Next Article in Journal
Current Advances in the Biodegradation and Bioconversion of Polyethylene Terephthalate
Previous Article in Journal
One Health Approach to Rickettsiosis: A Five-Year Study on Spotted Fever Group Rickettsiae in Ticks Collected from Humans, Animals and Environment
Previous Article in Special Issue
Host Immunity and Francisella tularensis: A Review of Tularemia in Immunocompromised Patients
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Novel Transcriptional and Translational Biomarkers of Tularemia Vaccine Efficacy in a Mouse Inhalation Model: Proof of Concept

1
Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre, National Research Council of Canada (NRC), Ottawa, ON K1A 0R6, Canada
2
Digital Technologies Research Centre, National Research Council of Canada (NRC), Ottawa, ON K1A 0R6, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2022, 10(1), 36; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10010036
Submission received: 23 November 2021 / Revised: 15 December 2021 / Accepted: 20 December 2021 / Published: 26 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Interaction between Francisella Species and the Host Immune System)

Abstract

:
Francisella tularensis subspecies tularensis (Ftt) is extremely virulent for humans when inhaled as a small particle aerosol (<5 µm). Inhalation of ≥20 viable bacteria is sufficient to initiate infection with a mortality rate ≥30%. Consequently, in the past, Ftt became a primary candidate for biological weapons development. To counter this threat, the USA developed a live vaccine strain (LVS), that showed efficacy in humans against inhalation of virulent Ftt. However, the breakthrough dose was fairly low, and protection waned with time. These weaknesses triggered extensive research for better vaccine candidates. Previously, we showed that deleting the clpB gene from virulent Ftt strain, SCHU S4, resulted in a mutant that was significantly less virulent than LVS for mice, yet better protected them from aerosol challenge with wild-type SCHU S4. To date, comprehensive searches for correlates of protection for SCHU S4 ΔclpB among molecules that are critical signatures of cell-mediated immunity, have yielded little reward. In this study we used transcriptomics analysis to expand the potential range of molecular correlates of protection induced by vaccination with SCHU S4 ΔclpB beyond the usual candidates. The results provide proof-of-concept that unusual host responses to vaccination can potentially serve as novel efficacy biomarkers for new tularemia vaccines.

1. Introduction

Francisella tularensis subspecies holarctica (Fth) and subspecies tularensis (Ftt) are zoonotic facultative intracellular bacterial pathogens, capable of causing a spectrum of diseases collectively called tularemia (reviewed in [1]). Both subspecies can cause serious infections in humans dependent on their portal of entry into the host. Ftt is particularly lethal for humans when inhaled as a small particle (<5 µm) aerosol. In this situation as few as 20 inhaled colony forming units (CFU) of Ftt can cause systemic potentially lethal infection (≥30% mortality without effective treatment) [2,3,4,5]. In contrast, [6,7], Fth rarely results in death regardless of how it enters the host [8,9].
The high mortality associated with inhalation of low doses of Ftt made it a major focus of biological warfare programs during the last century [10,11,12,13,14]. To counter this threat, US scientists obtained a live attenuated Fth vaccine strain, strain S15, from Russia from which they derived what became known as Fth live vaccine strain (LVS) [15]. Its efficacy following scarification, aerosol, or oral administration was demonstrated in human volunteers in the early 1960s [16,17,18,19] and in field trials on tularemia researchers [20]. Overall, LVS given by scarification was particularly effective against subsequent intradermal (ID) infection with virulent Ftt strain, SCHU S4, but appeared suboptimal against aerosol challenge. Against the latter, aerosol immunization was more effective, but caused mild to moderate tularemia when administered at the most efficacious doses [19,21]. Consequently, scarification is the sole administration route recommended for humans. However, LVS remains unlicensed and is unavailable for general use.
The emerging threat of bioterrorism at the beginning of this century, triggered by the dissemination of anthrax spores through the US mail system, led to renewed interest in developing countermeasures against potential bioweapons in general, including vaccines against Ftt [22]. Our approach to the latter was to make gene deletion mutants of SCHU S4 and to test any strains that were at least as attenuated as LVS for their ability to protect mice from either ID or respiratory challenge with virulent Ftt [23,24,25,26,27]. Only one out of sixty mutants tested fulfilled our criteria; a mutant, SCHU S4 ΔclpB, from which the chaperonin gene, clpB, was deleted [24,25,26,27,28]. Given intranasally (IN) to mice, SCHU S4ΔclpB (hereafter ΔclpB) was less virulent than LVS, and administered ID was more efficacious against aerosol or intranasal (IN) infection with fully virulent Ftt. We also generated other highly attenuated mutants with lesser degrees of efficacy than ΔclpB or LVS [24,25,27]. For both respiratory and ID challenge only vaccination with ΔclpB proved to be superior to LVS. The reason for this superior protection remains unknown, despite concerted efforts to define differences in the host molecular immune response to vaccination with ΔclpB vs. LVS and other attenuated strains of varying efficacy [24,26,27,29].
The literature overwhelmingly shows that canonical cell-mediated immune (CMI) responses rather than antibody responses to vaccination with LVS account for its protective capabilities (reviewed in [30,31]). However, no vaccines currently in clinical use have ever been approved based on the CMI responses they evoke, even when this is the presumed mechanism of action. Another major developmental hurdle for tularemia vaccines is the dearth of natural respiratory infections with Ftt that precludes the usual use of large-scale phase 3 clinical trials to determine their efficacy in humans. Instead, the US FDA has developed a policy known as “The Animal Rule” to enable licensing of countermeasures against Ftt and other potential biological weapons [32,33]. Specifically, this regulatory pathway allows for evaluation of novel vaccine efficacy using appropriate animal models of infection that lend themselves to a rational means to bridge their correlates of protection (CoP) to human immune responses to vaccination. With these issues in mind others have used a variety of CMI- and antibody- based assays using material obtained from various hosts, including humans, immunized with LVS in search of putative pan-specific immune CoP [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45].
In contrast, we have compared antibody and CMI responses in mice immunized ID with experimental vaccine strains of varying efficacy in BALB/c or C57BL/6 mice. These include extensive immunoproteomic studies to determine the antibody repertoires elicited by these experimental vaccines and kinetics of production of selected cytokines and chemokines in the skin, lungs, livers, spleens, and blood of mice at various times following vaccination or challenge. These have essentially left us empty handed save for the fact that using three distinct vaccination regimens, protection was associated with elevated pulmonary IL-17 levels on day 7 after IN challenge with SCHU S4. However, for a fast-acting pathogen such as F. tularensis, CoP need to be detectable as early as possible after vaccination rather than after challenge. In this regard, the multiplex assays for cytokines and chemokines are limited by the relatively small range of antibodies available that are primarily aimed at detecting canonical immune responses, whereas recent transcriptomics and other molecular immunological approaches have shown that non canonical host responses can predict protective responses elicited by vaccines against several other pathogens and LVS in experimental animals and humans [34,35,37,40,41,42,43,44]. Therefore, we were interested to see whether a transcriptomics approach bolstered by a concomitant change in the level of selected associated proteins would reveal unique and robust CoP against respiratory challenge with SCHU S4 induced by immunization with ΔclpB.

2. Methods

2.1. Bacteria

The SCHU S4 mutants were generated as previously described [23] and their safety and efficacy characteristics are summarized in Table 1 along with those of LVS. SCHU S4 is a virulent Ftt strain with an LD50 for mice of <10 CFU by ID, IN, and aerosol routes of challenge and has been described by us previously [46].

2.2. Vaccination of Mice

Young adult female BALB/c mice (n = 4/group) were immunized ID with 105 CFU of one or other of the vaccine strains listed in Table 1. Immunization was performed by inoculation of 50 µL of bacteria at a concentration of ~2 × 106 CFU/mL into the shaved mid-belly. The formation of an overt bleb at the site of inoculation was deemed to be indicative of successful ID administration. Four days after vaccination, mice were killed and serum was prepared from whole blood, and spleens were removed intact. Untreated mice were used as negative (naïve) controls. This work was performed under National Research Council Canada animal use protocol # 2015.01 in accordance with the Canadian Council on Animal Care Guidelines for the use and care of laboratory animals (https://ccac.ca/en/standards/guidelines/; accessed on 6 July 2021). For IN challenges, 10 µL of inoculum was added to each nostril of mice whilst under general anaesthesia followed by 10 µL of saline to chase the challenge inoculum into the lower airways.

2.3. Transcriptomics

Total RNA was isolated from the spleens of mice vaccinated ID with LVS or one of the SCHU S4 deletion mutants ΔclpB, ΔgplX and ΔlpcC, (4 spleens from each group treated individually throughout) using Tri reagent (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Genomic DNA contamination was removed by Turbo DNA-Free Kit (Life Technologies). RNA quality was assessed using Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100. RNA-Seq Libraries were generated using the TruSeq strand RNA kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). The RNA-Seq libraries were quantified by Qbit and qPCR according to the Illumina Sequencing Library qPCR Quantification Guide and the quality of the libraries was evaluated on Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100 using the Agilent DNA-100 chip. The RNA-Seq library sequencing was performed using Illumina Hi-Seq2000 (Genome Quebec, Montreal, QC, Canada). RNA-seq data are available in the GEO repository with access number GSE186408. STAR (v2.7.8a) [48] was used for alignment of the reads to the reference genome and to generate gene-level read counts. Mouse (Mus musculus) reference genome (version GRCm39 Gencode M26) [49] and corresponding annotation were obtained from Gencode (https://www.gencodegenes.org/mouse/stats.html (accessed on 2 February 21) and used as reference for RNA-seq data alignment process. DESeq2 [50] was used for data normalization and differentially expressed gene identification for each treatment vs. naïve samples. The expression value of each gene was expressed as average read counts. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were obtained by comparing treated samples with naïve samples (control) and all vaccinated samples compared with each other. A q-value (adjusted p-value) of less than 0.05 and 2 fold change in ratio (abs (log2 fold-change) ≥ 1) were used to generate a DEGs list. KEGG pathway enrichment analyses were done using GOAL software; pathway enrichment p-values were computed using the Fisher’s exact test via the hypergeometric distribution and were BH corrected [51].

2.4. Multiplex and ELISA Assays

A commercial ELISA kit (My BioSource Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) was used to determine relative levels of Saa3 in mouse sera in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Sera were tested at 1:2000 and 1:10,000 dilutions. Serum levels of tissue inhibitor of metalloprotease 1 (TIMP1), granzyme B, matrix metalloproteinases 3 and 8 (MMP3/8) were determined by Luminex using immunomagnetic multiplex kits (MilliporeSigma, Oakville, ON, Canada). Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s post-test for multiple comparisons. Adjusted p values of <0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Transcriptomic Analysis

For reasons of cost and data handling logistics, we chose to examine the transcriptome in the spleens of BALB/c mice four days after ID immunization with one or other of the strains of F. tularensis listed in column 1 in Table 1. The spleen was chosen as a substitute for PBMC which are in short supply from individual mice, and day 4 was chosen because that was the time when most splenic cytokine and chemokine levels peaked in our earlier studies using multiplex analysis [27].
On average, 85% of the 34 million paired-end reads in each sample were mapped to the mouse genome. A total of 5361 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were collectively identified from the 4 pairwise comparisons between the vaccines and the naïve control (Figure 1, Table 2 and Table S1). Compared to spleens from naïve mice, 3539, 3242, 2006 and 1350 genes were differentially expressed after vaccination with ΔclpB, LVS, ΔgplX and ΔlpcC, respectively. The number of changed genes reflects the extent of host response to vaccination and appears to correlate with the efficacy of the vaccine strains, with ΔclpB > LVS > ΔgplX > ΔlpcC.
Cluster and heatmap analyses of the 5361 genes showed distinct patterns of gene expression for each vaccine strain (Figure 1). Mice immunized with ΔclpB and LVS formed one branch, while the other two vaccines and naïve mice formed another branch. Thus, immune responses to ΔgplX and ΔlpcC are more similar to naïve mice than to mice immunized with ΔclpB or LVS. Although the overall host responses to ΔclpB and LVS are closely related, there were 139 DEGs when we did pairwise comparisons between these two strains (Table 2). Likewise, the patterns produced by ΔgplX and ΔlpcC were similar to each other with 397 DEGs between this pair (Table 2).
The geneID, normalized mean read counts and log2 ratio of these changed genes are listed in Supplementary Table S1. Reassuringly, Il-6, IFNγ, and Il-17 transcripts were among the top twenty that were significantly overexpressed in mice immunized with ΔclpB versus the other SCHU S4 mutants as this is in keeping with our previous findings examining the relative levels of these proteins in the spleens of similarly vaccinated mice [27]. Additionally, upregulation of Il-1α, Il-1β, Cxcl1 and ccl2 (MCP-1) transcripts, though lower down the ranking, also concurred with our prior multiplex studies. They essentially followed the pattern ΔclpB > LVS > ΔgplX > ΔlpcC. This is in overall agreement with the relative protection these strains administered ID provide against respiratory infection with SCHU S4 (Table 1).
Figure 2 illustrates the number of genes identified to be changed uniquely in one or simultaneously in two or more samples (up in Figure 2a, down in Figure 2b). As expected, ΔclpB had the highest number of uniquely differentially expressed genes (499 up, 554 down). ΔclpB and LVS clearly shared the highest number of up- and down- regulated genes, 852 and 1576 respectively, since they both protect against respiratory challenge, albeit to different extents. A large number of up- (290) and down- (675) regulated genes were shared by ΔclpB, LVS and ΔgplX as these vaccines all protect against intradermal challenge. While ΔlpcC shares some (520 up, 234 down) of the DEGs with ΔgplX, it shared very few DEGs with ΔclpB and LVS, individually, or with both. There are 56 and 166 commonly up- or down- regulated genes in all 4 samples; they are likely genes responding to general vaccination regardless of the mutant strain used (Supplementary Table S2).
Further study of KEGG pathway enrichment analyses of the differentially expressed genes in the three strains that conveyed some levels of protection against challenges revealed several pathways that are expected to be up-regulated after vaccination (Table 3). The most significant pathway is the cytokine–cytokine receptor interaction pathway, followed by NOD-like receptor signaling pathway (families of pattern recognition receptors responsible for detecting various pathogens and generating innate immune responses), chemokine signaling pathway and antigen processing and presentation, as well as IL-17, TNF signaling and viral protein interaction with cytokine and cytokine receptor pathways. For ΔclpB, in addition to the genes that were shared with the LVS and ΔgplX, there were many more genes that were up-regulated in these pathways. No direct link of the down-regulated pathways can be made to CMI. The neuroactive ligand–receptor interaction pathway that participates in environmental information processing was significantly down-regulated in these three strains. The down-regulation of calcium signaling pathway in all strains may be related to depressed control of fast cellular processes. A large number of genes (46) in the metabolic pathways were uniquely down-regulated in ΔclpB (Table 4). Interestingly, 21 genes in the aforementioned pathway were significantly up-regulated in ΔlpcC (Supplementary Table S3), indicating opposite metabolic process effects of these two vaccines.
Because biomarkers for vaccine strains that outperform LVS need to be robust, we have selected potential transcriptional changes (Table 5) that have to meet the following filtering criteria: (1) the transcripts are highly abundant (read count > 300, in up-regulated testing strain, or in naïve for down-regulation); (2) more than 4-fold changes (|log2FC| > 2) in ΔclpB versus naïve; (3) the gene products are known to be expressed in whole blood, either naturally or by secretion; (4) more than two fold changes in ΔclpB versus LVS, which could be sufficient to distinguish host responses to these functionally closely related vaccines. By these criteria, some of the genes ranked highly in Supplementary Table S1, failed to make the grade for inclusion in Table 5. In addition to their ability to distinguish ΔclpB from the others three test vaccines, a majority of these selected genes can be used to separate LVS from ΔgplX and ΔlpcC and some of them can also be used to distinguish ΔgplX from ΔlpcC (Supplementary Table S4). ΔlpcC was unable to protect against either respiratory or intradermal challenge route. Therefore, these down-regulated genes could also be developed as potential indicators of non-protective vaccines. In this regard, all the selected biomarkers down-regulated in ΔclpB (1300017J02Rik, Slc6a9, Art4, Sptb, and Aqp1) were significantly up-regulated in ΔlpcC. Aqp1, Sptb and Slc6a9 were up-regulated in both ΔgplX and ΔlpcC which means they can be developed to distinguish between strains with at least some protective activity against respiratory challenge.

3.2. Proteomic Confirmation of Transcriptomics Findings

Previously, we have reported [27] that IFNγ, IL-6, CcL2 (MCP-1), and Cxcl1 (KC) proteins are over produced in the spleens and sera of mice immunized ID four days earlier with ΔclpB, versus gplX or lpcC. LVS elicited similar responses to ΔclpB (unpublished). In this study, we found that IFNγ, IL-6, and CcL2 are among the up-regulated genes by both ΔclpB and LVS. In addition, Saa3 is highly up-regulated by vaccination with both ΔclpB (122-fold) and LVS (21-fold). To determine whether these finding hold at the translational level, we first used a commercial ELISA kit to examine serum levels of Saa3 in the same mice that provided the spleens for transcriptional analyses. In sera diluted 2000-fold, Saa3 levels in mice immunized with ΔclpB (adjusted p = 0.0008) or LVS (adjusted p = 0.03), were significantly higher than background (Figure 3). However, at 1:10,000 dilution serum Saa3 levels were only significantly higher than background (adjusted p = 0.01) in mice immunized with ΔclpB (Figure 3). Therefore, depending on dilution, serum Saa3 levels 4 days after vaccination can discriminate between vaccines that provide some degree of protection against respiratory challenge versus those that do not or ΔclpB versus all three other vaccine candidates.
Next, we looked at serum granzyme B, TIMP1, MMP3 and MMP8 levels on day four after vaccination by multiplex (Luminex) assay (Figure 4). The results show that compared to naïve mouse serum, levels of granzyme B, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 (TIMP1), and matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP8), but not MMP3, were significantly up-regulated in the sera of mice immunized with either ΔclpB or LVS even after correction for multiple comparisons. Serum levels of TIMP-1 and MMP-8 were also significantly higher in mice immunized with ΔclpB vs. ΔlpcC. However, in no cases were levels of these proteins significantly greater in mice immunized with ΔclpB versus LVS or ΔgplX. It remains to be determined how much this holds true for the other highly up-regulated and down-regulated genes in Table 5 for which proteomic assays were unavailable.

4. Discussion

The FDA Animal Rule for the approval of vaccines against Ftt requires evidence that CoP from two animal models likely predict their efficacy in humans. Currently, only LVS has been shown to protect humans against inhalation of virulent Ftt. This data stems solely from experiments conducted between 1960–1975 in which volunteers or tularemia researchers immunized by various routes with LVS were subsequently exposed to SCHU S4 [16,17,18,21,52,53]. These studies showed that LVS administered by scarification provided the simplest and safest means of eliciting protection, though it proved sub-optimal against aerosol challenge. Had LVS proved to be 100% effective against the latter, then any signs of vaccine take (e.g., eschar formation at the immunization site, or seroconversion to LVS) could have served as a straightforward CoP. Despite vaccine take being 100% in these experiments, in one pivotal study, 80% of unvaccinated individuals became ill within a few days following inhalation of between 10–50 CFU of SCHU S4, as did 3/18 individuals immunized with LVS [17]. Similarly, LVS elicited protection against aerosol challenge with a breakthrough threshold of ~1000 human infectious doses waned from 100% at 2 months to 25% at 11 months after vaccination [2]. When these human experiments were performed, only relatively crude measures of immunity were available. Namely, seroconversion (bacterial agglutination titer) that proved unreliable as a CoP [54]. Thus, neither vaccine take nor antibody titer predicted longer term protection. Because CMI and its critical role in protection against facultative intracellular bacterial pathogens was in its infancy at this time, no attempts were made to measure such immune responses elicted by LVS as potential CoP.
Nowadays, there is abundant animal data showing aspects of CMI that are crucial to protective immunity following vaccination with LVS (reviewed in [31,55]). However, in the absence of any accompanying human challenge data, it is difficult to predict which of these responses might correlate with long-lasting protection given its short-term zenith to rapid nadir in early challenge studies. For novel experimental vaccines, that have only been shown to be effective in animal models, the bridge to predicting their efficacy in humans remains even more challenging. Nevertheless, animal models can at least provide a starting point. In this regard, we have developed a deletion mutant of SCHU S4, ΔclpB, that offers better protection than LVS to BALB/c mice challenged IN or by aerosol with virulent Ftt [26,27]. Additionally, ΔclpB, LVS and ΔgplX all protect mice against ID challenge with virulent Ftt, whereas mutant strain ΔlpcC signally fails in both regards. Our prior attempts to correlate selected molecular immune responses to vaccination with these mutants were unsuccessful and biased by available reagents [24,25,26,27,56]. To determine whether other early host molecular responses to vaccination could predict the relative efficacy of these experimental vaccine strains, we performed more impartial transcriptomic profiling on the spleens of mice vaccinated ID 4 days earlier with 105 CFU of one or other vaccine strain. The spleen was used as a surrogate for PBMC that are in too short supply in individual mice to allow this type of approach. Our analyses revealed several up- and down- regulated genes associated with canonical CMI pathways that correlated with the superior protective capability of ΔclpB. Additionally, these studies identified a large number of other potential CoP. Among the most up-regulated transcripts in the spleens of BALB/c mice immunized with ΔclpB versus the other three test strains (Table 5 and Table S1) were, IFNγ, IL-6, Ccl2 (MCP1) and CxCL1 (KC). Interestingly, we previously showed this to be the case when spleen homogenates and serum from mice immunized four days earlier were examined for the proteins encoded by these genes. Moreover, these proteins were all produced in significantly higher quantities in mice immunized with ΔclpB versus ΔgplX or ΔlpcC [27]. However, there were no significant differences in the levels of these proteins produced in the spleens or sera of mice immunized four days earlier with ΔclpB vs. LVS. Our statistical analysis of transcript counts confirmed that IFNγ and IL-6 were not significantly up-regulated in mice immunized with ΔclpB vs. LVS. Moreover, these proteins were similarly up-regulated in mice that were protected (BALB/c) or not (C57BL/6) by immunization with ΔclpB [26]. Overall, our prior findings indicated that our previous selection of serum or splenic cytokines or chemokines were poor CoP. However, these were restricted by commercial availability of antibodies to target immune molecules. In contrast, transcriptomics allows a much broader and less biased view of host responses to vaccination that can reveal non-canonical responses not normally associated with protective CMI (reviewed in [57]). In this regard, the current study revealed several genes, not routinely associated with protective CMI, that were many-fold up-regulated in mice immunized with ΔclpB vs. LVS, ΔgplX or ΔlpcC (Table 5 and Table S5). For instance, transcripts for serum amyloid A3 (Saa3) were significantly up-regulated relative to naïve mice by 122-fold versus 21-fold by ΔclpB vs. LVS, respectively, but not at all by ΔgplX and ΔlpcC. Therefore, an ELISA specific for mouse Saa3 was used to examine its levels in the sera from the same mice used for splenic transcriptional analysis. The results (Figure 3) clearly recapitulated the transcriptomics data (ΔclpB > LVS > ΔgplX > ΔlpcC), making Saa3 a promising surrogate CoP. This was the case too for serum granzyme B, TIMP1, and MMP8 measured by Luminex whereas MPP3 showed no up-regulation in protein expression (Figure 4). Several other transcripts were also up-regulated by at least 2-fold in ΔclpB- vs. LVS-immunized mice and substantially more so compared to mice immunized with ΔgplX or ΔlpcC. In all our prior comparative efficacy studies of different vaccine strains, LVS was always the next best performing vaccine after ΔclpB at providing protection against respiratory challenge with SCHU S4. Therefore, it is unsurprising that they induce the most similar transcriptional profiles in mice. It is interesting to note too, that down-regulation of certain genes (e.g., Aqp1, Sptb) also correlate with the ability to elicit protection against respiratory challenge (Table S4). Whether or not any or a small combination of these differences are sufficient to serve as CoP for ranking the relative efficacy of tularemia vaccines in other mammals including humans remains to be determined.
Although our studies were limited to BALB/c mice, several groups have performed comprehensive transcriptional and translational analysis using PBMC recovered from individual humans for up to 2 weeks following immunization with LVS [42,43,57]. Fuller et al. examined the transcriptomes of PBMC taken from volunteers at -6, and 1, 2, 8, 14 days after immunization with LVS from a batch lot produced for the United States Army Medical Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in the early 1960s [42,43]. Despite the age of this vaccine, others have demonstrated that stored at −80 °C, it elicited similar CMI responses in humans over a test period of >35 years [58]. The former studies showed transcriptional changes primarily in molecular pathways associated with innate immunity. Much more recently, others [57] have comprehensively mapped transcriptional changes in PBMC from human volunteers immunized 1, 2, 7 or 14 days earlier with USAMRIID LVS or a newer batch manufactured in 2007 by the Dynport Vaccine Company under more appropriate GMP conditions [59]. Again, the individual responses were very reproducible. However, in both cases, the fold change in transcript abundance was ≤3-fold in either direction compared with the exponentially higher changes observed in mice spleens in the current study. The latter study showed also that both LVS vaccine lots induced small (<2-fold), but significant changes in a few serum cytokines and chemokines in contrast to the >1000-fold increases we previously found in mice [27]. Finally, a proteomics study on PBMC from LVS vaccines on days 7 and 14 showed ≤2-fold changes in abundance of numerous proteins following vaccination [45]. Because of the massive sizes of the datasets produced from human transcriptomics and proteomics studies, it is impossible to do them full credit herein. Instead, we have produced a Supplementary table (Table S5) showing the largest changes over time in transcriptomes and proteomes in human PMBC following immunization with LVS. Surprisingly, there was little overlap between the transcription results of Fuller et al. and those of Natrajan et al., Table S5). This was also the case with the proteomics study by Chang et al. [45]. Finally, none of these datasets showed much overlap with the mouse data generated in the current study. The reasons for all of the aforementioned differences are likely multifold and include: (1), Different host species naturally react differently at the genetic level to vaccination with live tularemia vaccines; (2), the live vaccine candidates examined in the current study cause systemic infection in mice to varying degrees, thus exponentially amplifying the original antigenic burden; (3), serum cytokine responses in mice are diluted in 5.0 mL of blood versus 5.0 L of blood in humans (a differential that is eliminated using the macrophage killing assay (MKA, described below); (4), ultimately it is the acquired immune responses to vaccination that determine the degree of protective immunity and early transcriptional responses in different host species lead to similar acquired immunological outcomes as suggested by the MKA and other assays; (5), PBMC do not fully reflect immunogenetic changes occurring in the lymph nodes, the primary sites of antigen processing and presentation; (6), the gap between day 2 and 7 data collection points for humans miss information generated in mice on day 4 after vaccination; (7), transcriptional changes that occur before the onset of acquired CMI correlate more with mechanisms of protection rather than CoP. In mice and humans, the first measurable evidence of acquired CMI following vaccination with LVS occurs starting at approximately 2 weeks [60,61].
Besides using early post-vaccination transcriptional analyses that occur at the cusp of the acquired immune response, others have developed functional assays, preferred by regulatory agencies, to examine potential CoP following vaccination with live tularemia vaccines including LVS. The most promising of these is the so called “macrophage killing assay” (MKA) developed by Karen Elkins and colleagues at the US FDA in an attempt to reveal CoP for novel tuberculosis and tularemia vaccines [62,63]. Briefly, the assay involves infecting quiescent, adherent host macrophages contained within wells of tissue culture plates with Ft. In this condition, Ft will grow exponentially within the macrophages and kill them within 72 h. However, if immune T cells from the same, previously vaccinated, host are overlaid on top of the infected macrophages, then Ft multiplication is rapidly curtailed and can be measured as a logarithmic decrease in CFU. Additionally, the transcriptomes, and phenotypes of the T cells and macrophages that remain at the end of the assay can be determined as can the contents of the well supernatants [35,36,37,64]. In this regard, we previously showed that the enhanced efficacy of ΔclpB vs. LVS in a murine aerosol challenge model was associated with a concomitant increase in the levels of pulmonary IFNγ, TNFα, and IL-17 seven days after challenge [24,26,29]. Using the MKA and these cytokines individually or in mixtures, we have shown that combining all three molecules results in the most effective killing of SCHU S4 (Supplementary Figure S1). Thus, overall this assay appears to be capable of fully recapitulating the in vivo protective immune response. Moreover, the MKA can be used with multiple species, to allow for the discovery of pan-species specific CoP. In this regard, the MKA has already been successfully employed in mice, rats, and humans immunized with LVS or ΔclpB [37,40,41,62,65].

5. Concluding Remarks

This study shows that a potentially simple serum-based test for one or a few molecules could be used to develop a CoP profile for humans vaccinated with ΔclpB. In particular, this study shows that vaccination with ΔclpB especially induces significant up- or down- regulation of genes hitherto not associated with protective immunity to respiratory challenge with virulent F. tularensis. A finding in keeping with several bioinformatics studies that have shown unexpected CoP for LVS and several vaccines against other infectious diseases [57]. We have recently made a batch lot of ΔclpB under GMP conditions [66] that will be used to conduct clinical trials sometime in 2022 or 2023. Thereafter, we will be able to directly compare human immune responses to vaccination with ΔclpB and LVS that could reveal either a common or unique CoP for these two vaccines.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms10010036/s1, Figure S1. Effects of IFNγ, TNFα, and IL-17a alone or in combination on macrophage-mediated killing of Ftt, Table S1. Complete set of differentially expressed genes, Table S2. Enriched KEGG pathways in commonly up- or down-regulated gene groups by all four vaccinations, Table S3. Significantly down-regulated pathways unique to ΔclpB, but uniquely up-regulated in ΔlpcC, Table S4. Detailed information on the 32 selected biomarkers shown in Table 5, Table S5. Comparison of published studies of gene/protein expression changes in human PBMC following vaccination by scarification with LVS.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Q.Y.L., Y.P. and J.W.C.; methodology, Q.Y.L., Y.P., J.W.C. and F.S.; software, Z.L. and Y.P.; formal analysis, Q.Y.L., Y.P. and F.S.; investigation, S.L., Z.L. and F.S.; resources, Q.Y.L., J.W.C., Y.P. and F.S.; data curation, S.L., Z.L. and F.S.; writing—original draft preparation, J.W.C. and Q.Y.L.; writing—review and editing, J.W.C., Q.Y.L. and Y.P.; visualization, S.L., Z.L. and F.S.; supervision, Q.Y.L. and J.W.C.; project administration, Q.Y.L., Y.P. and J.W.C.; funding acquisition, J.W.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This project was funded in part by internal funding from the National Research Council of Canada and Prime Contract HDTRA114-AMD2-CBM-01-2-0042 from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This work was performed under National Research Council Canada animal use protocol # 2015.01 in accordance with the Canadian Council on Animal Care Guidelines for the use and care of laboratory animals (https://ccac.ca/en/standards/guidelines/; accessed on 6 July 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

RNA-seq data are available in the GEO repository with access number GSE186408. The remainder of the data presented in this study are all available in the present article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dao Ly and Alain Tchagang for their assistant in the early stage of data analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

Q.Y.L., S.L., Y.P., Z.L., F.S. and J.W.C. report no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sjostedt, A. Tularemia: History, epidemiology, pathogen physiology, and clinical manifestations. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2007, 1105, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. McCruumb, F.R. Aerosol Infection of Man with Pasteurella Tularensis. Bacteriol. Rev. 1961, 25, 262–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Oyston, P.C. Francisella tularensis: Unravelling the secrets of an intracellular pathogen. J. Med. Microbiol. 2008, 57 Pt 8, 921–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sharma, J.; Mares, C.A.; Li, Q.; Morris, E.G.; Teale, J.M. Features of sepsis caused by pulmonary infection with Francisella tularensis Type A strain. Microb. Pathog. 2011, 51, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Bosio, C.M. The subversion of the immune system by francisella tularensis. Front. Microbiol. 2011, 2, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Timofeev, V.; Titareva, G.; Bahtejeva, I.; Kombarova, T.; Kravchenko, T.; Mokrievich, A.; Dyatlov, I. The Comparative Virulence of Francisella tularensis Subsp. mediasiatica for Vaccinated Laboratory Animals. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Conlan, J.W.; Chen, W.; Shen, H.; Webb, A.; KuoLee, R. Experimental tularemia in mice challenged by aerosol or intradermally with virulent strains of Francisella tularensis: Bacteriologic and histopathologic studies. Microb. Pathog. 2003, 34, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tarnvik, A.; Eriksson, M.; Sandstrom, G.; Sjostedt, A. Francisella tularensis—A model for studies of the immune response to intracellular bacteria in man. Immunology 1992, 76, 349–354. [Google Scholar]
  9. Schricker, R.L.; Eigelsbach, H.T.; Mitten, J.Q.; Hall, W.C. Pathogenesis of tularemia in monkeys aerogenically exposed to Francisella tularensis 425. Infect. Immun. 1972, 5, 734–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Meyer, C.G.; May, J. Germs employed as biological weapons. Anasthesiol. Intensivmed. Notf. Schmerzther. AINS 2002, 37, 538–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kortepeter, M.G.; Parker, G.W. Potential biological weapons threats. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 1999, 5, 523–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Oyston, P.C.; Sjostedt, A.; Titball, R.W. Tularaemia: Bioterrorism defence renews interest in Francisella tularensis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2004, 2, 967–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Dennis, D.T.; Inglesby, T.V.; Henderson, D.A.; Bartlett, J.G.; Ascher, M.S.; Eitzen, E.; Fine, A.D.; Friedlander, A.M.; Hauer, J.; Layton, M.; et al. Tularemia as a biological weapon: Medical and public health management. JAMA 2001, 285, 2763–2773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Pohanka, M.; Skladal, P. Bacillus anthracis, Francisella tularensis and Yersinia pestis. The most important bacterial warfare agents-review. Folia Microbiol. 2009, 54, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Eigelsbach, H.T.; Downs, C.M. Prophylactic effectiveness of live and killed tularemia vaccines. I. Production of vaccine and evaluation in the white mouse and guinea pig. J. Immunol. 1961, 87, 415–425. [Google Scholar]
  16. Saslaw, S.; Eigelsbach, H.T.; Wilson, H.E.; Prior, J.A.; Carhart, S. Tularemia vaccine study. I. Intracutaneous challenge. Arch. Intern. Med. 1961, 107, 689–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Saslaw, S.; Eigelsbach, H.T.; Prior, J.A.; Wilson, H.E.; Carhart, S. Tularemia vaccine study. II. Respiratory challenge. Arch. Intern. Med. 1961, 107, 702–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hornick, R.B.; Dawkins, A.T.; Eigelsbach, H.T.; Tulis, J.J. Oral tularemia vaccine in man. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1966, 6, 11–14. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cross, A.S.; Calia, F.M.; Edelman, R. From rabbits to humans: The contributions of Dr. Theodore, E. Woodward to tularemia research. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2007, 45 (Suppl. S1), S61–S67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Burke, D.S. Immunization against tularemia: Analysis of the effectiveness of live Francisella tularensis vaccine in prevention of laboratory-acquired tularemia. J. Infect. Dis. 1977, 135, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hornick, R.B.; Eigelsbach, H.T. Aerogenic immunization of man with live Tularemia vaccine. Bacteriol. Rev. 1966, 30, 532–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Watson, C.R.; Watson, M.; Sell, T.K. Public Health Preparedness Funding: Key Programs and Trends From 2001 to 2017. Am. J. Public Health 2017, 107, S165–S167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Twine, S.; Bystrom, M.; Chen, W.; Forsman, M.; Golovliov, I.; Johansson, A.; Kelly, J.; Lindgren, H.; Svensson, K.; Zingmark, C.; et al. A mutant of Francisella tularensis strain SCHU S4 lacking the ability to express a 58-kilodalton protein is attenuated for virulence and is an effective live vaccine. Infect. Immun. 2005, 73, 8345–8352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Shen, H.; Harris, G.; Chen, W.; Sjostedt, A.; Ryden, P.; Conlan, W. Molecular immune responses to aerosol challenge with Francisella tularensis in mice inoculated with live vaccine candidates of varying efficacy. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e13349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Conlan, J.W.; Shen, H.; Golovliov, I.; Zingmark, C.; Oyston, P.C.; Chen, W.; House, R.V.; Sjöstedt, A. Differential ability of novel attenuated targeted deletion mutants of Francisella tularensis subspecies tularensis strain SCHU S4 to protect mice against aerosol challenge with virulent bacteria: Effects of host background and route of immunization. Vaccine 2010, 28, 1824–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Twine, S.; Shen, H.; Harris, G.; Chen, W.; Sjostedt, A.; Ryden, P.; Conlan, W. BALB/c mice, but not C57BL/6 mice immunized with a ΔclpB mutant of Francisella tularensis subspecies tularensis are protected against respiratory challenge with wild-type bacteria: Association of protection with post-vaccination and post-challenge immune responses. Vaccine 2012, 30, 3634–3645. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ryden, P.; Twine, S.; Shen, H.; Harris, G.; Chen, W.; Sjostedt, A.; Conlan, W. Correlates of protection following vaccination of mice with gene deletion mutants of Francisella tularensis subspecies tularensis strain, SCHU S4 that elicit varying degrees of immunity to systemic and respiratory challenge with wild-type bacteria. Mol. Immunol. 2013, 54, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Conlan, W.; Sjöstedt, A. Novel live vaccine candidates against airborne Francisella tularensis. In The Challenge of Highly Pathogenic Microorganisms; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 213–218. [Google Scholar]
  29. Golovliov, I.; Twine, S.M.; Shen, H.; Sjostedt, A.; Conlan, W. A ΔclpB Mutant of Francisella tularensis Subspecies holarctica Strain, FSC200, Is a More Effective Live Vaccine than F. tularensis LVS in a Mouse Respiratory Challenge Model of Tularemia. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e78671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cowley, S.C.; Elkins, K.L. Immunity to francisella. Front. Microbiol. 2011, 2, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Elkins, K.L.; Kurtz, S.L.; De Pascalis, R. Progress, challenges, and opportunities in Francisella vaccine development. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2016, 15, 1183–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Allio, T. The FDA Animal Rule and its role in protecting human safety. Expert Opin. Drug Saf. 2018, 17, 971–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Beasley, D.W.C.; Brasel, T.L.; Comer, J.E. First vaccine approval under the FDA Animal Rule. NPJ Vaccines 2016, 1, 16013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. De Pascalis, R.; Chou, A.Y.; Bosio, C.M.; Huang, C.Y.; Follmann, D.A.; Elkins, K.L. Development of functional and molecular correlates of vaccine-induced protection for a model intracellular pathogen, F. tularensis LVS. PLoS Pathog. 2012, 8, e1002494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. De Pascalis, R.; Chou, A.Y.; Ryden, P.; Kennett, N.J.; Sjostedt, A.; Elkins, K.L. Models derived from in vitro analyses of spleen, liver, and lung leukocyte functions predict vaccine efficacy against the Francisella tularensis Live Vaccine Strain (LVS). mBio 2014, 5, e00936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. De Pascalis, R.; Mittereder, L.; Kennett, N.J.; Elkins, K.L. Activities of Murine Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes Provide Immune Correlates That Predict Francisella tularensis Vaccine Efficacy. Infect. Immun. 2016, 84, 1054–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. De Pascalis, R.; Hahn, A.; Brook, H.M.; Ryden, P.; Donart, N.; Mittereder, L.; Frey, B.; Wu, T.H.; Elkins, K.L. A panel of correlates predicts vaccine-induced protection of rats against respiratory challenge with virulent Francisella tularensis. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198140. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sjostedt, A.; Sandstrom, G.; Tarnvik, A.; Jaurin, B. Molecular cloning and expression of a T-cell stimulating membrane protein of Francisella tularensis. Microb. Pathog. 1989, 6, 403–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Golovliov, I.; Lindgren, H.; Eneslatt, K.; Conlan, W.; Mosnier, A.; Henry, T.; Sjöstedt, A. An In Vitro Co-culture Mouse Model Demonstrates Efficient Vaccine-Mediated Control of Francisella tularensis SCHU S4 and Identifies Nitric Oxide as a Predictor of Efficacy. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2016, 6, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Eneslatt, K.; Golovliov, I.; Ryden, P.; Sjostedt, A. Vaccine-Mediated Mechanisms Controlling Replication of Francisella tularensis in Human Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells Using a Co-culture System. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2018, 8, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lindgren, H.; Eneslatt, K.; Golovliov, I.; Gelhaus, C.; Ryden, P.; Wu, T.; Sjöstedt, A. Vaccine-Mediated Mechanisms Controlling Francisella tularensis SCHU S4 Growth in a Rat Co-Culture System. Pathogens 2020, 9, 338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fuller, C.L.; Brittingham, K.C.; Hepburn, M.J.; Martin, J.W.; Petitt, P.L.; Pittman, P.R.; Bavari, S. Dominance of human innate immune responses in primary Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain vaccination. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2006, 117, 1186–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Fuller, C.L.; Brittingham, K.C.; Porter, M.W.; Hepburn, M.J.; Petitt, P.L.; Pittman, P.R.; Bavari, S. Transcriptome analysis of human immune responses following live vaccine strain (LVS) Francisella tularensis vaccination. Mol. Immunol. 2007, 44, 3173–3184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Goll, J.B.; Li, S.; Edwards, J.L.; Bosinger, S.E.; Jensen, T.L.; Wang, Y.; Hooper, W.F.; Gelber, C.E.; Sanders, K.L.; Anderson, E.J.; et al. Transcriptomic and Metabolic Responses to a Live-Attenuated Francisella tularensis Vaccine. Vaccines 2020, 8, 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Chang, Y.H.; Duong, D.M.; Goll, J.B.; Wood, D.C.; Jensen, T.L.; Yin, L.; Gelber, C.E.; Seyfried, N.T.; Anderson, E.; Natrajan, M.S.; et al. Proteomic Analysis of Human Immune Responses to Live-Attenuated Tularemia Vaccine. Vaccines 2020, 8, 413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Twine, S.M.; Shen, H.; Kelly, J.F.; Chen, W.; Sjostedt, A.; Conlan, J.W. Virulence comparison in mice of distinct isolates of type A Francisella tularensis. Microb. Pathog. 2006, 40, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Hambleton, P.; Broster, M.; Dennis, P.; Henstridge, R.; Fitzgeorge, R.; Conlan, J. Survival of virulent Legionella pneumophila in aerosols. Epidemiol. Infect. 1983, 90, 451–460. [Google Scholar]
  48. Dobin, A.; Davis, C.A.; Schlesinger, F.; Drenkow, J.; Zaleski, C.; Jha, S.; Batut, P.; Chaisson, M.; Gingeras, T.R. STAR: Ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics 2013, 29, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zerbino, D.R.; Achuthan, P.; Akanni, W.; Amode, M.R.; Barrell, D.; Bhai, J.; Billis, K.; Cummins, C.; Gall, A.; Girón, C.G.; et al. Ensembl 2018. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018, 46, D754–D761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Love, M.I.; Huber, W.; Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014, 15, 550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Tchagang, A.B.; Gawronski, A.; Berube, H.; Phan, S.; Famili, F.; Pan, Y. GOAL: A software tool for assessing biological significance of genes groups. BMC Bioinform. 2010, 11, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Williams, M.S.; Baker, M.R.; Guina, T.; Hewitt, J.A.; Lanning, L.; Hill, H.; May, J.M.; Fogtman, B.; Pittman, P.R. Retrospective Analysis of Pneumonic Tularemia in Operation Whitecoat Human Subjects: Disease Progression and Tetracycline Efficacy. Front. Med. 2019, 6, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Pittman, P.; Norris, S.; Coonan, K.; McKee, K. An assessment of Health Status among Medical Research Volunteers Who Served in the Project Whitecoat Program at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Mil. Med. 2005, 170, 183–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Saslaw, S.; Carhart, S. Studies with tularemia vaccines in volunteers. III. Serologic aspects following intracutaneous or respiratory challenge in both vaccinated and nonvaccinated volunteers. Am. J. Med. Sci. 1961, 241, 689–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Roberts, L.M.; Powell, D.A.; Frelinger, J.A. Adaptive Immunity to Francisella tularensis and Considerations for Vaccine Development. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2018, 8, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Twine, S.M.; Petit, M.D.; Shen, H.; Mykytczuk, N.; Kelly, J.F.; Conlan, J.W. Immunoproteomic analysis of the murine antibody response to successful and failed immunization with live anti-Francisella vaccines. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2006, 346, 999–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Natrajan, M.S.; Rouphael, N.; Lai, L.; Kazmin, D.; Jensen, T.L.; Weiss, D.S.; Ibegbu, C.; Sztein, M.B.; Hooper, W.F.; Hill, H.; et al. Systems Vaccinology for a Live Attenuated Tularemia Vaccine Reveals Unique Transcriptional Signatures That Predict Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses. Vaccines 2019, 8, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Eneslatt, K.; Rietz, C.; Ryden, P.; Stoven, S.; House, R.V.; Wolfraim, L.A.; Tärnvik, A.; Sjöstedt, A. Persistence of cell-mediated immunity three decades after vaccination with the live vaccine strain of Francisella tularensis. Eur. J. Immunol. 2011, 41, 974–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pasetti, M.F.; Cuberos, L.; Horn, T.L.; Shearer, J.D.; Matthews, S.J.; House, R.V.; Sztein, M.B. An improved Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain (LVS) is well tolerated and highly immunogenic when administered to rabbits in escalating doses using various immunization routes. Vaccine 2008, 26, 1773–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Tarnvik, A.; Sandstrom, G.; Lofgren, S. Time of lymphocyte response after onset of tularemia and after tularemia vaccination. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1979, 10, 854–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Conlan, J.W.; Sjostedt, A.; North, R.J. CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell-dependent and -independent host defense mechanisms can operate to control and resolve primary and secondary Francisella tularensis LVS infection in mice. Infect. Immun. 1994, 62, 5603–5607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Cowley, S.C.; Elkins, K.L. Multiple T cell subsets control Francisella tularensis LVS intracellular growth without stimulation through macrophage interferon gamma receptors. J. Exp. Med. 2003, 198, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Elkins, K.L.; Cowley, S.C.; Conlan, J.W. Measurement of macrophage-mediated killing of intracellular bacteria, including Francisella and mycobacteria. Curr. Protoc. Immunol. 2011, 93, 14.25.1–14.25.13. [Google Scholar]
  64. Cole, L.E.; Santiago, A.; Barry, E.; Kang, T.J.; Shirey, K.A.; Roberts, Z.J.; Elkins, K.L.; Cross, A.S.; Vogel, S.N. Macrophage proinflammatory response to Francisella tularensis live vaccine strain requires coordination of multiple signaling pathways. J. Immunol. 2008, 180, 6885–6891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Collazo, C.M.; Meierovics, A.I.; De Pascalis, R.; Wu, T.H.; Lyons, C.R.; Elkins, K.L. T cells from lungs and livers of Francisella tularensis-immune mice control the growth of intracellular bacteria. Infect. Immun. 2009, 77, 2010–2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Conlan, J.W.; Sjöstedt, A.; Gelhaus, H.C.; Fleming, P.; McRae, K.; Cobb, R.R.; De Pascalis, R.; Elkins, K.L. Modern Development and Production of a New Live Attenuated Bacterial Vaccine, SCHU S4 ΔclpB, to Prevent Tularemia. Pathogens 2021, 10, 795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Transcriptome overview. Heatmap of expression profile of differentially expressed genes across four vaccine strains. Genes that changed their expression levels significantly (p < 0.05) in at least one of the vaccinated samples when compared with the naïve sample were extracted from the data set. All four replicates of each sample group were included to show reproducibility. A total of 5361 genes were compiled. Data values were log2 transformed.
Figure 1. Transcriptome overview. Heatmap of expression profile of differentially expressed genes across four vaccine strains. Genes that changed their expression levels significantly (p < 0.05) in at least one of the vaccinated samples when compared with the naïve sample were extracted from the data set. All four replicates of each sample group were included to show reproducibility. A total of 5361 genes were compiled. Data values were log2 transformed.
Microorganisms 10 00036 g001
Figure 2. Numbers of differentially expressed genes in all 4 samples illustrated by Venn diagram. All up- (a) or down- (b) regulated genes, relative to spleens from naïve mice in each sample are encompassed in a colored oval. Shared genes are indicated by numbers situated on appropriate overlapping areas.
Figure 2. Numbers of differentially expressed genes in all 4 samples illustrated by Venn diagram. All up- (a) or down- (b) regulated genes, relative to spleens from naïve mice in each sample are encompassed in a colored oval. Shared genes are indicated by numbers situated on appropriate overlapping areas.
Microorganisms 10 00036 g002
Figure 3. Serum Saa3 levels 4 days after vaccination. Blood was collected from mice (n = 5/ group) 4 days after ID vaccination with one or other vaccine strain. Sera were diluted 2000-fold (A) or 10,000-fold (B) and tested for the presence of Saa3 according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Colour reaction was stopped after 15 minutes. Graphs were plotted as means (horizontal black dash) with 95% CI (red vertical lines). Dotted line is the limit of detection. Asterisks denote significantly higher levels than naïve sera by Kruskal Wallis analysis followed by Dunn’s test for multiple comparisons. *** (adjusted p = 0.0008), ** (adjusted p = 0.03), * (adjusted p = 0.01). Filled circle, outlier identified by ROUT analysis and excluded from calculations.
Figure 3. Serum Saa3 levels 4 days after vaccination. Blood was collected from mice (n = 5/ group) 4 days after ID vaccination with one or other vaccine strain. Sera were diluted 2000-fold (A) or 10,000-fold (B) and tested for the presence of Saa3 according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Colour reaction was stopped after 15 minutes. Graphs were plotted as means (horizontal black dash) with 95% CI (red vertical lines). Dotted line is the limit of detection. Asterisks denote significantly higher levels than naïve sera by Kruskal Wallis analysis followed by Dunn’s test for multiple comparisons. *** (adjusted p = 0.0008), ** (adjusted p = 0.03), * (adjusted p = 0.01). Filled circle, outlier identified by ROUT analysis and excluded from calculations.
Microorganisms 10 00036 g003
Figure 4. Serum protein levels four days after immunization. Mice (n = 4–5/group) were immunized ID with 105 CFU of one or other vaccine strain. Four days later serum was prepared from each mouse and assayed for the presence of Granzyme B, TIMP1, MMP3, and MMP8. Data were analysed using Kruskal Wallis test to compare each group to every other group followed by Dunn’s correction for multiple comparisons. Filled circles (outliers by ROUT analysis) removed prior to calculations. Black asterisks, significantly greater than levels found in control serum, red asterisks significantly greater than ΔlpcC (adjusted p ≤ 0.04); 95% CI (vertical black lines) and means (horizontal black lines).
Figure 4. Serum protein levels four days after immunization. Mice (n = 4–5/group) were immunized ID with 105 CFU of one or other vaccine strain. Four days later serum was prepared from each mouse and assayed for the presence of Granzyme B, TIMP1, MMP3, and MMP8. Data were analysed using Kruskal Wallis test to compare each group to every other group followed by Dunn’s correction for multiple comparisons. Filled circles (outliers by ROUT analysis) removed prior to calculations. Black asterisks, significantly greater than levels found in control serum, red asterisks significantly greater than ΔlpcC (adjusted p ≤ 0.04); 95% CI (vertical black lines) and means (horizontal black lines).
Microorganisms 10 00036 g004
Table 1. Selected characteristics of F. tularensis strains used in the current study.
Table 1. Selected characteristics of F. tularensis strains used in the current study.
MutantIN LD50
(CFU)
ID LD50
(CFU)
Survival against ID Challenge with SCHU S4 aSurvival against Respiratory Challenge with SCHU S4 bRef
LVS103>107100%0–20%[24,25]
ΔclpB>104 <106 c>107100%60–100%[24,27,47]
ΔgplXNT>10780%0%[27]
ΔlpcC>103 <105>1070%0%[47]
a Challenge dose ≤ 105 CFU; b IN or aerosol challenge dose ≤ 200 CFU; c range from multiple tests.
Table 2. Number of differentially expressed genes between each comparison.
Table 2. Number of differentially expressed genes between each comparison.
ΔclpB/
Naïve
LVS/
Naïve
ΔgplX/
Naïve
ΔlpcC/
Naïve
ΔclpB/
LVS
ΔclpB/
ΔgplX
ΔclpB/
ΔlpcC
LVS/
ΔgplX
LVS/
ΔlpcC
ΔgplX/
ΔlpcC
Up1362103791610151089611475358897233
Down21772205109033531121919267221546164
Table 3. Participation of up-regulated genes in KEGG pathways in the three vaccine strains that protect against ID challenge with SCHU S4 challenge.
Table 3. Participation of up-regulated genes in KEGG pathways in the three vaccine strains that protect against ID challenge with SCHU S4 challenge.
KEGG Pathway IDKEGG Pathway NameTotal Known GenesΔclpB AloneΔclpB and LVS SharedΔclpB, LVS and ΔgplX SharedTotal Gene Counts a
padjMatched GenespadjMatched GenespadjMatched Genes
mmu04060Cytokine–cytokine receptor interaction2923.98 × 10−8Ccr1, Il21, Cx3cl1, Cd70, Cxcr1, Il17f, Il23a, Osmr, Tnfrsf8, Tnfsf9, Tnfrsf1b, Ccl11, Ccl22, Ccl9, Ccl6, Fasl, Ccl3, Il23r, Ccr8, Fas, Gdf15, Ltbr, Cxcl161.15 × 10−14Il10, Il11, Il33, Il13, Il12b, Il2ra, Ccl17, Il15ra, Tnf, Tnfsf15, Bmp10, Csf2rb2, Ccl8, Tnfrsf1a, Csf2rb, Tnfrsf11b, Ccl4, Il1f9, Cxcl1, Ccr5, Cxcl2, Cxcl5, Il12rb2, Lif, Tnfsf10, Il17a, Ccl24, Il1a, Tnfrsf9, Il1b, Il1r2, Xcl1, Inhba, Tnfrsf12a, Inhbb, Csf2, Csf35.75 × 10−6Cxcl11, Il12rb1, Il22, Cxcl10, Il27, Il6, Ccl12, Cxcl9, Ccl7, Ifng, Ccl2, Il1rn, Cxcl373
mmu04621NOD-like receptor signaling pathway211 3.29 × 10−5Jun, Pycard, Nlrp3, Nod2, Nod1, Mefv, Nlrp1b, Myd88, Tnf, Ifi207, Ifi206, Ifi204, Ripk3, Cybb, Il1b, Cxcl1, Cxcl2, Tlr41.16 × 10−14Txn1, Gbp5, Mapk13, Gbp7, Nampt, Nlrp1a, Oas1g, Il6, Ccl12, Gbp2b, Oas2, Oas1a, Irf7, Ccl2, Stat2, Stat1, Gbp2, Cxcl3, Gbp4, Gbp338
mmu04062Chemokine signaling pathway1927.03 × 10−4Ccr1, Hck, Ccl11, Ccl22, Ccl9, Cx3cl1, Ccl6, Cxcr1, Ccl3, Ccr8, Cxcl16, Gng129.03 × 10−3Ccl24, Ccl8, Ccl4, Gnb4, Stat3, Pik3r6, Xcl1, Cxcl1, Ccl17, Ccr5, Cxcl2, Cxcl51.19 × 10−4Cxcl11, Ccl12, Cxcl10, Cxcl9, Ccl7, Ccl2, Stat2, Stat1, Cxcl333
mmu04612Antigen processing and presentation901.06 × 10−4H2-T24, Psme2b, Ctss, H2-K1, H2-Q4, Lgmn, H2-T3, H2-Q1, Hsp90aa12.23 × 10−7H2-T23, H2-T10, H2-Q6, H2-Q7, Hspa1b, Tap2, Hspa1a, H2-Q2, Psme1, Tnf, Hspa8, Gm11127, Tapbp, B2m0.01H2-T22, Ifng, Tap1, Psme227
mmu04514Cell adhesion molecules1747.15 × 10−5H2-T24, Sdc4, H2-K1, Ctla4, H2-Q4, Pdcd1, H2-T3, Tigit, H2-Q1, Nectin2, Selp, Mag, Cldn11.44 × 10−3H2-T23, H2-T10, H2-Q6, Sdc3, H2-Q7, H2-Q2, Nrcam, Pdcd1lg2, Itgam, Vcan, Ocln, Gm11127, Icam1 26
mmu04610Complement and coagulation cascades933.32 × 10−3C1rb, C6, F13a1, Plat, Bdkrb1, Plaur, C26.68 × 10−9C1qb, Procr, C1ra, F10, Serping1, C5ar1, C3, F7, C1s2, Itgam, C1s1, Plau, C3ar1, Serpine1, A2m, Cfb 23
mmu04940Type I diabetes mellitus701.40 × 10−5H2-T24, Fasl, Ptprn, H2-K1, H2-Q4, Fas, Prf1, H2-T3, H2-Q14.11 × 10−6H2-T23, Il1a, H2-T10, Gm11127, H2-Q6, Il1b, H2-Q7, Il12b, H2-Q2, Tnf, Hspd10.03H2-T22, Ifng, Gzmb23
mmu04630JAK-STAT signaling pathway168 2.37 × 10−5Il10, Il11, Socs3, Il12rb2, Il13, Il12b, Il2ra, Lif, Il15ra, Csf2rb2, Csf2rb, Myc, Stat3, Cdkn1a, Csf2, Csf31.41 × 10−3Il12rb1, Socs1, Il22, Il6, Ifng, Stat2, Stat123
mmu04210Apoptosis1361.29 × 10−4Ctss, Ctsd, Gadd45g, Fasl, Ctsz, Gadd45b, Fas, Prf1, Casp12, Bcl2a1b, Bcl2a1a1.76 × 10−3Ctsc, Csf2rb2, Jun, Tnfrsf1a, Csf2rb, Cycs, Fos, Daxx, Tnf, Tnfsf10, Tuba8 22
mmu04620Toll-like receptor signaling pathway1004.97 × 10−3Ccl3, Tlr8, Tlr7, Cd14, Ikbke, Tlr3, Tlr27.77 × 10−3Jun, Il1b, Ccl4, Il12b, Fos, Myd88, Tlr4, Tnf5.88 × 10−5Cxcl11, Mapk13, Il6, Cxcl10, Cxcl9, Irf7, Stat122
mmu05332Graft-versus-host disease634.67 × 10−5H2-T24, Fasl, H2-K1, H2-Q4, Fas, Prf1, H2-T3, H2-Q16.84 × 10−5H2-T23, Il1a, H2-T10, Gm11127, H2-Q6, Il1b, H2-Q7, H2-Q2, Tnf3.54 × 10−3H2-T22, Il6, Ifng, Gzmb21
mmu05330Allograft rejection634.67 × 10−5H2-T24, Fasl, H2-K1, H2-Q4, Fas, Prf1, H2-T3, H2-Q16.84 × 10−5Il10, H2-T23, H2-T10, Gm11127, H2-Q6, H2-Q7, Il12b, H2-Q2, Tnf0.02H2-T22, Ifng, Gzmb20
mmu04650Natural killer cell mediated cytotoxicity1219.74 × 10−4Raet1e, Klra7, Fasl, Sh2d1b2, H2-K1, Fas, Prf1, Ulbp1, Lcp20.02H2-T23, Raet1d, Klrk1, Fcer1g, Icam1, Csf2, Tnf, Tnfsf10 17
mmu04640Hematopoietic cell lineage940.05Cd1d2, Sco1, Cd38, Cd14, Cd447.16 × 10−5Il11, Il1a, Itgam, Il1b, Il1r2, Il2ra, Anpep, Itga5, Csf2, Csf3, Tnf 16
mmu05320Autoimmune thyroid disease793.77 × 10−5H2-T24, Fasl, H2-K1, Ctla4, H2-Q4, Fas, Prf1, H2-T3, H2-Q17.28 × 10−3Il10, H2-T23, H2-T10, Gm11127, H2-Q6, H2-Q7, H2-Q2 16
mmu05416Viral myocarditis880.01H2-T24, H2-K1, H2-Q4, Prf1, H2-T3, H2-Q13.59 × 10−3H2-T23, H2-T10, Gm11127, Cycs, H2-Q6, H2-Q7, Icam1, H2-Q2 14
mmu00010Glycolysis/Gluconeogenesis67 2.64 × 10−6Aldh1b1, Pkm, Tpi1, Ldha, Eno1b, Pgk1, Pgam1, Eno1, Gapdh, Hk2, Pfkp 11
mmu04623Cytosolic DNA-sensing pathway63 0.03Il33, Pycard, Ripk3, Il1b, Ccl43.60 × 10−5Il6, Cxcl10, Zbp1, Cgas, Irf7, Ifi202b11
mmu03050Proteasome47 0.01Pomp, Psmb2, Psme1, Psma8, Psmb89.78 × 10−5Psma5, Ifng, Psme2, Psmb10, Psmb910
mmu05133Pertussis770.02C1rb, Casp1, Cd14, Il23a, C21.11 × 10−16C1qb, Il10, C1ra, Jun, Pycard, Serping1, Nos2, Il12b, Itga5, Nlrp3, Fos, Nod1, Myd88, Tnf, C3, Il1a, C1s2, Itgam, C1s1, Il1b, Tlr4, Cxcl57.23 × 10−3Casp7, Mapk13, Il6, Irf131
mmu05134Legionellosis610.04Bnip3, Casp1, Cd14, Tlr21.02 × 10−10Pycard, Cycs, Hspa1b, Il12b, Hspa1a, Myd88, Tnf, C3, Hspa8, Itgam, Il1b, Cxcl1, Cxcl2, Tlr4, Hspd10.02Casp7, Il6, Cxcl322
mmu05321Inflammatory bowel disease629.51 × 10−3Il21, Il23r, Il17f, Il23a, Tlr21.41 × 10−7Il10, Il1a, Jun, Il12rb2, Il1b, Il13, Il12b, Stat3, Nod2, Tlr4, Tnf, Il17a3.67 × 10−4Il12rb1, Il22, Il6, Ifng, Stat122
mmu04657IL-17 signaling pathway916.22 × 10−4Ccl11, Il17f, Ikbke, Tnfaip3, S100a9, S100a8, Hsp90aa1, Lcn22.57 × 10−7Jun, Il13, Mmp3, Fos, Ccl17, Cebpb, Tnf, Il17a, Il1b, Cxcl1, Csf2, Cxcl2, Csf3, Cxcl51.95 × 10−8Mapk13, Il6, Mmp13, Ccl12, Cxcl10, Ccl7, Ifng, Ccl2, Cxcl3, Ptgs232
mmu04061Viral protein interaction with cytokine and cytokine receptor954.35 × 10−6Ccr1, Tnfrsf1b, Ccl11, Ccl22, Ccl9, Cx3cl1, Ccl6, Cxcr1, Ccl3, Ccr8, Ltbr4.45 × 10−7Il10, Il2ra, Ccl17, Tnf, Tnfsf10, Ccl24, Ccl8, Tnfrsf1a, Ccl4, Xcl1, Cxcl1, Ccr5, Cxcl2, Cxcl54.30 × 10−6Cxcl11, Il6, Ccl12, Cxcl10, Cxcl9, Ccl7, Ccl2, Cxcl333
mmu04668TNF signaling pathway1139.56 × 10−3Tnfrsf1b, Cx3cl1, Mmp14, Creb3l3, Fas, Creb3l1, Tnfaip32.68 × 10−9Jun, Socs3, Mmp3, Lif, Nod2, Fos, Creb5, Cebpb, Tnf, Tnfrsf1a, Ripk3, Il1b, Bcl3, Icam1, Cxcl1, Csf2, Cxcl2, Cxcl59.97 × 10−10Casp7, Mapk13, Il6, Ccl12, Cxcl10, Gm5431, Mlkl, Irf1, Ccl2, Ifi47, Cxcl3, Ptgs237
mmu05146Amoebiasis1073.97 × 10−4Cd1d2, Col3a1, Arg2, Col1a1, Gnal, Col4a2, Cd14, Serpinb6b, Tlr25.31 × 10−8Il10, Arg1, Nos2, Col4a1, Prdx1, Il12b, Tnf, Itgam, Il1b, Serpinb9, Il1r2, Cxcl1, Lamc2, Csf2, Cxcl2, Tlr44.24 × 10−3Serpinb9b, Il6, Ifng, Ctsg, Cxcl330
mmu05323Rheumatoid arthritis870.04Atp6v1a, Ccl3, Ctla4, Il23a, Tlr21.44 × 10−7Il11, Jun, Mmp3, Fos, Tnf, Il17a, Il1a, Il1b, Icam1, Cxcl1, Csf2, Cxcl2, Tlr4, Cxcl51.72 × 10−3Il6, Ccl12, Ifng, Ccl2, Cxcl324
mmu05140Leishmaniasis70 7.96 × 10−9Il10, Jun, Fcgr3, Nos2, Il12b, Fos, Myd88, Tnf, C3, Il1a, Itgam, Cybb, Il1b, Tlr46.45 × 10−4Fcgr1, Mapk13, Ifng, Stat1, Ptgs219
mmu05144Malaria57 4.88 × 10−7Il10, Klrb1b, Klrk1, Hgf, Il1b, Icam1, Csf3, Myd88, Tlr4, Tnf, Thbs42.46 × 10−3Il6, Ccl12, Ifng, Ccl215
mmu05143African trypanosomiasis398.73 × 10−3Fasl, Fas, Ido2, Ido17.65 × 10−4Il10, Il1b, Icam1, Il12b, Myd88, Tnf 10
mmu04625C-type lectin receptor signaling pathway1120.03Ccl22, Egr2, Card9, Casp1, Il23a, Ikbke8.09 × 10−5Il10, Clec4d, Jun, Pycard, Fcer1g, Il1b, Bcl3, Clec7a, Il12b, Nlrp3, Ccl17, Tnf1.21 × 10−4Mapk13, Il6, Irf1, Stat2, Stat1, Clec4e, Ptgs225
mmu05167Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus infection2252.73 × 10−3Ccr1, H2-T24, Hck, H2-K1, H2-Q4, Ccr8, Fas, H2-T3, Ikbke, Gng12,
H2-Q1, Tlr3
2.35 × 10−8H2-T23, Jun, H2-T10, Cycs, H2-Q6,
H2-Q7, H2-Q2, Fos, Cd200r4, C3, Hif1a, Rcn1, Tnfrsf1a, Gm11127, Myc, Gnb4, Icam1, Stat3, Pik3r6, Cxcl1, Ccr5, Cdkn1a, Csf2, Cxcl2
7.64 × 10−5Mapk13, H2-T22, Il6, Eif2ak2, Irf7, Stat2, Bak1, Stat1, Cxcl3, Ptgs246
mmu04145Phagosome1824.35 × 10−4H2-T24, C1rb, Ctss, Lox, Atp6v1a, Lamp2, H2-K1, H2-Q4, Cd14, H2-T3, H2-Q1, Tlr21.01 × 10−6H2-T23, C1ra, Fcgr3, H2-T10, Tubb6, H2-Q6, Clec7a, H2-Q7, Tap2, H2-Q2, Itga5, Tuba8, C3, Itgam, Gm11127, Cybb, Olr1, Tlr4, Thbs49.58 × 10−3Fcgr1, Msr1, H2-T22, Tubb3, Tap1, Mpo37
mmu05171Coronavirus disease—COVID-192472.06 × 10−3C1rb, Sting1, F13a1, Casp1, Ikbke, Hbegf, C2, Selp, C6, Tlr8, Tlr7, Tlr3, Tlr23.40 × 10−8C1qb, Mx2, C5ar1, Mx1, Il12b, Tnf, C3, Tnfrsf1a, C3ar1, Ifih1, C1ra, Jun, Mmp3, Nlrp3, Fos, Myd88, C1s2, C1s1, Cybb, Il1b, Stat3, Csf2, Csf3, Tlr4, Cfb5.61 × 10−6Oas1g, Mapk13, Il6, Ccl12, Cxcl10, Oas2, Cgas, Oas1a, Eif2ak2, Ccl2, Stat2, Stat150
mmu00220Arginine biosynthesis20 2.22 × 10−3Arg1, Got1, Nos2, Ass1 4
mmu00770Pantothenate and CoA biosynthesis20 2.22 × 10−3Aldh1b1, Vnn3, Dpys, Bcat1 4
mmu00524Neomycin, kanamycin and gentamicin biosynthesis5 0.05Hk31
mmu05417Lipid and atherosclerosis2165.74 × 10−3Selp, Ero1a, Lox, Fasl, Ccl3, Fas, Casp1, Cd14, Ikbke, Hsp90aa1, Tlr21.05 × 10−8Jun, Pycard, Cycs, Mmp3, Hspa1b, Il12b, Hspa1a, Nlrp3, Fos, Myd88, Sod2, Tnf, Tnfsf10, Hspa8, Tnfrsf1a, Cybb, Il1b, Icam1, Stat3, Olr1, Cxcl1, Cxcl2, Tlr4, Hspd15.72 × 10−3Casp7, Mapk13, Il6, Ccl12, Irf7, Ccl2, Cxcl342
mmu05169Epstein-Barr virus infection2313.38 × 10−3H2-T24, Gadd45g, H2-K1, Gadd45b, H2-Q4, Fas, H2-T3, Ikbke, Tnfaip3, H2-Q1, Cd44, Tlr21.07 × 10−4H2-T23, Jun, H2-T10, Cycs, H2-Q6,
H2-Q7, Tap2, H2-Q2, Myd88, Tnf, Gm11127, Myc, Icam1, Stat3, Vim, Cdkn1a, Tapbp, B2m
4.16 × 10−7Mapk13, H2-T22, Cxcl10, Eif2ak2, Tap1, Oas1g, Il6, Oas2, Oas1a, Irf7, Stat2, Bak1, Stat143
mmu05145Toxoplasmosis110 4.83 × 10−7Il10, Nos2, Cycs, Hspa1b, Il12b, Hspa1a, Myd88, Tnf, Hspa8, Tnfrsf1a, Stat3, Pik3r6, Lamc2, Ccr5, Tlr44.77 × 10−3Socs1, Mapk13, Ifng, Irgm1, Stat120
mmu05142Chagas disease103 6.84 × 10−6C1qb, Il10, Jun, Nos2, Il12b, Fos, Myd88, Tnf, C3, Tnfrsf1a, Il1b, Serpine1, Tlr43.61 × 10−3Mapk13, Il6, Ccl12, Ifng, Ccl218
mmu05164Influenza A173 8.65 × 10−6Ifih1, Il33, Pycard, Socs3, Cycs, Mx2, Mx1, Il12b, Nlrp3, Myd88, Tnf, Tnfsf10, Il1a, Tnfrsf1a, Il1b, Icam1, Tlr41.37 × 10−8Cxcl10, Eif2ak2, Oas1g, Il6, Ccl12, Ifng, Oas2, Oas1a, Irf7, Ccl2, Stat2, Bak1, Stat130
mmu05163Human cytomegalovirus infection2569.67 × 10−4Ccr1, H2-T24, Cx3cl1, Sting1, H2-K1, Creb3l3, H2-Q4, Creb3l1, H2-T3,
H2-Q1, Fasl, Ccl3, Fas, Gng12
1.31 × 10−5H2-T23, H2-T10, Cycs, H2-Q6, H2-Q7, Tap2, H2-Q2, Creb5, Tnf, Tnfrsf1a, Gm11127, Il1b, Myc, Ccl4, Gnb4, Stat3, Cdkn2a, Ccr5, Cdkn1a, Tapbp, B2m9.89 × 10−4Mapk13, H2-T22, Il6, Ccl12, Cgas, Ccl2, Tap1, Bak1, Ptgs244
mmu05162Measles146 3.92 × 10−6Ifih1, Jun, Cycs, Mx2, Mx1, Hspa1b, Il12b, Il2ra, Hspa1a, Fos, Myd88, Hspa8, Il1a, Il1b, Stat3, Tlr41.38 × 10−5Oas1g, Il6, Oas2, Oas1a, Eif2ak2, Irf7, Stat2, Bak1, Stat125
mmu04064NF-kappa B signaling pathway1056.47 × 10−3Gadd45g, Gadd45b, Cd14, Ltbr, Tnfaip3, Bcl2a1b, Bcl2a1a8.17 × 10−4Tnfrsf1a, Plau, Il1b, Ccl4, Icam1, Cxcl1, Cxcl2, Myd88, Tlr4, Tnf 17
mmu05310Asthma25 5.17 × 10−3Il10, Fcer1g, Il13, Tnf 4
mmu04217Necroptosis1740.03Fasl, Fth1, Chmp4b, Fas, Casp1, Tnfaip3, Tlr3, Hsp90aa11.44 × 10−3Il33, Pycard, Nlrp3, Pla2g4a, Tnf, Tnfsf10, Il1a, Tnfrsf1a, Ripk3, Cybb, Il1b, Stat3, Tlr47.76 × 10−3Zbp1, Ifng, Mlkl, Eif2ak2, Stat2, Stat127
mmu05170Human immunodeficiency virus 1 infection2400.01H2-T24, Tnfrsf1b, Fasl, Sting1, H2-K1, H2-Q4, Fas, H2-T3, Gng12, H2-Q1, Tlr21.68 × 10−5H2-T23, Jun, H2-T10, Cycs, H2-Q6,
H2-Q7, Tap2, H2-Q2, Fos, Myd88, Tnf, Bst2, Tnfrsf1a, Gm11127, Gnb4, Samhd1, Ccr5, Tapbp, B2m, Tlr4
0.03Mapk13, H2-T22, Cgas, Trim30d, Tap1, Bak137
mmu05161Hepatitis B1637.29 × 10−3Egr2, Fasl, Creb3l3, Fas, Creb3l1, Ikbke, Casp12, Tlr3, Tlr27.05 × 10−3Ifih1, Jun, Cycs, Myc, Stat3, Fos, Cdkn1a, Creb5, Myd88, Tlr4, Tnf0.02Mapk13, Il6, Irf7, Stat2, Stat125
mmu01230Biosynthesis of amino acids79 2.16 × 10−6Pkm, Tpi1, Arg1, Got1, Eno1b, Pgk1, Pgam1, Eno1, Gapdh, Bcat1, Pfkp, Ass1 12
mmu05160Hepatitis C165 8.80 × 10−4Socs3, Cycs, Ifit1bl1, Mx2, Mx1, Nr1h3, Tnf, Ywhag, Ocln, Tnfrsf1a, Myc, Stat3, Cdkn1a7.48 × 10−8Oas1g, Cxcl10, Ifng, Oas2, Oas1a, Ifit1bl2, Eif2ak2, Irf7, Stat2, Bak1, Stat1, Ifit125
mmu05235PD-L1 expression and PD-1 checkpoint pathway in cancer88 3.59 × 10−3Hif1a, Jun, Stat3, Fos, Batf3, Myd88, Tlr4, Batf1.81 × 10−3Cd274, Mapk13, Ifng, Stat1, Batf213
mmu04380Osteoclast differentiation128 2.90 × 10−4Il1a, Lilrb4a, Jun, Sirpb1a, Socs3, Fcgr3, Tnfrsf1a, Tnfrsf11b, Il1b, Fos, Tnf, Fosl21.71 × 10−3Socs1, Fcgr1, Mapk13, Ifng, Stat2, Stat118
mmu05152Tuberculosis180 8.51 × 10−7Il10, Fcgr3, Nos2, Vdr, Cycs, Clec7a, Il12b, Nod2, Cebpb, Myd88, Tnf, C3, Il1a, Itgam, Tnfrsf1a, Fcer1g, Il1b, Tlr4, Hspd19.10 × 10−3Fcgr1, Mapk13, Il6, Ifng, Stat1, Clec4e25
mmu04933AGE-RAGE signaling pathway in diabetic complications101 2.35 × 10−3Il1a, Jun, Col4a1, Cybb, Il1b, Icam1, Stat3, Serpine1, Tnf3.31 × 10−3Mapk13, Il6, Ccl12, Ccl2, Stat114
mmu04066HIF-1 signaling pathway114 7.73 × 10−7Nos2, Eno1b, Timp1, Eno1, Gapdh, Hk2, Hif1a, Ldha, Cybb, Pgk1, Stat3, Serpine1, Cdkn1a, Tlr4, Pfkp 15
mmu04659Th17 cell differentiation104 0.03Hif1a, Jun, Il1b, Il2ra, Stat3, Fos, Il17a5.80 × 10−4Il12rb1, Il22, Mapk13, Il6, Ifng, Stat113
mmu05150Staphylococcus aureus infection124 2.29 × 10−6C1qb, Il10, C1ra, Fcgr3, Krt14, C5ar1, Fpr1, C3, C1s2, Itgam, C1s1, Ptafr, C3ar1, Icam1, Cfb 15
mmu05230Central carbon metabolism in cancer69 7.45 × 10−4Hif1a, Pkm, Ldha, Myc, Pgam1, Slc16a3, Hk2, Pfkp 8
mmu04658Th1 and Th2 cell differentiation88 0.04Jun, Il12rb2, Il13, Il12b, Il2ra, Fos0.01Il12rb1, Mapk13, Ifng, Stat110
mmu05203Viral carcinogenesis2298.77 × 10−3H2-T24, Egr2, Scin, H2-K1, Creb3l3, H2-Q4, Ccr8, Creb3l1, H2-T3, Ltbr, H2-Q12.36 × 10−3H2-T23, Jun, H2-T10, H2-Q6, H2-Q7, H2-Q2, Creb5, Ywhag, C3, Pkm, Gm11127, Stat3, Cdkn2a, Ccr5, Cdkn1a 26
mmu05165Human papillomavirus infection3620.02H2-T24, Col1a1, Atp6v1a, Col4a2,
H2-K1, Creb3l3, H2-Q4, Creb3l1,
H2-T3, Ikbke, H2-Q1, Fasl, Fas, Tlr3
7.78 × 10−3H2-T23, H2-T10, Col4a1, Fzd7, H2-Q6, Mx2, H2-Q7, Mx1, Tnc, H2-Q2, Itga5, Creb5, Tnf, Pkm, Tnfrsf1a, Gm11127, Lamc2, Cdkn1a, Thbs40.03Oasl1, H2-T22, Irf1, Eif2ak2, Stat2, Bak1, Stat1, Ptgs241
mmu05135Yersinia infection134 1.56 × 10−3Il10, Jun, Pycard, Il1b, Itga5, Nlrp3, Fos, Mefv, Myd88, Tlr4, Tnf0.04Mapk13, Il6, Ccl12, Ccl215
mmu00330Arginine and proline metabolism54 4.24 × 10−3Aldh1b1, Gatm, Arg1, Got1, Nos2, Cndp2 6
mmu04930Type II diabetes mellitus48 0.01Socs3, Pkm, Hpca, Tnf, Hk2 5
mmu05205Proteoglycans in cancer2050.03Col1a1, Fasl, Sdc4, Fas, Plaur, Met, Cd44, Hbegf, Tlr20.01Hif1a, Plau, Fzd7, Hgf, Myc, Hpse, Il12b, Stat3, Itga5, Cdkn1a, Tlr4, Tnf 21
mmu05418Fluid shear stress and atherosclerosis148 9.91 × 10−3Il1a, Jun, Tnfrsf1a, Il1b, Icam1, Il1r2, Fos, Mgst1, Tnf, Ass10.02Txn1, Mapk13, Ccl12, Ifng, Ccl215
mmu04216Ferroptosis409.54 × 10−3Fth1, Slc39a14, Slc39a1, Cp 4
mmu05132Salmonella infection253 9.31 × 10−4Jun, Pycard, Tubb6, Cycs, Nlrp3, Fos, Nod1, Gapdh, Myd88, Tnf, Tnfsf10, Tuba8, Tnfrsf1a, Ripk3, Il1b, Myc, Tlr40.01Txn1, Casp7, Mapk13, Il6, Mlkl, Tubb3, Bak124
mmu05166Human T-cell leukemia virus 1 infection247 7.53 × 10−6H2-T23, Jun, H2-T10, H2-Q6, H2-Q7, Il2ra, H2-Q2, Fos, Creb5, Il15ra, Tnf, Tnfrsf1a, Gm11127, Myc, Icam1, Il1r2, Tspo, Cdkn2a, Cdkn1a, Csf2, B2m 21
mmu01200Carbon metabolism122 2.55 × 10−3Pkm, Tpi1, Got1, Eno1b, Pgk1, Pgam1, Eno1, Gapdh, Hk2, Pfkp 10
mmu05210Colorectal cancer88 0.01Jun, Cycs, Myc, Mcub, Fos, Cdkn1a, Ralgds 7
mmu05168Herpes simplex virus 1 infection458 0.02H2-T23, Ifih1, Socs3, H2-T10, Cycs,
H2-Q6, H2-Q7, Il12b, Tap2, H2-Q2, Itga5, Myd88, Tnf, Bst2, C3, Tnfrsf1a, Gm11127, Il1b, Tapbp, B2m, Daxx
4.15 × 10−5H2-T22, Eif2ak2, Tap1, Oas1g, Il6, Ccl12, Ifng, Oas2, Cgas, Oas1a, Irf7, Ccl2, Stat2, Bak1, Stat136
mmu04664Fc epsilon RI signaling pathway66 0.04Fcer1g, Il13, Pla2g4a, Csf2, Tnf 5
mmu01524Platinum drug resistance80 0.03Slc31a1, Cycs, Cdkn2a, Mgst1, Cdkn1a, Atp7a 6
mmu04978Mineral absorption540.03Slc6a19, Fth1, Slc39a1, Steap2 4
mmu04931Insulin resistance110 0.01Ptpn1, Socs3, Tnfrsf1a, Nr1h3, Stat3, Ppargc1b, Creb5, Tnf 8
mmu05231Choline metabolism in cancer98 0.02Hif1a, Jun, Slc44a5, Pdgfc, Pla2g4a, Fos, Ralgds 7
mmu05221Acute myeloid leukemia70 0.05Itgam, Myc, Stat3, Cebpe, Csf2 5
mmu04146Peroxisome86 0.04Prdx5, Nos2, Prdx1, Hp, Sod2, Xdh 6
mmu04932Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease151 0.01Il1a, Jun, Socs3, Tnfrsf1a, Cycs, Il1b, Nr1h3, Cox4i2, Fos, Tnf 10
mmu05222Small cell lung cancer93 0.05Nos2, Col4a1, Cycs, Myc, Lamc2, Cdkn1a 6
mmu00052Galactose metabolism32 0.04Hk3, Mgam2
mmu04215Apoptosis—multiple species32 0.04Casp7, Bak12
mmu04010MAPK signaling pathway294 1.91 × 10−3Jun, Cacna1f, Hpca, Hgf, Pdgfc, Mcub, Hspa1b, Hspa1a, Pla2g4a, Fos, Myd88, Tnf, Hspa8, Il1a, Tnfrsf1a, Il1b, Myc, Daxx 18
mmu05322Systemic lupus erythematosus148 0.03C1qb, C3, Il10, C1ra, C1s2, C1s1, Tnf, Elane, Trim21 9
mmu04916Melanogenesis1000.02AC117663.3, Sco1, Creb3l3, Creb3l1, Mitf, AC110211.1 6
mmu04218Cellular senescence184 0.02H2-T23, Il1a, H2-T10, Gm11127, H2-Q6, Myc, H2-Q7, H2-Q2, Serpine1, Cdkn2a, Cdkn1a 11
mmu05020Prion disease268 4.31 × 10−3C1qb, Cacna1f, Tubb6, Cycs, Psmb2, Hspa1b, Hspa1a, Creb5, Tnf, Tuba8, Hspa8, Il1a, Cybb, Il1b, Cox4i2, Psma8 16
mmu00500Starch and sucrose metabolism34 0.05Hk3, Mgam2
mmu04917Prolactin signaling pathway74 6.29 × 10−3Socs1, Mapk13, Irf1, Stat14
mmu04142Lysosome1310.02Slc11a1, Ctss, Ctsd, Npc2, Lamp2, Ctsz, Lgmn 7
mmu04151PI3K-Akt signaling pathway359 0.03Col4a1, Hgf, Pdgfc, Mcub, Il2ra, Tnc, Itga5, Creb5, Ywhag, Myc, Gnb4, Pik3r6, Lamc2, Cdkn1a, Csf3, Tlr4, Thbs4 17
mmu04926Relaxin signaling pathway1290.05Col3a1, Col1a1, Col4a2, Creb3l3, Creb3l1, Gng12 6
mmu04622RIG-I-like receptor signaling pathway70 0.03Mapk13, Cxcl10, Irf73
mmu05200Pathways in cancer543 0.04Jun, Il12rb2, Nos2, Col4a1, Cycs, Fzd7, Hgf, Il13, Il12b, Il2ra, Fos, Il15ra, Ralgds, Csf2rb2, Hif1a, Csf2rb, Myc, Gnb4, Stat3, Cdkn2a, Lamc2, Mgst1, Cdkn1a 23
mmu05202Transcriptional misregulation in cancer2230.05Gadd45g, Gadd45b, Mitf, Plat, Cd14, Met, Nr4a3, Bcl2a1b, Bcl2a1a 9
a Genes identified from current study involved in stated pathway.
Table 4. Participation of down-regulated genes in KEGG pathways in the three vaccine strains that protect against ID challenge against SCHU S4 challenge.
Table 4. Participation of down-regulated genes in KEGG pathways in the three vaccine strains that protect against ID challenge against SCHU S4 challenge.
KEGG Pathway IDKEGG Pathway NameTotal Known GenesΔclpB AloneΔclpB and LVS SharedΔclpB, LVS and ΔgplX SharedTotal Gene Counts a
padjMatched GenespadjMatched GenespadjMatched Genes
mmu04080Neuroactive ligand–receptor interaction358 2.69 × 10−5Gh, Ghrhr, Chrne, Gabrr2, Npff, Cnr1, Prss2, Lhcgr, Cort, Tshr, Gabra4, Vipr2, Gria2, Gal, Gria1, Sstr2, Chrna6, Grm6, P2rx2, Glp1r, Grik3, Tac2, S1pr5, Htr5b1.08 × 10−3Grin2a, Npb, Adra1b, Oxtr, Adra2b, Edn3, Ednrb, Npy1r, Aplnr, Gpr156, Vipr1, Ptgfr, Grm4, Gabbr1, Rxfp1, Lpar340
mmu04020Calcium signaling pathway240 6.53 × 10−4Cacna1g, Atp2b2, Egf, Atp2a3, Fgf18, Plce1, Casq2, Fgfr4, Lhcgr, Plcd3, Camk2b, Pln, P2rx2, Adcy2, Mylk3, Htr5b1.59 × 10−4Grin2a, Ryr2, Adra1b, Oxtr, Ednrb, Cacna1b, Fgfr3, Fgfr2, Prkcg, Ntrk2, Ptgfr, Camk2a, Ntrk3, Cacna1i30
mmu05414Dilated cardiomyopathy94 8.52 × 10−4Tro, Tnnt2, Pln, Sgca, Atp2a3, Itga8, Adcy2, Sgcg, Ttn8.30 × 10−3Ryr2, Itga11, Tgfb2, Adcy5, Cacna2d4, Cacng315
mmu04512ECM–receptor interaction88 8.81 × 10−3Frem2, Vtn, Reln, Tnxb, Col4a3, Col6a6, Itga81.27 × 10−3Itga11, Sv2b, Sv2a, Lama3, Col6a4, Fras1, Thbs314
mmu05410Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy91 2.83 × 10−3Tro, Tnnt2, Sgca, Atp2a3, Prkag3, Itga8, Sgcg, Ttn7.12 × 10−3Ryr2, Itga11, Ace, Tgfb2, Cacna2d4, Cacng314
mmu04916Melanogenesis100 0.02Camk2b, Fzd2, Gnao1, Hr, Adcy2, Wnt2, AC084822.10.01Prkcg, Ednrb, Camk2a, Fzd6, Wnt5b, Adcy513
mmu05217Basal cell carcinoma630.03Fzd8, Gli1, Wnt10a, Wnt10b 0.03Bmp4, Apc2, Fzd6, Wnt5b8
mmu04950Maturity onset diabetes of the young27 6.39 × 10−4Bhlha15, Hnf1b, Nr5a2, Foxa2, Foxa3 5
mmu01100Metabolic pathways15739.01 × 10−4Rimkla, Aldh1a1, Pcx, Selenbp2, Gsta4, Ptdss2, Sec1, B3gnt3, Uros, Mgat3, Suox, Phospho1, Pcyt1b, Cers1, Dhtkd1, B4galnt3, Cox6a2, Hmbs, Mgst3, Hsd3b1, Hagh, Adcy1, Car8, Nags, Mgll, Nqo1, Car2, Gpx1, St3gal5, Pigq, Pik3c2b, Aspdh, Cel, Gck, Cox6b2, Cox8b, Fahd1, Hyal3, Pipox, Urod, Mboat2, Pnpo, Sgpp2, Pip5k1b, Acmsd, Trak2 46
mmu04260Cardiac muscle contraction871.19 × 10−3Myl4, Actc1, Cox6b2, Cox8b, Cox6a2, Cacng4, Trdn 7
mmu00260Glycine, serine and threonine metabolism40 3.94 × 10−3Gamt, Alas2, Cbs, Gcat, Gnmt 5
mmu04310Wnt signaling pathway168 4.27 × 10−3Apc2, Prkcg, Tle2, Camk2a, Fzd6, Sox17, Wnt5b, Cxxc4, Dkk29
mmu04514Cell adhesion molecules1745.37 × 10−3Cldn13, Cadm3, Cd4, Cdh4, Cldn9, H2-M2, Cd8b1, Nrxn2, Vtcn1 9
mmu04722Neurotrophin signaling pathway121 7.58 × 10−3Mapk12, Ntrk2, Camk2a, Ntrk3, Ntf3, Mapk11, Matk7
mmu05412Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy77 0.02Actn2, Cdh2, Sgca, Atp2a3, Itga8, Sgcg 6
mmu00860Porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism430.05Hmbs, Uros, Urod 3
mmu04360Axon guidance1810.05Rac3, Syp, Efna4, Plxnb1, Prkcz, Sema4f, Myl90.05Epha4, Ablim2, Ephb6, Camk2b, Epha8, Hr, Ephb1, Bmp7, Sema4g6.92 × 10−3Efnb2, Camk2a, Ablim3, Sema6c, Wnt5b, Ntn4, Lrrc4c, L1cam, Rgma25
mmu04024cAMP signaling pathway215 1.58×10−5Atp2b2, Npr1, Hhip, Atp2a3, Plce1, Lhcgr, Cnga2, Tshr, Cnga1, Vipr2, Ppp1r1b, Camk2b, Gria2, Gria1, Pln, Sstr2, Glp1r, Adcy20.02Grin2a, Ryr2, Oxtr, Edn3, Gabbr1, Camk2a, Fxyd1, Npy1r, Adcy527
mmu04972Pancreatic secretion1142.77 × 10−4Car2, Cckar, Cela3a, Prss1, Slc12a2, Adcy1, Cel, Slc26a3, Cpa10.01Atp2b2, Atp2a3, Kcnq1, Adcy2, Amy1, Ctrl, Prss2, Cpa2 17
mmu04713Circadian entrainment98 0.05Cacna1g, Camk2b, Gria2, Gria1, Gnao1, Adcy28.67 × 10−5Grin2a, Ryr2, Gucy1a1, Prkcg, Camk2a, Gng8, Kcnj9, Adcy5, Cacna1i15
mmu04974Protein digestion and absorption1080.02Cela3a, Prss1, Col14a1, Col4a6, Col8a2, Cpa15.78×10−4Col11a1, Col4a3, Col13a1, Eln, Col6a6, Kcnq1, Ctrl, Col19a1, Prss2, Cpa2 16
mmu04727GABAergic synapse89 2.46×10−3Gabra4, Gls2, Slc12a5, Gabrr2, Gnao1, Slc38a3, Abat, Adcy26.40 × 10−3Prkcg, Gabbr1, Gad1, Cacna1b, Gng8, Adcy514
mmu04724Glutamatergic synapse113 8.26 × 10−4Shank1, Gria2, Gria1, Homer2, Gls2, Grm6, Gnao1, Slc38a3, Adcy2, Grik30.02Grin2a, Pla2g4f, Prkcg, Grm4, Gng8, Adcy516
mmu04971Gastric acid secretion75 0.01Atp4a, Camk2b, Sstr2, Kcnq1, Adcy2, Mylk32.75 × 10−3Prkcg, Kcnj1, Camk2a, Kcnj16, Adcy5, Kcnf112
mmu04911Insulin secretion860.02Cckar, Kcnn2, Adcy1, Gcg, Gck 5.42 × 10−3Ryr2, Prkcg, Syt3, Camk2a, Ffar1, Adcy511
mmu05200Pathways in cancer5430.05Nqo1, Fbxo24, Gsta4, Ctnna3, Fzd8, Flt3l, Col4a6, Gli1, Mgst3, Notch3, Gnb3, Rac3, Adcy1, Wnt10a, Hes5, Wnt10b 2.78 × 10−3Apc2, Hlf, Ednrb, Fzd6, Runx1t1, Fgfr3, Fgfr2, Bmp4, Prkcg, Heyl, Tgfb2, Hey2, Camk2a, Lama3, Hey1, Wnt5b, Gng8, Rxrg, Lpar3, Adcy536
mmu04925Aldosterone synthesis and secretion102 0.05Cacna1g, Camk2b, Atp2b2, Npr1, Star, Adcy22.98 × 10−3Hsd3b6, Kcnk3, Prkcg, Cyp21a1, Camk2a, Adcy5, Cacna1i13
mmu04261Adrenergic signaling in cardiomyocytes152 0.05Tro, Tnnt2, Camk2b, Pln, Atp2b2, Atp2a3, Kcnq1, Adcy27.70 × 10−3Mapk12, Ryr2, Adra1b, Camk2a, Adcy5, Cacna2d4, Cacng3, Mapk1116
mmu04725Cholinergic synapse112 0.03Ache, Camk2b, Chrna6, Gnao1, Kcnq1, Hr, Adcy20.02Prkcg, Camk2a, Cacna1b, Gng8, Adcy5, Kcnf113
mmu05031Amphetamine addiction69 0.04Ppp1r1b, Camk2b, Ddc, Gria2, Gria10.04Grin2a, Prkcg, Camk2a, Adcy59
mmu05231Choline metabolism in cancer980.04Pcyt1b, Slc22a2, Wasf3, Rac3, Pip5k1b0.05Gpcpd1, Egf, Slc22a4, Dgkb, Hr, Chkb 11
mmu04350TGF-beta signaling pathway95 1.0 × 10−45Bmp4, Tgfb2, 4930516B21Rik, Nog, Id4, Smad9, Id3, Fmod, Rgma, Thsd410
mmu04550Signaling pathways regulating pluripotency of stem cells140 1.15 × 10−5Bmp4, Mapk12, Apc2, 4930516B21Rik, Fzd6, Wnt5b, Id4, Smad9, Id3, Fgfr3, Fgfr2, Mapk1112
mmu04921Oxytocin signaling pathway153 1.35 × 10−4Ryr2, Gucy1a1, Pla2g4f, Prkcg, Oxtr, Camk2a, Kcnj9, Adcy5, Kcnf1, Cacna2d4, Cacng311
mmu04976Bile secretion1005.54 × 10−4Car2, Kcnn2, Aqp9, Ephx1, Aqp8, Adcy1, Slc22a7, Aqp1 8
mmu04728Dopaminergic synapse135 9.55 × 10−4Grin2a, Mapk12, Prkcg, Camk2a, Cacna1b, Gng8, Kcnj9, Adcy5, Mapk119
mmu04640Hematopoietic cell lineage941.87 × 10−3Cd24a, Cd4, Cd59b, Tfrc, Cd8b1, Dntt, Flt3l 7
mmu04934Cushing syndrome162 3.36 × 10−3Apc2, Hsd3b6, Kcnk3, Cyp21a1, Camk2a, Fzd6, Wnt5b, Adcy5, Cacna1i9
mmu04010MAPK signaling pathway294 3.48 × 10−3Mapk12, Pla2g4f, Cacna1b, Fgfr3, Cacng3, Fgfr2, Prkcg, Ntrk2, Tgfb2, Ntf3, Cacna1i, Cacna2d4, Mapk1113
mmu05144Malaria57 3.89 × 10−3Gypa, Hbb-bh2, Hba-a1, Hbb-bt, Hbb-bs, Ackr1 6
mmu05033Nicotine addiction40 3.94 × 10−3Gabra4, Gria2, Gria1, Chrna6, Gabrr2 5
mmu00350Tyrosine metabolism40 6.45 × 10−3Aoc3, Adh1, Aox4, Aox34
mmu04723Retrograde endocannabinoid signaling148 6.59 × 10−3Mapk12, Prkcg, Faah, Cacna1b, Gng8, Kcnj9, Adcy5, Mapk118
mmu05032Morphine addiction91 7.12 × 10−3Prkcg, Gabbr1, Cacna1b, Gng8, Kcnj9, Adcy56
mmu00514Other types of O-glycan biosynthesis43 8.33 × 10−3St6gal1, Colgalt2, Gxylt2, Galnt164
mmu00410beta-Alanine metabolism31 8.76 × 10−3Upb1, Aldh3a1, Aldh3b2, Abat 4
mmu00750Vitamin B6 metabolism9 0.01Aox4, Aox32
mmu04924Renin secretion76 0.01Gucy1a1, Ace, Edn3, Adcy5, Kcnf15
mmu04927Cortisol synthesis and secretion72 0.01Hsd3b6, Kcnk3, Cyp21a1, Adcy5, Cacna1i5
mmu00360Phenylalanine metabolism23 0.02Ddc, Aldh3a1, Aldh3b2 3
mmu00920Sulfur metabolism110.02Selenbp2, Suox 2
mmu04977Vitamin digestion and absorption24 0.02Slc23a1, Apoa4, Plb1 3
mmu05143African trypanosomiasis39 0.02Hbb-bh2, Hba-a1, Hbb-bt, Hbb-bs 4
mmu04015Rap1 signaling pathway214 0.02Grin2a, Mapk12, Prkcg, Magi2, Fgfr3, Lpar3, Adcy5, Fgfr2, Mapk119
mmu04072Phospholipase D signaling pathway149 0.02Pla2g4f, Ptgfr, Grm4, Dgka, Lpar3, Adcy5, Dnm17
mmu04270Vascular smooth muscle contraction143 0.02Gucy1a1, Pla2g2d, Pla2g4f, Prkcg, Adra1b, Edn3, Adcy57
mmu04370VEGF signaling pathway58 0.02Mapk12, Pla2g4f, Prkcg, Mapk114
mmu04970Salivary secretion86 0.02Gucy1a1, Prkcg, Adra1b, Trpv6, Adcy55
mmu05152Tuberculosis180 0.02Cd209g, Mapk12, Cd209f, Tgfb2, Camk2a, Cd209a, Atp6v0a4, Mapk118
mmu05418Fluid shear stress and atherosclerosis148 0.02Bmp4, Mapk12, Thbd, 4930516B21Rik, Klf2, Mapk11, Nox17
mmu04150mTOR signaling pathway1560.03Rps6ka6, Stradb, Deptor, Fbxo24, Fzd8, Wnt10a, Wnt10b 7
mmu04014Ras signaling pathway232 0.03Grin2a, Pla2g2d, Pla2g4f, Prkcg, Ntrk2, Ntf3, Gng8, Fgfr3, Fgfr29
mmu04330Notch signaling pathway60 0.03Heyl, Tle2, Hey2, Hey14
mmu04390Hippo signaling pathway157 0.03Bmp4, Apc2, Tgfb2, Rassf6, Fzd6, Wnt5b, Ajuba7
mmu04750Inflammatory mediator regulation of TRP channels127 0.03Mapk12, Pla2g4f, Prkcg, Camk2a, Adcy5, Mapk116
mmu04912GnRH signaling pathway90 0.03Mapk12, Pla2g4f, Camk2a, Adcy5, Mapk115
mmu04913Ovarian steroidogenesis63 0.03Hsd3b6, Pla2g4f, Cyp1a1, Adcy54
mmu04926Relaxin signaling pathway129 0.03Mapk12, Ednrb, Gng8, Rxfp1, Adcy5, Mapk116
mmu04929GnRH secretion63 0.03Prkcg, Gabbr1, Kcnj9, Cacna1i4
mmu04960Aldosterone-regulated sodium reabsorption38 0.03Prkcg, Kcnj1, Sfn3
mmu00910Nitrogen metabolism170.04Car2, Car8 2
mmu04710Circadian rhythm30 0.04Npas2, Prkag3, Rorc 3
mmu05135Yersinia infection1340.04Cd4, Rps6ka6, Fbxo24, Cd8b1, Rac3, Pip5k1b 6
mmu05218Melanoma72 0.04Egf, Fgf18, E2f2, Gadd45a, Hr 5
mmu00250Alanine, aspartate and glutamate metabolism39 0.04Gad1, Aldh5a1, Ddo3
mmu00760Nicotinate and nicotinamide metabolism41 0.04Aox4, Aox3, Nmnat23
mmu00830Retinol metabolism97 0.04Adh1, Aox4, Aox3, Cyp1a1, Lrat5
mmu00982Drug metabolism—cytochrome P45071 0.04Adh1, Aox4, Aox3, Fmo24
mmu04726Serotonergic synapse131 0.04Pla2g4f, Prkcg, Cacna1b, Gng8, Kcnj9, Adcy56
mmu04933AGE-RAGE signaling pathway in diabetic complications101 0.04Mapk12, Thbd, Tgfb2, Mapk11, Nox15
mmu05205Proteoglycans in cancer205 0.04Mapk12, Prkcg, Tgfb2, Camk2a, Fzd6, Wnt5b, Gpc3, Mapk118
mmu00380Tryptophan metabolism52 0.05Afmid, Ddc, Haao, Inmt 4
mmu04918Thyroid hormone synthesis74 0.05Ttr, Adcy2, Duox2, Slc5a5, Tshr 5
mmu05214Glioma74 0.05Camk2b, Egf, E2f2, Gadd45a, Hr 5
mmu05225Hepatocellular carcinoma1740.05Nqo1, Gsta4, Mgst3, Dpf3, Fzd8, Wnt10a, Wnt10b 7
a Genes identified from current study involved in stated pathway.
Table 5. Selected biomarkers and their relative expressions and fold changes vs spleens from naïve mice.
Table 5. Selected biomarkers and their relative expressions and fold changes vs spleens from naïve mice.
Gene NameGene DescriptionMeanFold Change
NaiveΔclpBLVSΔgplXΔlpcCΔclpB/
Naïve
ΔclpB/
LVS
ΔclpB/
ΔgplX
ΔclpB/
ΔlpcC
Acod1aconitate decarboxylase 1293971136425331137.82.915.7125.7
Saa3serum amyloid A 347575210004521122.25.8128.1282.4
Ccl2chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 23616066851096544.72.314.924.8
Clec4eC-type lectin domain family 4, member e83307397820810537.13.114.829.2
Timp1tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 190314211811749535.02.718.133.2
Serpine1serine (or cysteine) peptidase inhibitor, clade E, member 1461472447706031.83.321.124.7
Mmp3matrix metallopeptidase 36318623711115929.85.016.831.7
Inhbainhibin beta-A34858273362425.23.124.035.1
Cxcl2chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 21331463121324.55.025.423.9
Il1rninterleukin 1 receptor antagonist1754269174438916824.42.411.025.4
Cxcl1chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 129600221452620.82.713.622.8
Vcanversican45893267953519.93.39.525.6
Adamts4a disintegrin-like and metallopeptidase (reprolysin type) with thrombospondin type 1 motif, 423415130332518.23.212.616.9
Cxcl5chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 554961465967017.82.110.013.9
Il1r2interleukin 1 receptor, type II45749227873716.73.38.620.3
Lipglipase, endothelial42610248905014.52.56.812.2
Mmp8matrix metallopeptidase 8172226646531411613.24.97.219.6
Oas1g2′-5′ oligoadenylate synthetase 1G788844232188611.22.14.110.3
Gzmbgranzyme B183194380349729110.62.43.96.7
Chil1chitinase-like 19610033701969010.42.75.111.2
Loxlysyl oxidase9590518947629.54.819.214.6
Il1ainterleukin 1 alpha14512914961641518.92.67.98.5
Ccl3chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 37547812783936.33.75.75.2
Ccl4chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 41025852081301745.72.84.53.4
Hphaptoglobin6543737158711195805.72.43.36.4
Il1binterleukin 1 beta108961253006183311155.62.03.35.5
Il1f9interleukin 1 family, member 9108559227211865.22.52.76.5
Aqp1aquaporin 113520345190793053746957−3.9−2.6−8.9−13.6
Sptbspectrin beta, erythrocytic8903185453032153933398−4.8−2.9−11.6−18.0
Art4ADP-ribosyltransferase 4406841856101184−4.8−2.2−7.3−14.1
Slc6a9solute carrier family 6 (neurotransmitter transporter, glycine), member 96488721012342130−7.5−2.4−14.2−24.6
1300017J02RikRIKEN cDNA 1300017J02 gene7205917011142409−12.2−2.9−18.9−40.8
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, Q.Y.; Leclerc, S.; Pan, Y.; Liu, Z.; Stark, F.; Conlan, J.W. Novel Transcriptional and Translational Biomarkers of Tularemia Vaccine Efficacy in a Mouse Inhalation Model: Proof of Concept. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10010036

AMA Style

Liu QY, Leclerc S, Pan Y, Liu Z, Stark F, Conlan JW. Novel Transcriptional and Translational Biomarkers of Tularemia Vaccine Efficacy in a Mouse Inhalation Model: Proof of Concept. Microorganisms. 2022; 10(1):36. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10010036

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Qing Yan, Sonia Leclerc, Youlian Pan, Ziying Liu, Felicity Stark, and Joseph Wayne Conlan. 2022. "Novel Transcriptional and Translational Biomarkers of Tularemia Vaccine Efficacy in a Mouse Inhalation Model: Proof of Concept" Microorganisms 10, no. 1: 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10010036

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop