Use of Mucosally Administered Outer Membrane Vesicles Derived fromBordetella pertussisto Diminish Nasal Bacterial Colonization

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-24 · read from full text

This study evaluated whether Bordetella pertussis-derived outer membrane vesicles (OMVs), delivered mucosally, could reduce upper airway bacterial colonization in mice while preserving protection against severe lower respiratory disease. Using homologous mucosal prime-boost or heterologous prime-boost regimens that combined intramuscular immunization with intranasal or sublingual routes, the authors compared OMV formulations with mucosal c-di-AMP and/or systemic alum adjuvants, and benchmarked results against homologous intramuscular schedules and commercial vaccines. They found that heterologous schemes generated higher, high-avidity OMV-specific IgG and substantial IgA after challenge, and intranasal-based regimens induced the highest IL-17 and IFN-γ levels, correlating with superior protection against nasal colonization; alum (alone or with c-di-AMP) did not improve protective capacity for this outcome. This paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Full text 2,535 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 4 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Background We previously identified Bordetella pertussis-derived outer membrane vesicles (OMVs) as a promising immunogen for improving pertussis vaccines. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of our vaccine prototype in immunization strategies aimed at reducing disease transmission by targeting colonization in the upper airways while maintaining protection against severe disease by reducing colonization in the lower respiratory tract.

Methods

We assessed different mucosal administration strategies in a murine model, including homologous 2-dose schedules and heterologous prime-boost strategies combining intramuscular (IM) systemic immunization with mucosal routes (intranasal (IN) or sublingual (SL)). We utilized mucosal c-di-AMP and/or systemic alum adjuvants to formulate the OMV vaccine prototype. A homologous IM immunization schedule and commercial vaccines were used for comparison.

Results

All tested heterologous schemes induced higher levels of specific IgG with significant avidity, as well as high levels of IgG1 and IgG2 compared, to corresponding homologous 2-dose schemes via mucosal routes (OMVIN-IN or OMVSL-SL). High IgA levels were observed post-B. pertussis challenge following OMVIN-IN treatments and heterologous treatments where the second dose was administered via a mucosal route. Furthermore, schemes involving the intranasal route, whether in a homologous or heterologous scheme, induced the highest levels of IL-17 and IFN-γ. Accordingly, these schemes showed superior efficacy against nasal colonization than the commercial vaccines. Specifically, homologous intranasal immunization exhibited the highest protective capacity against nasal colonization while maintaining an excellent level of protection in the lower respiratory tract. To enhance the protective capacity against nasal colonization further, we conducted a comparative analysis of formulations containing different adjuvants (c-di-AMP, alum, or a combination of both) administered via homologous intranasal routes. These assays revealed that the use of alum, either alone or in combination with c-di-AMP, did not enhance the immune protective capacity.

Conclusions

All the experiments presented here highlight that the use of OMVs, regardless of the scheme utilized, with the exception of OMVSL-SL, outperformed acellular pertussis (aP) vaccines, achieving a greater reduction in bacterial colonization in the upper respiratory tract (p<0.001). Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00