Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2026 Feb 12;22(2):e1013958. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1013958

Identification of multiple Acinetobacter baumannii protein antigens as targets for potential immunotherapies using a novel protein microarray screening approach

Samantha Palethorpe 1, Giuseppe Ercoli 1, Elisa Ramos-Sevillano 1, Gathoni Kamuyu 1, Joe Campo 2, Samuel Willcocks 3, Rie Nakajima 4, Philip Felgner 4, Brendan Wren 3, Ganjana Lertmemongkolchai 5, Richard Stabler 3, Jeremy Brown 1,*
Editor: Lauren D Palmer6
PMCID: PMC12919932  PMID: 41678533

Abstract

The World Health Organisation has identified Acinetobacter baumannii as a critical priority antimicrobial resistant (AMR) pathogen for which new therapeutics are needed. Despite this, currently there are no antibody or vaccine candidates in advanced clinical development for A. baumannii. To help address this, we designed a protein microarray approach to identify multiple A. baumannii protein antigens for further investigation as potential targets for vaccination or an antibody therapy. An 868-protein microarray was constructed containing mainly highly conserved A. baumannii proteins, and was enriched for those predicted to be surface localised and for which the corresponding gene is highly expressed during culture in ex vivo human serum. Probing the protein microarray with sera obtained from mice after non-lethal infection with multiple different A. baumannii strains identified IgG responses to 66 proteins. Four proteins (three previously poorly described outer membrane proteins and BamA, a known protective vaccine antigen selected as a positive control) were selected for further investigation. Polyclonal rabbit IgG to all four protein antigens recognised multiple clinical AMR A. baumannii strains, and for selected strains promoted opsonisation with IgG and complement, improved neutrophil phagocytosis, and increased membrane attack complex formation. Passive immunisation with polyclonal IgG to each antigen partially protected mice against A. baumannii sepsis, and a combination of polyclonal to two antigens completely protected against A. baumannii murine sepsis. Repeating passive immunisation experiments in mice depleted of complement, neutrophils or tissue macrophages demonstrated protection against systemic infection was dependent on complement and neutrophils but not macrophages. Overall, the data demonstrate that our protein microarray is a novel approach that can rapidly identify multiple new protein antigens as potential antibody targets for preventing or treating AMR bacterial infections.

Author summary

Antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacterial infections are predicted to cause 10 million deaths per year by 2050. One important AMR bacterium is Acinetobacter baumannii, which typically causes multidrug-resistant infections in hospitalised patients and is a particularly common problem in some lower- and middle- income countries. Vaccines or monoclonal antibody therapies could reduce the burden of infections caused by AMR A. baumannii, but need suitable target antigens that are conserved among clinical strains of A. baumannii and promote bacterial killing by the immune system. Here, we use a novel protein microarray technique to identify multiple novel target protein antigens that are present in the majority of clinical A. baumannii isolates and are expressed during infection. Further testing showed that polyclonal rabbit antibodies raised against selected antigenic proteins promoted immune recognition of clinical A. baumannii strains and increased clearance of multidrug-resistant A. baumannii infections in mice. Our study provides a novel approach for identifying protein antigen targets for bacterial pathogens that could lead to improved prevention or treatment of AMR infections.

Introduction

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has identified antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a major threat to human health, responsible for an estimated 4.95 million deaths worldwide in 2019 [1]. One of the top priorities for the development of new antimicrobials is the Gram-negative bacterium Acinetobacter baumannii [2], which causes a range of infections including pneumonia, septicaemia, urinary tract infections, and skin/soft tissue infections [3–5]. A. baumannii was a relatively rare cause of disease in the 1970s [3], but since then the incidence of A. baumannii infections has increased rapidly and is now estimated to cause over 300,000 deaths/year globally [1]. A. baumannii infections are especially problematic in Southeast Asia, causing 25,000 deaths/year in Thailand alone [4]. Around 80% of Thai clinical A. baumannii isolates are multidrug-resistant (MDR) [6] and resistance rates to colistin, the antibiotic of last resort, are 11.2% [7]. Consequently, untreatable infections are occurring, contributing to the reported mortality rates of up to 70% for A. baumannii infections [4,8].

One approach to reducing the morbidity and mortality caused by bacterial AMR infections is immunotherapy, either through (i) active vaccination or (ii) administration of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to prevent infections in high-risk patients (e.g., passive vaccination of intensive care patients), or (iii) as an additional therapy in combination with antibiotics in people with proven infection [9]. The potential of antibody therapies is shown by the successful use of convalescent sera to treat some bacterial infections in the pre-antibiotic era, the present routine use of mAbs to treat or prevent viral infections [10–12], and the existing mAb therapies for Bacillus anthracis (raxibacumab, obiltoxaximab) and Clostridium difficile (bezlotoxumab) [13]. The extensive range of routine clinical mAb therapies targeting human antigens as well as pathogens means novel mAbs for clinical use can be developed rapidly. Furthermore, resistance to an antibody therapy is much less likely to develop than to novel antibiotics [14].

The potential advantages of active vaccination or mAb prophylaxis or treatment means these approaches are being widely considered for multiple AMR pathogens [13,15,16]. However, currently there are no active vaccine or mAb candidates in advanced clinical development for MDR A. baumannii infections [2]. This is partially due to several significant difficulties in identifying suitable target antigens for immunotherapies. The obvious antigen target for many bacterial pathogens is the extracellular polysaccharide capsule, which is both surface exposed and present in high quantities. For example, all existing S. pneumoniae vaccines use the capsule as their target antigen, and in mice, vaccination with the A. baumannii capsule protects against subsequent infection [16–18]. However, the genetic locus encoding the A. baumannii capsule shows considerable variation between strains, with over 100 described capsular genotypes (termed KL types), most of which will vary in their biochemical structure and hence will also have different antibody specificities [19,20]. Multiple different antibodies would be required to cover the large number of KL types found in clinical A. baumannii isolates (e.g., 30 + KL types present in 191 Thai A. baumannii clinical isolates, with the commonest KL type found in only 16% of isolates [20]) making it difficult to use capsular antigen as a target for vaccines or mAb therapies. Alternatively, immunotherapies could target subcapsular protein antigens that are conserved amongst infecting A. baumannii strains. However, similar to many other bacterial pathogens, A. baumannii has an extensive pangenome with a high proportion of surface proteins that are either absent or show substantial allelic variation between strains. Furthermore, the capsule partially inhibits access of the immune response to subcapsular antigens [21,22]. Despite this, several A. baumannii subcapsular protein antigen candidates have been identified as targets for novel antibody therapies or active vaccines for MDR A. baumannii [23], including outer membrane proteins (OMPs) (e.g., Oxa-23 [16], OmpA [24], BamA [25–27], Omp22 [28], Omp34 [29], and iron-regulated outer membrane proteins (IROMPs) [30,31]), and the outer membrane nuclease NucAB [32]. These data indicate that protein antigens could be effective targets for vaccines and mAbs for preventing or treating AMR A. baumannii infections [16]. Identifying multiple additional potential protein antigen targets would increase the chances of successful development of an immunotherapy and would also increase the available target antigen options for multivalent approaches which could improve vaccine or mAb efficacy.

Here, we have used a novel approach based on an 868-protein antigen microarray to rapidly identify multiple antigenic A. baumannii proteins which could be potential therapeutic targets for immunotherapy approaches. Additionally, we investigated the efficacy of polyclonal rabbit antibody to four of these antigens at promoting immune recognition of clinical MDR A. baumannii strains in vitro and for protecting mice against A. baumannii infection.

Results

Selection of proteins for the A. baumannii protein microarray

Using genome data from 220 A. baumannii strains including 191 clinical Thai isolates [20], an 868 A. baumannii protein microarray was constructed for immunogenicity studies to identify potential protein antigens suitable as targets for immunotherapeutics. To increase their suitability as targets for immunotherapy, the proteins selected for inclusion in the microarray were enriched for those with: (i) a high degree of conservation between A. baumannii strains amongst the clinical isolates described by Loraine et al. [20]; (ii) a predicted surface location; and/or (iii) higher levels of expression of the corresponding gene during culture in vitro in human serum as a marker for likely expression during human infection. For proteins included in the microarray, the corresponding gene is present in a mean of 215.4 (97.9%, range 51.8-100%) of the 220 A. baumannii genomes when analysed using a 95% DNA conservation level, and 89.9% of genes are present in 90 + % of these strains [20] (Fig 1A). The predicted localisation of proteins selected for the microarray is the bacterial envelope (periplasm, inner or outer membrane) for 580 proteins (66.8%), extracellular for 22 (2.5%), cytoplasmic for 155 (17.9%), and unknown for 111 (12.8%) (Fig 1B). To identify genes that were preferentially expressed in serum, RNAseq was performed using three Thai clinical strains (AB1, AB1615-09, and NPRC-AB20) incubated in either ex vivo serum or broth culture. Gene expression in serum correlated closely between the three strains (Fig 1C and 1D), with 124 genes (14.3%) showing increased expression for all three strains in serum compared to broth (Fig 1E). Proteins selected for the microarray were enriched for those for which the corresponding gene showed increased expression in serum (Fig 1F). Overall, for proteins included in the microarray, 431, 370 and 189 of the corresponding genes had increased expression in serum compared to culture in broth for strain AB1, AB1615-09, and NPRC-AB20, respectively. The conservation, predicted localisation, and relative expression of the corresponding gene in serum are listed for each protein included in the protein microarray in S1 Table.

Fig 1. Selection of proteins for A. baumannii protein microarray.

Fig 1

(A) Percent of selected microarray proteins present in 220 clinical A. baumannii isolates described by Loraine et al. [20]. (B) Cellular localisation of selected microarray proteins predicted using PSORT (v3.0) and the A. baumannii strain AB1615-09 protein sequences. (C) and (D) Correlations of normalised transcript copy number (counts per million, CPM) in human sera for genes for the proteins included in the microarray proteins for strains AB1615-09 versus AB1 (C), and AB1615-09 versus NPRC-AB20 (D). KL; K locus capsule type. (E) Volcano plot of combined RNAseq data using Salmon quantification and Sleuth analysis; combined highly conserved, differentially expressed genes (from strains AB1615-09, AB1, and NPRC-AB20) with a log2 fold expression > 0.6 and a p value < 0.05 (red = upregulated in human sera compared to LB broth, blue = downregulated, black = no change). (F) Volcano plot from panel (E) recoloured to show the CDSs included in the protein microarray (blue = included, red = excluded).

Identification of immunogenic A. baumannii proteins

To identify A. baumannii proteins capable of inducing immune responses in mice, the protein microarray was probed with sera obtained from mice one month after non-lethal infection with A. baumannii. Seven groups of mice were infected with different A. baumannii regimens using Thai clinical isolates. The regimens included either three exposures to a single strain of A. baumannii (single strain sera) for five different strains, or three exposures using a different strain each time for two strain combinations that only partially overlapped with the other regimens (multi-strain sera) (Fig 2A and S2 Table) [33]. The same high but non-lethal challenge dose of 1 x 106 CFU was used for each A. baumannii strain; the combination of a high inoculum dose, multiple different clinical strains, and repeated inoculations (known to increase the number of antigens recognised [33]) were used to ensure antibody responses were elicited for a broad range of potential antigen targets. Whole cell ELISAs against both an encapsulated (AB5075 WT) and an unencapsulated (AB5075wza) A. baumannii strain demonstrated significant IgG recognition for sera from most infected mice groups, indicating significant IgG was present to A. baumannii protein antigens (Fig 2B). Unexpectedly, there were higher ELISA titres in serum from mice vaccinated with the mixed strain regimens compared to a single strain. When used to probe the microarray, each infecting strain/ combination of strains showed significant IgG responses to between 11 and 35 protein antigens, with shared recognition of many antigens between vaccination regimens (e.g., ABUW_2730 and ABUW_1741) (Fig 2C and 2D and S1 Table). Inoculation with the mixed A. baumannii strain regimens resulted in an almost four-fold increase in the mean number of antigens recognised by IgG compared to sera from mice infected with a single strain (Fig 2D), with principal component analysis showing clear separation in the immune response to A. baumannii proteins in sera obtained from the two multi-strain vaccination combinations (Fig 2E). The MFI for IgG binding to individual antigens varied both within and between vaccination regimens (Fig 2C). Overall, a total of 66 protein antigens induced IgG in at least one mouse (Table 1). Fig 2F shows the mean MFI for IgG binding for all serum samples for the top 20 recognised antigens across all vaccination groups.

