Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Oct 27;16(10):e0259114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259114

The DNA co-vaccination using Sm antigen and IL-10 as prophylactic experimental therapy ameliorates nephritis in a model of lupus induced by pristane

Beatriz Teresita Martín-Márquez 1,2, Minoru Satoh 3, Rogelio Hernández-Pando 4, Erika Aurora Martínez-García 1,2,5, Marcelo Heron Petri 1,6, Flavio Sandoval-García 1,7,8, Oscar Pizano-Martinez 1,2,9, Trinidad García-Iglesias 10, Fernanda Isadora Corona-Meraz 1,8,11, Monica Vázquez-Del Mercado 1,2,12,*
Editor: Masataka Kuwana13
PMCID: PMC8550422  PMID: 34705865

Abstract

Introduction

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease characterized by the production of autoantibodies such as anti-Sm. Studies in patients with SLE and murine models of lupus reveal that the most critical anti-Sm autoantibodies are predominantly direct against D1(83–119), D2, and B´/B epitopes.

Objectives

The present study aimed to analyze the induction of antigen-specific tolerance after prophylactic immunization with a DNA vaccine encoding the epitopes: D183-119, D2, B´/B, and B´/BCOOH in co-vaccination with IFN-γ or IL-10 in a murine model of lupus induced by pristane.

Material and methods

To obtain endotoxin-free DNA vaccines, direct cloning techniques using pcDNA were performed: D183-119, D2, B´/B, B´/BCOOH, IFN-γ, or IL-10. Lupus was induced by 0.5 mL of pristane via intraperitoneal in BALB/c female mice. Immunoprecipitation with K562 cells was metabolically labeled with 35S and ELISA to detect serum antibodies or mice IgG1, IgG2a isotypes. ELISA determined IL-10 and IFN-γ from splenocytes supernatants. Proteinuria was assessed monthly, and lupus nephritis was evaluated by immunofluorescence, and electron microscopy.

Results

The prophylactic co-vaccination with D2/IL-10 reduced the expression of kidney damage observed by electron microscopy, direct immunofluorescence, and H & E, along with reduced level of anti-nRNP/Sm antibodies (P = 0.048).

Conclusion

The prophylactic co-vaccination of IL-10 with D2 in pristane-induced lupus ameliorates the renal damage maybe by acting as prophylactic DNA tolerizing therapy.

Introduction

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disease characterized by the spontaneous production of autoantibodies against self-antigens such as double-stranded DNA (dsDNA), histones, and small nuclear ribonucleoproteins (snRNP), including Smith (Sm) antigen. The anti-Sm antibodies are considered for the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) as a classification criterion for SLE diagnosis [13]. SLE patients present various clinical manifestations resulting from multiple-organ damage, especially the skin, kidney, heart, and central and peripheral nervous system, among others [4]. Anti-Sm antibody was first detected in 1966 and is present in approximately a third of SLE patients associated with nephritis [57]. The Sm antigen is part of the spliceosomal complex and is composed of at least nine different polypeptides with molecular weights ranging from 9–29.5 kDa, including B (B1, 28), B´ (B2, 29), N (B3, 29.5), D1 (16), D2 (16.5), D3 (18), E (12), F (11) and G (9). The Sm core complex is associated with U1, U2, U4, U5 RNA and participates in pre-mRNA splicing [6, 8]. Autoantigenicity against Sm polypeptides has been detected for most of them; nevertheless, the primary targets are B and D1 polypeptides [5, 8, 9]. Regarding D1 polypeptide, studies revealed that the C-terminal peptide of D1 is a glycine-arginine (GR)-rich epitope (residues 83–119) that is recognized as a significant target and is associated with human and murine lupus with 70% of sensitivity and 94% of specificity [8, 1012]. Meanwhile, about B´/B polypeptide, an octapeptide PPPGMRPP repeated three times at the carboxy terminus (B´/BCOOH), is a target of the early autoimmune response in some SLE patients [13]. Experimental studies demonstrate that immunization with PPGMRPP induces lupus, and it has been hypothesized that this octapeptide has a structural similarity with the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) nuclear antigen (EBNA-1) [14]. On the other hand, it has been identified that the D2 polypeptide could play a role in SLE because specific D2 epitopes are involved in partly binding D1 90–102 amino acids, being one of the highest areas of reactivity in D2-positive SLE sera [12]. However, there is no information about a specific antigen induction or protective role related to the D2 epitope in murine models of lupus.

During the development of nacked DNA vaccine therapy in experimental lupus, one approach could be using of a tailoring therapy using co-vaccination: autoantigen epitopes and cytokines could be a promising clinical approach that, in the best scenario, would be able to translate it from bench to bedside. A prototype cytokine that meets all the experimental requirements to be a key molecule in triggering kidney damage in mice lupus is the IFN-γ, a TH1 cytokine [1517]. IFN-γ is considered crucial in the pathogenesis of lupus nephritis based on genetically susceptible strains like NZB x W (B x W) F1 [18]. Notwithstanding, it has been observed that continuous administration of anti-IL-10 (TH2) delays the onset of autoimmunity in B x W mice [19] with a suppressive effect of IL-10 in genetically deficient mice of IL-10 MRL-Faslpr. These findings suggest that IL-10 can regulate murine lupus, particularly in early stages, and can act as an enhancer or inhibitor of autoimmunity, altering the penetrance of autoantibodies and the production of IgG2a [20].

It has been proven that DNA co-vaccination along with some autoantigens TH1 or TH2 cytokines might be a potential tool used for experimental treatment in autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE) and, autoimmune diabetes [21, 22]. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the induction of antigen-specific tolerance by a prophylactic co-vaccination with DNA encoding Sm antigens along with IL-10 or IFN-γ in a pristane-induced murine model of lupus.

Materials and methods

Animals

A total of 130 female BALB/c mice from 6–8 weeks old were obtained from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México-Envigo RMS Laboratory in México City, and housed in the animal facility of Instituto de Investigación en Reumatología y del Sistema Músculo Esquelético, Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Guadalajara, under the following conditions: 2–4 animals in clear cages (7.6x11.6x4.8 inches) classified by a numerical and color code per treatment, controlled temperature room at 22±1°C, positive laminar flow, 40–70% relative humidity, 12 hours of light/dark cycles, pine shavings bedding and fed ad libitum with purified water and with normo-caloric diet (Harlan Tekland™ Global 2019). The prophylactic and control groups were randomly assigned. In efforts to ensure animal welfare and alleviate the suffering, we established the following procedures: single trained operator for animal allocation and handling during the stages of the experiment, sufficient bedding material (1 cm depth), assurance sleep/wake cycles, light levels not greater than 300 lumens and noise no more than 85dB [23]. Since this was a prophylactic approach, we do not include inclusion criteria beyond the strain, gender weeks of age, or exclusions for experiments.

Mice were monitored weekly, and we established an ethical endpoint (proteinuria plus deteriorating general health condition, weight loss > 20%, immobility greater than 12 hr., epilepsy, coma, paralysis, and extreme pain). The measure of spontaneous emitted pain was assessed with the mouse grimace scale [24]. Mice were euthanized by CO2 inhalation in a euthanasia chamber at a rate of 20–30% CO2 chamber volume per minute. Blood, spleen, and kidneys were collected for further analysis. The Institutional Review Board approved the protocol (IRB) of the Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Guadalajara (MX/a/2016/010823) and, all experimental procedures were carried out in compliance with the guidelines for animal research (NOM 0062-ZOO-1999 and NOM-033-ZOO-1995) and were performed to analyze the induction of antigen-specific tolerance after prophylactic immunization with a DNA vaccine encoding the Sm epitopes in co-vaccination with IFN-γ or IL-10 in a murine model of lupus induced by pristane.

