| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Short Communication |








¶
From the Departments of Psychiatry,*Pathology,
and Neurology,¶New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York; the New York State Institute for Basic Research in Developmental Disabilities,
Staten Island, New York; and the Departments of Biology and Biochemistry,
University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Prion infections do not elicit a classical immune response; however, transport of prions from the periphery to the central nervous system is critically dependent on the lymphoreticular system.8-11 The immune system appears to assist rather than impair the propagation of prions and their access to the central nervous system, which is required for pathogenicity.10 In the current study, we sought to determine how overcoming the natural immunological tolerance to PrP by active immunization would influence progression of the disease.
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Twenty female CD-1 mice, 2 to 3 months of age, were immunized with mouse recombinant prion protein (recPrP). The recPrP was prepared as previously described.12 For the first injection, the recPrP (1 mg/ml in 0.5 mol/L urea) was mixed with an equal volume of complete Freunds adjuvant immediately before subcutaneous administration (50 µg recPrP/100 µl). Twenty control mice received the adjuvant plus vehicle. Subsequent immunizations were performed at 2-week intervals in incomplete Freunds adjuvant. Fourteen weeks after the first vaccination, the mice were bled and the anti-recPrP antibody titer was determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (see below). The mice were subsequently divided into two groups matched for their titer to recPrP and were inoculated intraperitoneally with a brain homogenate of the mouse-adapted scrapie strain 139A at a 10-fold or a 1000-fold dilution. The control mice were also divided into two groups that received either the 10-fold or 1000-fold dilution of the same 139A inoculum. This represents a well-established model of prion disease in mice, which leads to central nervous system scrapie infection and death in all cases, if the disease is allowed to progress.6,11,13-15 The immunization was continued thereafter at monthly intervals until the first mice showed clinical symptoms of scrapie. The mice were bled again at 14 weeks after the intraperitoneal PrPSc inoculation, a few weeks before they were expected to show clinical signs of the disease. Final bleeding was performed at the time of sacrifice, which occurred when the mice scored positive for clinical signs of prion infection using a test of motor coordination for 3 consecutive weeks by observers blinded to the experimental status of the animals, as per an established protocol.6,11,15 The analysis of clinical symptoms consists of observing the activity level and competency of the mice on an apparatus containing a series of parallel bars (3 mm in diameter) placed 7 mm apart. The initial clinical findings are a reduction in activity and/or the ability of the mice to traverse the parallel bars. This clinical endpoint correlates with the pathological development of central nervous system scrapie infection.6,11,15 The plasma was tested for reactivity against recPrP and PrPC by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (see below). The brains from ketamine/xylazine-anesthetized mice were removed, and the right hemisphere was immersion-fixed overnight in periodate-lysine-paraformaldehyde, whereas the left hemisphere was snap-frozen for Western blots. The fixed brain hemispheres were subsequently transferred to a solution containing 20% glycerol and 2% dimethyl sulfoxide in 0.1 mol/L of sodium phosphate buffer, and stored at 4°C until sectioned. Serial coronal sections (40 µm) were cut and series of sections at 0.2-mm intervals were obtained for histological analysis. The diagnosis of prion disease was confirmed by staining brain sections with cresyl violet, immunostaining with a polyclonal anti-PrP antibody (anti-PrP 78295), and by the detection of proteinase K-resistant PrP on Western blots as previously described.16
Rescue Treatment Group
This experiment was performed similarly to the prophylactic treatment mouse group, except immunization with recPrP was started 24 hours after intraperitoneal inoculation with mouse-adapted scrapie strain 139A. As before, there were two groups of 10 female CD-1 mice each at 2 to 3 months of age, which received either a 10-fold or 1000-fold dilution of the 139A brain homogenate inoculum intraperitoneally, followed in this case by the first recPrP injection in complete Freunds adjuvant 24 hours later. There were also two control groups of 10 CD-1 mice, which received either the 10-fold or 1000-fold dilution of the same 139A brain homogenate inoculum intraperitoneally, but followed by injection of adjuvant plus vehicle (0.5 mol/L urea). The rest of the protocol was then identical to the prophylactic treatment mouse group.
