Cocktail Anti-Tick Vaccines: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects: Immunology
Contributor:
Charles Ndawula
,
Ala E. Tabor

Cocktail vaccines are a combination of at least two anti-tick vaccines. The concept of anti-tick vaccines was first demonstrated in 1939 [1], after which numerous antigens were identified [2-6]. However, until now, Bm86- based vaccines (Gavac TM in Cuba and TickGARD PLUSTM in Australia) are the only commercialized tick vaccines and are the most successful under field conditions [7-8]. Consequently, Willadsen [9], proposed that a combination of tick-antigens could enhance the efficacy of anti-tick vaccines. Additionally, this could broaden the vaccine protection- spectrum: (A) against multiple tick species (B) against tick-borne pathogens. Similar to single anti-tick vaccines [10-12], when ingested, antibodies induced against the cocktail vaccine-antigen constituents can traverse the gut epithelium, through the hemolymph to react against the corresponding tissue proteins, hence interfering with physiological functions of the proteins.

  • cocktail vaccines
  • ticks
  • anti-tick vaccines

Definition[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

1. Approaches  to identifying Cocktail vaccine antigens

1.1. Single-Antigen Vaccine Efficacy

Often the selection of cocktail anti-tick vaccines is based on two factors (1) prior efficacy of the single antigens. (2) the vaccine-effect on target tick protein. Presumably the rationale is that a combination of vaccine A and B (with prior efficacy of 45% and 55% respectively) could lead to enhanced protection efficacy. Additionally, the cocktail vaccine could induce a synergistic effect on the different proteins in the same [13] or different tick species. Although the approach is logical, it does not take into account the immunological short comings of combining antigens which could lead to cocktail vaccine low efficacy.

1.2. Antigen Serum immuno-cross reactivity

Cocktail vaccine-antigens can be selected based on the ability of sera induced against one antigen to cross-react against a protein of heterologous tick species. The method has been used to identify recombinant GST-based cocktail vaccines [14] and a tick-cement- based potential broad-spectrum vaccines [15]. However, the approach can only be applied while selecting homologous tick antigens.

1.3. Antigen Discovery Approaches

Cocktail vaccine-antigens could be selected using the methods that are used to identify single tick-antigens. The methods include RNA interference [16], expression library immunization (ELI), evaluation of expression sequence tags [17], interactomics [18], proteomics [17], and transcriptomics [18]. However, although RNAi could be used, the method is best suited for examining the potential roles of target genes in tick physiology [19], as such the gene-coding proteins may not be immunogenic [20][21]. Currently, the commonly used approach is transcriptomics and has been used in combination with proteomics [22] and metabolomics [23]. Analogous to single anti-tick vaccine antigens, this could enhance the efficiency and accuracy of cocktail antigen discovery, hence hasten the formulation of cocktail vaccines.

1.4. Antigen Serum-induce effect

In addition to the conventional method (use of animal models), in vitro or artificial tick-feeding assays could be used for cocktail vaccine antigen selection. So far, there are three established methods: capillary tubes [24][25], glass tube [26], membrane feeding [27][28][29]. The approaches have been used to (1) maintain tick colonies [28][29][30]. (2) examine novel acaricide molecules [31] and (3) study the proteins involved in tick-pathogen transmission [32]. (4) identifying candidate tick antigens [26][33] The limitation of capillary in vitro feeding is blood-clotting which leads to blood clogging. This can be resolved by blood-defibrination, the addition of blood-anticoagulants and the use of glass tubes. Lew-Tabor [26] have resolved the question whether anti coagulants can affect the tick physiology, hence interfering with the experiment.

To illustrate the relevance of in vitro assays, Trentelman [13] examined the effect of cocktail Bm86 and subolesin anti-serum against Rhipicephalus australis larvae. It was found that the cocktail anti-serum inhibits larvae feeding [13] which suggests that antigens are suitable candidates for formulating a cocktail vaccine. Finally, the assays could also be used to determine the appropriate concentration of  cocktail vaccine components.