Tolerizing DNA vaccines

DNA constructs encoding murine Sm antigens as D183-119; D2; B´/B; B´/BCOOH and the cytokines IFN-γ and IL-10 were cloned into pcDNA™ 3.1 D/V5-His-TOPO® mammalian expression vector (Invitrogen™, Carlsbad, CA). cDNA encoding for these molecules was amplified from mouse splenocytes using RT-PCR and the following oligonucleotides primers: D183-119 forward 5’ CACCGTTGAACCTAAGGTGAAGTCTAAGAAA 3’ and reverse 5´ TCGCCTAGGACCCCCTCTTCCTCTGCC 3´; D2 forward 5´ CACCATGAGTCTCCTCAATAAACCC 3´ and reverse 5´ CTTGCCAGCGATGAGTGGGTTCCG 3´, full-length B´/B forward 5´CACCATGACGGTGGGCAAGAGCAGCAAGATGCTG 3´ and reverse 5´ AGGCAGACCTCGCATGCCTGGAGGAGG 3´; B´/BCOOH forward 5´ CACCCCCCCTCCTGGCATGCGGCCTCCT 3´ and reverse 5´ AGGAGGCCGCATGCCAGGAGGGGG 3´; IFN-γ forward 5´ CACCATGAACGCTACACACTGC 3´ and reverse 5´ GCAGCGACTCCTTTTCCGCTTCCT 3´; IL-10 forward 5´ CACCTAGAGACTTGCTCTTGCACTACCAA 3´, and reverse 5´ ATCCCTGGATCAGATTTAGAGAGCT 3´. The RT-PCR was performed in a final reaction volume of 50μL (30μM forward and reverse primer, 10X PCR Buffer, Taq DNA polymerase 5U/μL and, 2μL cDNA). The reaction conditions were: holding at 95°C/4 min, cycling at 30 cycles of 95°C/45s, 60°C/90s and, 72°C/90s. DNA constructs were amplified in Escherichia coli One Shot® Top10 (Invitrogen™, Carlsbad CA), then we obtained the DNA of interest using Qiagen Endo-Free® Giga Prep kits (Qiagen™ GmbH D-40724 Hilden).

Prophylactic treatment

The experimental animals were divided into eight groups of 13 female BALB/c mice per treatment and received an injection of 0.1 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine-HCl (Sigma-Chemical Co., St Louis, MO, USA) in DPBS (Gibco® Invitrogen™) in the left quadriceps at day 0. On days 2 and 10, the mice received intramuscular injections of 100 μg of a cocktail mixture of pcDNA™3.1 D/V5-His-TOPO® ™ (Invitrogen™ Carlsbad, CA) encoding either: D183-119, D2, B´/B or B´/BCOOH co-vaccinated IFN-γ or IL-10 encoded into pcDNA™3.1D/V5-His-TOPO® (Fig 1). The sample size was calculated based on tolerizing DNA vaccines designed experiments [21, 25], and the exact value of n in each experiment was described in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Schematic representation of the study design of prophylactic DNA vaccination in a murine lupus model.

Fig 1

Panel A) Female BALB/c mice were included as control group and experimental group. Panel B) Experimental procedures timepoint for control group and prophylactic DNA vaccination group. Abbreviatures: D = day, M = month, IP = immunoprecipitation, HCl = hydrochloric acid, S = sulfur, PBS = Phosphate Buffer Solution. *In these determinations, some samples run out. Created with BioRender.com.

Control group

Thirteen female BALB/c mice conformed to the mock treatment. The animals were injected with 0.1 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine-HCl (Sigma-Chemical Co., St Louis, MO, USA) in the left quadriceps at day 0 and on day 2 and 10 received an intramuscular injection of 100μg of empty vector pcDNA™3.1 D/V5-His-TOPO®. 13 female BALB/c mice received 0.1 mL of Phosphate Buffer Solution (PBS; Gibco® Invitrogen™) for the control group (Fig 1).

Lupus induced by pristane

Experimental animals received a single intraperitoneal injection of 0.5 mL of pristane (2,6,10,14-tetramethylpentadecane; Sigma-Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO, USA) on day 16 after DNA immunization (Fig 1) [26].

Immunoprecipitation

The presence of autoantibodies was tested by immunoprecipitation of 35S-methionine labeled K562 (human erythroleukemia) cell extract and SDS-PAGE as described. Briefly, the cells were labeled with [35S] methionine (DuPont-New England Nuclear, Boston, MA), lysed in NET/NP-40 buffer (150 mM NaCl, 2mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5, 0.3% NP-40), containing 0.5 mM PMSF, 0.3 TIU/mL aprotinin, and immunoprecipitated using protein A-Sepharose beads (Pharmacia LKB Biotechnology, Inc, Piscataway, NJ) coated with 5 μL of mouse sera plus 12 μL of rabbit anti-mouse IgG1 (1 mg/mL). After, several washes were done using 0.5 M NaCl NET/NP40 (0.5 M NaCl, 2 mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 0.3% NP-40). American Type Culture Collection, Rockville, MD). Immunoprecipitated proteins were analyzed by autoradiography [27].

Anti-nRNP/Sm ELISA

Anti-nRNP/Sm antigen-capture ELISA was performed as described. Briefly, microtiter plates (Nunc, Immobilizer Amino™) were coated with 3 μg/mL mouse monoclonal antibodies (mAb) 2.73 (IgG2a, antiU1-70k). The left half of the plate was incubated with K562 cell lysate (50 μL/well, 4 X 107/mL), and the right half was incubated with the blocking buffer as control. After washing the plate, the same set of samples and serially diluted standard serum (1:500 to serial 1:5 dilutions) were added to the plate´s left and right half (control for reactivity against mouse IgG).

Serum samples were tested at 1:500, and 1:2,500 dilution and data from the latter was used for the analysis. Plates were washed with TBS/Tween20, incubated with alkaline phosphatase (ALP)-conjugated mouse mAbs to human IgG (Sigma Aldrich™, 1:1,000 dilution), and developed. The optical density (O.D.) 405nm of wells were converted into units based on the standard curve, and the units of the corresponding right half (without nRNP/Sm antigens) were subtracted from the left half (with antigens) using SoftMax Pro 4.3 software (Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, CA, USA).

Anti-Su/Ago2 ELISA

The determination of anti-Su/Ago2 by ELISA was as described. Wells of microtiter plates (Nunc, Immobilizer Amino™) were coated with 50 μL of human anti-Su IgG at 20 μg / mL in 20 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0. Half of the wells were incubated for 1 h at 22° C with 50 μL of K562 cell lysate and the other half with NET/NP-40 alone, 100 μL of diluted mouse serum (1/250 in blocking solution) was added to wells coated with either K562 cell lysate of buffer alone, and incubated for 1 h at room temperature. The wells were then washed using with NET/NP-40, and incubated with alkaline phosphatase-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibodies (Southern Biotechnology, Birmingham, AL), later developed with 1 mg / 1mL p-nitrophenyl phosphate substrate (Sigma) in diethanolamine buffer (1 M diethanolamine-HCl pH 9.6, 0.5 nM MgCl2, 0.02% NaN3) and OD was read at 405 nm in an automated ELISA reader [28].

Measurement of immunoglobulin (IgG) levels

Total levels of each Ig isotype were determined by ELISA coated with 50 μL/well of 3 μg/mL of goat anti-mouse κ/λ light chain antibodies (9:1 ratio, Southern Biotechnology, Birmingham, AL). Wells were washed with 0.15 M NaCl, 2 mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris containing 0.3% (NET/NP-40) and then blocked with 0.5% BSA in NET/NP-40. Murine sera were diluted 1:200,000 with NET/NP-40 containing 0.5% BSA. The plate was washed and incubated with 1:1000 dilution of alkaline phosphatase-labeled goat anti-mouse antibodies specific for IgG1 and IgG2a (Southern Biotechnology). Read at 405 nm using an ELISA plate reader [29].

Splenocytes culture and cytokine measurement

In a sterile Petri dish, a pool of 4 spleens of control or experimental mice were extracted and placed in 5 mL of Hank´s balanced salt solution (Sigma-Aldrich™). The splenocytes were separated with Hystopaque™ (Sigma-Aldrich™) in a 2:1 ratio. The button was resuspended in 1 mL of RPMI 1640 non-supplemented medium (Gibco® Invitrogen™), and the cell count was performed in a Neubauer chamber with 10μL of trypan blue and 10μL of cell suspension. Briefly, the cell suspension was placed in 5 mL of RPMI 1640 (Gibco® Invitrogen™) supplemented with penicillin/streptomycin at 1% (Gibco® Invitrogen™) in a culture flask and was incubated 24 hours at 37°C. Culture supernatants were harvested and stored at -20°C. Cytokine levels of IFN-γ and IL-10 in culture supernatants were measured by ELISA (Mouse Biotrak ELISA System GE Healthcare™).

Proteinuria

Urine samples were collected by spontaneous urination at six months after lupus was induced by pristane. For semi-quantitative measurement of proteinuria, Multistix® urinalysis strips (Bayer®) were employed. According to the color scale provided by the manufacturer, albuminuria was categorized as follows: 0–1 = trace, 1 = 30, 2 = 100, 3 = 300 and 4 > 2000 mg/dL.

Renal pathology

Immediately after euthanized the mice, both kidneys from three animals per experimental group were removed and divided into two halves. For immunofluorescence study, one-half was frozen by immersion in liquid nitrogen and sectioned at 5 microns thickness, incubated with FITC-conjugated rabbit anti-mouse IgG antibodies, and analyzed under an epifluorescence microscope. From the other kidney half, we obtained a thin layer of 1mm from the cortex, fragmented into small tissue pieces immediately fixed by immersion in 4% glutaraldehyde dissolved in cacodylate buffer (Sigma Aldrich™) for 2hr at 4°C. After washing, kidney tissue fragments were dehydrated in graded ethyl alcohols and embedded in Epon resin. Sections of 1-micron thickness were stained with toluidine blue and used to select representative tissue areas from which thin sections were obtained. Thin tissue sections were mounted in copper grids, stained with citrate lead and uranium salts and examined in a Zeiss EM 10 electron microscopy. The rest of the kidney tissue was fixed by immersion in 10% formaldehyde dissolved in PBS, dehydrated, and embedded in paraffin for conventional histology.

Statistical analysis

We used the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to determine the distribution of the data. After considering that only a non-parametric test can be used, comparisons were made using Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Mann-Whitney U as applicable. All data were analyzed using statistical software packages IBM SPSS Statistics v24 (IBM Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and Graph-Pad Prism v6.01 (2014 Inc. 2236 Beach Avenue Jolla, CA 92037). Statistical significance was obtained when P ≤ 0.05.

Results

IFN-γ dependence of anti-RNP/Sm antibodies

Autoantibodies in sera from experimental prophylactic co-vaccinated groups were tested by immunoprecipitation 6 months after pristane treatment and we observed the following prevalence for anti-nRNP/Sm autoantibodies: IFN-γ/D183-119 (27%) vs. IL-10/D183-119 (25%); IFN-γ/D2 (54%) vs. IL-10/D2 (10%); IFN-γ/B´B (30%) vs. IL-10/B´B (0%) and IFN-γ/B´/BCOOH (18%) vs. IL-10/B´/BCOOH (36%). Although we did not obtain significant differences, these data suggest that the prophylactic co-vaccination with IFN-γ and pristane treatment enhance the autoantibody production in an IFN-γ dependence manner (Fig 2). All SDS PAGE images are available in S1 File.

Fig 2. Immunoprecipitation using sera from pristane-treated mice co-vaccinated with D2 plus IFN-γ vs. IL-10.

Fig 2

35S-methionine-labeled K562 cell extract was immunoprecipitated using sera from pristane-treated mice. Panel A) IFN-γ/D2 co-vaccinated group: anti-nRNP/Sm (A, B´/B, C, D1/D2/D3, E/F, and G) antibodies are observed in lanes 2,7,8 and 9, and anti-Su (100kDa) in lane 3 and 10. Panel B) IL-10/D2 co-vaccinated group: anti-nRNP/Sm (A, B´/B, C, D1/D2/D3, E/F, and G) is observed in lane 9 and anti-Su antibodies in lanes 2,8, and 9. Panel C) Prevalence of anti-nRNP/Sm antibodies. Panel D) Prevalence of anti-Su/Ago2 antibodies. The results are shown in percentage (%, Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

The prevalence for anti-Su/Ago2 autoantibodies were alike: IFN-γ/D183-119/(27%) vs. IL-10/D183-119 (16%); IFN-γ/D2 (18%) vs. IL-10/D2 (30%); IFN-γ/B´/B (20%) vs. IL-10/B´B (23%) and IFN-γ/ B´/BCOOH (9%) vs. IL-10/B´/BCOOH (9%).

Next, we also assessed ELISA anti-nRNP/Sm and anti-Ago2/Su antibodies and observed differences in anti-nRNP/Sm titers between the co-vaccinated groups with D2/IFN-γ vs. D2/IL-10 (P = 0.048) (Fig 3). In other words, the IFN-γ dependence was reliable when we tested by ELISA in the group of D2 co-vaccinated with IFN-γ.

Fig 3. Effects of prophylactic co-vaccination of Sm antigens with IL-10 or IFN-γ on anti-nRNP/Sm and anti-Su/Ago2 antibodies level.

Fig 3

Effects of prophylactic co-vaccination of Sm antigens with IL-10 or IFN-γ on anti-nRNP/Sm and anti-Su/Ago2 antibody production. Sera were tested for Panel A) anti-nRNP/Sm and Panel B) anti-Su/Ago2 antibodies by ELISA at six months after prophylactic co-vaccination and induction of lupus by pristane. Each symbol represents one mouse. Mann-Whitney test was used.

IgG1, IgG2a subclass concentration, and IgG2a/IgG1 ratio

We did not obtain statistically significant differences in the levels of IgG1, IgG2a, and IgG2a/IgG1 ratio between the groups vaccinated with IL-10 and IFN-γ (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Levels of serum IgG1, IgG2a and IgG2a/IgG1 ratio subclass by ELISA.

Fig 4

Each symbol represents one mouse. Mann-Whitney test was used.

Proteinuria

We analyzed the proteinuria levels in the co-vaccinated groups six months after pristane treatment, and we observed that significant proteinuria was less common in IL-10 vs. IFN-γ (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Prevalence of proteinuria in pristane-treated mice vaccinated with Sm antigens co-vaccinated with IL-10 vs. IFN-γ.

Fig 5

Prevalence of proteinuria in pristane-treated mice vaccinated with Sm antigens co-vaccinated with IL-10 vs. IFN-γ. Each symbol represents one mouse. Mann-Whitney test was used.

Cytokine concentration in splenocyte supernatants

We analyzed the mouse IFN-γ and IL-10 splenocyte supernatant levels in control mice conformed by PBS and mock treatment and in prophylactic co-vaccinated treated groups D183-119, D2, B´/B and B´/BCOOH along with IFN-γ and IL-10. In PBS and mock-treated control mice, we observed that the IL-10 or IFN-γ levels were non-significant (Fig 6A). Nevertheless, we found a substantial increase in IFN-γ concentrations from splenocytes supernatants of prophylactic co-vaccinated groups treated with IFN-γ, obtaining significant differences between D183-119 vs. D2 (P = 0.001), D183-119 vs. B´/B (P = 0.045) and D1 vs. B´/BCOOH (P = 0.001) (Fig 6A). In Fig 6B the levels of splenocytes supernatant of IL-10 were not different between the experimental groups.

Fig 6. Cytokine levels in splenocyte supernatants.

Fig 6

Cytokine levels in splenocyte supernatants. Panel A) IFN-γ levels in prophylactic co-vaccinated groups with D1(83–119), D2, B´B and B´BCOOH along IFN-γ and IL-10, PBS and mock treatment. Panel B) IL-10 levels in prophylactic co-vaccinated groups with D1(83–119), D2, B´B and B´BCOOH along IFN-γ and IL-10, PBS and mock treatment. Mann-Whitney test was used.

Renal pathology findings

The light microscopy study of the kidneys from mice treated with D2/IFN-γ showed more than 90% of glomeruli, accentuated/diffuse increase of mesangial matrix, cellularity with capillary thickening and splitting as the accentuation of lobular architecture (Fig 7A). The immunofluorescence study showed numerous IgG immune complexes deposited in the mesangial and capillary walls with intramembranous, subendothelial/subepithelial locations (Fig 7B). The electron microscopy study confirmed these features; moreover, it allowed us to enlarge our findings showing edema of podocytes with partial fusion of pedicels and numerous electron-dense deposits essentially intramembranous and in lower amounts subendothelial and subepithelial (Fig 7C). These changes were strikingly less apparent in the kidneys from IL-10/D2 vaccinated animals (Fig 7D–7F). The images of the histology of kidneys from control and prophylactic DNA vaccination in a murine lupus model are available in S1 Fig.

Fig 7. Histology of kidneys from pristane-treated mice co-vaccinated with D2/IL-10 or D2/IFN-γ.

Fig 7

Representative histological and ultrastructural changes in the kidney from female BALB/c mice vaccinated with D2/IL-10 or D2/IFN-γ. Panel A) Light micrograph from IFN-γ/D2 co-vaccinated mouse showing a hypercellular glomerulus with mesangial matrix widening and thick capillary walls (arrows). Panel B) Immunofluorescence photograph taken from the same mouse (A) shows numerous mesangial and intramembranous IgG immune complexes. Panel C) Abundant electron-dense intramembranous deposits (arrows) are showed in this electron microscopy micrograph taken from the same IFN-γ/D2 prophylactic co-vaccinated mouse. Panel D) In contrast, lower cellularity and thinner capillary membranes are seen in this glomerulus from IL-10/D2 prophylactic co-vaccinated mouse. Panel E) The glomeruli from the same IL-10/D2 co-vaccinated mouse showed lesser immune complexes in the immunofluorescence. Panel F) in electron microscopy study (all light and fluorescence micrographs 100x, electron microscopy micrographs 25,000x).

Discussion

SLE is an autoimmune disease characterized by a chronic immune response against cells, tissues, and organs related to loss of self-tolerance to self-antigens that might be triggered in a susceptible individual by environmental, genetic, or other factors [30, 31]. In other rheumatic diseases such as RA, there are plenty of targets sensitive for biological treatment that has proved effective to achieving a rapid and sustained clinical remission, as stated in the Treat to Target strategy (T2T) [32].

It is desirable in SLE to have multiple targets for a successful treatment, especially when a major organ is involved, such as renal damage (lupus nephritis). However, only belimumab has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and according to the BLISS (Belimumab in Subjects with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus) trial is not effective in lupus nephritis [33]. This study is promising as a prophylactic tailored experimental lupus nephritis therapy, using the approach of self-epitopes derived from Sm antigen, co-vaccinated using opposite cytokines: the critical molecule in lupus nephritis IFN-γ vs. IL-10 [34]. The murine model of lupus induced by pristane, is an acknowledged model with the importance of environmental factors that might predispose to SLE development [31]. The single intraperitoneal injection of pristane can induce in female BALB/c mice a wide range of autoantibodies against the RNA component of U1 snRNP through a T-cell dependent immune response together with mild glomerulonephritis and arthritis [31]. This model could be suitable analyzing of promising therapies based on the development of tolerance against Sm peptides.

In the present study, we conducted a prophylactic co-vaccination with DNA plasmids encoding D183-119, D2, B´/B, and B´/BCOOH epitopes and IL-10 or IFN-γ with a follow-up period of 6 months after lupus induced by pristane. We designed DNA vaccines based on the antigenicity of D183-119 and, B´/B polypeptides demonstrated to induce autoimmunity in experimental models. In addition, we included the D2 polypeptide to describe its antigenicity. The polypeptide D183-119 is a vital T cell epitope in SLE patients [11] with high sensitivity and disease specificity [8]. The B´/B peptide, it has been observed that the three repeats of a proline-rich peptide sequence (PPPGMRPP) in the C-terminus could trigger an autoimmune response in immunizing rabbits [35]. These rabbits developed SLE symptoms, clinical features of lupus, and B cell spreading of the autoimmune reaction to B´/B, and D1, U1-70K, U-A, and U1-C [13, 35]. The D2 epitope has been and has an isoelectric point significantly higher (basic), especially in the residues 83–105, which could be antigenic [12].

To analyze the prophylactic effects of co-vaccination of D183-119, D2, B´/B, and B´/BCOOH along IFN-γ and IL-10, we tested the sera to determine the prevalence of anti-U1RNP/Sm antibodies by immunoprecipitation. We noted that, although we did not obtain differences in the D2/IL-10 co-vaccinated group, we observed differences in the frequency of anti-U1RNP/Sm vs. D2/IFN-γ co-vaccinated group (10% vs. 54%, respectively) (Fig 1B). In addition, the anti-Su/Ago2 antibodies were higher in the group co-vaccinated with D2-IL-10. Original studies describing lupus induced by pristane in BALB/c female mice showed prevalence for anti-nRNP/Sm by about 53 to 78% [15, 29, 36] and for anti-Su/Ago2 around 44% to 56% [15, 29]. Our results agree with the previous studies, particularly in the group co-vaccinated with IFN-γ/D2, showing the dependence of IFN-γ effects for the positivity of anti-nRNP/Sm (Fig 1 Panel A).

When we measured by another assay such as ELISA, the same antibodies anti-nRNP/Sm and anti-Su/Ago2 in the experimental group D2/IL-10 were lower than those of the D2/IFN-γ co-vaccinated group suggesting an antigen-specific process induced by IL-10/D2 co-vaccination.

In our study, the renal histopathology showed minor kidney damage in the D2/IL-10 vaccinated group, showing glomerular cellularity and immune complex deposits than the D2/IFN-γ co-vaccinated mice. Also, a potential beneficial role of IL-10 in preventing immune complex glomerulonephritis (proteinuria).

It has been observed that the administration of autoantigens and functional cytokine genes with the employment of DNA expression vector has the potential to restore immune tolerance and develop a suppressive immunization could be established, and TH2 shift with promising results [30, 37]. Experimental immunization against antigens that trigger autoimmune disorders caused by TH1 auto-reactive cells such as multiple sclerosis (MS), type 1 diabetes, and RA has been developed with a promising result [21, 3739]. In the case of EAE, a model of MS, studies demonstrate that the delivery of DNA vaccine with the self-peptide PLP139-151 and IL-4 protected against induction of the disease induced by PLP139-151 and caused that the antigen-specific autoreactive T cells shift their phenotype to a protective TH2-type response [37]. These findings reinforced the results of a reduced spread of autoantibodies responses to epitopes on various myelin molecules with the use of a cocktail of tolerizing DNA vaccines encoding the four principal components of myelin, myelin basic protein (MBP), myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG), myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG) and PLP with the addition of a plasmid encoding IL-4 [40].

In the pristane model of lupus, the inflammatory cytokines such as IFN-α, β and γ, IL-6, and IL-12 stimulate autoantibodies. In contrast, the deficiency of IFN-γ has been shown to have a protective effect on renal disease and autoantibodies production [31, 41, 42]. Studies in SLE patients suggest that interferon-related gene expression and pathways are standard features for SLE pathogenesis, where IFN-γ plays a critical role at SLE onset [17]. On the other hand, IL-10 is a regulatory cytokine that inhibits TH1 cytokine production and proliferation of CD4+ T cells via its indirect effects on antigen-presenting cells (APC) function or through direct effects on T cells. This cytokine is an essential modulator of disease activity in human SLE, where patients with lupus produce large amounts of IL-10 correlating with disease activity. Notwithstanding, studies in MRL-Faslpr mice revealed that during the initial phases of the disease, IFN-γ and its induced IgG2a promote autoimmunity, and IL-10 appears to be needed to suppress such pathogenic TH1 responses, including IFN-γ-mediated autoantibody production and renal inflammation [20].

The employment of DNA plasmids as a vector for immunization has some advantages over traditional vaccine modalities in terms of effectiveness, safety, and cost. One of the principal advantages is the minimal possibility integrating DNA vaccine to host chromosome and the anti-vector autoimmunity [43]. Nevertheless, there are some particularities of DNA vaccination mechanisms that we must consider and are still under investigation. For initiating the immune response by DNA vaccination, somatic cells (myocytes or keratinocytes) and professional antigen-presenting cells (APCs) are required. Subsequently, the plasmid-encoded gene entering the nucleus of transfected cells and foreign antigens are generated and processed by the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I or II of APC to prime naïve T cells in the draining lymph nodes [43]. To elicit a successful transfection, plasmid DNA is synthesized with the addition of viral promoters, transcriptional trans-activators, and enhancer elements that increase the transcription activity [43]. In our experiments, we constructed DNA vaccines with DNA plasmid that contain an active cytomegalovirus immediate early promoter (pCMV), consider a strong and ubiquitously viral promoter to control transgene expression [44, 45]. There have been observed that naked plasmid DNA controlled by the CMV promoter elicited a mixed TH1/TH2 response, followed by the compartmentalization of the immune response TH1-like in the spleen and TH2-biased in the draining lymphatic node [45]. Following intramuscular and intradermal immunization, the humoral response is characterized by the predominant production of specific IgG2a antibodies, whereas other inoculation methods such as gene guns yield a preponderance of IgG1 antibodies, suggesting TH1 and TH2-biased responses, respectively [45]. In our experiments, we were not able to determine the production of specific IgG1/IgG2a antibodies in mice treated with PBS and naked DNA plasmid (empty vector). However, we did not observe differences between IL-10 and IFN-γ levels among these groups.