Antibody Titers
Antibody titers to recPrP were determined by serial dilutions of plasma, in which mouse recPrP at 100 ng/well is coated overnight onto microtiter wells. The titer, defined as the dilution yielding 50% of the maximum signal, was detected by a goat anti-mouse IgG linked to horseradish peroxidase (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Piscataway, NJ) and tetramethyl benzene (Pierce, Rockford, IL) was the substrate.
To determine the correlation between PrPC antibody recognition and disease incubation time, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay plates were coated overnight with PrPC at 50 ng/well. The PrPC was prepared by the purification of ME7 strain PrPSc and reverting the conformation and proteinase K sensitivity to a protease-sensitive PrPC-like state by solubilization in 99% formic acid, as previously described.16 Mouse plasma was used at a 1000-fold dilution in duplicate and the signal was detected by goat anti-mouse alkaline phosphatase (Biosource International, Camarillo, CA) and p-nitrophenyl phosphate (Sigma Diagnostics, St. Louis, MO) was the substrate.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The anti-recPrP titer in the mice just before receiving the 1:10 and 1:1000 dilution of the mouse-adapted scrapie strain 139A intraperitoneally was 20,135 ± 17,916 (±SEM) and 9645 ± 8063, respectively. When the mice were bled at 14 weeks after the intraperitoneal PrPSc 139A inoculation the group inoculated with the higher dose (1:10 dilution) had a titer of 6618 ± 2481 and the group inoculated with the lower dose had a titer of 1562 ± 621 (P = 0.09 by unpaired t-test). As depicted in Figure 1A
, the mice immunized with the recPrP had a statistically significant delay in the onset of scrapie symptoms. The treatment effect was more pronounced at the 10-fold dilution [days to sacrifice, 173 ± 2 days (control) versus 189 ± 4 days; P = 0.002, two-tailed t-test], than at the 1000-fold dilution [days to sacrifice, 197 ± 3 (control) versus 205 ± 3; P = 0.040, one-tailed t-test]. This may be related to the trend for a higher titer of anti-PrP antibodies in the 10-fold PrPSc dilution group (see above), although titer alone may not be the sole determining factor. The epitope specificity of this response is also likely to influence progression of disease. A higher anti-PrPC antibody level in vaccinated animals correlated with a longer incubation time (Figure 1, B and C)
in both PrPSc-inoculated mouse groups (lower dilution group: r2 = 0.453, P < 0.005; higher dilution group: r2 = 0.744, P < 0.0001).
|
As expected, the effects of the treatment (Figure 2A)
were not as pronounced in the rescue mouse group, compared to the prophylactically treated mice (Figure 1A)
. No significant group difference was observed in disease onset in mice receiving the 10-fold dilution of the brain inoculum [days to sacrifice, 192 ± 5 days (control) versus 190 ± 5 days], although the levels of antibodies against PrPC correlated with disease onset (r2 = 0.279, P < 0.017, data not shown). However, at the 1000-fold dilution, a delay in symptoms was observed in the vaccinated mice [days to sacrifice, 210 ± 3 days (control) versus 222 ± 4 days; P = 0.018, t-test, one-tailed]. As with the prophylactic treatment, the anti-PrPC antibody levels in the immunized mice correlated with a longer incubation time (Figure 2B
; r2 = 0.772, P < 0.0001).