2. Status of cocktail anti-tick vaccine formulation

Currently, although numerous researchers have embraced the concept to cocktail tick vaccine; see compiled list [34 Ndawula and Tabor 2020], the anticipated outcome is yet to be attained under field conditions. However, the reasons are still unclear. Discussed below are the probable reasons behind the ineffectiveness of cocktail anti-tick vaccines are still unclear.

2.1. Antigenic competition

The efficacy of a vaccine is directly proportional to the induced humoral immune response. On the contrary, when cocktail anti-tick vaccines are formulated, there is reduction of antibodies induced against each cocktail antigen [34][35][36]. This phenomenon is referred to as antigenic competition [37]. The reduction in humoral immune response is due intra-molecular and inter-molecular competition between determinants of the same or different immunogens respectively [38]. Although the mechanisms of antigenic competition have been extensively investigated in human vaccines [39], with regard to cocktail anti-tick vaccines, these are still unknown.

2.2. Antigen concentration

As with other vaccines [40], the concentration of the anti-tick antigen concentration influences the host humoral immune response. Therefore, while constituting cocktail anti-tick vaccines it is tempting to use high concentration of cocktail antigens. To put it figuratively, suppose that 100 μg of vaccine A and B independently induced 45% and 55% efficacy, 100 μg of A and B may be combined to make a cocktail vaccine. Although this approach is mathematically logical, but it may trigger undesired immune responses which include (1) Antigen competition which is pronounced in determinants of different immunogens [38][42][43]. (2) immunotolerance which could be triggered by high or low antigen concentrations [44][45].

2.3. Antigen- Adjuvant interaction

To ensure that cocktail vaccines mount a substantial humoral immune response, antigens are combined with an adjuvant. In this case, the adjuvants act as immunopotentiators or delivery systems [46][47]. A combination of adjuvants Freund’s complete adjuvant (FCA) and Freund‘s incomplete adjuvant (FIA) with a cocktail recombinant antigens showed a higher humoral immune response [48]. However, considering that Freunds’ adjuvants are not recommended for use in large animals [49], Montanide (‘oil-in-water’) adjuvants have been adopted [34 Ndawula and Tabor, 2020].

2.4. Animal genetics

The immunogenicity of a vaccine is influenced by animal genetics [50][51] but it is rarely scrutinized. The influence is high among inbred animals [52][53][54][55]. For instance, antigenic competition is shown to vary with animal genetic factors [56]. In comparison to other models (sheep and mice), the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) gene diversity among different cattle breeds could significantly influence the immunogenicity of a cocktail vaccine. For instance, subolesin has been shown to induce varying immune responses between Bos indicus and Bos indicus and Bos taurus crossbred cattle [57].

2.5. Protein expression system

Expression of anti-tick vaccines is regularly undertaken in bacterial systems (i,e. Escherichia coli) [34 Ndawula and Tabor 2020]. This could be because bacterial expression systems present numerous advantages over other systems [58]. However, bacteria- expressed proteins may be misfolded, hence lacking in conformational epitopes that induce humoral immune responses [59]. Such proteins are less immunogenic. For instance, Bm86 protein expressed in E. coli was shown to be less immunogenic than the Bm86 expressed in yeast [2] or insect cells [60]. This is likely to influence the efficacy of cocktail vaccines.

3. Conclusion

As a proof of concept the efficacy of single anti-tick vaccines could be enhanced through the formulation of cocktail vaccines [61]. Antibodies induced against the cocktail antigens could induce a synergistic benefit by interfering with the functionality of proteins in the same [13] or different tick species. Noteworthy, while formulating cocktail tick vaccines, researchers ought to take into account factors discussed [34 Ndawula and Tabor 2020]. There is optimism that effective cocktail anti-tick vaccines can be formulated which should boost the effort toward control of ticks under field conditions. 

