부산대학교 도서관

Simple Summary: One of the strategies for the prevention of E. coli related problems is the vaccination of piglets. Vaccines with different routes of administration are available: oral and parenteral. The former mimics the natural route of infection. Two different responses have been defined depending on the route of administration, with differences being observed in the number of IgA-producing cells, cytokine activation and intestinal integrity, depending on the route used. In general, there is evidence of greater immune system activation in the orally vaccinated group, which may indicate that the parenterally vaccinated group needs a second E. coli stimulus to fully develop the immune response. It should be noted that this is not an efficacy study as the animals were not inoculated and did not suffer from clinical problems related to E. coli. The available E. coli vaccines involve two main types (inactivated and live non-pathogenic) and two routes of administration (oral and parenteral) but the mechanism by which both vaccines and routes of administration work is not yet fully elucidated. The influence of a parenteral vaccine (PV) and an oral one (OV) was studied by analyzing the gene expression of biomarkers indicating cellular infiltration (calprotectin, CAL), tight junction proteins (occludin OCL, and zonulin ZON) that maintain intestinal paracellular integration and two proinflammatory (IFN-γ) and anti-inflammatory (TGF-β) mediator cytokines, as well as histomorphology and IgA production cell density. Differences were observed in CAL, more infiltrated in orally vaccinated animals; OCL also increased in orally vaccinated animals, and higher density of IgA-producing cells in ileum for orally vaccinated groups. Cytokine expression is also different; and there is a lower mRNA for IFN-γ in the parenteral than in the oral vaccinated animals. Finally, the villus height-to-crypt depth ratio was higher in the orally vaccinated groups. The data collectively show clear and different effects derived from the use of each type of vaccine, route of administration and regimen. The results suggest a more rapid and direct effect of oral vaccination and a state of suppression in the absence of a second oral stimulus by the pathogen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]