytical C18reversed-phase column (3.9 by 150 mm; Delta Pak [Waters]). The correct amino acid sequence of each peptide was confirmed by protein sequencing on a pulsed-liquid-phase protein sequencer (Applied Biosystems) at the National Institute of Cardiology, Mexico City.

Mice.BALB/cAnN mice, previously characterized as susceptible to cysticercosis (3), were used in vaccine trials. The original murine stock was purchased from M. Bevan (University of Washington) and then bred and kept in our animal facilities by the “single-line breeding” system for more than 30 generations. All mice used were males that were 5 to 7 weeks of age at the beginning of the experiments. The experiments reported herein were conducted according to the principles set forth in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, Institute of Laboratory Animals Resources, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Immunization of mice and serum collection.Groups of six to nine BALB/cAnN mice were subcutaneously immunized with two doses of 10 μg of each individual peptide in saponin (Sigma Chemical Co.) per mouse at a concentration of 100 μg/mouse as described elsewhere (25). This dose was determined as optimal in collateral experiments (data not shown). Ten days later, the mice were given a booster with the same immunizing dose of the same peptide in the same adjuvant as used before. Immune sera were obtained from each individual mouse before and after each immunization and stored at −70°C until individually tested for the presence of specific antibodies.

Parasites and cysticercal antigens.The ORF strain ofT. crassiceps (4) has been maintained by serial passage in BALB/cAnN female mice for 15 years in our animal facilities. Cysticerci for infection were harvested from the peritoneal cavity of mice 1 to 3 months after inoculation of 10 nonbudding small cysticerci (2 to 3 mm in diameter) per animal. The soluble antigens were recovered from similar cysticerci by a previously described procedure (18). Whole T. solium cysticerci were dissected from skeletal muscle of highly infected pork carcasses 2 to 4 h after slaughter in an abattoir in Zacatepec, Morelos, Mexico; embedded in optimun-cutting-temperature compound (Miles, Inc.), and frozen at −70°C until used in immunofluorescence assays (see below). Segments from T. solium tapeworm and eggs were obtained from the feces of an infected man in Puebla, Mexico. The tapeworm was recovered after treatment with a single oral dose (2 g) of niclosamide (Yomesan; kindly supplied by Bayer). After being washed in saline plus antibiotics (100 U of penicillin per ml plus 100 μg of streptomycin per ml), several gravid proglottids were separated for immunofluorescence assays.

ELISA for antibody measurements. T. crassiceps whole soluble antigens (TcAg) were obtained as previously described (18) and used as the source of antigens in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to measure the antibody response induced by peptide immunization by using a procedure described elsewhere (25).

Proliferation assay.Spleen cells from control and KETc1- and KETc12-immunized mice were harvested 15 days after the second immunization and cultured in RPMI 1640 medium supplemented withl-glutamine (0.2 mM), nonessential amino acids (0.01 mM), penicillin (100 U/ml), streptomycin (100 μg/ml) and fetal bovine serum FBS (10%). The cells were cultured with the appropriate concentration of concanavalin A (ConA) (5 μg/ml), KETc1 (50 μg/ml), KETc12 (10 μg/ml), or TcAg (10 μg/ml) and incubated at 37°C in a 5% CO2 humidified atmosphere in flat-bottomed microtiter plates at a cell concentration of 2 × 105cells per 200 μl of final volume. Then 105 peritoneal cells recovered from the same mice were added to each well in a volume of 50 μl. Peritoneal cells were obtained by ex vivo lavage with 5 ml of RPMI 1640 medium. After 72 h, the cultured cells were pulsed (1 μCi per well) for a further 18 h with [methyl-3H]thymidine (Amersham Life Science, Little Chalfont, United Kingdom). Then all the cells were harvested and the amount of incorporated label was measured by counting in a 1205 β-plate spectrometer (Wallac).