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/vaccines8030457

References

  1. Trager, W. Acquired immunity to ticks. J. Parasitol. 1939, 25, 57–81.
  2. De la Fuente, J.; Kocan, K.M. Strategies for development of vaccines for control of Ixodid tick species. Parasite Immunol. 2006, 28, 275–283, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3024.2006.00828.x.
  3. Merino, O.; Alberdi, P.; Pérez de la Lastra, J.M.; de la Fuente, J. Tick vaccines and the control of tick-borne pathogens. Cell Infect Microbiol. 2013, 3, 30, doi:10.3389/fcimb.2013.00030.
  4. Nuttall, P.A.; Trimnell, A.R.; Kazimirova, M.; Labuda, M. Exposed and concealed antigens as vaccine targets for controlling ticks and tick-borne diseases. Parasite Immunol. 2006, 28, 155–163, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3024.2006.00806.x.
  5. Valle, M.R.; Guerrero, F.D. Anti-tick vaccines in the omics era. Biosci. 2018, 10, 122–136, doi: 10.2741/e812.
  6. Díaz-Martín, V.; Manzano-Román, R.; Obolo-Mvoulouga, P.; Oleaga, A.; Pérez-Sánchez, R. Development of vaccines against Ornithodoros soft ticks: An update. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2015, 6, 211–220, doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2015.03.006
  7. De la Fuente, J.; Almazán, C.; Canales, M.; Pérez de la Lastra, J.M.; Kocan, K.M.; Willadsen, P. A ten-year review of commercial vaccine performance for control of tick infestations on cattle. Health Res. Rev. 2007, 8, 23–28, doi:10.1017/S1466252307001193
  8. De la Fuente, J.; Rodríguez, M.; Redondo, M.; Montero, C.; García-García, J.C.; Méndez, L.; Serrano, E.; Valdés, M.; Enriquez, A.; Canales, M.; et al. Field studies and cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccination with Gavac against the cattle tick Boophilus microplus. Vaccine. 1998, 16, 366–373, doi: 10.1016/s0264-410x(97)00208-9
  9. Willadsen, P. Antigen cocktails: Valid hypothesis or unsubstantiated hope? Trends Parasitol. 2008, 24, 164–167. doi:10.1016/j.pt.2008.01.005.
  10. Wang, H.; Nuttall, P.A. Excretion of host immunoglobulin in tick saliva and detection of IgG-binding proteins in tick haemolymph and salivary glands. 1994, 109, 525–530. doi: 10.1017/s0031182000080781.
  11. Ackerman, S.; Clare, F.B.; McGill, T.W.; Sonenshine, D.E. Passage of host serum components, including antibody, across the digestive tract of Dermacentor variabilis (Say). Parasitol. 1981, 67, 737–740.
  12. Ben-Yakir, D.; Fox, C.J.; Homer, J.T.; Barker, R.W. Quantification of host immunoglobulin in the hemolymph of ticks. Parasitol. 1987, 73, 669–671.
  13. Trentelman, J.J.A.; Teunissen, H.; Kleuskens, J.A.G.M.; de Crommert, J.V.; de la Fuente, J.; Hovius, J.W.R.; Schetters, T.P.M. A combination of antibodies against Bm86 and Subolesin inhibits engorgement of Rhipicephalus australis (formerly Rhipicephalus microplus) larvae in vitro. Vectors. 2019, 12, 362, doi:10.1186/s13071-019-3616-3.
  14. Ndawula, C.J.; Sabadin, G.A.; Parizi, L.F.; da Silva Vaz, I.J. Constituting a glutathione S-transferase-cocktail vaccine against tick infestation. 2019, 37, 1918–1927, doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.02.039.
  15. Trimnell, A.R.; Davies, G.M.; Lissina, O.; Hails, R.S.; Nuttall, P.A. A cross-reactive tick cement antigen is a candidate broad-spectrum tick vaccine. Vaccine. 2005, 23, 329–4341, doi:10.1016/jvaccine.2005.03.041.
  16. Galay, R.L.; Umemiya-Shirafuji, R.; Mochizuki, M.; Fujisaki, K.; Tanaka, T. RNA interference: A powerful functional analysis tool for studying tick biology and its control. In RNA Interference; Ibrokhim, Y., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2016.
  17. de la Fuente, J.; Kocan, K.M. Advances in the identification and characterization of protective antigens for recombinant vaccines against tick infestations. Expert Rev. Vaccines. 2003, 2, 583–593, doi:10.1586/14760584.2.4.583.
  18. Artigas-Jerónimo, S.; de La Fuente, J.; Villar, M. Interactomics and tick vaccine development: New directions for the control of tick-borne diseases. Expert Rev. Proteomics. 2018, 15, 627–635, doi:10.1080/14789450.2018.1506701.
  19. Villar, M.; Marina, A.; de la Fuente, J. Applying proteomics to tick vaccine development: Where are we? Expert Rev. Proteom. 2017, 14, 211–221, doi:10.1080/14789450.2017.1284590.
  20. Aljamali, M.N.; Hern, L.; Kupfer, D.; Downard, S.; So, S.; Roe, B.A.; Sauer, J.R.; Essenberg, R.C. Transcriptome analysis of the salivary glands of the female tick Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae). Insect Mol. Biol. 2009, 18, 129–154, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2583.2009.00863.x.
  21. De la Fuente, J.; Almazán, C.; Blouin, E.F.; Naranjo, V.; Kocan, K.M. RNA interference screening in ticks for identification of protective antigens. Parasitol. Res. 2005, 96, 137–141, doi:10.1007/s00436-005-1351-5.
  22. Antunes, S.; Couto, J.; Ferrolho, J.; Sanches, G.S.; Charrez, J.O.M.; Hernández, N.C.; Mazuz, M.; Villar, M.; Shkap, V.; de la Fuente, J.; et al. Transcriptome and proteome response of Rhipicephalus annulatus tick vector to Babesia bigemina Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 318, doi:10.3389/fphys.2019.0031.
  23. Villar, M.; Ayllón, N.; Alberdi, P.; Moreno, A.; Moreno, M.; Tobes, R.; Mateos-Hernández, L.; Weisheit, S.; Bell-Sakyi, L.; de la Fuente, J. Integrated metabolomics, transcriptomics and proteomics identifies metabolic pathways affected by Anaplasma phagocytophilum infection in tick cells. Cell Proteom. 2015, 14, 3154–3172, doi:10.1074/mcp.M115.051938
  24. Chabaud, A.G. Sur la nutrition artificielle des tiques. Parasitol. Hum. Comp. 1950, 25, 142–144.
  25. Rau, U.; Hannoun, C. The use of a capillary-tube technique for artificially feeding Argas reflexus reflexus Bull World Health Organ. 1968, 39, 332–333
  26. Lew-Tabor, A.E.; Bruyeres, A.G.; Zhang, B.; Rodriguez, V.M. Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus tick in vitro feeding methods for functional (dsRNA) and vaccine candidate (antibody) screening. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2014, 5, 500–510, doi:10.1016/j.ttbdis.2014.03.005
  27. Kröber, T.; Guerin, P.M. In vitro feeding assays for hard ticks. Trends Parasitol. 2007, 23, 445–449, doi:10.1016/j.pt.2007.07.010.
  28. Osborne, R.W.; Mellor, P.S. Use of a silicone membrane feeding technique in the laboratory maintenance of a colony of Ornithodoros moubata. Trop Anim. Health Prod. 1985, 17, 31–38, doi:10.1007/BF02356130.
  29. Hokama, Y.; Lane, R.S.; Howarth, J.A. Maintenance of adult and nymphal Ornithodoros coriaceus (Acari: Argasidae) by artificial feeding through a Parafilm membrane. Med. Entomol. 1987, 24, 319–323.
  30. Kuhnert, F. Feeding of hard ticks in vitro: New perspectives for rearing and for the identification of systemic acaricides. ALTEX. 1996, 13, 76–87.
  31. Kröber, T.; Guerin, P.M. An in vitro feeding assay to test acaricides for control of hard ticks. Manag. Sci. 2007, 63, 17–22.
  32. Antunes, S.; Merino, O.; Mosqueda, J.; Moreno-Cid, J.A.; Bell-Sakyi, L.; Fragkoudis, R.; Weisheit, S.; Pérez de la Lastra, J.M.; Alberdi, P.; Domingos, A.; et al. Tick capillary feeding for the study of proteins involved in tick-pathogen interactions as potential antigens for the control of tick infestation and pathogen infection. Vectors. 2014, 7, 42, doi:10.3389/fphys.2019.0031
  33. Gonsioroski, A.V.; Bezerra, I.A.; Utiumi, K.U.; Driemeier, D.; Farias, S.E.; da Silva Vaz, I.J.; Masuda, A. Anti-tick monoclonal antibody applied by artificial capillary feeding in Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus Exp. Parasitol. 2012, 130, 359–363, doi:10.1016/j.exppara.2012.02.006.
  34. Ndawula, C.J.; Tabor, A.E. Cocktail Anti-Tick Vaccines: The unforeseen constraints and approaches toward enhanced efficacies. 2020, 8, 457, doi:10.3390/vaccines8030457
  35. McKenna, R.V.; Riding, G.A.; Jarmey, J.M.; Pearson, R.D.; Willadsen, P. Vaccination of cattle against the Boophilus microplus using a mucin-like membrane glycoprotein. Parasite Immunol. 1998, 20, 325–336, doi:10.1046/j.1365-3024.1998.00149.x.
  36. Hope, M.; Jiang, X.; Gough, J.; Josh, P.; Jonsson, N.; Willadsen, P. Experimental vaccination of sheep and cattle against tick infestation using recombinant 5’-nucleotidase. Parasite Immunol. 2010, 32, 135–142, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3024.2009.01168.x.
  37. Final Report: Cattle Vaccination Studies Using Novel Anti-Cattle Tick Antigens Developed during Beef CRC Research, 2017. Available online: https://www.mla.com.au/research-and-development/search-rd-reports/final-report-details/Cattle-vaccination-studies-using-novel-anti-cattle-tick-antigens-developed-during-Beef- CRC-research/3636.
  38. Michaelis, L. Untersuchugen über Eiweisspräzipitine. Med. Wochschr. 1902, 28, 733.
  39. Taussig, M.J.; Mozes, E.; Shearer, G.M.; Sela, M. Studies on the mechanism of antigenic competition: Analysis of competition between synthetic polypeptide antigens. J. Immunol. 1972, 2, 448–452, doi:10.1002/eji.1830020513.
  40. Pross, H.F.; Eidinger, D. Antigenic competition: A review of nonspecific antigen-induced suppression. Immunol. 1974, 18, 133–168, doi:10.1016/s0065-2776(08)60309-0.
  41. Billeskov, R.; Beikzadeh, B.; Berzofsky, J.A. The effect of antigen dose on T cell-targeting vaccine outcome. Vaccin. Immunother. 2019, 15, 407–411, doi:10.1080/21645515.2018.1527496
  42. Kim, Y.T.; Merrifield, N.; Zarchy, T.; Brody, N.I.; Siskind, G.W. Studies on antigenic competition. 3. Effect on antigenic competition on antibody affinity. 1974, 26, 943–955.
  43. Brody, N.I.; Siskind, G.W. Studies on antigenic competition. Exp. Med. 1969, 130, 821–832.
  44. Michallet, M.C.; Saltel, F.; Flacher, M.; Revillard, J.P.; Genestier, L. Cathepsin-dependent apoptosis triggered by supraoptimal activation of T lymphocytes: A possible mechanism of high dose tolerance. Immunol. 2004, 172, 5405–5414, doi:10.4049/jimmunol.172.9.5405.
  45. Dintzis, R.Z.; Middleton, M.H.; Dintzis, H.M. Studies on the immunogenicity and tolerogenicity of T-independent antigens. Immunol. 1983, 131, 2196–2203.
  46. Perrie, Y.; Mohammed, A.R.; Kirby, D.J.; McNeil, S.E.; Bramwell, V.W. Vaccine adjuvant systems: Enhancing the efficacy of sub-unit protein antigens. J. Pharm. 2008, 364, 272–280, doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2008.04.036.
  47. García, A.; De Sanctis, J.B. An overview of adjuvant formulations and delivery systems. APMIS. 2014, 122,257–267, doi:10.1111/apm.12143.
  48. Imamura, S.; Konnai, S.; da Silva Vaz, I.J.; Yamada, S.; Nakajima, C.; Ito, Y.; Tajima, T.; Yasuda, J.; Simuunza, M.; Onuma, M.; et al. Effects of anti-tick cocktail vaccine against Rhipicephalus appendiculatus. J. Vet. Res. 2008, 56, 85–98.
  49. Stills, H.F.J. Adjuvants and antibody production: Dispelling the myths associated with Freund’s complete and other adjuvants. ILAR J. 2005, 46, 280–293, doi:10.1093/ilar.46.3.280
  50. McDevitt, H.O.; Benacerraf, B. Genetic control of specific immune responses. Immunol. 1969, 11, 31–74, doi:10.1016/s0065-2776(08)60477-0.
  51. Mansfield, K.L.; Burr, P.D.; Snodgrass, D.R.; Sayers, R.; Fooks, A.R. Factors affecting the serological response of dogs and cats to rabies vaccination. Rec. 2004, 154, 423–426, doi: 10.1136/vr.154.14.423.
  52. Green, I.; Inman, J.K.; Benacerraf, B. Genetic control of the immune response of guinea pigs to limiting doses of bovine serum albumin: Relationship to the poly-L-lysine gene. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1970, 66,1267–1274, doi:10.1073/pnas.66.4.1267.
  53. Nomoto, K.; Mashiba, H.; Takeya, K. Immune response against hamster erythrocytes in the low-responder mouse strains. I. Strain difference in the antibody response to primary antigenic stimulation and its disappearance after pre-sensitization with the antigen in Freund’s complete adjuvant. J. Microbiol. 1972, 16, 43–51, doi:10.1111/j.1348-0421.1972.tb00626.x.
  54. Mozes, E.; McDevitt, H.O.; Jaton, J.C.; Sela, M. The nature of the antigenic determinant in a genetic control of the antibody response. Exp. Med. 1969, 130, 493–504, doi:10.1084/jem.130.3.493.
  55. Young, C.R.; O’Connor, G.P.; Griffiths, P. Genetic control of the antibody response to poly(L Tyr, L Glu)-poly(DL Ala) poly(L Lys) in mice: Analysis of (low responder x low responder)F1 hybrids. 1982, 45, 273–281.
  56. Taussig, M.J.; Mozes, E.; Shearer, G.M.; Sela, M. Antigenic competition and genetic control of the immune response. A hypothesis for intramolecular competition. Cell Immunol. 1973, 8, 299–310, doi: 10.1016/0008-8749(73)90119-6.
  57. Kasaija, P.D.; Contreras, M.; Kabi, F.; Mugerwa, S.; de la Fuente, J. Vaccination with recombinant subolesin antigens provides cross-tick species protection in Bos indicus and crossbred cattle in Uganda. Vaccines. 2020, 8, 319, doi: 10.3390/vaccines8020319.
  58. Fakruddin, M.; Mohammad Mazumdar, R.; Bin Mannan, K.S.; Chowdhury, A.; Hossain, M.N. Critical factors affecting the success of cloning, expression, and mass production of enzymes by recombinant coli. ISRN Biotechnol. 2012, 2013, 590587, doi:10.5402/2013/590587.
  59. Clark, T.G.; Cassidy-Hanley, D. Recombinant subunit vaccines: Potentials and constraints. Biol. 2005,121, 153–163.
  60. Tellam, R.L.; Smith, D.; Kemp, D.H.; Willadsen, P. Vaccination against ticks. In Animal Parasite Control Utilizing Biotechnology; Yong, W.K., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1992; pp. 303–331.
  61. International patent WO2014154847,—Vaccine against Rhipicephalus Ticks, 2014. Available online: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2014154847.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback