Higher IFN-γ responses to mycobacterial antigens were observed in Bos taurus (Holsteins) than in Bos indicus (Zebu) cattle which could due to differences in antigen recognition profiles between the two breeds. The present study was conducted to evaluate mycobacterial antigen recognition profiles of the two breeds. Twenty-three mycobacterial antigens were tested on 46 skin test positive (24 Zebu and 22 Holstein) using enzyme-linked immunospot assay (ELISPOT) and multiple antigen print immunoassay (MAPIA). Herds from which the study cattle obtained were tested for Fasciola antibody. The T cells from both breeds recognized most of the mycobacterial antigens at lower and comparable frequencies. However, antigens such as CFP-10, ESAT-6, Rv0287, Rv0288, MPB87, Acr-2, Rv3616c, and Rv3879c were recognized at higher frequencies in zebu while higher frequencies of T cell responses were observed to Hsp65 in both breeds. Furthermore, comparable antibody responses were observed in both breeds; MPB83 being the sero-dominant antigen in both breeds. The prevalence of Fasciola antibody was 81% and similar in both breeds. This piece of work could not lead to a definitive conclusion if there are differences in mycobacterial recognition profiles between the two breeds warranting for further similar studies using sound sample size from the two breeds. 1. Introduction Historical reports indicated that Bos taurus (the group to which Holsteins belong) are more susceptible to bovine tuberculosis (TB) than Bos indicus (zebu) [1]. Experimental studies have also showed difference in susceptibility to bovine TB between Bos taurus and Bos indicus breeds [1]. It has also recently been found that there is higher prevalence of bovine TB in Holstein than in zebu kept under identical husbandry conditions in Ethiopia [2]. In addition, the severity of pathology in bovine TB was significantly higher in Holstein than in Zebu under a similar field cattle management in central Ethiopia [2]. Similarly, it was observed that IFN-γ responses to mycobacterial antigens were higher in Holstein than those in Zebu [3]. One of the possible reasons for the lower IFN-γ responses in Zebu could be a difference in antigen recognition profiles between Holstein and Zebu. Human and mouse studies have also shown that the immune response to particular mycobacterial antigens varies with the genetic background of the subjects involved [4, 5]. This hypothesis is being addressed in this study. To assess repertoire difference between Holstein and Zebu, peripheral blood mononuclear (PBMC) and sera from the two breeds
References
[1]
J. Carmichael, “Bovine tuberculosis in tropics with special reference to Uganda, Part II,” The Veterinary Journal, vol. 97, pp. 329–339, 1940.
[2]
G. Ameni, A. Aseffa, H. Engers et al., “High prevalence and increased severity of pathology of bovine tuberculosis in holsteins compared to zebu breeds under field cattle husbandry in central Ethiopia,” Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1356–1361, 2007.
[3]
G. Ameni, A. Aseffa, H. Engers, D. Young, G. Hewinson, and M. Vordermeier, “Cattle husbandry in Ethiopia is a predominant factor affecting the pathology of bovine tuberculosis and gamma interferon responses to mycobacterial antigens,” Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 1030–1036, 2006.
[4]
J. Ivanyi and K. Sharp, “Control by H-2 genes of murine antibody responses to protein antigens of Mycobacterium tuberculosis,” Immunology, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 329–332, 1986.
[5]
G. H. Bothamley, J. S. Beck, G. M. Schreuder, et al., “Association of tuberculosis and M. tuberculosis antibody levels with HLA,” Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 135, pp. 1137–1151, 1989.
[6]
K. P. Lyashchenko, M. Singh, R. Colangeli, and M. L. Gennaro, “A multi-antigen print immunoassay for the development of serological diagnosis of infectious diseases,” Journal of Immunological Methods, vol. 242, no. 1-2, pp. 91–100, 2000.
[7]
H. M. Vordermeier, D. B. Lowrie, and R. G. Hewinson, “Improved immunogenicity of DNA vaccination with mycobacterial HSP65 against bovine tuberculosis by protein boosting,” Veterinary Microbiology, vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 349–359, 2003.
[8]
S. G. Rhodes, D. Gavier-Widen, B. M. Buddle et al., “Antigen specificity in experimental bovine tuberculosis,” Infection and Immunity, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 2573–2578, 2000.
[9]
S. G. Rhodes, B. M. Buddle, R. G. Hewinson, and H. M. Vordermeier, “Bovine tuberculosis: immune responses in the peripheral blood and at the site of active disease,” Immunology, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 195–202, 2000.
[10]
T. Fifis, C. Costopoulos, A. J. Radford, A. Bacic, and P. R. Wood, “Purification and characterization of major antigens from a Mycobacterium bovis culture filtrate,” Infection and Immunity, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 800–807, 1991.
[11]
R. G. Hewinson, S. L. Michell, W. P. Russell, R. A. Mcadam, and W. R. Jacobs, “Molecular characterization of MPT83: a seroreactive antigen of Mycobacterium tuberculosis with homology to MPT70,” Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 490–499, 1996.
[12]
W. R. Waters, M. V. Palmer, T. C. Thacker et al., “Early antibody responses to experimental Mycobacterium bovis infection of cattle,” Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 648–654, 2006.
[13]
R. Greenwald, J. Esfandiari, S. Lesellier et al., “Improved serodetection of Mycobacterium bovis infection in badgers (Meles meles) using multiantigen test formats,” Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 197–203, 2003.
[14]
R. J. Flynn, C. Mannion, O. Golden, O. Hacariz, and G. Mulcahy, “Experimental Fasciola hepatica infection alters responses to tests used for diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis,” Infection and Immunity, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 1373–1381, 2007.
[15]
H. M. Vordermeier, M. A. Chambers, P. J. Cockle, A. O. Whelan, J. Simmons, and R. G. Hewinson, “Correlation of ESAT-6-specific gamma interferon production with pathology in cattle following Mycobacterium bovis BCG vaccination against experimental bovine tuberculosis,” Infection and Immunity, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 3026–3032, 2002.
[16]
B. M. Buddle, D. N. Wedlock, M. Denis, and M. A. Skinner, “Identification of immune response correlates for protection against bovine tuberculosis,” Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology, vol. 108, no. 1-2, pp. 45–51, 2005.
[17]
J. M. Pollock, M. D. Welsh, and J. McNair, “Immune responses in bovine tuberculosis: towards new strategies for the diagnosis and control of disease,” Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology, vol. 108, no. 1-2, pp. 37–43, 2005.