|
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
It is not clear how the immunization delays the onset of prion disease in these mice. Our preliminary studies of passive immunization using anti-PrP antibodies suggest that humoral immunity is critical for a therapeutic response. It is possible that antibody binding to PrPC and/or PrPSc may interfere with PrPSc-mediated conversion of PrPC to PrPSc and thereby delay the onset of clinical symptoms. Recent in vitro studies support this view,23,24 and immunization with prion peptides of 20 amino acids has been shown to reduce the levels of PrPSc in scrapie-infected mouse tumors25 without affecting PrPC levels. Hence, epitope mapping of the anti-PrP antibodies produced by immunization may provide insights on which portions of the prion molecule are important for prion replication. The ultimate goal of such immunological approaches is for human testing; although the recently reported problems with the Aß1-42 vaccine for Alzheimers disease highlight the difficulties of translating successful approaches in mice to humans. There are a number of potential toxic side effects of vaccine-based approaches in humans that will require further animal and in vitro experimentation. One source of toxicity is from the immunogen that is used. In our Alzheimers disease vaccine development studies we altered the Aß sequence making it nonfibrillogenic and nontoxic, while maintaining or increasing its immunogenicity, reducing the potential of this toxicity.26 Similar types of alterations are underway to limit any potential toxicity from using the native PrP sequence as an immunogen. Our in vivo findings serve as a starting point for the development of vaccine-based approaches for the prion diseases and suggest that prion-based immunization is promising as a potential therapy.
| Footnotes |
|---|
Supported by National Institutes of Health grants AG15408, AR02594, AG17617, AG05891, and AG20197.
Accepted for publication March 28, 2002.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Related articles in Am J Pathol:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
E. Herczenik and M. F. B. G. Gebbink Molecular and cellular aspects of protein misfolding and disease FASEB J, July 1, 2008; 22(7): 2115 - 2133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C.-H. Song, H. Furuoka, C.-L. Kim, M. Ogino, A. Suzuki, R. Hasebe, and M. Horiuchi Effect of intraventricular infusion of anti-prion protein monoclonal antibodies on disease progression in prion-infected mice J. Gen. Virol., June 1, 2008; 89(6): 1533 - 1544. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Webb, T. Lekishvili, C. Loeschner, S. Sellarajah, F. Prelli, T. Wisniewski, I. H. Gilbert, and D. R. Brown Mechanistic Insights into the Cure of Prion Disease by Novel Antiprion Compounds J. Virol., October 1, 2007; 81(19): 10729 - 10741. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Kaiser-Schulz, A. Heit, L. Quintanilla-Martinez, F. Hammerschmidt, S. Hess, L. Jennen, H. Rezaei, H. Wagner, and H. M. Schatzl Polylactide-Coglycolide Microspheres CoEncapsulating Recombinant Tandem Prion Protein with CpG-Oligonucleotide Break Self-Tolerance to Prion Protein in Wild-Type Mice and Induce CD4 and CD8 T Cell Responses J. Immunol., September 1, 2007; 179(5): 2797 - 2807. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. S. Spinner, R. B. Kascsak, G. LaFauci, H. C. Meeker, X. Ye, M. J. Flory, J. I. Kim, G. B. Schuller-Levis, W. R. Levis, T. Wisniewski, et al. CpG oligodeoxynucleotide-enhanced humoral immune response and production of antibodies to prion protein PrPSc in mice immunized with 139A scrapie-associated fibrils J. Leukoc. Biol., June 1, 2007; 81(6): 1374 - 1385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
N. Fernandez-Borges, A. Brun, J. L. Whitton, B. Parra, F. Diaz-San Segundo, F. J. Salguero, J. M. Torres, and F. Rodriguez DNA Vaccination Can Break Immunological Tolerance to PrP in Wild-Type Mice and Attenuates Prion Disease after Intracerebral Challenge. J. Virol., October 1, 2006; 80(20): 9970 - 9976. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. R Trevitt and J. Collinge A systematic review of prion therapeutics in experimental models Brain, September 1, 2006; 129(9): 2241 - 2265. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Gregoire, A. S. Bergot, C. Feraudet, C. Carnaud, P. Aucouturier, and M. B. Rosset The Murine B Cell Repertoire Is Severely Selected against Endogenous Cellular Prion Protein J. Immunol., November 15, 2005; 175(10): 6443 - 6449. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J Collinge Molecular neurology of prion disease J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, July 1, 2005; 76(7): 906 - 919. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Donofrio, F. L. Heppner, M. Polymenidou, C. Musahl, and A. Aguzzi Paracrine Inhibition of Prion Propagation by Anti-PrP Single-Chain Fv Miniantibodies J. Virol., July 1, 2005; 79(13): 8330 - 8338. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Feraudet, N. Morel, S. Simon, H. Volland, Y. Frobert, C. Creminon, D. Vilette, S. Lehmann, and J. Grassi Screening of 145 Anti-PrP Monoclonal Antibodies for Their Capacity to Inhibit PrPSc Replication in Infected Cells J. Biol. Chem., March 25, 2005; 280(12): 11247 - 11258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Khalili-Shirazi, S. Quaratino, M. Londei, L. Summers, M. Tayebi, A. R. Clarke, S. H. Hawke, G. S. Jackson, and J. Collinge Protein Conformation Significantly Influences Immune Responses to Prion Protein J. Immunol., March 15, 2005; 174(6): 3256 - 3263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C.-L. Kim, A. Karino, N. Ishiguro, M. Shinagawa, M. Sato, and M. Horiuchi Cell-surface retention of PrPC by anti-PrP antibody prevents protease-resistant PrP formation J. Gen. Virol., November 1, 2004; 85(11): 3473 - 3482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Polymenidou, F. L. Heppner, E. C. Pellicioli, E. Urich, G. Miele, N. Braun, F. Wopfner, H. M. Schatzl, B. Becher, and A. Aguzzi Humoral immune response to native eukaryotic prion protein correlates with anti-prion protection PNAS, October 5, 2004; 101(suppl_2): 14670 - 14676. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Ertmer, S. Gilch, S.-W. Yun, E. Flechsig, B. Klebl, M. Stein-Gerlach, M. A. Klein, and H. M. Schatzl The Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor STI571 Induces Cellular Clearance of PrPSc in Prion-infected Cells J. Biol. Chem., October 1, 2004; 279(40): 41918 - 41927. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Gregoire, C. Logre, P. Metharom, E. Loing, J. Chomilier, M. B. Rosset, P. Aucouturier, and C. Carnaud Identification of two immunogenic domains of the prion protein--PrP--which activate class II-restricted T cells and elicit antibody responses against the native molecule J. Leukoc. Biol., July 1, 2004; 76(1): 125 - 134. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. M. Luhr, E. K. Nordstrom, P. Low, H.-G. Ljunggren, A. Taraboulos, and K. Kristensson Scrapie Protein Degradation by Cysteine Proteases in CD11c+ Dendritic Cells and GT1-1 Neuronal Cells J. Virol., May 1, 2004; 78(9): 4776 - 4782. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. B. Rosset, C. Ballerini, S. Gregoire, P. Metharom, C. Carnaud, and P. Aucouturier Breaking Immune Tolerance to the Prion Protein Using Prion Protein Peptides Plus Oligodeoxynucleotide-CpG in Mice J. Immunol., May 1, 2004; 172(9): 5168 - 5174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. M. Sigurdsson, D. R. Brown, M. A. Alim, H. Scholtzova, R. Carp, H. C. Meeker, F. Prelli, B. Frangione, and T. Wisniewski Copper Chelation Delays the Onset of Prion Disease J. Biol. Chem., November 21, 2003; 278(47): 46199 - 46202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Gilch, F. Wopfner, I. Renner-Muller, E. Kremmer, C. Bauer, E. Wolf, G. Brem, M. H. Groschup, and H. M. Schatzl Polyclonal Anti-PrP Auto-antibodies Induced with Dimeric PrP Interfere Efficiently with PrPSc Propagation in Prion-infected Cells J. Biol. Chem., May 9, 2003; 278(20): 18524 - 18531. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Vet. Pathol., November 1, 2002; 39(6): 762 - 763. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |