An experimental universal swine influenza a virus (IAV) vaccine candidate based on the M2 ectodomain (M2e) peptide does not provide protection against H1N1 IAV challenge in pigs.

Swine flu is a common disease problem in North American pig populations and swine influenza A viruses (IAV) are extremely diverse and the lack of cross protection between heterologous strains is impacting vaccine efficacy in the field. The objective of this study was to design and test a novel swine flu vaccine targeting the M2 ectodomain (M2e) of IAV, a highly conserved region within the IAV proteome. In brief, an M2e peptide was designed to match the predominant swine IAV M2 sequence based on global analysis of sequences from pigs and humans. The resulting sequence was used to synthesize the M2e peptide coupled to a carrier protein. The final vaccine concentration was 200 µg per dose, and a commercial, microemulsion-based aqueous adjuvant was added. Nine 3-week-old IAV negative piglets were randomly assigned to three groups and rooms including non-vaccinated pigs (NEG-CONTROLs) and vaccinated pigs using the intramuscular (M2e-IM) or the intranasal route (M2e-IN). Vaccinations were done at weaning and again at 2 weeks later. An in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was developed and validated to study the M2e IgG antibody response and demonstrated M2e-IM pigs had a higher systemic antibody response compared to M2e-IN pigs. Subsequently, an IAV challenge study was conducted. The results indicated that M2e-IM vaccinated pigs were not protected from H1N1 (US pandemic clade, global clade 1A.3.3.2) challenge despite having a strong humoral anti-M2e immune response. In conclusion, while the experimental IAV vaccine was able to induce anti-M2e antibodies, when challenged with H1N1, the vaccinated pigs were not protected, perhaps indicating that reactivity to the M2e antigen alone is not sufficient to reduce clinical signs, lesions or shedding associated with experimental IAV challenge.

Evaluation of the intranasal route for porcine reproductive and respiratory disease modified-live virus vaccination.

BACKGROUND: In pigs, modified live virus (MLV) vaccines against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) are commonly used and administered by intramuscular (IM) injection. In contrast, PRRSV, as a primary respiratory pathogen, is mainly transmitted via the intranasal (IN) route. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a commonly used commercial PRRSV MLV delivered IN compared to the IM route. METHODS: Fifty-four pigs were divided into five treatment groups. All vaccinated groups received the same MLV vaccine but administered via different routes. Group IN-JET-VAC was vaccinated with an automated high pressure prototype nasal jet device (IN-JET-VAC, n = 12), group IN-MAD-VAC was vaccinated with a mucosal atomization device (IN-MAD-VAC, n = 12), group IM-VAC was vaccinated intramuscularly (IM-VAC; n = 12) according to label instructions, while the NEG-CONTROL (n = 6) and the POS-CONTROL (n = 12) groups were both unvaccinated. At 28 days post vaccination all vaccinated groups and the POS-CONTROL pigs were challenged with a pathogenic US PRRSV isolate. Blood and nasal swabs were collected at regular intervals, and all pigs were necropsied at day 10 post challenge (dpc) when gross and microscopic lung lesions were assessed. RESULTS: Prior to challenge most vaccinated pigs had seroconverted to PRRSV. Clinical signs (fever, inappetence) were most obvious in the POS-CONTROL group from dpc 7 onwards. The vaccinated groups were not different for PRRSV viremia, seroconversion, or average daily weight gain. However, IN-JET-VAC and IN-MAD-VAC had significantly higher neutralizing antibody levels against the vaccine virus at challenge. CONCLUSIONS: Comparable vaccine responses were obtained in IN and IM vaccinated pigs, suggesting the intranasal administration route as an alternative option for PRRSV vaccination.