The study presents some limitations; our design was a prophylactic experimental model that implied six-month period of treatment and sacrifice at the end of the trial. The number of biological serum samples was limited, and we used them until run out since multiple experiments of immunoprecipitation, autoantibodies measurement, etc. The kidney tissue obtained was analyzed with Mexico City; however, the unit hospital was reconverted to a COVID19 one, and our collaborator was retired. In this sense, in our experimental conditions was not feasible to do an NIH renal score activity and chronicity or to develop more immunofluorescence slides, nor cytokine determination as you requested.

To our knowledge, this is the first report about the employment of DNA vaccination with Sm antigens in combination with IL-10 in a pristane-induced lupus model. Our findings suggest that the co-vaccination of D2 plus IL-10 seems to produce less anti-nRNP/Sm autoantibodies when is administrated in a prophylactic manner. Further experiments are needed to reinforce our results, specifically the role of D2 in pristane-induced lupus.

Conclusion

DNA co-vaccination cocktail of D2 plus IL-10 in pristane-induced lupus BALB/c mice use in a prophylactic way, improves the renal damage by acting as tolerizing therapy corroborated by the decrease in the levels of proteinuria and anti-nRNP/Sm.

Supporting information

S1 File. Immunoprecipitation gel images.

(PDF)

S2 File. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Author checklist.

(PDF)

S1 Fig. Histology of kidneys from control and prophylactic DNA vaccination in a murine lupus model.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Carlos Alberto Franco Salazar for manuscript English edition.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

MVM Grant 51353 supported by SEP-CONACyT 51353 grant from Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT). URL:http://www.conacyt.gob.mx The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Mahler M. Sm peptides in differentiation of autoimmune diseases. Adv Clin Chem. 2011;54:109–28. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-387025-4.00005-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Petri M, Orbai AM, Alarcon GS, Gordon C, Merrill JT, Fortin PR, et al. Derivation and validation of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 2012;64(8):2677–86. doi: 10.1002/art.34473 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Aringer M, Costenbader K, Daikh D, Brinks R, Mosca M, Ramsey-Goldman R, et al. 2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology Classification Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(9):1400–12. doi: 10.1002/art.40930 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sciascia S, Bertolaccini ML, Roccatello D, Khamashta MA, Sanna G. Autoantibodies involved in neuropsychiatric manifestations associated with systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review. J Neurol. 2014;261(9):1706–14. doi: 10.1007/s00415-014-7406-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hu C, Li M, Liu J, Qian J, Xu D, Zhang S, et al. Anti-SmD1 antibodies are associated with renal disorder, seizures, and pulmonary arterial hypertension in Chinese patients with active SLE. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):7617. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08099-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Satoh Minoru FMJ, Chan Edward K.L. Chapter 18—Anti-U1RNP and -Sm Antibodies. In: Yehuda Shoenfeld PLM, M. Eric Gershwin, editor. Autoantibodies (Third Edition): Elsevier; 2014. pp. 151–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tsokos GC. In the beginning was Sm. J Immunol. 2006;176(3):1295–6. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.176.3.1295 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Riemekasten G, Marell J, Trebeljahr G, Klein R, Hausdorf G, Haupl T, et al. A novel epitope on the C-terminus of SmD1 is recognized by the majority of sera from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Clin Invest. 1998;102(4):754–63. doi: 10.1172/JCI2749 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ou Y, Sun D, Sharp GC, Hoch SO. Screening of SLE sera using purified recombinant Sm-D1 protein from a baculovirus expression system. Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1997;83(3):310–7. doi: 10.1006/clin.1997.4355 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Riemekasten G, Langnickel D, Enghard P, Undeutsch R, Humrich J, Ebling FM, et al. Intravenous injection of a D1 protein of the Smith proteins postpones murine lupus and induces type 1 regulatory T cells. J Immunol. 2004;173(9):5835–42. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.173.9.5835 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Riemekasten G, Weiss C, Schneider S, Thiel A, Bruns A, Schumann F, et al. T cell reactivity against the SmD1(83–119) C terminal peptide in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis. 2002;61(9):779–85. doi: 10.1136/ard.61.9.779 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.McClain MT, Ramsland PA, Kaufman KM, James JA. Anti-sm autoantibodies in systemic lupus target highly basic surface structures of complexed spliceosomal autoantigens. J Immunol. 2002;168(4):2054–62. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.168.4.2054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.James JA, Gross T, Scofield RH, Harley JB. Immunoglobulin epitope spreading and autoimmune disease after peptide immunization: Sm B/B’-derived PPPGMRPP and PPPGIRGP induce spliceosome autoimmunity. J Exp Med. 1995;181(2):453–61. doi: 10.1084/jem.181.2.453 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.James JA, Neas BR, Moser KL, Hall T, Bruner GR, Sestak AL, et al. Systemic lupus erythematosus in adults is associated with previous Epstein-Barr virus exposure. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;44(5):1122–6. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(200105)44:5<1122::AID-ANR193>3.0.CO;2-D [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Richards HB, Satoh M, Jennette JC, Croker BP, Yoshida H, Reeves WH. Interferon-gamma is required for lupus nephritis in mice treated with the hydrocarbon oil pristane. Kidney Int. 2001;60(6):2173–80. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.00045.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Theofilopoulos AN, Koundouris S, Kono DH, Lawson BR. The role of IFN-gamma in systemic lupus erythematosus: a challenge to the Th1/Th2 paradigm in autoimmunity. Arthritis Res. 2001;3(3):136–41. doi: 10.1186/ar290 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Liu W, Li M, Wang Z, Wang J. IFN-gamma Mediates the Development of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:7176515. doi: 10.1155/2020/7176515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Celhar T, Fairhurst AM. Modelling clinical systemic lupus erythematosus: similarities, differences and success stories. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017;56(suppl_1):i88–i99. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kew400 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ishida H, Muchamuel T, Sakaguchi S, Andrade S, Menon S, Howard M. Continuous administration of anti-interleukin 10 antibodies delays onset of autoimmunity in NZB/W F1 mice. J Exp Med. 1994;179(1):305–10. doi: 10.1084/jem.179.1.305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yin Z, Bahtiyar G, Zhang N, Liu L, Zhu P, Robert ME, et al. IL-10 regulates murine lupus. J Immunol. 2002;169(4):2148–55. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.169.4.2148 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ho PP, Higgins JP, Kidd BA, Tomooka B, Digennaro C, Lee LY, et al. Tolerizing DNA vaccines for autoimmune arthritis. Autoimmunity. 2006;39(8):675–82. doi: 10.1080/08916930601061603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ho PP, Fontoura P, Platten M, Sobel RA, DeVoss JJ, Lee LY, et al. A suppressive oligodeoxynucleotide enhances the efficacy of myelin cocktail/IL-4-tolerizing DNA vaccination and treats autoimmune disease. J Immunol. 2005;175(9):6226–34. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.175.9.6226 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.National Centre for the Replacement Refinement & Reduction of Animal Research. Available from: https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/housing-and-husbandry-mice.
  • 24.Langford DJ, Bailey AL, Chanda ML, Clarke SE, Drummond TE, Echols S, et al. Coding of facial expressions of pain in the laboratory mouse. Nat Methods. 2010;7(6):447–9. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1455 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ho PP, Lahey LJ, Mourkioti F, Kraft PE, Filareto A, Brandt M, et al. Engineered DNA plasmid reduces immunity to dystrophin while improving muscle force in a model of gene therapy of Duchenne dystrophy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(39):E9182–E91. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1808648115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Satoh M, Reeves WH. Induction of lupus-associated autoantibodies in BALB/c mice by intraperitoneal injection of pristane. J Exp Med. 1994;180(6):2341–6. doi: 10.1084/jem.180.6.2341 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Satoh M, Langdon JJ, Hamilton KJ, Richards HB, Panka D, Eisenberg RA, et al. Distinctive immune response patterns of human and murine autoimmune sera to U1 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein C protein. J Clin Invest. 1996;97(11):2619–26. doi: 10.1172/JCI118711 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Satoh M, Treadwell EL, Reeves WH. Pristane induces high titers of anti-Su and anti-nRNP/Sm autoantibodies in BALB/c mice. Quantitation by antigen capture ELISAs based on monospecific human autoimmune sera. J Immunol Methods. 1995;182(1):51–62. doi: 10.1016/0022-1759(95)00022-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hamilton KJ, Satoh M, Swartz J, Richards HB, Reeves WH. Influence of microbial stimulation on hypergammaglobulinemia and autoantibody production in pristane-induced lupus. Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1998;86(3):271–9. doi: 10.1006/clin.1997.4481 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Eggenhuizen PJ, Ng BH, Ooi JD. Treg Enhancing Therapies to Treat Autoimmune Diseases. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(19). doi: 10.3390/ijms21197015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Freitas EC, de Oliveira MS, Monticielo OA. Pristane-induced lupus: considerations on this experimental model. Clin Rheumatol. 2017;36(11):2403–14. doi: 10.1007/s10067-017-3811-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Solomon DH, Lu B, Yu Z, Corrigan C, Harrold LR, Smolen JS, et al. Benefits and Sustainability of a Learning Collaborative for Implementation of Treat-to-Target in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Phase II Clinical Trial. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018;70(10):1551–6. doi: 10.1002/acr.23508 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Thurman JM. BLISS in the Treatment of Lupus Nephritis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2021. doi: 10.2215/CJN.17991120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Serra P, Santamaria P. Antigen-specific therapeutic approaches for autoimmunity. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37(3):238–51. doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0015-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Monneaux F, Muller S. Epitope spreading in systemic lupus erythematosus: identification of triggering peptide sequences. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46(6):1430–8. doi: 10.1002/art.10263 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Thibault DL, Chu AD, Graham KL, Balboni I, Lee LY, Kohlmoos C, et al. IRF9 and STAT1 are required for IgG autoantibody production and B cell expression of TLR7 in mice. J Clin Invest. 2008;118(4):1417–26. doi: 10.1172/JCI30065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Garren H, Ruiz PJ, Watkins TA, Fontoura P, Nguyen LT, Estline ER, et al. Combination of gene delivery and DNA vaccination to protect from and reverse Th1 autoimmune disease via deviation to the Th2 pathway. Immunity. 2001;15(1):15–22. doi: 10.1016/s1074-7613(01)00171-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Roep BO, Solvason N, Gottlieb PA, Abreu JRF, Harrison LC, Eisenbarth GS, et al. Plasmid-encoded proinsulin preserves C-peptide while specifically reducing proinsulin-specific CD8(+) T cells in type 1 diabetes. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5(191):191ra82. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3006103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Coon B, An LL, Whitton JL, von Herrath MG. DNA immunization to prevent autoimmune diabetes. J Clin Invest. 1999;104(2):189–94. doi: 10.1172/JCI7209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Robinson WH, Fontoura P, Lee BJ, de Vegvar HE, Tom J, Pedotti R, et al. Protein microarrays guide tolerizing DNA vaccine treatment of autoimmune encephalomyelitis. Nat Biotechnol. 2003;21(9):1033–9. doi: 10.1038/nbt859 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zhuang H, Szeto C, Han S, Yang L, Reeves WH. Animal Models of Interferon Signature Positive Lupus. Front Immunol. 2015;6:291. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00291 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Perry D, Sang A, Yin Y, Zheng YY, Morel L. Murine models of systemic lupus erythematosus. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2011;2011:271694. doi: 10.1155/2011/271694 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Flingai S, Czerwonko M, Goodman J, Kudchodkar SB, Muthumani K, Weiner DB. Synthetic DNA vaccines: improved vaccine potency by electroporation and co-delivered genetic adjuvants. Front Immunol. 2013;4:354. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2013.00354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Castor T, Yogev N, Blank T, Barwig C, Prinz M, Waisman A, et al. Inhibition of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis by tolerance-promoting DNA vaccination focused to dendritic cells. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0191927. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191927 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Sudowe S, Ludwig-Portugall I, Montermann E, Ross R, Reske-Kunz AB. Transcriptional targeting of dendritic cells in gene gun-mediated DNA immunization favors the induction of type 1 immune responses. Mol Ther. 2003;8(4):567–75. doi: 10.1016/s1525-0016(03)00242-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Masataka Kuwana

13 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-18801

The DNA co-vaccination using Sm antigen and IL-10 as prophylactic experimental  therapy, ameliorates nephritis in a model of lupus  induce by pristane

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vázquez-Del Mercado,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Our reviewers found some merits and interests in this study, but also pointed out a number of criticisms that require improvement or amendment. Additional experiments are necessary to answer points raised by reviewers. I ask authors to fully respond to all comments in the revised version. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 27 2021 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • 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, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Masataka Kuwana, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information on the animal research and ensure you have included details on efforts to alleviate suffering.

5. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

6. As part of your revision, please complete and submit a copy of the Full ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines checklist, a document that aims to improve experimental reporting and reproducibility of animal studies for purposes of post-publication data analysis and reproducibility: https://arriveguidelines.org/sites/arrive/files/Author%20Checklist%20-%20Full.pdf (PDF). Please include your completed checklist as a Supporting Information file. Note that if your paper is accepted for publication, this checklist will be published as part of your article.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting original and novel study that observing the role of Sm-antigen vaccination with IL-10 to induce tolerogenic immunity against lupus. However, several things need to be reworked to obtain a clear conclusion:

1. The vaccination of D2/IL-10 was able to reduce the anti-nRNP/Sm titers, but it was still not known whether this reduction was caused by the D2 or IL-10. The IL-10 alone was already known that could decrease antibody productions due to its immunoregulatory properties. Therefore, the authors should also observe the comparison between the antibody titers after the administration of D2 or IL-10 alone, and the combinations of D2/IL-10.

2. Proteinuria was measured in this study by using a dipstick examination. Rather than using a dipstick examination, which was a semi-qualitative examination, I suggest using quantitative albumin creatinine ratio (ACR) or protein creatinine ratio (PCR) examinations that had better power to explain the extent of proteinuria.

3. The renal pathology was explained in a qualitative approach. Although the authors explained several improvements of the renal pathology findings after the vaccinations, there should be some quantitative measurement that could explain the result more objectively. Several scoring could be used to assess the severity of lupus nephritis, such as NIH Lupus Nephritis Activity and Chronicity Indices.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript the authors present data suggesting that prophylactic co-vaccination with sm antigen peptides and IL-10 exert a protective role in pristane-induce lupus in Balb/c mice.

There are several issues with the paper that needs to be addressed.

1. It is imperative that all data are shown. For example, figure 2 needs to show data from individual mice as does the bargraphs in figures 4 and 5. Please follow the same standard as used in figure 3.

2. To help the reader, please provide a schematic overview of the animal studies including at what time the mice were injected with what and how many per group. While the information can be pieced together from the materials and methods section it is not easy to read and understand. this is particularly true as only subsets of mice were used for end-of-study analyses (3 mice for kidney analyses, 4 mice for spleen analyses, etc.). Please identify why all studies were not done for all mice, why and how mice for these studies were selected etc.? If the mice came from individual setups (i.e. all mice were not treated with pristane and vaccine at the same time), please indicate each individual cohort of mice and make it clear to the reader when all mice were analyzed together.

3. Please expand the parts of the materials and methods sections that are listed with only a reference. A brief description of the protocol and the specific dilutions used should be written in the manuscript.

4. For proteinuria data, please show individual data as the current bar graphs misleadingly shows that the measure is exact, not based on a dipstick analysis.

5. For kidney analysis, it is unclear if half kidneys were preserved in any solvent/gel such as OCT or the like. As written, the kidneys appear to have been frozen directly. Such protocol would induce water crystallization and tissue damage.

6. Figure 1 shows the presence of specific autoantibodies in sera of co-vaccinated mice. The gel plots do not show recombinant proteins to verify the different specificities. Please include. The gel plots do not show any size ladder to verify protein sizes. Please include. There are 10 samples shown in A and 9 samples shown in B, however, in materials and methods section, it is written that 13 mice were used per group. Please explain or include the remaining data.

7. It is assumed that the percentages given in lines 242-244 and 254-257 are a result of the gel images in figure 1. How is it determined that there is no difference between 54% and 10% as stated? It would be helpful if the authors could present not just the gel plots, but also a graph representing the obtained data.

8. Several sets of data are not supported by the data shown. for example, the authors claim that there are higher levels of IgG2a/IgG1 in mice co-vaccinated with IFNg than in mice co-vaccinated with IL-10 (line 265-267), however, there are no statistical differences between the groups (figure 3). Make sure not to overinterpret the data here and in the discussion.

9. Based on the bargraph appearance of proteinuria data in figure 4 and the highly overlapping error bars, this reviewer is surprised to see statistical significance. Please explain clearly in the figure legend what statistical method was used. As mentioned above, please show individual values rather than the mean/stdev.

10. Figure 5 needs to be redone so that the control samples are represented along with the pristane-treated samples. Please move figure 5A, IFNg-measurements to figure 5B and figure 5A, IL-10 measurements to figure 5C. This will facilitate better understanding of the enhanced production of each cytokine in response to the co-vaccination.

11. The renal histology is very nice and well represented. For comparison, it would be helpful if the authors could solicit a renal score by a renal pathologist blinded to the treatment groups. Also, please provide images from all the mice done - if not in the primary figure, then in a supplemental figure.

12. Similarly, it would be very helpful if the authors could quantify the immunofluorescence stainings either by intensity or by area, underscoring the reduced deposition of immune complexes in IL-10 covaccinated animals.

13. In the discussion the authors write: "We observed that the IgG1, IgG2a levels and IgG2a/IgG1 ratio showed that the prophylactic co-vaccination influences the TH1/TH2 polarization during the course of the disease." This appears to be an overinterpretation of the data as no statistical difference between IgG2a/IgG1 ratios were found. Furthermore, the authors do not provide any evidence for changes in the Th1/Th2 polarization. To support this statement, please provide evidence for altered Th1/Th2 cell levels using either master transcription factors or intracellular cytokines to determine each cell subset.

14. The manuscript needs proof reading for missing words, wrong syntax an typographical errors. If needed, please consult a native English speaker.

-

**********

6. 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

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Oct 27;16(10):e0259114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259114.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-18801

The DNA co-vaccination using Sm antigen and IL-10 as prophylactic experimental therapy ameliorates nephritis in a model of lupus induced by pristane

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer #1

This is an interesting original and novel study that observing the role of Sm-antigen vaccination with IL-10 to induce tolerogenic immunity against lupus. However, several things need to be reworked to obtain a clear conclusion:

1. The vaccination of D2/IL-10 was able to reduce the anti-nRNP/Sm titers, but it was still not known whether this reduction was caused by the D2 or IL-10. The IL-10 alone was already known that could decrease antibody productions due to its immunoregulatory properties. Therefore, the authors should also observe the comparison between the antibody titers after the administration of D2 or IL-10 alone, and the combinations of D2/IL-10.

R= We appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions for further experiments. First of all, the design of our study was based on previous literature and reliable data dealing about tolerizing therapy. It is already known that the region of Sm antigen spanning the aa 83-199 also known as D1, includes a second region identified as Sm D2 antigen spanning the aa 90-102. Why is important these concepts? It has been demonstrated the tolerogenic effect of Sm D1 combined or in cocktail with IL-10 DNA vaccination delays autoantibody production and prolonged survival in lupus mice (PMID 15494537).

2. Proteinuria was measured in this study by using a dipstick examination. Rather than using a dipstick examination, which was a semi-qualitative examination, I suggest using quantitative albumin creatinine ratio (ACR) or protein creatinine ratio (PCR) examinations that had better power to explain the extent of proteinuria.

R= In fact you are absolutely right, however this approach would imply a whole new experiment that is not able to do for the time that requires (more than 6 months). Notwithstanding, we decided to answer in the best way possible the suggestions of the academic and reviewers. In this sense, we showed in Figure 5, the semiquantitative proteinuria in such a way that you could see statistical differences by group of mice.

Fig 5. Prevalence of proteinuria in pristane-treated mice vaccinated with Sm antigens co-vaccinated with IFN-� vs. IL-10. Proteinuria was less common in IL-10 co-vaccinated group vs. IFN-� group for the same Sm antigen.

3. The renal pathology was explained in a qualitative approach. Although the authors explained several improvements of the renal pathology findings after the vaccinations, there should be some quantitative measurement that could explain the result more objectively. Several scoring could be used to assess the severity of lupus nephritis, such as NIH Lupus Nephritis Activity and Chronicity Indices.

R= We appreciate your comments. The type of this study is experimental and the analysis of variables was cross-sectional at the end of a 6-month period. In this sense, we did not measure a treatment response or disease progression, that is why the NIH Lupus Nephritis Activity and Chronicity Indices were not assessed. Besides, we asked for the embedded paraffin tissues from our experimental groups to our collaborator in Mexico City, however for the pandemia SARS-Cov2 and the retirement of the pathologist was not possible to rescue them in order to do the NIH score you requested.

Reviewer #2

In this manuscript the authors present data suggesting that prophylactic co-vaccination with Sm antigen peptides and IL-10 exert a protective role in pristane-induce lupus in Balb/c mice.There are several issues with the paper that needs to be addressed.

1. It is imperative that all data are shown. For example, figure 2 needs to show data from individual mice as does the bargraphs in figures 4 and 5. Please follow the same standard as used in figure 3.

R= Done.

Fig 3. Effects of prophylactic co-vaccination of Sm antigens with IL-10 or IFN-g on anti-nRNP/Sm and anti-Su/Ago2 levels. Sera were tested for A) anti-nRNP/Sm and B) anti-Su/Ago2 antibodies by ELISA at 6 months after prophylactic co-vaccination and induction of lupus by pristane.

Fig 5. Prevalence of proteinuria in pristane-treated mice vaccinated with Sm antigens co-vaccinated with IFN-� vs. IL-10. Proteinuria was less common in IL-10 co-vaccinated group vs. IFN-� group for the same Sm antigen.

Fig 6. Cytokine levels in splenocyte supernatants. A) IFN-� and IL-10 levels in PBS and mock treatment mice. B) IFN-� levels in prophylactic co-vaccinated groups with D183-119, D2, B´B and B´BCOOH along IFN-� and IL-10 C) IL-10 levels in prophylactic co-vaccinated groups with D183-119, D2, B´B and B´BCOOH along IFN-� and IL-10.

2. To help the reader, please provide a schematic overview of the animal studies including at what time the mice were injected with what and how many per group. While the information can be pieced together from the materials and methods section it is not easy to read and understand. this is particularly true as only subsets of mice were used for end-of-study analyses (3 mice for kidney analyses, 4 mice for spleen analyses, etc.). Please identify why all studies were not done for all mice, why and how mice for these studies were selected etc.? If the mice came from individual setups (i.e. all mice were not treated with pristane and vaccine at the same time), please indicate each individual cohort of mice and make it clear to the reader when all mice were analyzed together.

R= We added Figure 1, where we described plenty in detail all the experimental procedure as you will find in Material and Methods section.

3. Please expand the parts of the materials and methods sections that are listed with only a reference. A brief description of the protocol and the specific dilutions used should be written in the manuscript.

R= We appreciate your comments. In the Material and Methods section, we added the lines 194-204 as follows:

Immunoprecipitation:

The presence of autoantibodies was tested by immunoprecipitation of 35S-methionine labeled K562 (human erythroleukemia) cell extract and SDS-PAGE as described. Briefly, the cells were labeled with [35S] methionine (DuPont-New England Nuclear, Boston, MA), lysed in NET/NP-40 buffer (150 mM NaCl, 2mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5, 0.3% NP-40), containing 0.5 mM PMSF, 0.3 TIU/mL aprotinin, and immunoprecipitated using protein A-Sepharose beads (Pharmacia LKB Biotechnology, Inc, Piscataway, NJ) coated with 5 �L of mouse sera plus 12 �L of rabbit anti-mouse IgG1 (1 mg/mL). After, several washes were done using 0.5 M NaCl NET/NP40 (0.5 M NaCl, 2 mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 0.3% NP-40). American Type Culture Collection, Rockville, MD). Immunoprecipitated proteins were analyzed by autoradiography.

Lines 222-233:

Anti-Su/Ago2 ELISA:

The determination of anti-Su/Ago2 by ELISA was as described. Wells of microtiter plates (Nunc, Immobilizer Amino™) were coated with 50 �L of human anti-Su IgG at 20 �g / mL in 20 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0. Half of the wells were incubated for 1 h at 22º C with 50 �L of K562 cell lysate and the other half with NET/NP-40 alone, 100 �L of diluted mouse serum (1/250 in blocking solution) was added to wells coated with either K562 cell lysate of buffer alone, and incubated for 1 h at room temperature. The wells were then washed using with NET/NP-40, and incubated with alkaline phosphatase-conjugated goat anti-mouse IgG antibodies (Southern Biotechnology, Birmingham, AL), later developed with 1 mg / 1mL p-nitrophenyl phosphate substrate (Sigma) in diethanolamine buffer (1 M diethanolamine-HCl pH 9.6, 0.5 nM MgCl2, 0.02% NaN3) and OD was read at 405 nm in an automated ELISA reader.

Lines 235-243:

Measurement of immunoglobulin (IgG) levels:

Total levels of each Ig isotype were determined by ELISA coated with 50 �L/well of 3 �g/mL of goat anti-mouse �/� light chain antibodies (9:1 ratio, Southern Biotechnology, Birmingham, AL). Wells were washed with 0.15 M NaCl, 2 mM EDTA, 50 mM Tris containing 0.3% (NET/NP-40) and then blocked with 0.5% BSA in NET/NP-40. Murine sera were diluted 1:200,000 with NET/NP-40 containing 0.5% BSA. The plate was washed and incubated with 1:1000 dilution of alkaline phosphatase-labeled goat anti-mouse antibodies specific for IgG1 and IgG2a (Southern Biotechnology). Read at 405 nm using an ELISA plate reader.

4. For proteinuria data, please show individual data as the current bar graphs misleadingly shows that the measure is exact, not based on a dipstick analysis.

R= Please refer to answer 2 of the response to Reviewer 1.

5. For kidney analysis, it is unclear if half kidneys were preserved in any solvent/gel such as OCT or the like. As written, the kidneys appear to have been frozen directly. Such protocol would induce water crystallization and tissue damage.

R= We appreciate your valuable comments, however we did not cause a crystallization effect. The detail methodology employed is described on lines 271-285:

Renal pathology:

Immediately after euthanized the mice, both kidneys from three animals per experimental group were removed and divided into two halves. For immunofluorescence study, one-half was frozen by immersion in liquid nitrogen and sectioned at 5 microns thickness, incubated with FITC-conjugated rabbit anti-mouse IgG antibodies, and analyzed under an epifluorescence microscope. From the other kidney half, we obtained a thin layer of 1mm from the cortex, fragmented into small tissue pieces immediately fixed by immersion in 4% glutaraldehyde dissolved in cacodylate buffer (Sigma Aldrich�) for 2hr at 4°C. After washing, kidney tissue fragments were dehydrated in graded ethyl alcohols and embedded in Epon resin. Sections of 1-micron thickness were stained with toluidine blue and used to select representative tissue areas from which thin sections were obtained. Thin tissue sections were mounted in copper grids, stained with citrate lead and uranium salts and examined in a Zeiss EM 10 electron microscopy. The rest of the kidney tissue was fixed by immersion in 10% formaldehyde dissolved in PBS, dehydrated, and embedded in paraffin for conventional histology.

6. Figure 1 shows the presence of specific autoantibodies in sera of co-vaccinated mice. The gel plots do not show recombinant proteins to verify the different specificities. Please include. The gel plots do not show any size ladder to verify protein sizes. Please include. There are 10 samples shown in A and 9 samples shown in B, however, in materials and methods section, it is written that 13 mice were used per group. Please explain or include the remaining data.

R= Unfortunately, by the time we did the immunoprecipitation, some samples were run out since the measurements of autoantibodies etc.

7. It is assumed that the percentages given in lines 242-244 and 254-257 are a result of the gel images in figure 1. How is it determined that there is no difference between 54% and 10% as stated? It would be helpful if the authors could present not just the gel plots, but also a graph representing the obtained data.

R= Done

8. Several sets of data are not supported by the data shown. for example, the authors claim that there are higher levels of IgG2a/IgG1 in mice co-vaccinated with IFN-g than in mice co-vaccinated with IL-10 (line 265-267), however, there are no statistical differences between the groups (figure 3). Make sure not to overinterpret the data here and in the discussion.

R=Indeed, as you commented, since there is no significant difference, we cannot affirm that there are higher levels of IgG2a in the groups vaccinated with IFN-γ than in those with IL-10. So, we have corrected the wording in these paragraphs in results:

IgG1, IgG2a subclass concentration and IgG2a/IgG1 ratio:

We did not obtain statistically significant differences in the levels of IgG1, IgG2a and IgG2a / IgG1 ratio between the groups vaccinated with IFN-g and IL-10.

9. Based on the bargraph appearance of proteinuria data in figure 4 and the highly overlapping error bars, this reviewer is surprised to see statistical significance. Please explain clearly in the figure legend what statistical method was used. As mentioned above, please show individual values rather than the mean/stdev.

R= We appreciate your observation. The graphic was emended and the legend describe the use of Mann-Whitney test.

10. Figure 5 needs to be redone so that the control samples are represented along with the pristane-treated samples. Please move figure 5A, IFNg-measurements to figure 5B and figure 5A, IL-10 measurements to figure 5C. This will facilitate better understanding of the enhanced production of each cytokine in response to the co-vaccination.

R= Done

11. The renal histology is very nice and well represented. For comparison, it would be helpful if the authors could solicit a renal score by a renal pathologist blinded to the treatment groups. Also, please provide images from all the mice done - if not in the primary figure, then in a supplemental figure.

R= We asked for the embedded paraffin tissues from our experimental groups to México city, Instituto de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, however for the pandemia and the retirement of the pathologist it was not possible to rescue them in order to do a score as you requested. All figures we have were sent as supplemental material available at: figshare.com/articles/online_resource/PONE-D-21-18801/16441683.

12. Similarly, it would be very helpful if the authors could quantify the immunofluorescence stainings either by intensity or by area, underscoring the reduced deposition of immune complexes in IL-10 covaccinated animals.

R= Since you know, the direct immunofluorescence done is no longer available because the time spent and unfortunately tissues from our experimental groups that were stored in the Instituto de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, are no longer available for the retirement of the pathologist since pandemic administrative health protocols.

13. In the discussion the authors write: "We observed that the IgG1, IgG2a levels and IgG2a/IgG1 ratio showed that the prophylactic co-vaccination influences the TH1/TH2 polarization during the course of the disease." This appears to be an overinterpretation of the data as no statistical difference between IgG2a/IgG1 ratios were found. Furthermore, the authors do not provide any evidence for changes in the Th1/Th2 polarization. To support this statement, please provide evidence for altered Th1/Th2 cell levels using either master transcription factors or intracellular cytokines to determine each cell subset.

R= Indeed, as you comment, since there is no significant difference, we cannot affirm that there are higher levels of IgG2a in the groups vaccinated with IFN-g than in those with IL-10. So, we have deleted this sentence in the discussion section.

On the other hand, we are not able to do more experiments since the supernatant from splenocytes culture and serum stored are not useful to do these types of experiments. We will need to design other whole experiment to obtain new material for experimentation, especially serum samples and or splenocyte cultures.

14. The manuscript needs proof reading for missing words, wrong syntax an typographical errors. If needed, please consult a native English speaker.

R= The English edition of the manuscript was done by Carlos Alberto Franco Salazar.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Masataka Kuwana

13 Oct 2021

The DNA co-vaccination using Sm antigen and IL-10 as prophylactic experimental therapy ameliorates nephritis in a model of lupus induced by pristane.

PONE-D-21-18801R1

Dear Dr. Vázquez-Del Mercado,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Masataka Kuwana, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for responding to my previous comments. The insertion of figure 1 is very helpful. Only a single comment left.

Please make sure that all figure legends adequately describe their figures. this include a basic description of the mice, a notion that each symbol represents one mouse, the n for each group and the statistical method used. This is done for most legends now, but is still missing from a few.

**********

7. 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 #2: No

Acceptance letter

Masataka Kuwana

18 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-18801R1

The DNA co-vaccination using Sm antigen and IL-10 as prophylactic experimental therapy ameliorates nephritis in a model of lupus induced by pristane.

Dear Dr. Vázquez-Del Mercado:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Masataka Kuwana

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Immunoprecipitation gel images.

    (PDF)

    S2 File. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Author checklist.

    (PDF)

    S1 Fig. Histology of kidneys from control and prophylactic DNA vaccination in a murine lupus model.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES