These data indicate significant differences in the key domains th

These data indicate significant differences in the key domains that contribute to a toxin-neutralising immune response between TcdA and TcdB: the C-terminal region playing the dominant role in the case of TcdA as opposed to the central region domains

in the case of TcdB. Neutralising efficacy was assessed against TcdA and TcdB produced by key epidemic ribotype 027 and 078 C. difficile strains, which produce toxinotype 3 and 5 toxins, respectively [10] and TcdB (toxinotype 10) produced by a TcdA-negative, ribotype 036 strain [34] ( Table 3). Antibodies raised against TxA4 were broadly neutralising with little or no loss of efficacy against toxinotype 3 and 5 toxins. A greater variation in cross-neutralising efficacy was observed with antibodies raised to TxB4. While a reduction of <3-fold was observed against TcdB toxinotypes 3 and 5, a more marked selleck compound reduction in neutralising potency was observed against a toxinotype 10 TcdB. For passive immunisation studies, the high-toxin producing C. difficile strain, VPI 10463 was used. After perturbation of the normal gut flora using clindamycin, passively immunised and control group animals were challenged with www.selleckchem.com/products/ink128.html C. difficile spores [18]. In animals immunised with

a mixture of antibodies raised against antigens TxA4 and TxB4, statistically significant protection from CDI (p < 0.001) was obtained with survival of 80% of the animals in the lower antibody doses. At the highest antibody dose, 100% of the animals were protected from severe CDI at 15 days post challenge; 30% of the animals in this group showed transient diarrhoea for 1–2 days. Animals which received either no antibody or non-specific

ovine IgG, all succumbed to severe CDI within 3 days post challenge ( Fig. 4). Protective efficacy was similar to that observed previously using antibodies produced using the Sodium butyrate full-length toxoids of TcdA and TcdB [18]. Infection with C. difficile remains a problem within healthcare systems of the developed world [35] and additional therapeutic options are needed [36]. Previously, we described development of an immunotherapeutic for CDI based on the administration of polyclonal antibodies to TcdA and TcdB [18]. In the present study, we define antigens which can underpin the large-scale production of antibodies which potently neutralise TcdA and TcdB. We also show significant differences between TcdA and TcdB with respect to the protein regions which induce a toxin-neutralising immune response. In a previous study [18] and consistent with others [17], we showed that a TcdB fragment representing the toxin’s effector (glucosyltransferase) domain (residues 1–543) induced only a weak toxin-neutralising response as measured by cell-based assays. The present study focussed on various TcdB-derived recombinant fragments derived from C-terminal and central regions of TcdB.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>