Spleen cell phenotype analysis.After 3 days of in vitro culture with medium, TcAg, or peptides, splenocytes were harvested and CD8 and CD4 expression was determined by staining with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-conjugated anti-CD8 (Pharmingen, San Diego, Calif.) and phycoerythrin-conjugated anti-CD4 (Pharmingen), respectively, by a previously reported procedure (25). Parallel samples of the cells were stained with the corresponding isotype control to account for nonspecific staining of the cells. Briefly, the cells were washed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) containing 10% gamma globulin-depleted FBS plus 0.02% NaN3 and incubated with the indicated antibodies at 4°C for 30 min. After being washed, the splenocytes were resuspended in cold 1% formaldehyde in isotonic solution and analyzed with a FACScan instrument (Becton Dickinson, Palo Alto, Calif.). The results are expressed as a percentage of positive cells.

Cytokine measurements.For detection of intracellular cytokines, spleen cells were treated with medium, KETc1, KETc12, orTcAg and cultured for 60 h. To inhibit cytokine secretion, brefeldin A (2 μM) was added to the cell cultures 10 h before the assay. At harvest, the cells were centrifuged at 500 × g for 10 min and washed twice in ice-cold PBS containing 10% gamma globulin-depleted FBS plus 0.02% NaN3. CD3 and interleukin (IL) expression were determined by two-color fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) as previously described (25). Briefly, the cells were stained with biotin anti-CD3 (Pharmingen) and then streptavidin-FITC (Sigma) was added. Intracellular cytokines were assayed by using a cytoStain TM kit (Pharmingen) to fix and permeabilize the cells. To stain intracellular cytokines, fixed and permeabilized cells were incubated with phycoerythrin-conjugated monoclonal rat anti-IL-2, anti-IL-4, anti-IL-10, or anti-gamma interferon (INF-γ) (all from Pharmingen). Parallel samples of the cells were stained with isotype control to account for nonspecific cell staining. Then 105 cells were analyzed with a CD3+ lymphocyte gate as defined by light scatter in a FACScan instrument. The results are expressed as a percentage of positive cells.

Experimental challenge.Metacestodes used in challenge infections were harvested from the peritoneal cavity of BALB/cAnN female mice carrying the ORF strain of T. crassicepscysticerci. Ten small (diameter, ca. 2 mm), nonbudding larvae were suspended in 0.5 M NaCl–0.01 M sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.2) and intraperitoneally injected into each challenged mouse using a 27-gauge needle (this procedure disrupts the cysticerci upon entry, but the fragments reorganize into cystic structures in a matter of a few days [24]). Mice were killed 30 days after infection, and the cysts found inside the peritoneal cavity were counted. In this form of infection, the parasites do not migrate to another location in the host. The variation in individual parasite intensities within groups of vaccinated and control mice was attributed to differences in the infectivity of each parasite inoculum. In consequence, each experiment measuring levels of immunity by parasite intensity always included a group of nonimmunized mice to assess the infectivity of each inoculum. Thus, the effects of immunization measured in each experiment were contrasted with the control group.

Immunolocalization of KETc1 and KETc12 protein. T. crassiceps cysticerci and T. solium specimens (cysticerci and gravid proglottids) were placed on ice in a 50-ml conical plastic-bottom centrifuge tube containing ice-cold PBS. All tissues were treated to prepare slides as previously reported (20). The slides were rehydrated and blocked with 1% bovine serum albumin (BSA) in PBS plus 0.1% Triton X-100 (pH 7.2) (PAT) for 1 h. A second blocking in cysticercus-infected tissue sections was performed with sheep anti-mouse IgG (whole antibody; Amersham) diluted 1:100 in PBS plus 0.1% BSA, and then the samples were incubated for 1 h at 4°C. Slides of T. soliumtapeworm and eggs were incubated 1 h at 4°C with horse serum diluted 1:100 in PBS plus 0.1% BSA as a second blocking agent. The solutions were removed, and the slides were overlaid with the appropriate sera from noninfected (negative control), infected (positive control), or anti-KETc1- or anti-KETc12-immunized mice diluted 1:10,000 in PBS plus 0.1% BSA, incubated overnight at 4°C, and then washed twice in PBS (pH 7.2). Finally, sections were incubated with FITC-labeled goat anti-mouse immunoglobulin G (Zymed) diluted 1:50 for 1 h at room temperature. The slides were washed twice and mounted with aqueous mounting solution (Zymed). Preparations were observed with an epifluorescence microscope Olympus BH2-RFCA.

Statistical analysis.Statistical comparison of individual parasite intensities between groups was performed by the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric analysis of variance ANOVA test because many mice contained zero parasites in the immunized groups and because parasite intensity is a discontinuous variable (i.e., 0, 1, 2, … n parasites). Data were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05. A Student-Newman-Keuls multiple-comparison test was used to measure the statistical significance between the immune response elicited in vaccinated and control mice.

RESULTS

Protective effect of peptide immunization against T. crassiceps cysticercosis.The effect of peptide immunization on the number of cysticerci recovered from mice immunized with KETc1 and KETc12 or adjuvant alone (controls) is shown in Table1: 66.7, 75.3 or 100% protection was induced using KETc1 as immunogen, and 52.7, 73.4, or 88.1% protection was induced using KETc12 as immunogen. Some mice were completely protected (no parasites) by immunization with either KETc1 or KETc12.

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

Protective immunity against murine cysticercosis by immunization with KETc1 and KETc12 peptides

Antibody response induced by KETc1 and KETc12 immunization.To test for the presence of a B-cell epitope(s) within the two peptides, the levels of induced anti-KETc1 and anti-KETc12 specific antibodies were assessed. T. crassiceps cysticercal antigens (Fig.1) as well as each of the peptides were used as antigens in ELISAs (data not shown). Figure 1 shows low but detectable levels of serum antibodies in both KETc1- and KETc12-immunized mice.

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

Antibody levels determined by ELISA in individual control (C) and immunized (I) mice against TcAg. The mean level of antibodies was significantly higher in immunized mice than in controls. O.D., optical density.

Immunolocalization of KETc1 and KETc12 in the parasite.Pooled sera with the highest antibody levels induced by KETc1 and KETc12 immunizations were used to immunolocalize the native antigen in bothT. crassiceps and T. solium (Fig.2 and3). KETc1 and KETc12 were expressed in the tegument of T. crassiceps cysticerci, albeit with different distributions. KETc1 was restricted to the tegument of both cysticerci (Fig. 2E and F), while in T. solium it was found in the most external part of the tegument and also in the cuticular folds of the spiral canal (Fig. 2F). KETc12 (Fig.2G and H) was very abundant in both metacestodes. Nevertheless, theT. crassiceps tegument showed an intensely positive wall surface and parenchyma, especially around the calcareous corpuscules (Fig. 2G). KETc12 was also detected in the oncosphere of the egg as numerous points (Fig. 3G), in contrast to KETc1, which was almost negative. Both epitopes were present in tapeworm tissue: KETc1 was very abundant on the most external side of the tegument (Fig. 3F), and KETc12 was distributed along the tegument's depth (Fig. 3H). When sera from infected mice were used, all structures were fluorescent (Fig. 2C and D and 3C and D). The specificity of these antibody reactions was demonstrated by the lack of reactivity of normal mouse serum with the used tissues (Fig. 2A and B and 3A and B).

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

Immunofluorescent staining of T. crassiceps (A, C, E, and G) and T. solium (B, D, F, and H) cysticerci. Sections of 6 μm were processed and incubated with pooled sera from noninfected mice (A and B), T. crassiceps-infected mice (C and D), and KETc1-immunized (E and F) and KETc12-immunized (G and H) mice. The tegument (t) and the parenchyma (p) are evident in both cysticerci (C and D). In T. crassiceps cysticerci (E), KETc1 antigen shows a protruding and intensely positive signal in the tegument, while in T. solium cysticerci (F) it is clearly evident in the cuticular folds of the spiral canal (cf). KETc12 is quite abundant in both metacestodes; it is evident in the tegument and in the parenchyma of T. crassiceps (G) as well as in the tegument, parenchyma, and flame cells (arrows) of T. solium (H). Bar, 40 μm.

Fig. 3.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Immunofluorescence staining of the T. solium oncosphere (A, C, E, and G) and proglottid tegument (B, D, F, and H). Sections of 6 μm were processed and incubated with pooled sera from noninfected mice (A and B), T. crassiceps-infected mice (C and D), and KETc1-immunized (E and F) and KETc12-immunized (G and H) mice. It is evident that the oncosphere (o) and the distal cytoplasm region (dc) (C and D, respectively) stain positively. Some structures of the perinuclear cytoplasm region (pe), like the protoplasmic extensions of the tegumental cells, are also apparently positive. KETc1 antigen is almost negative in the oncosphere and appears as little positive spots (arrows); in contrast, in adult tissue (F) it is quite evident in the distal cytoplasm region of the tegument. The KETc12 antigen is only slightly present in the oncosphere (o) but is quite conspicuous in the distal cytoplasm region and in the perinuclear cytoplasm region of the adult tissue. Bar, 40 μm.

Assessment of T-cell epitopes on the KETc1 and KETc12 peptides.The proliferative response of spleen cells from mice immunized with KETc1 or KETc12 or saponin alone is reported in Table2. Spleen cells from mice injected in vivo with free peptides or saponin were stimulated in vitro with the corresponding peptide, TcAg, or ConA in previously determined optimal concentrations. Table 2 shows that in vitro stimulation with KETc1 or KETc12, as well as with cysticercal antigens, induced a significantly greater proliferative response in cells from immunized mice than in those from control mice. Cells from mice injected with saponin (controls) showed no proliferative response above background levels.

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

T-cell proliferative response of splenocytes from control and KETc1- and KETc12-immunized mice

Figure 4 shows that stimulated cells increased from 3.5 or 4.5% to 8–16.3% when the cells were primed with TcAg or the appropriate peptide, respectively. Stimulated cells were enriched in both CD4+ and CD8+ cells by factors of 1.2 to 2.0 for CD4+and 3.9 to 4.9 for CD8+.

Fig. 4.
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Flow cytometer analysis of spleen cells from KETc1- and KETc12-immunized mice with or without in vitro stimulation with the respective peptide or antigen (TcAg) R1 denotes the region of proliferating cells in the SSC/FSC plot (side-scatter/forward-scatter plot), and the number below indicates the percentage of cells in this region. CD4+ and CD8+ cell percentage expression was determined in the defined R1 gate.

The proportion of cells capable of producing IL-2, IL-4, IL-10, and INF-γ was determined by FACscan analysis after intracellular staining for cytokines. The results are shown in Table3. The proportion of cells producing IL-2 and INF-γ were significantly higher in KETc1-, KETc12-, orTcAg-stimulated cells than with media alone and more so in immunized than in control mice. The levels of IL-4- and IL-10-expressing cells were also increased but to a lesser extent.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Percentage of CD3+ splenocytes expressing different intracellular cytokines with or without in vitro stimulationa

DISCUSSION

Our results show that KETc1 and KETc12 induce protection against experimental murine T. crassiceps cysticercosis and that both are B- and T-cell epitopes. The protective capacity and the immunity induced by these two peptides closely resemble those induced by GK1, a previously reported protective epitope also shared byT. crassiceps and T. solium (25). It should be noted that there are two forms of expressing protection; i.e., reduction in parasite intensity and proportion of totally parasite-ridden mice. Because T. crassiceps cysticerci multiply asexually in the peritoneal cavity of infected mice, the reduction in parasite intensity is highly dependent on the time of assessment after infection; the effects of vaccination tending to disappear in late infections. Sterile immunity is attained only if the initial inoculum is totally destroyed by the immune system response. These and previous results are in accordance with the notion that if a single T. crassiceps cysticercus evades or survives the initial immune attack of the murine host, it will multiply and eventually reach very high parasite intensities indeed (3). This initial immune attack would appear must successful if a strong T1 response is induced, as we have shown here and others have shown previously (23). In older infections, when massive parasite intensities (>103) are achieved, T2 responses predominate and perhaps downregulate T1 (23). These two peptides would appear to touch off the protective T1 response more efficiently than the T2 response.

The immunologic assays performed in our experiments indicate the immune mechanisms involved in infection control. It has been repeatedly stated that protection induced by vaccination against T. crassicepsmurine cysticercosis is T1 related whereas antibodies and other T2 molecules are less effective (1). In this study, results point in the same direction: while antibodies are erratically and weakly induced by both KETc1 and KETc12, IL-2 induction is noticeably increased 5.7- to 10.1-fold in immunized mice relative to control mice. The same is true for IFN-γ, the characteristic inflammatory cytokine, which activates macrophages in the vicinity of the parasite and triggers their well-known damaging effects (25). In addition to the preponderance of the inflammatory interleukins IFN-γ and IL-2, the low profiles of IL-4 and IL-10, which inhibit the proliferation of the T2 responses, could well explain the low levels of antibodies elicited by both peptides. Protective immunity in the context of a T1 response has also been related to innate resistance conditions (23, 27). Despite the low levels of specific antibodies induced by both peptides, their possible protective role cannot be excluded. This is of particular relevance considering the recent finding of the capacity of anti-GK1 antibodies to block T. solium cysticercus conversion to tapeworms (5). The fact that more than 50% of human neurocysticercosis patients make antibodies against KETc1 and KETc12 (8) strengthens our interest in these two epitopes.

Based on the different anatomic distribution of KETc1 and KETc12 inT. solium cysticerci and in oncospheres, which also differ from that of GK1, it would appear that all three peptides should be included in a vaccine against pig cysticercosis to maximize the number of targets. In spite of the risk associated with extrapolating fromT. crassiceps and mice to T. solium and pigs, optimism about vaccine development prevails because of the many examples of effective immunity induced against different cestodes in diverse hosts. Also, the extensive similarities among cestode infections in terms of their natural history, pathology, and antigenic composition all point to possibly similar effects of vaccination (6, 7, 10). In fact, different sources of protective antigens have been successfully used as vaccines against porcine cysticercosis, one using recombinant antigen from Taenia ovis (12) and the other using antigen from T. crassiceps itself (13).

In the hope of increasing the efficiency of vaccination, it is advisable that KETc1 and KETc12 plus GK1, all of which induce high levels of protection in the murine model of cysticercosis and are present at all stages of T. solium development, be considered as candidates for inclusion in a mixed polyepitopic synthetic vaccine to be used against T. soliumcysticercosis in pigs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by Dirección General de Asuntos de Personal Académico (IN212798) and Dirección General de Intercambio Académico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; CONACyT (G25955M), México; Fundación Miguel Alemán, México; ANUIES (M99S03); and the British Council.

We thank Felipe Massó for performing the peptide sequence analyses, Mercedes Baca for administrative support, Ismael Ramı́rez Jimenez for technical support, and Isabel Pérez Montfort for help in the translation of the manuscript.

Notes

Editor: J. M. Mansfield

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 24 August 2000.
    • Returned for modification 27 September 2000.
    • Accepted 7 November 2000.
  • Copyright © 2001 American Society for Microbiology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Cruz-Revilla C.,
    2. Rosas G.,
    3. Fragoso G.,
    4. López-Casillas F.,
    5. Toledo A.,
    6. Larralde C.,
    7. Sciutto E.
    Taenia crassiceps cysticercosis: protective effect and immune response elicited by DNA immunization.J. Parasitol.8620006774
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Del Brutto O. H.,
    2. Sotelo J.,
    3. Roman G. C.
    Neurocysticercosis. A clinical handbook. 1998 Swets & Zeitlinger Lisse, The Netherlands
  3. 3.↵
    1. Fragoso G.,
    2. Lamoyi E.,
    3. Mellor A.,
    4. Lomeli C.,
    5. Hernández M.,
    6. Sciutto E.
    Increased resistance to Taenia crassiceps murine cysticersosis in Qa-2 transgenic mice.Infect. Immun.661998760764
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Freeman R. S.
    Studies on the biology of Taenia crassiceps (Zeder, 1800) Rudolphi, 1810 (Cestoda).Can. J. Zool.401962969990
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    Garcı́a, G., E. Sciutto, G. Fragoso, C. Cruz Revilla, A. Toledo, N. Villalobos, I. Flores, A. Aluja, M. José, and C. Larralde. Inhibitory role of antibodies in the development of Taenia solium and Taenia crassiceps towards reproductive and pathogenic stages. J. Parasitol., in press.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Gemmell M. A.,
    2. Lawson J. R.
    The ovine cysticercosis as models for research into the epidemiology and control of the human and porcine cysticercosis Taenia solium: epidemiology considerations.Acta Leiden.571989165172
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Harrison L.,
    2. Parkhouse M.
    Taenia saginata and Taenia solium: reciprocal models.Acta Leiden.571989143152
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Hernández M.,
    2. Beltrán C.,
    3. Garcı́a E.,
    4. Fragoso G.,
    5. Gevorkian G.,
    6. Fleury A.,
    7. Parkhouse M.,
    8. Harrison L.,
    9. Sotelo J.,
    10. Sciutto E.
    Cysticercosis: towards the design of a diagnostic kit based on synthetic peptides.Immunol. Lett.7120001317
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Huerta M.,
    2. Sciutto E.,
    3. Garcı́a G.,
    4. Villalobos N.,
    5. Hernández M.,
    6. Fragoso G.,
    7. Dı́az J.,
    8. Dı́az A.,
    9. José M.,
    10. Larralde C.,
    11. Aluja A.
    Vaccination against Taenia solium cysticercosis in underfed rustic pigs of Mexico: roles of age, genetic background and antibody response.Vet. Parasitol.902000209219
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Larralde C.,
    2. Montoya R. M.,
    3. Sciutto E.,
    4. Dı́az M. L.,
    5. Govezensky T.,
    6. Coltorti E.
    Deciphering Western blots of tapeworm antigens (T. solium, E. granulosus and T. crassiceps) reacting with sera from neurocysticercosis and hydatidic disease patients.Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg.401989282290
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Larralde C.,
    2. Padilla A.,
    3. Hernández M.,
    4. Govezensky T.,
    5. Sciutto E.,
    6. Gutiérrez G.,
    7. Tapia-Conyer R.,
    8. Salvatierra B.,
    9. Sepúlveda J.
    Seroepidemiologı́a de la cisticercosis en México.Salud Pública México.341992197210
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Lightowlers M. W.
    Eradication of Taenia solium cysticercosis: a role for vaccination of pigs.Int. J. Parasitol.291999811817
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    1. Manoutcharian K.,
    2. Larralde C.,
    3. Aluja A.,
    4. Fragoso G.,
    5. Rosas G.,
    6. Hernández M.,
    7. Villalobos N.,
    8. Rodarte L. F.,
    9. Govezensky T.,
    10. Baca M.,
    11. Sciutto E.
    Advances in the development of a recombinant vaccine against Taenia solium pig cysticercosis Vaccine 95. Molecular approaches to the control of infectious diseases. Chanock R. M., Brown F., Ginsberg H. S., Norrby E. 1995 63 68 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y
  14. 14.↵
    1. Manoutcharian K.,
    2. Rosas G.,
    3. Hernández M.,
    4. Fragoso G.,
    5. Aluja A.,
    6. Villalobos N.,
    7. Rodarte L. F.,
    8. Sciutto E.
    Cysticercosis: Identification and cloning of protective recombinant antigens.J. Parasitol.821996250254
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Molinari J. L.,
    2. Rodrı́guez D.,
    3. Tato P.,
    4. Soto R.,
    5. Arechavaleta F.,
    6. Solano S.
    Field trial for reducing porcine Taenia solium cysticercosis in Mexico by systematic vaccination of pigs.Vet. Parasitol.6919975563
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Nascimento E.,
    2. Costa J. O.,
    3. Guimaraes M. P.,
    4. Tavares C. A.
    Effective immune protection of pigs against cysticercosis.Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol.451995127137
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Plancarte A.,
    2. Flisser A.,
    3. Gauci C. G.,
    4. Lightowlers M. V.
    Vaccination against Taenia solium cysticercosis in pigs using native and recombinant oncosphere antigens.Int. J. Parasitol.291999643647
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    1. Ramos-Kuri M.,
    2. Montoya R. M.,
    3. Padilla A.,
    4. Govezensky T.,
    5. Dı́az M. L.,
    6. Sciutto E.,
    7. Sotelo J.,
    8. Larralde C.
    Immunodiagnosis of neurocysticercosis.Arch. Neurol.491992633636
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    1. Rickard M. E.,
    2. Williams J. F.
    Hydatidosis/cysticercosis: immune mechanisms and immunization against infection.Adv. Parasitol.211982229296
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.↵
    1. Rosas G.,
    2. Cruz-Revilla C.,
    3. Fragoso G.,
    4. López-Casillas F.,
    5. Pérez A.,
    6. Bonilla M. A.,
    7. Rosales R.,
    8. Sciutto E.
    Taenia crassiceps cysticercosis: humoral immune response and protection elicited by DNA immunization.J. Parasitol.841998516523
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Sciutto E.,
    2. Fragoso G.,
    3. Trueba L.,
    4. Lémus D.,
    5. Montoya R. M.,
    6. Dı́az M. L.,
    7. Govezensky T.,
    8. Lomelı́ C.,
    9. Tapia G.,
    10. Larralde C.
    Cysticercosis vaccine: cross-protecting immunity with T. solium antigens against experimental murine T. crassiceps cysticercosis.Parasite Immunol.121990687696
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Sciutto E.,
    2. Aluja A.,
    3. Fragoso G.,
    4. Rodarte L. F.,
    5. Hernández M.,
    6. Villalobos M. N.,
    7. Padilla A.,
    8. Keilbach N.,
    9. Baca M.,
    10. Govezensky T.,
    11. Dı́az S.,
    12. Larralde C.
    Immunization of pigs against Taenia solium cysticercosis: factors related to effective protection.Vet. Parasitol.6019955367
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    1. Terrazas L. I.,
    2. Bojalil R.,
    3. Govezensky T.,
    4. Larralde C.
    Shift from an early protective TH1-type immune response to a late permissive TH2-type response in murine cysticercosis (Taenia crassiceps).J. Parasitol.8419987481
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Toledo A.,
    2. Cruz C.,
    3. Fragoso G.,
    4. Laclette J. P.,
    5. Merchant M. T.,
    6. Hernández M.,
    7. Sciutto E.
    In vitro culture of Taenia crassiceps larval cells and cyst-regeneration after injection into mice.J. Parasitol.831997189193
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Toledo A.,
    2. Larralde C.,
    3. Fragoso G.,
    4. Gevorkian G.,
    5. Manoutcharian K.,
    6. Hernández M.,
    7. Acero G.,
    8. Rosas G.,
    9. Lopez-Casillas F.,
    10. Kubli-Garfias C.,
    11. Vazquez R.,
    12. Terrazas L. I.,
    13. Sciutto E.
    Towards a Taenia solium cysticercosis vaccine: an epitope shared by Taenia crassiceps and Taenia solium protects mice against experimental cysticercosis.Infect. Immun.67199925222530
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Valdez F.,
    2. Hernández M.,
    3. Govezensky T.,
    4. Fragoso G.,
    5. Sciutto E.
    Immunization against Taenia crassiceps cysticercosis. Identification of the most promising antigens in the induction of protective immunity.J. Parasitol.801994931936
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. White A. C.,
    2. Robinson P.,
    3. Kuhn R.
    Taenia solium cysticercosis: Host-parasite interactions and the immune response.Chem. Immunol.661997209230
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    1. White A. C.
    Neurocysticercosis: Updates on epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management.Annu. Rev. Med.512000187206
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Two Epitopes Shared by Taenia crassiceps andTaenia solium Confer Protection against Murine T. crassiceps Cysticercosis along with a Prominent T1 Response
Andrea Toledo, Gladis Fragoso, Gabriela Rosas, Marisela Hernández, Goar Gevorkian, Fernando López-Casillas, Beatriz Hernández, Gonzalo Acero, Mirna Huerta, Carlos Larralde, Edda Sciutto
Infection and Immunity Mar 2001, 69 (3) 1766-1773; DOI: 10.1128/IAI.69.3.1766-1773.2001

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.
Two Epitopes Shared by Taenia crassiceps andTaenia solium Confer Protection against Murine T. crassiceps Cysticercosis along with a Prominent T1 Response
(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
Two Epitopes Shared by Taenia crassiceps andTaenia solium Confer Protection against Murine T. crassiceps Cysticercosis along with a Prominent T1 Response
Andrea Toledo, Gladis Fragoso, Gabriela Rosas, Marisela Hernández, Goar Gevorkian, Fernando López-Casillas, Beatriz Hernández, Gonzalo Acero, Mirna Huerta, Carlos Larralde, Edda Sciutto
Infection and Immunity Mar 2001, 69 (3) 1766-1773; DOI: 10.1128/IAI.69.3.1766-1773.2001
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • Notes
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Antigens, Helminth
cysticercosis
Taenia
Vaccination
vaccines

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