Fig 2. Identification of antigenic A. baumannii proteins.

Fig 2

(A) Immunisation groups listing strains used for mice receiving three sub-lethal infections of either the same A. baumannii strain (single strain sera, 1-5) or three different A. baumannii strains (multi-strain sera, 6 & 7) [33] used to obtain sera for whole cell ELISAs and to probe the A. baumannii protein microarray. (B) Mean ODs (error bars = SDs) for whole cell ELISAs for the A. baumannii strain AB5075 WT and its unencapsulated wza mutant probed with 1:100 single strain sera (left) or multi-strain sera (right) from immunised mice (sera number refers to panel A) (2° only = no sera, secondary antibody only control). (C) Results of probing the microarray with mouse sera from groups described in panel A, represented as a heat map of IgG MFIs for each mouse for the top 50 antigens. (D) Mean (error bars = SDs) number of proteins promoting a significant IgG response when assessed by probing the microarray with sera described in panel A; left panel data presented separately for each immunising strain(s), right panel pooled results for single versus multi-strain immunisation groups. (E) Principal component analysis of microarray data showing separation of the results for each immunisation groups. (F) Mean MFI for the top 20 antigens identified by probing the protein microarray with mouse sera from the 7 immunisation groups. Black columns, combined data for single strain immunised mice, grey columns combined data for multi-strain immunised mice. Data were analysed using unpaired Student’s t-tests (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns; not significant) in panels (B) (versus PBS control mice) and (D) (single versus multi-strain results).

Table 1. List of 66 proteins inducing significant IgG responses in at least one mouse when measured by probing the A. baumannii protein microarray with sera obtained from groups of mice after non-lethal infection with seven different A. baumannii regimens (as described in the text and Fig 2) [33].

AB5075-UW annotation Predicted function Amino Acid Conservation (%)α Mean IgG responseβ RNAseq serum (CPM) for AB1615-09δ RNAseq broth vs serum q value
ABUW_2730 OmpA family protein 84 28214 1501 0.0903
ABUW_2724 protein tolA 100 3761 5350 0.1835
ABUW_2554 putative hemolysin 98 4720 1293 0.0097
ABUW_2451 TetR family regulatory protein 99 11743 146 0.0004
ABUW_2325 Putative transcriptional regulator 98 344 15 0.0004
ABUW_2259 lipid A export permease/ATP-binding protein MsbA 100 1650 301 0.4989
ABUW_2222 ABC-type dipeptide/oligopeptide/nickel transport systems permease component 100 2265 29 0.1522
ABUW_2096 Acetoacetyl-CoA transferase, alpha subunit 100 301 1958 0.0004
ABUW_1530 metal ion ABC transporter substrate-binding protein/surface antigen 97 2690 441 0.0579
ABUW_1553 cyoA 100 9606 2220 0.0603
ABUW_1572 Putative 3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase 100 5113 57 0.0004
ABUW_1648 Putative transporter with mechanosensitive ion channel 99 626 130 0.0007
ABUW_1741 putative outer membrane protein (antigen 11) 100 19570 441 0.0325
ABUW_1772 Phosphotransferase system, fructose-specific EI/HPr/EIIA components 100 1181 56 0.1191
ABUW_0385 toluene tolerance efflux transporter (ABC superfamily, PerI-bind) 100 7489 0 0.0000
ABUW_0383 toluene tolerance efflux transporter (ABC superfamily, ATP-bind) 100 2227 1616 0.0245
ABUW_0359 Putative signal peptide-containing protein 100 1018 297 0.0212
ABUW_0603 signal peptide 99 511 10847 0.0004
ABUW_0676 nolF 100 3941 53 0.8868
ABUW_0698 bifunctional sulfite reductase flavoprotein alpha-component/iron-uptake factor 100 716 215 0.0004
ABUW_0826 putative DcaP-like protein 81 274 1184 0.1898
ABUW_0842 outer membrane protein 100 2904 0 0.0000
ABUW_0870 sdhA 100 6323 571 0.7209
ABUW_3424 ExbD protein 98 470 0 0.0000
ABUW_3426 TonB protein 98 6840 896 0.0004
ABUW_3505 magnesium and cobalt efflux protein CorC 100 418 0 0.0000
ABUW_1063 hypothetical protein 92 1784 0 0.0000
ABUW_1050 glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase 100 12443 537 0.0628
ABUW_1030 lepB 100 463 222 0.1401
ABUW_0995 tolR 100 972 351 0.2461
ABUW_0994 protein TolA 100 6945 60 0.8250
ABUW_0993 tolB 100 720 214 0.0404
ABUW_0992 pal 100 7299 784 0.7322
ABUW_0967 membrane-fusion protein 100 7052 100 0.9897
ABUW_0922 multidrug efflux pump 100 472 105 0.0004
ABUW_3153 multidrug resistance efflux pump 100 5182 42 0.2288
ABUW_2984 signal peptide 81 5730 771 0.0004
ABUW_2910 efflux ABC transporter permease 100 308 34 0.1497
ABUW_2898 putative signal peptide-containing protein 52 1269 529 0.1981
ABUW_2887 putative lipoprotein (antigen 5) 100 12487 789 0.0004
ABUW_3834 FKBP-type peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase (antigen 7) 89 14893 407 0.5693
ABUW_3756 Protein of unknown function (DUF445) 100 1720 106 0.0265
ABUW_3736 ATP synthase F0F1 subunit B 100 20705 1339 0.0004
ABUW_0034 Putative RND family drug transporter 100 11493 42 0.0004
ABUW_0035 Acr family drug resistance transporter 100 1008 43 0.0004
ABUW_1812 hypothetical protein 100 10748 268 0.0230
ABUW_1355 hemin uptake protein HemP 100 8812 50476 0.0004
ABUW_1336 Putative RND family drug transporter 100 7740 4.0 0.9515
ABUW_1131 nlpD 100 6480 321 0.5548
ABUW_1120 subtilisin-like serine protease 96 2989 95 0.5965
ABUW_0184 acetate permease 100 5627 394 0.7762
ABUW_0166 omp25 (antigen 1) 100 4897 8055 0.2980
ABUW_1218 HtrA-like serine protease 100 8600 259 0.2480
ABUW_3045 putative outer membrane protein 100 37487 9954 0.9744
ABUW_3020 RND family multidrug resistance secretion protein 100 2582 46 0.0004
ABUW_3644 permease 100 1329 403 0.0694
ABUW_3605 FHA domain protein 100 14447 326 0.6457
ABUW_3903 putative inner membrane protein translocase component YidC 98 6421 347 0.0046
ABUW_3885 purK 100 351 161 0.0152
ABUW_3375 hypothetical protein 100 1401 0 0.0000
ABUW_3364 outer membrane protein 100 774 58 0.0004
ABUW_3362 membrane-fusion protein 100 6027 357 0.0004
ABUW_3087 putative competence protein 100 6190 410 0.0408
ABUW_0505 OmpA/MotB protein 100 1098 380 0.0494
ABUW_0531 secD 100 7866 230 0.0004
ABUW_0563 beta-lactamase OXA-23 70 39922 4436 0.0079

αDegree of conservation of the predicted protein product amongst 220 clinical A. baumannii isolates [20].

βMFI obtained by probing the protein microarray with sera from mice inoculated with both multi-strain combinations of A. baumannii strains [33].

δAverage transcript copy number in serum for strain AB1615-09 was 553 CPM (counts per million)

Selection of immunogenic A. baumannii proteins for further investigation

Four antigenic proteins were selected for further investigation for their potential as targets for protective immunotherapy (Table 2). Ag1 (ABUW_0166, a predicted porin), Ag5 (ABUW_2887, a predicted lipoprotein), and Ag7 (ABUW_3834, a predicted peptidyl-prolyl isomerase) were selected as (a) they are all predicted OMPs, (b) they have not previously been described as a potential target antigen for an antibody therapy or vaccine, and (c) their corresponding genes are present in 99% or more of 842 A. baumannii genomes on the NCBI website, representing strains isolated from multiple countries and continents, including 127 different Pasteur Multilocus Sequence Types (M405 strains from the dominant clinical lineage ST2) and 36 isolates with no currently defined MLSTs (S3 Table). The fourth protein selected was BamA (Ag11, ABUW_1741), an outer membrane β-barrel assembly protein that is essential for outer membrane biogenesis [34], which has previously been described as stimulating protective immunity when used as a vaccine and hence was selected as a positive control [25–27].

Table 2. Summary of the data for the A. baumannii proteins selected as potential targets for an antibody therapy or active vaccine. Full protein microarray and RNAseq data for each antigen are shown in S1 Table.

Ag# AB5075-UW annotation Predicted mW (kDa) Predicted function Gene Conservation (%)α Mean IgG response (MFI)β RNAseq serum (CPM)δ RNAseq broth vs serum q value
Ag1 ABUW_0166 27.7 Porin 99.5 (838) 4898 8055 0.2980
Ag5 ABUW_2887 17.5 Lipoprotein 99.6 (839) 11470 789 0.0004
Ag7 ABUW_3834 26.0 Peptidyl-prolyl isomerase 99.0 (834) 14893 407 0.5693
Ag11 ABUW_1741 93.8 BamA 83.5 (703) 19570 441 0.0325

αThe proportion as a percentage (number in brackets = actual number of strains) of 842 strains with genomes available on the NCBI website (see S3 Table) containing a gene with 95% identity at the DNA level to the corresponding AB5075 gene.

βMean Fluorescent Intensity obtained by probing the protein microarray with sera from mice inoculated with all single strain/multi-strain combinations of A. baumannii isolates [33].

δAverage transcript copy number in serum for strain AB1615-09 was 553 CPM (counts per million).

IgG to the selected target antigens recognises clinical A. baumannii strains

Polyclonal rabbit antibodies were raised against each of the selected purified protein antigens (Table 2) for use in in vitro and in vivo experiments. In Western blots using denaturing gels against purified protein or whole cell lysates of the AB5075 Wild Type (WT) strain (KL25) and two Thai clinical strains representing different KL serotypes and STs (AB3879 (KL10) and AB98 (KL47), S2 Table), the polyclonal rabbit antibodies recognised proteins corresponding to the predicted sizes for each antigen (Fig 3A to 3D). As expected, Ag1, Ag5, and Ag7 were not detected in the corresponding AB5075 transposon mutant strains (A5075ag1, A5075ag5, and A5075ag7, respectively) (Fig 3A to 3C). An Ag11 mutant was not tested as bamA is an essential gene [34]. There was non-specific binding to additional proteins in bacterial lysates for α-Ag1 (Fig 3A), and these responses may affect the ELISA titres for this antigen (presented below).

Fig 3. Rabbit antibody recognition of selected antigens and clinical isolates.

Fig 3

(A-D) Immunoblots of purified protein antigens or lysates of indicated A. baumannii strains probed with rabbit polyclonal IgG to antigens 1, 5, 7, or 11. Molecular weight markers are labelled (kDa). Protein details including their predicted molecular weights (indicated by the black arrows) are shown in Table 2. (E-G) Fluorescent microscopy showing IgG deposition (green) of indicated antibodies on A. baumannii for the unencapsulated mutant strain AB5075wza (E), the parental wild-type (WT) AB5075 strain (KL25) (F), and the encapsulated Thai clinical isolate AB3879 (KL10) (G). DNA is stained by DAPI (blue). (H-J) Mean ODs (error bars = SDs) for whole cell ELISAs for the AB5075wza (H), AB5075 WT (KL25) (I), and the AB3879 (KL10) (J) strains probed with 1:100 purified IgG antibody to the selected antigens, or the secondary antibody only control (2° only). KL; K locus capsule type. Data were analysed using ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple-comparison test (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns; not significant) comparing to the 2° only control.

Fluorescent microscopy was used to demonstrate whether polyclonal IgG bound to the surface of the encapsulated laboratory A. baumannii strain AB5075 (KL25), and the Thai clinical strain AB3879 (KL10). Since the A. baumannii capsule often blocks access to subcapsular protein antigens [21,22], we also included the AB5075 isogenic unencapsulated mutant strain, AB5075wza (Fig 3E to 3G). Incubation with IgG to all four antigens resulted in significant fluorescence to the unencapsulated strain, although the pattern of the binding varied significantly between antigen targets and between A. baumannii strains. Probing strain AB5075wza with α-Ag5 and α-Ag7 resulted in focal dots of fluorescence on the bacterial surface, whereas α-Ag1 and α-Ag11 resulted in a uniform layer of fluorescence around the bacteria (Fig 3E). As expected, there was reduced IgG binding to the encapsulated AB5075 WT strain probed with α-Ag5 and α-Ag7 with only the occasional foci of fluorescence visible. In contrast, probing the encapsulated A. baumannii AB5075 WT strain with α-Ag1 and α-Ag11 still resulted in a uniform layer of fluorescent surrounding the bacterial cell (Fig 3F). Probing the encapsulated clinical AB3879 strain with α-Ag5 also produced a speckled pattern of fluorescence similar to that seen for strain AB5075wza. However, in contrast to the results with the AB5075 strains, probing AB3879 (KL10) with α-Ag7 IgG resulted in uniform binding around the bacteria (Fig 3G).

Whole cell ELISAs against all three strains also showed significant recognition by all four polyclonal antibodies, with increased binding to the unencapsulated strain as expected (Fig 3H to 3J). The ability of purified rabbit polyclonal IgG to Ag1, Ag5, Ag7, and Ag11 to promote immune recognition of clinical A. baumannii strains was also investigated using whole cell ELISAs against eight additional clinical A. baumannii isolates chosen to represent several KL serotypes and STs (Fig 4 and S2 Table) [20,33,35]. There were significant IgG ELISA titres to all the clinical A. baumannii strains when incubated with each polyclonal IgG. The strength of recognition between strains and antigenic target varied slightly, sometimes independently of KL type (e.g., compare α-Ag11 results for the KL47 strains AB15 and AB1615-09, Fig 4A and 4B). Overall, α-Ag7 showed the highest IgG ELISA titre for the highest number of strains (7 out of 8) and α-Ag11 had the lowest titres for the highest number of strains (7 out of 8).

Fig 4. Rabbit polyclonal IgG to the selected antigens recognises multiple clinical A. baumannii strains.

Fig 4

(A-H) Mean ODs (n = 4, error bars = SDs) for whole cell ELISAs for 8 clinical A. baumannii strains (named in each panel) [33] probed with 1:100 purified IgG polyclonal antibody to the selected antigens, or the secondary antibody only control (2° only). KL; K locus capsule type. Data were analysed using ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple-comparison test (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns; not significant) comparing to the 2° only control.

Antibody to selected antigens promoted immune recognition and opsonophagocytosis of clinical A. baumannii isolates

To assess the potential immune consequences of antibody recognition of the selected antigens, opsonisation with IgG and complement components C3b/iC3b, neutrophil phagocytosis, and complement membrane attack complex formation (MAC, C5b-8/C5b-9) were assessed using established flow cytometry assays [33,35] (Fig 5A to 5H). Two relevant multidrug-resistant clinical A. baumannii strains (AB3879 (KL10) and AB98 (KL47)) were selected for these assays to represent different KL serotypes and STs (S2 Table). As previously reported [33,35], after incubation in normal human serum (NHS) A. baumannii strains AB3879 and AB98 varied in their susceptibility to C3b/iC3b opsonisation, neutrophil phagocytosis, and membrane attack complex (MAC) formation (Fig 5C to 5H). In general, there was stronger promotion of immune recognition by antibody to the target antigens for the AB98 strain compared to the AB3879 strain. With the exception of α-Ag7 for the AB3879 strain, antibody to all the selected antigens supported significant levels of IgG opsonisation of both AB3879 and AB98 (Fig 5A and 5B). Antibody to Ag1 and Ag5 increased C3b/iC3b deposition against AB3879, and antibody to all four antigens increased C3b/iC3b deposition on the AB98 strain (Fig 5C and 5D). Complement-dependent neutrophil phagocytosis of both strain AB3879 and AB98 was improved by α-Ag5 and α-Ag7 but not α-Ag1 and α-Ag11 (Fig 5E and 5F). C5b-8/C5b-9 formation was only promoted by α-Ag1 for strain AB3879, but by α-Ag1, α-Ag5, and α-Ag7 for strain AB98 (Fig 5G & 5H). Overall, these data demonstrate that antibodies to the selected antigens bind to the surface of clinical A. baumannii strains, and this can result in C3b/iC3b opsonisation, and sometimes MAC formation, and can support neutrophil phagocytosis. However, the effects of a given antibody/ strain combination on complement activity or neutrophil phagocytosis often did not reflect the strength of the results for IgG opsonisation and whole cell ELISA data (summarised in Table 3), or the degree of immunofluorescence seen with microscopy for strain AB3879 (Fig 3J). The reasons for these discrepancies between immune assay results are unclear, but are likely related to differences in KL type, relative antigen expression between strains, and variations in the ability to promote complement activity between specific IgG to each target antigen.

Fig 5. In vitro flow cytometry assays of the effects of IgG to antigens 1, 5, 7, or 11 on opsonisation and complement recognition of A. baumannii strains AB3879 (KL10) (left panels) and AB98 (KL47) (right panels).

Fig 5

(A) and (B) Mean (n = 4, error bars = SDs) percent of bacteria positive for IgG after incubation with secondary antibody alone (2° only) or with antibody to A. baumannii Ag1, Ag5, Ag7, or Ag11. (C) and (D) Mean (SDs) C3b/iC3b deposition index (% positive x median fluorescent intensity of bacteria staining positive for C3b/iC3b) after incubation in normal human serum (NHS only), or NHS plus antibody (as indicated), or the secondary antibody alone (2° only). (E) and (F) Bacterial association with fresh human neutrophils represented as the mean (SDs) phagocytosis index (% positive neutrophils x median fluorescent intensity of neutrophils staining positive for FAMSE-labelled A. baumannii) after incubation with NHS or NHS plus antibody. Unlabelled = non-FAMSE-labelled A. baumannii control. (G) and (H) Mean (SDs) C5b-8/C5b-9 deposition index (% positive x median fluorescent intensity of bacteria staining positive for C5b-8/C5b-9) after incubation in NHS, or NHS plus antibody, or the secondary antibody alone (2° only). For all panels, representative flow cytometry plots are shown after incubation with α-Ag7 (blue) compared to secondary antibody alone (grey dotted) (A) and (B), or α-Ag7 plus NHS (blue) compared to NHS only controls (black solid) or secondary antibody alone (grey dotted) (C-H). Data were analysed using ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple-comparison test (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns; not significant) compared to secondary antibody controls (A) and (B) or compared to NHS only controls (C-H). KL = K locus capsule type.

Table 3. Summary of antibody efficacies in immune assays against two clinical A. baumannii isolates.

Antibody Strain ELISAα IgG opsonisationβ C3b/iC3b

depositionδ
Neutrophil phagocytosisδ MAC depositionδ
α-Ag1 AB3879 0.21 **** 28.9% **** 2.8 ** 1.4 ns 2.6 **
AB98 0.15 **** 33.2% **** 18.0 **** 1.1 ns 1.7 **
α-Ag5 AB3879 0.19 **** 33.9% **** 3.2 ** 2.8 *** 1.2 ns
AB98 0.12 **** 39.5% **** 9.7 **** 1.3 ** 1.6 *
α-Ag7 AB3879 0.31 **** 6.8% ns 1.9 ns 2.1 * 1.5 ns
AB98 0.21 **** 40.9% **** 9.0 **** 1.4 *** 1.8 **
α-Ag11 AB3879 0.07 ns 14.4% ** 0.9 ns 1.8 ns 1.4 ns
AB98 0.10 ns 43.4% **** 6.8 **** 0.7 – 1.5 ns

αELISA OD450 data (1:100 dilution).

βPercent bacteria positive for IgG when assessed using flow cytometry.

δ Fold change in complement deposition/phagocytosis compared to NHS only control.

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns; not significant.

Rabbit antibodies to selected target antigens protected mice against A. baumannii

We tested the protective efficacy of IgG to our selected antigens initially using our established model of A. baumannii sepsis with the clinical MDR A. baumannii isolate AB3879 (KL10). This model requires co-infection with mucin to overcome the low virulence of many A. baumannii clinical isolates in immunocompetent mice [36,37]. To assess whether rabbit polyclonal antibody to Ag1, 5, 7, and 11 can promote protection against infection, CD1 mice were passively immunised by intraperitoneal inoculation of 50 µg/ mouse (approximately equivalent to 2 mg/ kg) with polyclonal rabbit IgG before intraperitoneal inoculation with 3–6 x 106 CFU/mouse of AB3879 suspended in 5% mucin. Passive immunisation with α-Ag1, α-Ag5, α-Ag7, or α-Ag11 [25–27] significantly reduced bacterial CFU recovered from one or more target organs (spleen or kidney), with a high proportion of mice given α-Ag5, α-Ag7 and α-Ag11 having kidney or spleen CFU below the limit of detection (Fig 6A). To ensure protection was not related to antibody interaction with bacteria limited to within the intraperitoneal cavity, mice were passively immunised by intraperitoneal injection with 100 µg α-Ag1 or α-Ag11 prior to intravenous infection with strain AB3879. Both antibodies reduced spleen CFU and significantly enhanced clearance of A. baumannii in the blood, confirming protection by passive immunisation was dependent on antibody effects in the blood compartment (Fig 6B). Passive immunisation with polyclonal IgG antibodies to two intracellular proteins identified by the initial antigen screen (Ag9 = ABUW_0563 and Ag10 = ABUW_3426) failed to reduce target organ CFU in the AB3879 sepsis mode (S1A and S1B Fig), indicating that the protection provided by IgG to Ag1, 5, 7 and 11 was not due to non-specific effects of polyclonal rabbit IgG such as antibody to LPS. To assess whether protection could be achieved in a pneumonia model as well as for sepsis, passive immunisation with α-Ag1 and α-Ag11 experiments were repeated using a recently described model of A. baumannii lung infection using intranasal inoculation of BALB/c mice with 2 x 107 CFU of the Vietnamese AMR A. baumannii clinical strain BAL_084 (KL58) [38,39] 4 hours after intranasal inoculation of 100 µg/ mouse of α-Ag1 or α-Ag11. By 24 hours after infection, lung CFU were reduced by approximately 1 log10 in mice receiving either antibody compared to PBS controls (Fig 6C). To assess whether protection could be enhanced by administration of two antibodies in combination, mice were passively immunised with both α-Ag1 and α-Ag11 (the antibodies which showed the weakest level of protection in the single antibody experiments) before or after IP challenge with the AB3879 strain (Fig 6D and 6E, respectively). Although passive immunisation with α-Ag1 in combination with α-Ag11 after infection did not reduce target organ A. baumannii CFU (Fig 6E), immunisation before infection strongly protected against infection and reduced target organ CFU to below the limit of detection for all mice, with evidence of additional benefit compared to immunisation with α-Ag1 or α-Ag11 alone (Fig 6D).

Fig 6. Passive immunisation with rabbit IgG to the selected antigens in mouse models of A. baumannii infection.

Fig 6

(A) Mice (n ≥ 6) were passively immunised by intraperitoneal (IP) inoculation of 50 μg rabbit polyclonal IgG or PBS 4 h before IP inoculation with 3-6 x 106 CFU/mouse of strain AB3879 (KL10) suspended in PBS with 5% porcine mucin. (B) Mice (n = 6) were passively immunised IP with 100 μg rabbit polyclonal IgG 4 h before intravenous (IV) infection with 2 x 106 CFU/mouse of strain AB3879 (KL10) suspended in PBS. (C) Mice (n = 5) were passively immunised intranasally (IN) with 100 μg rabbit polyclonal IgG 4 h before IN infection with 2 x 107 CFU/mouse of strain BAL_084 (KL58) suspended in PBS. (D) and (E) Mice (n = 5 (D), n = 6 (E)) were passively immunised before (D) or after (E) IP infection with 6 x 106 CFU/mouse of strain AB3879 (KL10) suspended in PBS with 5% porcine mucin using either PBS, 50 μg individual rabbit polyclonal IgG, or with a combination of 25 μg α-Ag1 + 25 μg α-Ag11, as indicated. Dot plots for all panels represent bacterial CFU in the indicated target organs from individual mice (bars = means, error bars = SDs) 20-24 h after IP and IN infection (A, C, D, E, and F), or 2 h after IV infection (B). Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance compared to PBS controls except for data in (D) which was compared to the combination treatment (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns; not significant). KL; K locus capsule type.

Efficacy of selected antigens as active vaccine candidates

We then tested the antigens for their protective efficacy as active vaccination candidates. Two sets of mice were intraperitoneally immunised with Ag1, Ag5, Ag7, or Ag11 plus Sigma adjuvant. One set of mice were challenged with sepsis using strain AB3879 as above (Fig 7A), and the second set was used for sera collection to analyse antibody responses in vitro (Fig 7B to 7D). When vaccinated mice were challenged intraperitoneally with strain AB3879, mice vaccinated with Ag1 or Ag11 showed significant protection against infection (Fig 7A). Vaccinated mice generated an antigen-specific serum IgG response when measured using purified protein ELISAs (Fig 7B) but showed variable levels of IgG recognition of strain AB3879 when assessed using whole cell ELISAs (Fig 7C). Assessing IgG subtypes demonstrated that vaccination of mice with these antigens predominantly stimulated IgG1 and IgG2 subclasses (Fig 7D).

Fig 7. Active vaccination of mice with selected protein antigens.

Fig 7

Two sets of mice (n = 6) were actively immunised intraperitoneally (IP) three times (A) or two times (B-D), two weeks apart, with 5 µg purified protein or PBS, plus Sigma’s adjuvant (1:1). (A) Four weeks following final vaccination, mice (n = 6) were infected IP with 3-6 x 106 CFU/mouse of strain AB3879 (KL10) suspended in PBS with 5% porcine mucin. Dot plots represent bacterial CFU in the indicated target organs from individual mice (bars = means, error bars = SDs) 20-24 h after IP infection. Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance compared to Adjuvant Only controls (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns; not significant). (B-D) Sera were collected from uninfected mice (n = 6) two weeks after final vaccination. ELISA detection of purified protein antigens (B) or AB3879 whole cell lysates (C) using sera from mice vaccinated with respective antigens (Ag Sera) or Adjuvant only sera (Adjuvant Sera), or no sera control (2° Only). (Mouse sera were combined from 6 mice/group, bars = means of 4 replicates of combined sera for that group, error bars = SDs). (D) Purified protein ELISA to detect IgG subtypes in each vaccinated mouse sera. Indicated Ag sera were used to probe the respective purified protein Ags as in (B), and indicated IgG subtype HRP-conjugated antibodies were used as a secondary antibody to detect IgG subtypes in vaccine sera. Ag1 purified protein was used for the adjuvant only sera (Adjuvant Sera) and no sera (2° only) controls. Statistical analysis compared to Adjuvant Only vaccine control sera used Dunnett’s multiple comparison test (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns; not significant).

Passive protection of mice by selected antibodies requires neutrophils and complement

To determine which phagocyte subset mediated passive protection with prophylactic rabbit antibody to our selected antigens in the AB3879 mouse sepsis model, infection experiments were repeated using α-Ag5 and α-Ag7 (the antibodies showing the strongest protection after passive immunisation in the sepsis model) after depletion of tissue resident macrophages or neutrophils. When using spleen CFU as the readout, treating mice with intraperitoneal clodronate that depleted splenic macrophages by 86.2% (SD 1.5%) (Fig 8A) did not prevent the protective effect of passive immunisation with α-Ag5 or α-Ag7 (Fig 8D). In contrast, treating mice with intraperitoneal α-Ly6G to deplete neutrophils (reduced splenic neutrophils by 99.5%, SD 0.2%) (Fig 8B) prevented passive immunisation with α-Ag5 or α-Ag7 from protecting against sepsis (Figs 8D and S2), demonstrating that neutrophils were the main phagocyte mediating antibody-dependent protection in this model. To assess whether complement was also required, passive protection experiments were repeated after treating mice with cobra venom factor (CVF) which depletes serum complement. Complement depletion was confirmed by loss of C3b/iC3b deposition on unencapsulated A. baumannii strain AB5075wza incubated with CVF treated mouse serum (Fig 8C). When assessed using spleen CFU, CVF treatment abrogated the protective effect of passive immunisation with α-Ag5 and α-Ag7 against A. baumannii sepsis (Fig 8D), confirming complement is required for antibody mediated protection against A. baumannii. This is in line with data showing that polyclonal IgG antibodies to Ag9 and Ag10, which were unable to protect mice against sepsis infection, did not promote C3b deposition on clinical A. baumannii isolates (S1 Fig). The effects of depletion of macrophages, neutrophils, or C3b/iC3b on lung CFU in the sepsis model were more complex, with the protective effects of α-Ag7 dependent on neutrophils and complement but not macrophages (similar to the spleen data), whereas for α-Ag5 protection was dependent on both macrophages and neutrophils and partially on complement (Fig 8E).

Fig 8. Passive protection by rabbit antibodies to selected antigens requires C3b/iC3b opsonisation and neutrophils.

Fig 8

Mice were depleted of macrophages, neutrophils, or complement 24 or 48 h prior to passive immunization by intraperitoneal inoculation of 50 µg of rabbit polyclonal IgG or PBS. 4 h post-immunization mice were intraperitoneally inoculated with 3-6 x 106 CFU/mouse of strain AB3879 (KL10) suspended in PBS with 5% porcine mucin. (A-C) Flow cytometry data showing percentages of mice splenic macrophages (A) or splenic neutrophils (B) after treatment with clodronate or α-Ly6G, respectively, compared to PBS treated mice. (C) Flow cytometry data showing the mean C3b/iC3b deposition index (% positive x median fluorescent intensity of bacteria staining positive for C3b/iC3b) on the unencapsulated A. baumannii strain AB5075wza after incubation with secondary antibody alone (2° only), or with sera from mice treated with PBS or with CVF to deplete complement (error bars = SDs). Statistical significance compared to PBS controls was determined using unpaired Student’s t tests (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns; not significant). (D) and (E) Dot plots represent bacterial CFU from individual mice (bars = means (n ≥ 6), error bars = SDs) in the spleens (D) or lungs (E) 20-24 h after infection. The data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance compared to CFUs recovered from depleted mice without antibody treatment (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns; not significant). KL; K locus capsule type.

Discussion

AMR infections are a major global health threat, and novel therapies against MDR A. baumannii is a current global imperative [1,2,40–42]. Antibody-based therapies for AMR infections have significant potential advantages, including relatively fast speed of development and less potential for resistance by the pathogen [14]. Prophylactic antibody to prevent infection could be given to subjects at a high risk of infection, for example ventilated patients in Southeast Asia as these have a high incidence of A. baumannii pneumonia. Therapeutic antibody could also be given in combination with antibiotics to improve outcomes in patients with confirmed A. baumannii infection. The key to developing an effective antibody-based therapy is antigen target selection. The ideal antigen target would be surface exposed, highly conserved amongst A. baumannii strains causing infection, expressed during infection, and for which antibody recognition would improve immune recognition and promote bacterial clearance despite capsule-mediated impairment of access to subcapsular antigens [21,22]. Using a novel two-step methodology we have identified multiple protein antigen targets for A. baumannii. Candidate protein antigens were first identified by probing a protein microarray containing 868 conserved A. baumannii proteins with antisera obtained from mice after A. baumannii infections [35]. This was followed by in vivo and in vitro assays assessing the efficacy of prophylactic antibody to four selected candidate antigens at protecting against A. baumannii infection. Using this approach, we have shown that antibody to three novel protein antigens (a porin, a lipoprotein, and a peptidyl-prolyl isomerase) promoted immune recognition of multiple clinical encapsulated A. baumannii strains in vitro and protected against A. baumannii in mouse models of infection. Furthermore, active vaccine experiments showed vaccination with two of our antigens partially protected against A. baumannii sepsis. These data provide the basis for the development of vaccines or antibody therapies for use as prophylaxis against or as a treatment for MDR A. baumannii infections.

Our protein microarray contained 63% of the 1381 proteins that genome data suggest are highly conserved amongst 220 A. baumannii strains [20], including most of the proteins that in silico analysis predicted to be surface expressed. The microarray was enriched for proteins that are likely to be expressed during systemic infection, as indicated by ex vivo serum expression data. Since the total number of predicted surface proteins is fewer than the spaces available on the microarray, and since the prediction of surface localisation for bacterial proteins can be incorrect, some conserved cytoplasmic proteins were also included in the array. Inclusion of these antigens will also broaden the data obtained for planned future studies using the microarray to measure human serological responses to A. baumannii infection. Antisera for probing the microarray was raised by non-lethal infection in mice, which we have previously shown induces IgG to multiple protein antigens that can mediate serotype-independent protection [33]. An interesting observation is that using three different A. baumannii strains to raise antisera resulted in IgG recognition of many more proteins compared to three inoculations of the same strain, perhaps due to restricted expression of many proteins by any single strain. In total, 66 proteins (7.6% of proteins on the microarray) were recognised by IgG in mouse sera. Further work could identify additional antigenic proteins by probing the microarray with sera from humans recovering from A. baumannii infection or with sera obtained from mice infected with other A. baumannii strains.

Three previously undescribed A. baumannii proteins and the known protective antigen BamA [25–27] were selected from the microarray data for further investigation. As yet there are only minimal data on the potential functions of Ag1, 5 and 7. Ag1 is a predicted porin that may play a role in the transport of nutrients into the cell or efflux of antibiotics and hence may contribute to virulence [43–46]. Ag5 is a predicted lipoprotein that is currently uncharacterised. Bacterial lipoproteins frequently contribute to host-pathogen interactions and antibiotic resistance [47], and in A. baumannii can affect cellular morphology, serum resistance and resistance to phagocytosis [48]. Additionally, licensed protein-based vaccines against Neisseria meningitidis include Factor H-binding lipoproteins [49,50], further demonstrating the potential of these lipoproteins as antigenic therapeutic targets. Finally, Ag7 is a predicted FK05-binding protein-type peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase (FkpA), the gene for which is located next to the A. baumannii capsule gene cluster [51]. This protein has 46% identity to the Pseudomonas aeruginosa chaperone protein PaFkbA that assists protein folding [52]. Molecular chaperones involved in protein folding, assembly, and trafficking are essential to bacterial stress responses, especially when adapting to the host environment [53]. Overall, targeting our selected antigens with antibodies could not only support immune mediated clearance but potentially may also impact bacterial cellular functions affecting virulence and sensitivity to antibiotics.

In vitro assays demonstrated that rabbit antibody to the four selected novel protein antigens recognised multiple clinical AMR A. baumannii strains. Antibody to all four selected protein antigens partially protected against A. baumannii infection in mice when given prior to infection, with significant reductions in target organ CFU varying from around 3 to approaching 5 log10 CFU, depending on antibody and target organ. To improve clinical relevance, our sepsis model uses an MDR clinical isolate of A. baumannii which requires co-administration with mucin to ensure infection is established [36,37] but can result in significant variability in target organ CFU in PBS treated mice. Despite this variability reducing statistical power, administration of polyclonal IgG to our novel target antigens reproducibly reduced target organ CFU to a similar or lower level than the BamA positive control. Smaller but significant reductions in lung CFU were seen in a separate pneumonia model using a Vietnamese clinical A. baumannii strain which does not require coadministration of mucin. Overall, the protective efficacy of polyclonal IgG to or active vaccination with our target antigens against A. baumannii infection was similar to that seen with vaccines or antibody therapies targeting BamA [25,27] and other protein antigens such as OmpA [54,55], Oxa-23 [16], the IROMPs BauA and BfnA [31,55], Ata [56], and SmpA [57].

Antibody to capsular antigen has stronger protective efficacy compared to antibody to protein antigens due to the high quantity of surface accessible target antigen [16,17,21–23,33] and capsular antibodies can protect mice against A. baumannii when administered after infection was initiated [16]. In contrast, the capsule partially shields protein antigens from antibody and this impairs protective efficacy [16,17,21–23,33]. Passive immunisation with polyclonal antibody to our target antigens was only protective if administered before inoculation of A. baumannii. Furthermore, in common with many mouse models of A. baumannii infection [25,26,28,32,54–61], our infection models progress rapidly often resulting in very high levels of A. baumannii CFU in target organs within 24 hours, and this also would make post-infection administration of antibody less effective. In contrast, A. baumannii infections in humans are generally slowly progressive and patients will also be receiving antibiotics [62], both of which would be likely to make treatment with an antibody therapy more efficacious. Furthermore, antibody engineering and targeting two or more antigens could improve the protective efficacy of antibody to protein antigens so they can be used as a potential treatment for proven A. baumannii infections: indeed, our data show that passive vaccination with antibody to two antigens was more efficacious than targeting a single antigen, supporting a multivalent approach and the need to identify multiple suitable protein antigen targets.

Antibodies to the selected antigens promoted immune recognition of different A. baumannii strains when assessed using in vitro assays of bacterial opsonisation with IgG or C3b/iC3b, MAC formation, and neutrophil phagocytosis. The degree of improved opsonisation with IgG or C3b/iC3b varied between antibodies and between strains, potentially representing the effects of differential antigen expression, antibody accessibility to the protein target, and variations between A. baumannii strains in their intrinsic resistance to complement or phagocytosis [33,35]. Levels of opsonisation with IgG or C3b/iC3b, MAC deposition, and neutrophil phagocytosis might be expected to correlate closely, but this was not always the case. Potentially this reflects the complex interplay between relative antigen expression by each strain, the effects of the capsule and other bacterial factors on differences in strain/ antibody immune interactions, along with variations between polyclonal antibodies in their avidity to target antigens and ability to activate complement or promote recognition by neutrophil receptors [21,33,35]. Characterising these effects would be complex and require otherwise isogenic strains engineered to express different KL types. Overall, although the in vitro assays confirm a given antibody will promote immune recognition of A. baumannii, the lack of clear correlations in the results for different immune assays makes identifying the most effective candidate target antigen using in vitro immune assays difficult.

Antibody to A. baumannii could promote protection through increasing opsonisation of the bacteria with IgG and/ or complement, thereby improving neutrophil and/ or macrophage mediated opsonophagocytosis, or through promoting bacterial agglutination that also improves phagocytosis and impairs bacterial growth. Furthermore, antibody-mediated increased complement recognition of A. baumannii could lead to direct killing by MAC formation. Passive vaccination with polyclonal antibody to Ag1 or Ag11 promoted rapid reductions in blood CFU after intravenous inoculation, compatible with the antibody increasing the speed of bacterial clearance by the innate immune response. This was confirmed by additional experiments in mice depleted of phagocytes or complement, which showed that the protective efficacy of antibodies to Ag5 or Ag7 was mediated by complement and neutrophils but not macrophages. This is in line with other studies demonstrating that neutrophils play a key role in innate [63] and mAb-mediated [64] protection. Overall, our results indicate that the protective antibodies promoted bacterial opsonisation with C3b/iC3b during mouse infection, thereby partially overcoming capsule-dependent inhibition of complement recognition of A. baumannii [20,35,65], and improving neutrophil-dependent killing. Hence, antibody engineering to improve complement activation should improve the protective efficacy of antibody to our protein antigens. Systemic macrophage-mediated clearance of A. baumannii in mice appeared to be largely independent of complement activity and instead might be dependent on direct binding of cell surface receptors to bacterial ligands, such as the capsule, as has been described for Streptococcus pneumoniae and Klebsiella pneumoniae [66,67]. How co-inoculation of A. baumannii with mucin enhances virulence is not fully understood and theoretically could include altering the relative contributions of macrophages to neutrophils or complement to immune clearance, thereby skewing which immune effector mediates protection of antibody to our antigens. However, depletion of peritoneal macrophages does not abrogate mucin-dependent enhancement of virulence, which instead seems to be partially dependent on increasing iron availability [36], suggesting our data on the role of neutrophil and complement would be relevant for A. baumannii infection models that are not dependent on coadministration of mucin.

To conclude, using a novel protein microarray screening methodology we have identified 66 antigenic A. baumannii proteins, and demonstrated that antibody to four of these promoted immune recognition of different clinical A. baumannii strains and protection in mouse models. These data will aid the development of immunotherapeutics, including vaccines or mAbs to prevent or treat infection, that can reduce the substantial and increasing morbidity and mortality caused by AMR A. baumannii infections. Using a similar experimental approach could also identify conserved protein targets for antibody therapies or vaccines for multiple other AMR bacterial pathogens.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

All mouse experiments were performed at University College London following national guidelines and were approved by the University College London Biological Services Ethical Committee and the UK Home Office (project number PP3031297).

Bacterial strains and culture conditions

All bacterial strains used for this study are listed in S2 Table. Clinical A. baumannii isolates were isolated from patients admitted to hospital in Thailand [33] or Vietnam [38,39]. These strains are available to the wider research community upon request. Strains AB5075, AB5075wza, AB5075ag5, and AB5075ag7 were obtained from the Manoil laboratory A. baumannii mutant library [68]. Strain AB5075ag1 is a deletion mutant and was generated in this study using suicide plasmid-mediated mutagenesis as described in [69]. Briefly, an approximately 2 kb DNA fragment containing mutated ABUW_0166 was synthesized by GenScript. The PCR fragment was inserted into the suicide plasmid pSL15A (Manoil laboratory) via restriction digestion and ligation, and the resulting plasmid (pSL15A_Δ0166) was cloned into Escherichia coli strain MFDpir [70] using heat shock transformation. The suicide plasmid was then transferred from E. coli to A. baumannii strain AB5075 by conjugation. The final A. baumannii AB5075ag1 mutant was generated by selection on sucrose as described previously [69] and confirmed using PCR amplification and DNA sequencing of the mutated chromosomal DNA (Source BioScience). Bacteria were plated and cultured in Luria-Bertani broth (LB, Lennox formulation, Sigma). Stocks of each strain containing 15% glycerol (v/v) were stored at -70°C. Unless otherwise specified, cultures were incubated at 37°C with shaking at 200 rpm. Bacterial growth at OD600 was measured over 24 h using the Tecan Spark multimode microplate reader [33,35].

RNAseq experiments

Transcriptome analyses by RNAseq were previously described [35,71]. Briefly, strains AB1615-09, AB1, and NPRC-AB20 were grown in triplicate in 50% normal human serum (NHS) or 50% LB for 1 h, then RNA extracted using the Mirvana RNA kit (Applied Biosystems) as previously described [35]. RNA sequencing libraries were processed using the KAPA RNA HyperPrep kit, the data mapped to the AB1615-09 genome and transcripts quantified as described [35]. Raw RNAseq data were uploaded to the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) and the individual data file accession numbers are as follows: ERR8982504, ERR8982505, ERR8982506, ERR8982507, ERR8982508, ERR8982509, ERR8982510, ERR8982511, ERR8982512, ERR8982513, ERR8982514, ERR8982515, ERR8982516, ERR8982517, ERR8982518, ERR8982519, ERR8982520, ERR8982521 [35].

Design and probing of protein microarray

The core genome of 220 A. baumannii strains [20] was determined by Roary [72], and cellular locations of the corresponding proteins modelled with PSORT (v3.0) using strain AB1615-09 derived protein sequences. Differential RNAseq expression data from three Thai A. baumannii strains exposed to serum [35] were combined with the core gene and cellular localisation data to select 868 proteins for construction of protein microarrays using an Escherichia coli in vitro transcription and translation (IVTT) expression system [73,74]. Protein microarray pads were rehydrated in Fast Protein Array Blocking Buffer for 30 min and probed as previously described [74,75]. Briefly, sera samples were diluted in 10x His peptide (10 µg/µl sera) and 10% E. coli lysate blocking buffer, incubated for 30 min at room temperature, then added to the protein microarrays and incubated with gentle agitation at 4°C overnight. After washing in 1 x TBST (0.1% Tween 20) at room temperature, biotin-conjugated goat α-mouse IgG (BioLegend) in blocking buffer was added for 1 h at room temperature, followed by washing in 1 x TBST and addition of Streptavidin Alexa Fluor 647 conjugate (Invitrogen) for 1 h at room temperature, rinsed with water, dried and visualised using an Innopsys InnoScan 710 Microarray Scanner.

Production of selected antigens and antibodies, and In Vitro immune assays

Recombinant proteins were produced in E. coli strain BL21 Star (DE3) by GenScript. Polyclonal rabbit IgG to selected protein antigens were obtained from ThermoFisher Scientific using their standard 90-day rabbit immunisation protocol; briefly, rabbits were immunised subcutaneously using Complete Freund’s Adjuvant or Incomplete Freund’s Adjuvant on day 1, 14, 42, and 56, with bleeds collected on days 0, 28, 56, and 72, and IgG purified using Protein A/G purification. For each GenScript protein preparation, as expected LPS contamination was detected (proteins were diluted 1:4 and LPS was measured using the Pierce Chromogenic Endotoxin Quant Kit; Ag1 = 3.15 ± 0.16 EU/ml, Ag5 = 3.10 ± 0.21 EU/ml, Ag7 = 3.22 ± 0.15 EU/ml, Ag11 = 3.18 ± 0.05 EU/ml). Western immunoblots using denaturing gels on A. baumannii whole cell lysates or purified proteins were performed as described previously [69] using Novex sample reducing agent and Novex sample buffer, 4–12% Tris-Glycine Novex WedgeWell polyacrylamide gels (ThermoFisher Scientific) transferred to nitrocellulose membranes using the iBlot 2 Dry Blotting System (ThermoFisher Scientific), then probed with horseradish peroxidase-conjugated goat α-rabbit or α-mouse IgG antibody (Abcam) and visualised using chemiluminescent ECL reagent (Amersham) and an ImageQuant LAS 4000. Whole Cell ELISAs and confocal microscopy of A. baumannii were performed as described [33], using Alexa Fluor Plus 488 goat α-rabbit IgG (H + L) (Invitrogen) and Prolong Gold Antifade Mountant with DAPI (Invitrogen) for confocal microscopy [35]. Slides were imaged using a Zeiss LSM 800 confocal microscope and analysed using ImageJ 1.53t software. Flow Cytometry assays of IgG opsonisation (Alexa Fluor 647 donkey α-rabbit IgG, BioLegend), C3b/iC3b deposition (mAb clone 6C9 BioLegend), C5b-8/C5b-9 formation (mAb clone aE11 Abcam) on A. baumannii or neutrophil association (using fresh human neutrophils and fluorescent A. baumannii) were performed as previously described [33,35] and analysed using a BD FACSVerse or Sony ID7000 Spectral Analyser and FlowJo software for Windows (Version 10).

Animal studies

Mice were obtained from Charles River Laboratories UK. α-A. baumannii mouse sera for probing microarrays were generated by intraperitoneal inoculation of 6–8-week-old CD1 mice with 1 x 106 CFU three times 14 days apart [33] with mice culled 4 weeks after the last immunisation.

For passive immunisation and challenge experiments, 6–8-week-old CD1 mice (females and males) were immunised intraperitoneally (sepsis models) or intranasally (pneumonia model) with 100 µl 0.5-1.0 mg/ml or 50 µl 2 mg/ml, (respectively) purified IgG rabbit antibody either 4 h before or 2 h after infection (as indicated in figure legends). Mice were infected by intraperitoneal inoculation of ~3–6 x 106 CFU/mouse of strain AB3879 suspended in PBS with 5% porcine mucin (Sigma), or by intravenous infection with 2 x 106 CFU/mouse of strain AB3879 in PBS, or by intranasal inoculation of 2 x 107 CFU/mouse of strain BAL_084 in PBS, under general anaesthesia. Bacterial CFUs in spleens, kidneys, blood, and lungs were determined either 2 h (IV clearance model) or 20–24 h (sepsis and pneumonia models) post-infection by plating serial dilutions of organ homogenates onto LB agar.

For active immunisation and challenge experiments, two groups of 6–8-week-old CD1 female mice were immunised intraperitoneally two (sera group) or three (challenge group) times, two weeks apart, with 5 µg purified protein, or PBS, plus Sigma’s adjuvant (1:1). Two weeks following final vaccination, sera were collected form one group of mice for in vitro analysis. Four weeks following final vaccination of the second group, mice were infected intraperitoneally (sepsis model) with 2 x 107 CFU/mouse of strain AB3879 suspended in PBS with 5% porcine mucin (Sigma). Bacterial CFUs in spleens and lungs were determined 20–24 h post-infection by plating serial dilutions of organ homogenates onto LB agar.

For immune depletion experiments, female mice were injected intraperitoneally with 100 µl Clophosome Clodronate Liposomes (Neutral) (Stratech) 48 h pre-infection to deplete tissue macrophages, 500 µg α-mouse Ly6G (clone 1A8, 2B Scientific) 24 h pre-infection to deplete neutrophils (or rat IgG2a isotype control, anti-trinitrophenol (clone 2A3, 2B Scientific)), or 30 µg Cobra Venom Factor (CVF; Quidel) 24 h pre-infection to deplete complement. Immune cell depletion was confirmed by flow cytometry of homogenised spleens using Zombie UV Fixable Viability Kit (BioLegend) and the following antibodies (BioLegend); FITC α-mouse CD45 (S18009F), PE α-mouse CD3 (17A2), PE α-mouse CD19 (1D3/CD19), PE α-mouse NK1.1 (PK136), PE α-mouse CD170 (Siglec-F) (S17007L), PE α-mouse CD11c (N418), PE α-mouse Ly6G (Clone 1A8) or PerCP α-mouse Ly6G (HK1.4), Brilliant Violet 510 α-mouse CD11b (M1/70), and PE/Cy7 α-mouse F4/80 (BM8). Viable macrophages were identified as CD45+ CD3- CD19- NK1.1- CD170- Ly6G- F4/80high. Viable neutrophils were identified as CD45+ CD3- CD19- NK1.1- CD170- CD11c- F4/80- CD11b+ Ly6Ghigh. Samples were run on a Sony ID7000 Spectral Analyser and analysed using FlowJo software for Windows (Version 10).

Statistical analysis

Microarray analysis was performed by generating a Threshold MFI value for each antigen (Threshold = (average “no sera” MFI + (2*SD of “no sera” MFI)) + (average “naïve sera” MFI + (2*SD of “naïve sera” MFI)) which was then subtracted from the raw MFI value. These corrected values were then averaged across sera to produce average MFI values + /- SDs (S1 Table). Antigen recognition was classed as significant if the mean corrected MFI was greater than the antigen threshold value and >500. Statistical analyses for all experiments were performed using GraphPad Prism Version 9.3.1 (GraphPad, USA). In vitro data represent at least two independent experimental repeats, are presented as means of at least three replicates, and error bars represent standard deviations. Mouse infection experiments showing significant differences between antibody and PBS groups were repeated at least twice to ensure the data were reproducible. Individual statistical tests are indicated in figure legends.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Effects of less protective rabbit IgG to selected antigens.

(A and B) Mice (n = 6) were passively immunised by intraperitoneal (IP) inoculation of 50 μg rabbit polyclonal IgG or PBS 4 h before IP inoculation with 3–6 x 106 CFU/mouse of strain AB3879 suspended in PBS with 5% porcine mucin. Dot plots represent bacterial CFU in the indicated target organs from individual mice (bars = means, error bars = SDs) 20–24 h after IP infection. Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance compared to PBS controls (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns; not significant). (C and D) Mean (SDs) C3b/iC3b deposition index (% positive x median fluorescent intensity of bacteria staining positive for C3b/iC3b) after incubation in normal human serum (NHS only), or NHS plus antibody (as indicated), or the secondary antibody alone (2° Only).

(DOCX)

ppat.1013958.s001.docx (46.3KB, docx)
S2 Fig. Neutrophil depletion prevents passive protection by rabbit antibodies to selected antigens.

Mice (n = 6) were injected intraperitoneally (IP) with PBS, α-Ly6G, or an isotype control antibody 24 h prior to passive immunization by IP inoculation of 50 µg of rabbit polyclonal IgG to Ag7, or PBS. 4 h post-immunization mice were inoculated IP with 3–6 x 106 CFU/mouse of strain AB3879 suspended in PBS with 5% porcine mucin. Dot plots represent bacterial CFU in the indicated target organs from individual mice (bars = means, error bars = SDs) 20–24 h after IP infection. Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance compared to no treatment controls (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns; not significant).

(DOCX)

ppat.1013958.s002.docx (60.4KB, docx)
S3 Fig. Colistin resistance data for clinical A. baumannii isolates.

Growth of A. baumannii clinical isolates over 24 h at 37°C in LB media (A) or LB plus 4 µg/ml colistin (B) (means, error bars = SDs, n = 3). MIC ≥ 4 µg/ml = resistant to colistin in accordance with CLSI MIC Breakpoints 2023. KL = K locus capsule type.

(DOCX)

ppat.1013958.s003.docx (114.6KB, docx)
S1 Table. Genome conservation data on selected microarray proteins, their surface localisation, RNAseq expression in human serum, and microarray data.

(XLSX)

ppat.1013958.s004.xlsx (253.4KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates and their antibiotic sensitivities (R = resistant).

(DOCX)

ppat.1013958.s005.docx (20KB, docx)
S3 Table. Acinetobacter baumannii strains used for genome analysis of gene conservation.

(XLSX)

ppat.1013958.s006.xlsx (92.1KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

Raw RNAseq data were uploaded to the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) and the individual data file accession numbers are as follows: ERR8982504, ERR8982505, ERR8982506, ERR8982507, ERR8982508, ERR8982509, ERR8982510, ERR8982511, ERR8982512, ERR8982513, ERR8982514, ERR8982515, ERR8982516, ERR8982517, ERR8982518, ERR8982519, ERR8982520, ERR8982521 (DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.853690). All remaining data supporting the findings of this study are available within the manuscript and its Supplementary Data files.

Funding Statement

The work was undertaken at UCLH/UCL who receive funding from the Department of Health’s NIHR Biomedical Research Centre’s funding scheme, and was supported by the Medical Research Council grant MR/S004394/1 and the BactiVac network grant BVNCP6-03. SP received salary support from MR/S004394/1 and BVNCP6-03, GK from MR/S004394/1, and GE and ERS from a Wellcome Investigator award 221803/Z/20/Z. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2022;399(10325):629–55. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02724-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization. WHO Bacterial Priority Pathogens List, 2024: Bacterial Pathogens of Public Health Importance to Guide Research, Development and Strategies to Prevent and Control Antimicrobial Resistance. 2024.
  • 3.Towner KJ. Acinetobacter: an old friend, but a new enemy. J Hosp Infect. 2009;73(4):355–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2009.03.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lim C, Takahashi E, Hongsuwan M, Wuthiekanun V, Thamlikitkul V, Hinjoy S, et al. Epidemiology and burden of multidrug-resistant bacterial infection in a developing country. Elife. 2016;5:e18082. doi: 10.7554/eLife.18082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Luo Q, Chang M, Lu P, Guo Q, Jiang X, Xiao T, et al. Genomic epidemiology and phylodynamics of Acinetobacter baumannii bloodstream isolates in China. Nat Commun. 2025;16(1):3536. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-58772-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Chung DR, Song J-H, Kim SH, Thamlikitkul V, Huang S-G, Wang H, et al. High prevalence of multidrug-resistant nonfermenters in hospital-acquired pneumonia in Asia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;184(12):1409–17. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201102-0349OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pormohammad A, Mehdinejadiani K, Gholizadeh P, Nasiri MJ, Mohtavinejad N, Dadashi M, et al. Global prevalence of colistin resistance in clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Microb Pathog. 2020;139:103887. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2019.103887 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lee H-Y, Chen C-L, Wu S-R, Huang C-W, Chiu C-H. Risk factors and outcome analysis of acinetobacter baumannii complex bacteremia in critical patients. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(5):1081–8. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Casadevall A, Dadachova E, Pirofski L. Passive antibody therapy for infectious diseases. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004;2(9):695–703. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro974 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wu Y, Wang F, Shen C, Peng W, Li D, Zhao C, et al. A noncompeting pair of human neutralizing antibodies block COVID-19 virus binding to its receptor ACE2. Science. 2020;368(6496):1274–8. doi: 10.1126/science.abc2241 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hammitt LL, Dagan R, Yuan Y, Baca Cots M, Bosheva M, Madhi SA, et al. Nirsevimab for prevention of RSV in healthy late-preterm and term infants. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(9):837–46. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2110275 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pantaleo G, Correia B, Fenwick C, Joo VS, Perez L. Antibodies to combat viral infections: development strategies and progress. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2022;21(9):676–96. doi: 10.1038/s41573-022-00495-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.McConnell MJ. Where are we with monoclonal antibodies for multidrug-resistant infections?. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(5):1132–8. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2019.03.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zurawski DV, McLendon MK. Monoclonal antibodies as an antibacterial approach against bacterial pathogens. Antibiotics (Basel). 2020;9(4):155. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics9040155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Antonelli G, Cappelli L, Cinelli P, Cuffaro R, Manca B, Nicchi S, et al. Strategies to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance: The example of escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(9):4943. doi: 10.3390/ijms22094943 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Baker S, Krishna A, Higham S, Naydenova P, O’Leary S, Scott JB, et al. Exploiting human immune repertoire transgenic mice for protective monoclonal antibodies against antimicrobial resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):7979. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-52357-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Russo TA, Beanan JM, Olson R, MacDonald U, Cox AD, St Michael F, et al. The K1 capsular polysaccharide from Acinetobacter baumannii is a potential therapeutic target via passive immunization. Infect Immun. 2013;81(3):915–22. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01184-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Daniels CC, Rogers PD, Shelton CM. A review of pneumococcal vaccines: current polysaccharide vaccine recommendations and future protein antigens. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2016;21(1):27–35. doi: 10.5863/1551-6776-21.1.27 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Singh JK, Adams FG, Brown MH. Diversity and function of capsular polysaccharide in Acinetobacter baumannii. Front Microbiol. 2019;9:3301. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.03301 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Loraine J, Heinz E, Soontarach R, Blackwell GA, Stabler RA, Voravuthikunchai SP, et al. Genomic and phenotypic analyses of acinetobacter baumannii isolates from three tertiary care hospitals in Thailand. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:548. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00548 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wang-Lin SX, Olson R, Beanan JM, MacDonald U, Balthasar JP, Russo TA. The capsular polysaccharide of Acinetobacter baumannii Is an obstacle for therapeutic passive immunization strategies. Infect Immun. 2017;85(12):e00591-17. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00591-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hyams C, Camberlein E, Cohen JM, Bax K, Brown JS. The Streptococcus pneumoniae capsule inhibits complement activity and neutrophil phagocytosis by multiple mechanisms. Infect Immun. 2010;78(2):704–15. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00881-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mat Rahim N, Lee H, Strych U, AbuBakar S. Facing the challenges of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii: progress and prospects in the vaccine development. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2021;17(10):3784–94. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1927412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yeganeh O, Shabani M, Pakzad P, Mosaffa N, Hashemi A. Production and characterization of novel monoclonal antibodies against outer membrane protein A (OmpA) of Acinetobacter baumannii. J Immunol Methods. 2021;499:113169. doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2021.113169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Singh R, Capalash N, Sharma P. Immunoprotective potential of BamA, the outer membrane protein assembly factor, against MDR Acinetobacter baumannii. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):12411. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-12789-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rasooli I, Abdolhamidi R, Jahangiri A, Darvish Alipour Astaneh S. Outer Membrane Protein, Oma87 Prevents Acinetobacter baumannii Infection. Int J Pept Res Ther. 2020;26(4):2653–60. doi: 10.1007/s10989-020-10056-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Vieira de Araujo AE, Conde LV, da Silva Junior HC, de Almeida Machado L, Lara FA, Chapeaurouge A, et al. Cross-reactivity and immunotherapeutic potential of BamA recombinant protein from Acinetobacter baumannii. Microbes Infect. 2021;23(4–5):104801. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2021.104801 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Huang W, Yao Y, Wang S, Xia Y, Yang X, Long Q, et al. Immunization with a 22-kDa outer membrane protein elicits protective immunity to multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Sci Rep. 2016;6:20724. doi: 10.1038/srep20724 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Naghipour Erami A, Rasooli I, Jahangiri A, Darvish Alipour Astaneh S. Anti-Omp34 antibodies protect against Acinetobacter baumannii in a murine sepsis model. Microb Pathog. 2021;161(Pt B):105291. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2021.105291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Goel VK, Kapil A. Monoclonal antibodies against the iron regulated outer membrane Proteins of Acinetobacter baumannii are bactericidal. BMC Microbiol. 2001;1:16. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-1-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Aghajani Z, Rasooli I, Mousavi Gargari SL. Exploitation of two siderophore receptors, BauA and BfnH, for protection against Acinetobacter baumannii infection. APMIS. 2019;127(12):753–63. doi: 10.1111/apm.12992 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Garg N, Singh R, Shukla G, Capalash N, Sharma P. Immunoprotective potential of in silico predicted Acinetobacter baumannii outer membrane nuclease, NucAb. Int J Med Microbiol. 2016;306(1):1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2015.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kamuyu G, Suen Cheng Y, Willcocks S, Kewcharoenwong C, Kiratisin P, Taylor PW, et al. Sequential vaccination with heterologous Acinetobacter baumannii strains induces broadly reactive antibody responses. Front Immunol. 2021;12:705533. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.705533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bai J, Dai Y, Farinha A, Tang AY, Syal S, Vargas-Cuebas G, et al. Essential gene analysis in acinetobacter baumannii by high-density transposon mutagenesis and CRISPR interference. J Bacteriol. 2021;203(12):e0056520. doi: 10.1128/JB.00565-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kamuyu G, Ercoli G, Ramos-Sevillano E, Willcocks S, Kewcharoenwong C, Kiratisin P, et al. Strain Specific variations in acinetobacter baumannii complement sensitivity. Front Immunol. 2022;13:853690. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.853690 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Harris G, Holbein BE, Zhou H, Xu HH, Chen W. Potential mechanisms of mucin-enhanced acinetobacter baumannii virulence in the mouse model of intraperitoneal infection. Infect Immun. 2019;87(11):e00591-19. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00591-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Harris G, KuoLee R, Xu HH, Chen W. Mouse models of Acinetobacter baumannii Infection. Curr Protoc Microbiol. 2017;46:6G.3.1-6G.3.23. doi: 10.1002/cpmc.36 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Higham SL, Baker S, Flight KE, Krishna A, Kellam P, Reece ST, et al. Intranasal immunization with outer membrane vesicles (OMV) protects against airway colonization and systemic infection with Acinetobacter baumannii. J Infect. 2023;86(6):563–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2023.02.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Schultz MB, Pham Thanh D, Tran Do Hoan N, Wick RR, Ingle DJ, Hawkey J, et al. Repeated local emergence of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in a single hospital ward. Microb Genom. 2016;2(3):e000050. doi: 10.1099/mgen.0.000050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Tacconelli E, Carrara E, Savoldi A, Harbarth S, Mendelson M, Monnet DL, et al. Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: the WHO priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and tuberculosis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(3):318–27. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30753-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Almasaudi SB. Acinetobacter spp. as nosocomial pathogens: Epidemiology and resistance features. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2018;25(3):586–96. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2016.02.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Perez F, Hujer AM, Hujer KM, Decker BK, Rather PN, Bonomo RA. Global challenge of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51(10):3471–84. doi: 10.1128/AAC.01464-06 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Uppalapati SR, Sett A, Pathania R. The outer membrane proteins OmpA, CarO, and OprD of Acinetobacter baumannii confer a two-pronged defense in facilitating its success as a potent human pathogen. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:589234. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.589234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Rumbo C, Tomás M, Fernández Moreira E, Soares NC, Carvajal M, Santillana E, et al. The Acinetobacter baumannii Omp33-36 porin is a virulence factor that induces apoptosis and modulates autophagy in human cells. Infect Immun. 2014;82(11):4666–80. doi: 10.1128/IAI.02034-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Wu X, Chavez JD, Schweppe DK, Zheng C, Weisbrod CR, Eng JK, et al. In vivo protein interaction network analysis reveals porin-localized antibiotic inactivation in Acinetobacter baumannii strain AB5075. Nat Commun. 2016;7:13414. doi: 10.1038/ncomms13414 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Siroy A, Molle V, Lemaître-Guillier C, Vallenet D, Pestel-Caron M, Cozzone AJ, et al. Channel formation by CarO, the carbapenem resistance-associated outer membrane protein of Acinetobacter baumannii. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49(12):4876–83. doi: 10.1128/AAC.49.12.4876-4883.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kovacs-Simon A, Titball RW, Michell SL. Lipoproteins of bacterial pathogens. Infect Immun. 2011;79(2):548–61. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00682-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Huang K-J, Pantua H, Diao J, Skippington E, Volny M, Sandoval W, et al. Deletion of a previously uncharacterized lipoprotein lirL confers resistance to an inhibitor of type II signal peptidase in Acinetobacter baumannii. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022;119(38):e2123117119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2123117119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Seib KL, Serruto D, Oriente F, Delany I, Adu-Bobie J, Veggi D, et al. Factor H-binding protein is important for meningococcal survival in human whole blood and serum and in the presence of the antimicrobial peptide LL-37. Infect Immun. 2009;77(1):292–9. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01071-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Deghmane A-E, Taha M-K. Product review on the IMD serogroup B vaccine Bexsero®. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2022;18(1):2020043. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2021.2020043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Russo TA, Luke NR, Beanan JM, Olson R, Sauberan SL, MacDonald U, et al. The K1 capsular polysaccharide of Acinetobacter baumannii strain 307-0294 is a major virulence factor. Infect Immun. 2010;78(9):3993–4000. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00366-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Huang Q, Yang J, Li C, Song Y, Zhu Y, Zhao N, et al. Structural characterization of PaFkbA: A periplasmic chaperone from Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2021;19:2460–7. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2021.04.045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Kim H, Wu K, Lee C. Stress-Responsive Periplasmic Chaperones in Bacteria. Front Mol Biosci. 2021;8:678697. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2021.678697 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Luo G, Lin L, Ibrahim AS, Baquir B, Pantapalangkoor P, Bonomo RA, et al. Active and passive immunization protects against lethal, extreme drug resistant-Acinetobacter baumannii infection. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e29446. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029446 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Tamehri M, Rasooli I, Pishgahi M, Jahangiri A, Ramezanalizadeh F, Banisaeed Langroodi SR. Combination of BauA and OmpA elicit immunoprotection against Acinetobacter baumannii in a murine sepsis model. Microb Pathog. 2022;173(Pt A):105874. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2022.105874 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Bentancor LV, Routray A, Bozkurt-Guzel C, Camacho-Peiro A, Pier GB, Maira-Litrán T. Evaluation of the trimeric autotransporter Ata as a vaccine candidate against Acinetobacter baumannii infections. Infect Immun. 2012;80(10):3381–8. doi: 10.1128/IAI.06096-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Li H, Tan H, Hu Y, Pan P, Su X, Hu C. Small protein A and phospholipase D immunization serves a protective role in a mouse pneumonia model of Acinetobacter baumannii infection. Mol Med Rep. 2017;16(2):1071–8. doi: 10.3892/mmr.2017.6688 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Darzi Eslam E, Darvish Alipour Astaneh S, Rasooli I, Nazarian S, Jahangiri A. Passive immunization with chitosan-loaded biofilm-associated protein against Acinetobacter baumannii murine infection model. Gene Reports. 2020;20:100708. doi: 10.1016/j.genrep.2020.100708 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Skerniškytė J, Karazijaitė E, Deschamps J, Krasauskas R, Armalytė J, Briandet R, et al. Blp1 protein shows virulence-associated features and elicits protective immunity to Acinetobacter baumannii infection. BMC Microbiol. 2019;19(1):259. doi: 10.1186/s12866-019-1615-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Qamsari MM, Rasooli I, Chaudhuri S, Astaneh SDA, Schryvers AB. Hybrid antigens expressing surface loops of znud from acinetobacter baumannii is capable of inducing protection against infection. Front Immunol. 2020;11:158. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Bentancor LV, O’Malley JM, Bozkurt-Guzel C, Pier GB, Maira-Litrán T. Poly-N-acetyl-β-(1-6)-glucosamine is a target for protective immunity against Acinetobacter baumannii infections. Infect Immun. 2012;80(2):651–6. doi: 10.1128/IAI.05653-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Sunenshine RH, Wright M-O, Maragakis LL, Harris AD, Song X, Hebden J, et al. Multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter infection mortality rate and length of hospitalization. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13(1):97–103. doi: 10.3201/eid1301.060716 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Breslow JM, Meissler JJ Jr, Hartzell RR, Spence PB, Truant A, Gaughan J, et al. Innate immune responses to systemic Acinetobacter baumannii infection in mice: neutrophils, but not interleukin-17, mediate host resistance. Infect Immun. 2011;79(8):3317–27. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00069-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Nielsen TB, Yan J, Luna BM, Talyansky Y, Slarve M, Bonomo RA, et al. Monoclonal antibody requires immunomodulation for efficacy against Acinetobacter baumannii Infection. J Infect Dis. 2021;224(12):2133–47. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiab265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Talyansky Y, Nielsen TB, Yan J, Carlino-Macdonald U, Di Venanzio G, Chakravorty S, et al. Capsule carbohydrate structure determines virulence in Acinetobacter baumannii. PLoS Pathog. 2021;17(2):e1009291. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1009291 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Huang X, Li X, An H, Wang J, Ding M, Wang L, et al. Capsule type defines the capability of Klebsiella pneumoniae in evading Kupffer cell capture in the liver. PLoS Pathog. 2022;18(8):e1010693. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1010693 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.An H, Qian C, Huang Y, Li J, Tian X, Feng J, et al. Functional vulnerability of liver macrophages to capsules defines virulence of blood-borne bacteria. J Exp Med. 2022;219(4):e20212032. doi: 10.1084/jem.20212032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Gallagher LA, Ramage E, Weiss EJ, Radey M, Hayden HS, Held KG, et al. Resources for Genetic and Genomic Analysis of Emerging Pathogen Acinetobacter baumannii. J Bacteriol. 2015;197(12):2027–35. doi: 10.1128/JB.00131-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Palethorpe S, Farrow JM 3rd, Wells G, Milton ME, Actis LA, Cavanagh J, et al. Acinetobacter baumannii Regulates Its Stress Responses via the BfmRS Two-Component Regulatory System. J Bacteriol. 2022;204(2):e0049421. doi: 10.1128/JB.00494-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Bailey J, Gallagher L, Barker WT, Hubble VB, Gasper J, Melander C, et al. Genetic dissection of antibiotic adjuvant activity. mBio. 2022;13(1):e0308421. doi: 10.1128/mbio.03084-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Ramos-Sevillano E, Ercoli G, Guerra-Assunção JA, Felgner P, Ramiro de Assis R, Nakajima R, et al. Protective effect of nasal colonisation with ∆cps/piaA and ∆cps/proABCStreptococcus pneumoniae strains against recolonisation and invasive infection. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;9(3):261. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9030261 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Page AJ, Cummins CA, Hunt M, Wong VK, Reuter S, Holden MTG, et al. Roary: rapid large-scale prokaryote pan genome analysis. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(22):3691–3. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Sasson JM, Campo JJ, Carpenter RM, Young MK, Randall AZ, Trappl-Kimmons K, et al. Diverse humoral immune responses in younger and older adult COVID-19 patients. mBio. 2021;12(3):e0122921. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01229-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Ercoli G, Ramos-Sevillano E, Nakajima R, de Assis RR, Jasinskas A, Goldblatt D, et al. The influence of B cell depletion therapy on naturally acquired immunity to Streptococcus pneumoniae. Front Immunol. 2021;11:611661. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.611661 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Croucher NJ, Campo JJ, Le TQ, Liang X, Bentley SD, Hanage WP, et al. Diverse evolutionary patterns of pneumococcal antigens identified by pangenome-wide immunological screening. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(3):E357–66. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1613937114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

D Scott Samuels, Lauren D Palmer

7 Oct 2025

Identification of multiple Acinetobacter baumannii protein antigens as targets for potential immunotherapies using a novel protein microarray screening approach

PLOS Pathogens

Dear Dr. Brown,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Pathogens. Again, we sincerely apologize for the delay in the review process. Your manuscript was evaluated by members of the editorial board, a guest editor, and three external referees. All believe that your study is interesting and important, but have concerns that need to be addressed. Therefore, we invite you to submit a substantially revised version of the manuscript that addresses all of the points raised by the three reviewers. In particular, you need additional discussion of the biological functions of the antigens, clarification of experimental details, controls that include whether LPS is present in the vaccine preparations, and publicly available RNA-seq data..

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Dec 06 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plospathogens@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/ppathogens/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Lauren D. Palmer, PhD

Guest Editor

PLOS Pathogens

D. Scott Samuels

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

1) Please provide an Author Summary. This should appear in your manuscript between the Abstract (if applicable) and the Introduction, and should be 150-200 words long. The aim should be to make your findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. Sample summaries can be found on our website under Submission Guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/s/submission-guidelines#loc-parts-of-a-submission

2) Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/s/figures

3) Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

1) State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant. For example: "This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (####### to AM; ###### to CJ) and the National Science Foundation (###### to AM)."

2) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

3) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders..

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: u201cThe authors received no specific funding for this work.u201d

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: Overall this is a very interesting study that identifies multiple novel antigens and evaluates their potential as vaccine candidates. A key part of the novelty lies in the methodology where a novel protein microarray approach was used. Three candidates from this array were taken forward for further characterisation alongside a positive control in BamA which was been used extensively in candidate vaccine studies. Polyclonal antibodies are raised to these novel vaccine candidates and used to demonstrate cellular localisation of the targets but also that some can be targeted in a capsulated cell (Ag-1 and Ag-11) while others (Ag-5/7) have limited binding in capsulated cells. However, they both performed better in a capsulated Thai clinical isolate (Ab3879) which suggests KL type will influence efficacy, as expected. ELISAs were also used to confirm recognition across strains with α-Ag-1 showing the highest titre. The robust mouse studies which include multiple infection models are a particular highlight of the study as they offer robust in vivo validation of the potential efficacy of these candidates. The study overall is well structured with a clear rationale throughout and a strong supporting narrative.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well-aligned with its title, and the data presented strongly support the study’s objectives. The protein array results were foundational, guiding the selection of candidate antigens for immunotherapy and informing subsequent experimental steps.

The primary aim of the study was to identify bacterial envelope proteins from Acinetobacter baumannii that could serve as promising targets for immunotherapeutic strategies, including vaccines or antibody-based treatments. RNA sequencing was employed to identify proteins highly expressed in human serum, and these findings were cross-referenced with a protein microarray probed using mouse serum. This approach enabled the selection of antigens for polyclonal antibody production and in vivo screening. In addition to the positive control, three novel candidates were identified. The study further investigated the mechanisms of immune activation associated with these candidates.

The methodology used to identify immunogenic components of A. baumannii is innovative, particularly the comparative analysis of protein expression across multiple clinical strains in human serum. The inclusion of both encapsulated and non-encapsulated strains as controls adds rigor to the experimental design. Furthermore, the study provides valuable insights into antibody binding loci, dosing efficacy in murine models, differential effectiveness in pulmonary versus bloodstream infections, and the immunostimulatory properties of the polyclonal antibodies. Collectively, these findings represent a comprehensive and meaningful advancement in the development of targeted therapies against A. baumannii.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript by Palethorpe et al describes the identification of A. baumanii proteins as protective antigens. A protein array was created containing antigens expressed by clinical isolates, identified by RNAseq and genome comparisons. Putative antigens were identified by screening sera from A. baumanii infected mice for recognition of antigens on the microarray.

A set of antigens was selected for further testing and produced as recombinant proteins in E. coli. Serum from rabbits immunized with the individual antigens was passively transferred into naïve mice to demonstrate protection against infection. Several protective antigens were identified in this study, which provides the basis for developing prophylactic or therapeutic vaccines against A. baumanii. Mechanistic studies showed the involvement of complement factors and neutrophils in bacterial clearance.

Major comments:

1. Was LPS removed from the protein preparations? If not, LPS contamination can affect immune responses in vivo.

2. Were rabbits immunized with the protein antigens alone, or with an adjuvant, to generate antibodies? This should be clarified.

3. The number of animals per group, the sex of the animals, and whether the experiments were repeated, should be included in the legends of each figure.

4. Figure 2A will be easier to read if purified antigens and bacterial lysates were run on the same gel next to each other. Label each lane with the name of the lysate, rather than referring to them as left and right lanes.

5. ELISA assays use no sera as the negative control. Inclusion of serum from a cytoplasmic protein, or unrelated antigen would be a better control.

6. Treatment of a group of mice with isotype control antibody along with anti-Ly6G is an important control for the depletion experiments.

7. It is important to test whether active immunization with purified proteins generates protective immune responses in mice.

8. The histograms in Figure 5 should be labeled to improve readability of the figure.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: • The initial RNA-Seq experiments in broth versus ex vivo serum are practically not discussed at all. A proper detailed analysis and interpretation of this data would be extremely useful to the field and likely expand the interest in the study overall.

• The three novel candidates are only explored through the realm of being protein antigens. It would be useful to describe what they are in more detail and their potential roles in the cell. Data to support a role for these candidates in fitness (perhaps in serum?) or pathogenicity would also be interesting and add to the story overall. As it stands there biological role is largely ignored despite transcriptomic data and subsequent ELISA data highlighting their importance.

Reviewer #2: None

Reviewer #3: Testing LPS content in the purified proteins.

Isotype control antibody treatment of mice as a control for neutrophil depletion.

Active immunization with the recombinant proteins to demonstrate protection.

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: Throughout the study different strains are used for different assays, more rationale is needed each time a strain is dropped or included in each assay for example Line 217 why select these two strains here? And why for example were AB5075 and the corresponding wza mutant not included here?

• Line 200 Clarify what KL type Ab3879 is here. 2o Only needs to be clearly identified in each of the relevant figure legends.

• Line 208 rationale should be given for the differences particularly when independent of KL type. Needs more interpretation in the discussion also.

• Line 232 reasons for the lack of alignment should be briefly mentioned here and expanded upon in more detail in the discussion.

• Line 240 more detail needed here. Why was this strain selected when mucin needed to support colonisation? Citation(s) needed here.

• Line 310 previously described as ex vivo serum?

• The RNA-Seq data does not appear to have been deposited in an open access data for reviewer analysis.

• Would also recommend including a statement that they Thai strains are available to the wider research community upon request or (and I couldn’t see that this was the case) be deposited in a centralized collection.

Reviewer #2: While I have no major concerns, I recommend that the authors:

• Explain why they staed that potential dimers were formed for Ag5in line 185 and why only for Ag5. Are the immnoblots doen on Native-Page gels?

• Comment on the essentiality of the proteins that were tested.

• The authors could also expand the discussion to include a more detailed comparison between the human and mouse serum microarray results.

Additionally, the following questions merit consideration:

• Could the identified candidates be used in combinatorial immunotherapy?

• How might prophylactic treatment be administered prior to confirmed infection?

• What is the intended target population for such therapies?

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Figure resubmission:

Reproducibility:

?>

Decision Letter 1

D Scott Samuels, Lauren D Palmer

9 Jan 2026

PPATHOGENS-D-25-01927R1

Identification of multiple Acinetobacter baumannii protein antigens as targets for potential immunotherapies using a novel protein microarray screening approach

PLOS Pathogens

Dear Dr. Brown,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Pathogens. We appreciate your patience with delays in the review process over the holiday break. Your revised manuscript was evaluated by members of the editorial board and one of the previous reviewers. All believe that your study is interesting and important and that revisions addressed previously raised concerns. Only minor concerns remain to be addressed:

1. Report the amount of LPS present in the methods section as requested by Reviewer 3

2. Correct the typo in the Author Summary, should be "One important AMR bacterium"

3. Line 285 (marked): "polyclonal IgG antibodies"?

4. Line 515 (marked): Revise to more clearly indicate that the RNAseq datasets were previously published, e.g. "Transcriptome analyses by RNAseq were previously described"

Please submit your revised manuscript within 14 days. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plospathogens@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/ppathogens/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Lauren D. Palmer, PhD

Guest Editor

PLOS Pathogens

D. Scott Samuels

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #3: The authors have provided comprehensive responses to the reviewers' comments and added additional data to support the use of new antigens as vaccine targets.

Concern: while LPS was quantified in the protein preparations, the amount of LPS present was not reported. Please add this to the methods section.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #3: No

Figure resubmission:

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Decision Letter 2

D Scott Samuels, Lauren D Palmer

30 Jan 2026

Dear Dr. Brown,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Identification of multiple Acinetobacter baumannii protein antigens as targets for potential immunotherapies using a novel protein microarray screening approach' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Lauren D. Palmer, PhD

Guest Editor

PLOS Pathogens

D. Scott Samuels

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Acceptance letter

D Scott Samuels, Lauren D Palmer

Dear Dr. Brown,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Identification of multiple Acinetobacter baumannii protein antigens as targets for potential immunotherapies using a novel protein microarray screening approach," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

For Research Articles, you will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Effects of less protective rabbit IgG to selected antigens.

    (A and B) Mice (n = 6) were passively immunised by intraperitoneal (IP) inoculation of 50 μg rabbit polyclonal IgG or PBS 4 h before IP inoculation with 3–6 x 106 CFU/mouse of strain AB3879 suspended in PBS with 5% porcine mucin. Dot plots represent bacterial CFU in the indicated target organs from individual mice (bars = means, error bars = SDs) 20–24 h after IP infection. Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance compared to PBS controls (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns; not significant). (C and D) Mean (SDs) C3b/iC3b deposition index (% positive x median fluorescent intensity of bacteria staining positive for C3b/iC3b) after incubation in normal human serum (NHS only), or NHS plus antibody (as indicated), or the secondary antibody alone (2° Only).

    (DOCX)

    ppat.1013958.s001.docx (46.3KB, docx)
    S2 Fig. Neutrophil depletion prevents passive protection by rabbit antibodies to selected antigens.

    Mice (n = 6) were injected intraperitoneally (IP) with PBS, α-Ly6G, or an isotype control antibody 24 h prior to passive immunization by IP inoculation of 50 µg of rabbit polyclonal IgG to Ag7, or PBS. 4 h post-immunization mice were inoculated IP with 3–6 x 106 CFU/mouse of strain AB3879 suspended in PBS with 5% porcine mucin. Dot plots represent bacterial CFU in the indicated target organs from individual mice (bars = means, error bars = SDs) 20–24 h after IP infection. Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance compared to no treatment controls (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ns; not significant).

    (DOCX)

    ppat.1013958.s002.docx (60.4KB, docx)
    S3 Fig. Colistin resistance data for clinical A. baumannii isolates.

    Growth of A. baumannii clinical isolates over 24 h at 37°C in LB media (A) or LB plus 4 µg/ml colistin (B) (means, error bars = SDs, n = 3). MIC ≥ 4 µg/ml = resistant to colistin in accordance with CLSI MIC Breakpoints 2023. KL = K locus capsule type.

    (DOCX)

    ppat.1013958.s003.docx (114.6KB, docx)
    S1 Table. Genome conservation data on selected microarray proteins, their surface localisation, RNAseq expression in human serum, and microarray data.

    (XLSX)

    ppat.1013958.s004.xlsx (253.4KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. Acinetobacter baumannii clinical isolates and their antibiotic sensitivities (R = resistant).

    (DOCX)

    ppat.1013958.s005.docx (20KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Acinetobacter baumannii strains used for genome analysis of gene conservation.

    (XLSX)

    ppat.1013958.s006.xlsx (92.1KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PPATHOGENS-D-25 ResponseToReviewers.docx

    ppat.1013958.s008.docx (31.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PPATHOGENS-D-25-01927 ResponseToReviewers.docx

    ppat.1013958.s009.docx (21.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Raw RNAseq data were uploaded to the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) and the individual data file accession numbers are as follows: ERR8982504, ERR8982505, ERR8982506, ERR8982507, ERR8982508, ERR8982509, ERR8982510, ERR8982511, ERR8982512, ERR8982513, ERR8982514, ERR8982515, ERR8982516, ERR8982517, ERR8982518, ERR8982519, ERR8982520, ERR8982521 (DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.853690). All remaining data supporting the findings of this study are available within the manuscript and its Supplementary Data files.


    Articles from PLOS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES