Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Dec 7;17(12):e0277304. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277304

A fusion protein comprising pneumococcal surface protein A and a pneumolysin derivate confers protection in a murine model of pneumococcal pneumonia

Tanila Wood dos Santos 1,2, Pedro Almeida Gonçalves 1, Dunia Rodriguez 3, José Aires Pereira 4, Carlos Augusto Real Martinez 4, Luciana C C Leite 3, Lucio F C Ferraz 1, Thiago Rojas Converso 1, Michelle Darrieux 1,*
Editor: Ray Borrow5
PMCID: PMC9728834  PMID: 36477013

Abstract

PspA and pneumolysin are two important vaccine candidates, able to elicit protection in different models of pneumococcal infection. The high immunogenic potential of PspA, combined with a possible adjuvant effect of pneumolysin derivatives (due to their ability to interact with TLR-4) could greatly improve the immunogenicity and coverage of a protein-based pneumococcal vaccine. A chimeric protein including the N-terminal region of PspA in fusion with the pneumolysin derivative, PlD1, has been shown to induce high antibody levels against each protein, and protect mice against invasive challenge. The aim of the present study was to investigate the cellular response induced by such vaccine, and to evaluate protection in a murine model of lobar pneumococcal pneumonia. Pneumococcal pneumonia was induced in BALB/c mice by nasal instillation of a high dose of a serotype 14 strain with low virulence. Airway inflammation was confirmed by total and differential cell counts in BAL and by histological analysis of the lungs, and bacterial loads were measured 7 days after challenge. Cytokine levels were determined in the bronchoalveolar fluid (BALF) of mice immunized with rPspA-PlD1 fusion after challenge, by flow cytometry and ELISA. After challenge, the mice developed lung inflammation with no invasion of other sites, as demonstrated by histological analysis. We detected significant production of TNF-α and IL-6 in the BALF, which correlated with protection against pneumonia in the group immunized with rPspA-PlD1. In conclusion, we found that the rPspA-PlD1fusion is protective against pneumococcal pneumonia in mice, and protection is correlated with an early and controlled local inflammatory response. These results are in agreement with previous data demonstrating the efficacy of the fusion protein against pneumococcal sepsis and reinforce the potential of the rPspA-PlD1 protein chimera as a promising vaccine strategy to prevent pneumococcal disease.

Introduction

Streptococcus pneumoniae is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality affecting mainly children and the elderly. It is estimated that 10.6 million children under five years of age are affected by pneumococcal disease annually, with more than 1.1 million deaths [1].

Strategies used to prevent pneumococcal infections are based on polysaccharides alone or in conjugation with carrier proteins [2]; however, given the limited number of serotypes in conjugate vaccines a rapid increase in pneumococcal disease caused by serotypes not included in the vaccines has been observed in many countries following implementation of pneumococcal vaccine programs [3]. Additionally, the conjugation process is complex and costly, limiting vaccine implementation in countries where disease burden is highest [2].

Therefore, serotype-independent vaccines, including whole cell and protein-based formulations, have been evaluated against S. pneumoniae infections. [4]. Among several proteins currently investigated [5–9] are Pneumococcal surface protein A (PspA) and Pneumolysin. PspA is an exposed protein that limits Complement deposition on the bacterium through diverse mechanisms [10] and has been shown to prevent pneumococcal killing by antimicrobial peptides [11, 12]. Pneumolysin is a cholesterol-dependent cytolysin with well documented adjuvant properties, due to its ability to interact with TLR-4 [13, 14].

Pneumolysin detoxified derivatives known as pneumolysoids (PLD) and PspA have been suggested in several studies as potent candidates for inclusion in subunit vaccines against pneumococcal infection [15–19]. The immunogenic potential of these proteins has been well characterized; however, the complexity of pneumococcal infections suggests that more than one protein must be included in the vaccine to achieve high efficacy and coverage [11].

The coadministration of PspA and PLD has shown improved protective responses when compared to each protein alone, in models of bacteremia and pneumonia [8, 20]. Another strategy to combine multiple antigens in a single formulation is the fusion of protective proteins or protein fragments, creating chimeras. Fusion proteins have been successfully evaluated in several models of pneumococcal diseases, including a rPspA-PlD1 chimera produced by our group, which was protective against pneumococcal sepsis [17]. In the present study, we evaluated the protective efficacy of the rPspA-PlD1 fusion protein against pneumococcal pneumonia, using a mouse model of focal pneumonia–which mimics the clinical features of lung colonization by pneumococci and reflects the natural course of human infections.

Materials and methods

Pneumococcal strains and growth conditions

The pneumococcal strains used in this study were the clinical isolates P854 (serotype 19F) and St 245/00 (Serotype 14) [21], two serotypes with low invasiveness. Pneumococci were maintained as frozen stocks (-80°C) in Todd-Hewitt broth supplemented with 0.5% yeast extract (THY), with 10% glycerol. In each experiment, the bacteria were plated on blood agar prior to growth in THY.

Construction of the rPspA-PlD1 chimera

The gene fragment encoding the N-terminal region of PspA 245/00 [21] was fused to the mutant detoxified Pneumolysin gene plD1 (PdH367) by ligation through complementary cohesive ends added to the primers and cloned into linearized pAE-6xHis expression vector [22]. The PlD1 mutant was first described by Berry et al., 1995 [23]), and retains 0.02% of the hemolytic activity of the native protein [17, 23]. The final construct, rpspA-plD1, was expressed in E. coli BL21DE3 by induction of mid-log-phase cultures with 1 mM IPTG (Sigma) and purified through affinity chromatography with Ni2+ charged chelating Sepharose resin (HisTrap Chelating HP; GE HealthCare) in an Akta Prime apparatus (GE HealthCare), as described by Goulart et al., [17].

Mouse pneumonia model

All animal experiments were approved by the Ethics Committee at Universidade São Francisco, Bragança Paulista–SP (CEUAUSF), (Permit Number: 001.08.12). Female BALB/c mice from Faculdade de Medicina–Universidade de São Paulo (São Paulo, Brazil) were anesthetized with 200 μL of a mixture of 0.5% xylazine and 0.25% ketamine and innoculated intranasally with 5 x 106 CFU of Streptococcus pneumoniae 245/00 or P854 diluted in PBS (final volume = 50 μL/animal). After 5 or 7 days, the mice (which did not show any signs of disease) were euthanized by a lethal dose of anesthetic and had their lungs collected, macerated in 1 mL of iced PBS and centrifuged at 500 x g for 10 minutes. Serial dilutions of lung homogenates were plated on blood agar and incubated overnight at 37°C for determination of bacterial counts by CFU (Colony forming units). Comparison between 5 and 7 days of infection with each pneumococcal strain was performed using Student t test. Cellular influx in the lungs was evaluated by differential leucocyte count in BALF samples collected after the mice were euthanized at different time periods following challenge (0, 3, 6, 12, 24 and 48 h).

Immunization and challenge

Female BALB/c mice were immunized subcutaneously with 3 doses of 8.8 μg of rPspA1, 11.2 μg of PlD1, a mixture of the proteins (rPspA1+PlD1, co-administered) or 20 μg of the hybrid rPspA1-PlD1 at 14-day intervals, using sterile saline solution 0.9% with 50 μg of Al(OH)3 as adjuvant (in a final volume of 100 μL). The adjuvant alone in saline was used as a control. Two weeks after the last immunization, the mice were anesthetized and challenged by intranasal inoculation with 50 μL of PBS containing 5x106 CFU of St 245/00. After different time points, the animals were euthanized and the BALF was collected for determination of cellular infiltrate and cytokine production. The lungs were removed for determination of bacterial loads and histological analysis of the inflammatory infiltrate by H.E. staining. Blood and liver were also collected for CFU count. Differences between pneumococcal counts in each group were analyzed by Mann–Whitney U test.

Analysis of cytokine production in BALF

Cytokine production was evaluated in the BALF of immunized mice after 6, 12, 24 and 48 hours of challenge using Cytometric Bead Array (CBA, BD Biosciences). The following cytokines were analyzed: IFN-γ, TNF-α, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10 and IL-17a. Twenty-five microliter aliquots of BALF of each mouse were incubated in presence of antibody-conjugated beads and the fluorescence analyzed using FACS CANTO (BD Biosciences), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Production of IL-6 and TNF-α was confirmed by ELISA (P-Protech).

Results

Murine model of pneumococcal pneumonia

After 5 days of intranasal inoculation with the pneumococcal strains St 245/00 and P854, the mice lungs were colonized with pneumococci, and the bacterial levels increased after seven days (Fig 1A). Although both bacteria behaved similarly in the challenge experiment, the bacterial counts were a little less disperse with St 245/00, as indicated by the slightly lower standard deviation bar on this group. Based on those results, we have proceeded with the challenge experiments using St 245/00 and 7 days as the colonization endpoint. Analysis of the cellular infiltrates revealed a significant influx of leucocytes in the BALF samples after 12 h of infection with ST 245/00, which continued to increase until 48 h (Fig 1B). The infiltrate was mainly composed of neutrophils, followed by macrophages.

Fig 1. Mouse model of pneumococcal pneumonia.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

(A) Bacterial counts were determined in the lungs of nonimmunized mice on days 5 and 7 after intranasal inoculation with pneumococcal strains St 245/00 (serotype 14) and P854 (serotype 19F). Values were compared for each strain after 5- and 7 days using Student t test (*p<0,05). (B). Leucocyte infiltrates in the BALF were calculated for different time points after intranasal challenge with pneumococcal strain St 245/00. Statistical analysis was performed using one way ANOVA with Dunnet’s posttest. *p<0,05 in comparison with cells counts at 0 hours.

Effect of immunization on lung colonization by Streptococcus pneumoniae

Aiming to evaluate the effect of immunizations over infection, lungs, liver, and blood were collected from immunized mice at various time points after intranasal challenge with St 245/00 and CFU evaluated. Bacterial loads in the lungs of mice immunized with the fusion protein, rPspA-PlD1, remained very low throughout the experiment (Fig 2A). In the group immunized with rPspA alone, there was an increase in bacterial counts after 2 h of infection, followed by a gradual decrease over the next hours. The control and PlD1 groups showed some fluctuation in the number of pneumococci over time, but there were no significant differences between these groups. After 7 days of challenge, however, the animals immunized with the fusion protein had significantly lower bacterial loads in the lungs in comparison with the control group (Fig 2B), and 1 out of 7 mice was cleared from bacteria. The group immunized with PspA alone displayed a tendency towards lower CFU counts in the lungs, but it did not reach statistical significance. The group that received PlD1 alone had bacterial loads comparable to the sham-immunized control. No bacteria could be detected in the blood and liver of the immunized or control mice at any time point (data not shown).

Fig 2. Lung colonization by Streptococcus pneumoniae in mice immunized with rPspA_PlD1.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Mice immunized with 3 doses of rPspA, rPlD1, or the fusion protein in Alum were challenged intranasally with 5x106 CFU of St 245/00. Bacterial counts in the lungs of immunized and control mice (injected with Alum diluted in PBS) are shown after 2–48 h (A) or seven days (B). (*p<0.05 for the same immunization group at different time points and #p<0.05 for immunized x control mice).

Characterization of the cellular immune responses induced by immunization and challenge

The cellular infiltrates in the BALF of immunized and challenged mice were evaluated at different time points after challenge. The immunized groups show an early cellular influx in the lungs after pneumococcal challenge, in comparison with the control group, which peaked at 48 h (Fig 3A). The lungs of mice immunized with the rPspA-PlD1 fusion protein exhibited a rapid increase in immune cells after 6 hours of infection, which peaked at 12 h and was followed by a marked reduction at 24 h. Mice immunized with rPspA alone did not present a significant cellular infiltrate at any time point, while the rPlD1 group showed an increase in BALF leucocytes at 6 h post-infection, which persisted until 24 h. Histological analysis of the lungs confirmed the inflammatory infiltrates found in BALF (Fig 3B and 3C). The lungs of immunized and challenged mice presented an early low inflammatory response, with a discrete leucocyte influx and alveolar integrity (Fig 3B). In contrast, the control group showed a moderate and delayed inflammatory response, with congestion, alveolar cell hyperplasia and increased levels of leucocyte infiltrates (Fig 3C).

Fig 3. Induced immune responses in lungs and BALF.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

(A) Cellular infiltrate in the BALF following pneumococcal challenge. Immunized and control mice were euthanized at different time points after intranasal inoculation of St 245/00 and the total cell counts in the BALF were determined and compared among immunization groups and times points. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA with Tukey’s and Dunnet’s posttests. (*) p<0,05 between samples from the same immunization group at different times after challenge; (#) p<0,05 in comparison with the control (Alum) at the same time point; (o) p<0,05 when comparing immunization with rPspA-PlD1 versus isolated proteins at the same time point. (B and C) Histological analysis of lung tissue after pneumococcal challenge. 1 μm sections of the left lung lobe from mice immunized with the hybrid (B) and from control mice (C) after 48 h were stained with hematoxylin-eosin, showing slight and moderate levels of inflammation, respectively (Original magnification, x400).

Cytokine production in the BALF was determined by CBA kit (S1 Appendix) and confirmed by ELISA. Analysis of TNF-α production revealed an early increase in the groups immunized with rPlD1 and the hybrid protein and a delayed response in the control group, which peaked at 12 hours (Fig 4A). At 24 h, the levels of TNF-α decreased significantly in all groups tested. The immunized and control groups showed an increase in IL-6 production 12 h after challenge; however, the levels of IL-6 were significantly higher in the BALF of mice immunized with the hybrid protein in comparison with the other groups (Fig 4B). IL-6 production remained high in this group after 24 h, with a marked reduction after 7 days. The results confirmed previous flow cytometry data obtained using CBA kit, which showed an early increase in TNF-α in the immunized groups and significantly higher levels of IL-6 in the group immunized with the hybrid within the first six hours of infection.

Fig 4. Cytokine production by immunized mice after pneumococcal challenge.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

Production of TNF-α (A) and IL-6 (B) in the BALF of immunized mice was detected by ELISA and compared with control mice (receiving adjuvant in PBS). *p<0.05 for the same group at different time periods; #p<0.05 as compared with the control group;°p<0.05 for the rPspA-PlD1 group as compared to the individual proteins.

Discussion

Protein-based vaccines are an interesting alternative to prevent pneumococcal infections; they can provide serotype-independent protection, overcoming the serotype-replacement observed with the current conjugate vaccines. PspA and Pneumolysin are important virulence factors which have been extensively studied as pneumococcal vaccine candidates, with encouraging results in several infection models as well as clinical trials [4].

The main limitation of pneumococcal protein-based vaccines has been the low immunogenicity of isolated proteins and, in the case of PspA, the high structural and serological variability [24], which hamper the protective efficacy of these proteins. An alternative to surpass these limitations is to combine different proteins in a single formulation. Protein chimeras–where the most protective fragments of each protein are expressed in fusion forming a new molecule–are an interesting approach, since they can be produced as a single antigen, combining the protective effects of multiple antigens. Previous studies using protein chimeras have suggested protective responses against all the antigens included in the formulations [15, 17, 25, 26]. We have previously constructed a fusion protein including the N-terminal region of a family 1 PspA (which was selected based on its ability to induce antibodies displaying high cross-reactivity with heterologous rPspA molecules–[21] and a detoxified pneumolysin derivative with a His367-Arg substitution [17, 27]. The final construct, rPspA-PlD1, was initially investigated as a vaccine candidate against pneumococcal sepsis. Immunization with the fusion protein induced high levels of opsonic antibodies and protection against pneumococcal sepsis, which correlated with increased antibody-mediated complement deposition on the bacterial surface [17]. However, the most common outcome of pneumococcal invasive infections is not sepsis, but lobar pneumonia. Therefore, in the present study, the rPspA-PlD1 hybrid was investigated as a vaccine candidate in a mouse model of pneumonia, which better reflects the hallmarks of pneumococcal infection in the human host.

Initially, a model of pneumococcal lobar pneumonia was developed by intranasal inoculation with a pneumococcal strain displaying low virulence in mice, as proposed by Briles and cols [20]. In the present study, we have tested two strains of different serotypes, 14 and 19F, which express PspAs belonging to family 1 (clades 1 and 2, respectively). Challenge with the serotype 14 strain, St 245/00, resulted in lung colonization at day five, which increased at day seven, with less variations among individuals. Therefore, this strain was chosen to evaluate the effects of vaccination on pneumonia.

Next, the pneumonia model was used to investigate protection induced by subcutaneous immunization with the recombinant proteins. Only the group immunized with the fusion protein showed a significant reduction in pneumococcal colonization after 7 days of infection; although the PspA group showed a tendency towards lower bacterial counts in the lungs, none of the individual proteins were protective in this model. This result reinforces the enhanced effectiveness of chimeric proteins against pneumococcal lung infection. A similar pneumonia model has been previously used to evaluate the protective efficacy of rPspA and a pneumolysoid, rPdB. In that study, the combination of rPspA and rPdB promoted the strongest inhibition in lung colonization, confirming the importance of including different antigens to increase vaccine efficacy [20]. The present work supports those findings, and further demonstrates that fusion proteins maintain the protective efficacy of combined antigens, with the advantage of being produced as a single molecule. This greatly impacts the costs associated with vaccine production and could, therefore, contribute to a wider distribution of the vaccine among developing countries, in which the burden of pneumococcal diseases is higher.

Protection elicited by the vaccine was associated with early, controlled inflammatory responses, represented by cellular infiltrates and an inflammatory cytokine profile. Immunized mice showed an early, yet discrete, increase in IL-6 and TNF-α in BAL fluids, while the control group had a delayed response upon infection. A similar effect has been observed previously in mice immunized with protein-based pneumococcal vaccines, and was, as in the present work, correlated with protection against systemic infection [28–31].

A study with IL-6 deficient mice has shown that these animals had higher pneumococcal loads in the lungs after 40 hours and died earlier than the wild-type group [31]. Also, the quick production of TNF-α in the group vaccinated with fusion protein, in the first hours of infection has been predictive of better infection outcomes, including less tissue damage and better survival in mice [28–30].

Our group has previously shown that the rPspA-PlD1 construct was able to protect mice against sepsis through the induction of protective antibodies [17]; here we demonstrated that immunization with this protein also elicited cytokine production related to protection in the pneumonia model. This data is supported by Wilson et al., who have demonstrated that protection against lung infections requires humoral and cell-mediated immune responses [32].

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that the fusion protein rPspA-PlD1, including the protection eliciting N-terminal fragment of PspA and a detoxified pneumolysoid, is a strong candidate for future serotype-independent pneumococcal vaccines, able to promote protective responses against systemic infection as well as lobar pneumonia. Protection has been associated with production of opsonic antibodies and complement-mediated phagocytosis [17] and controlled inflammatory responses in the BALF of subcutaneously immunized mice.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Cytokine production analysis by CBA kit.

The cytokine production was analyzed in the BALF after 6, 12, 24 and 168 hours after infection using the Cytometric Bead Array (CBA, BD Biosciences).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file. (181.6KB, docx)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

MD and LCCL received funding from Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (grants 2014/01115-9 and 2017/24832-6). TWS received a sholarship from Coordenação de aperfeiçoamento de pessoal de nível superior (CAPES).

References

  • 1.Troeger C, Blacker B, Khalil IA, Rao PC, Cao J, Zimsen SRM, et al. Estimates of the global, regional, and national morbidity, mortality, and aetiologies of lower respiratory infections in 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2018;18(11):1191–210. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30310-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Briles DE, Paton JC, Mukerji R, Swiatlo E, Crain MJ. Pneumococcal Vaccines. Microbiol Spectr. 2019;7(6). Epub 2019/12/21. doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.GPP3-0028-2018 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lewnard JA, Hanage WP. Making sense of differences in pneumococcal serotype replacement. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2019;19(6):e213–e20. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30660-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Converso TR, Assoni L, Andre GO, Darrieux M, Leite LCC. The long search for a serotype independent pneumococcal vaccine. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2020;19(1):57–70. Epub 2020/01/07. doi: 10.1080/14760584.2020.1711055 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Andre GO, Borges MT, Assoni L, Ferraz LFC, Sakshi P, Adamson P, et al. Protective role of PhtD and its amino and carboxyl fragments against pneumococcal sepsis. Vaccine. 2021;39(27):3626–32. Epub 2021/05/29. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.04.068 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Converso TR, Goulart C, Rodriguez D, Darrieux M, Leite LC. Systemic immunization with rPotD reduces Streptococcus pneumoniae nasopharyngeal colonization in mice. Vaccine. 2017;35(1):149–55. Epub 2016/11/26. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.11.027 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Miyaji EN, Vadesilho CF, Oliveira ML, Zelanis A, Briles DE, Ho PL. Evaluation of a vaccine formulation against Streptococcus pneumoniae based on choline-binding proteins. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2015;22(2):213–20. Epub 2014/12/19. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00692-14 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4308862. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ogunniyi AD, Grabowicz M, Briles DE, Cook J, Paton JC. Development of a vaccine against invasive pneumococcal disease based on combinations of virulence proteins of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Infect Immun. 2007;75(1):350–7. Epub 2006/11/08. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01103-06 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1828427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lu YJ, Forte S, Thompson CM, Anderson PW, Malley R. Protection against Pneumococcal colonization and fatal pneumonia by a trivalent conjugate of a fusion protein with the cell wall polysaccharide. Infect Immun. 2009;77(5):2076–83. Epub 2009/03/04. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01554-08 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2681726. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Andre GO, Converso TR, Politano WR, Ferraz LF, Ribeiro ML, Leite LC, et al. Role of Streptococcus pneumoniae Proteins in Evasion of Complement-Mediated Immunity. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:224. Epub 2017/03/08. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00224 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5316553. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Andre GO, Politano WR, Mirza S, Converso TR, Ferraz LF, Leite LC, et al. Combined effects of lactoferrin and lysozyme on Streptococcus pneumoniae killing. Microb Pathog. 2015;89:7–17. Epub 2015/08/25. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2015.08.008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Assoni L, Milani B, Carvalho MR, Nepomuceno LN, Waz NT, Guerra MES, et al. Resistance Mechanisms to Antimicrobial Peptides in Gram-Positive Bacteria. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:593215. Epub 2020/11/17. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.593215 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7609970. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Malley R, Henneke P, Morse SC, Cieslewicz MJ, Lipsitch M, Thompson CM, et al. Recognition of pneumolysin by Toll-like receptor 4 confers resistance to pneumococcal infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(4):1966–71. Epub 2003/02/06. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0435928100 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC149942. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Marriott HM, Mitchell TJ, Dockrell DH. Pneumolysin: a double-edged sword during the host-pathogen interaction. Curr Mol Med. 2008;8(6):497–509. Epub 2008/09/11. doi: 10.2174/156652408785747924 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Converso TR, Goulart C, Darrieux M, Leite LCC. A protein chimera including PspA in fusion with PotD is protective against invasive pneumococcal infection and reduces nasopharyngeal colonization in mice. Vaccine. 2017;35(38):5140–7. Epub 2017/08/19. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.08.010 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Darrieux M, Miyaji EN, Ferreira DM, Lopes LM, Lopes AP, Ren B, et al. Fusion proteins containing family 1 and family 2 PspA fragments elicit protection against Streptococcus pneumoniae that correlates with antibody-mediated enhancement of complement deposition. Infect Immun. 2007;75(12):5930–8. Epub 2007/10/10. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00940-07 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2168346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Goulart C, da Silva TR, Rodriguez D, Politano WR, Leite LC, Darrieux M. Characterization of protective immune responses induced by pneumococcal surface protein A in fusion with pneumolysin derivatives. PloS one. 2013;8(3):e59605. Epub 2013/03/28. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059605 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3606166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Chan WY, Entwisle C, Ercoli G, Ramos-Sevillano E, McIlgorm A, Cecchini P, et al. A Novel, Multiple-Antigen Pneumococcal Vaccine Protects against Lethal Streptococcus pneumoniae Challenge. Infect Immun. 2019;87(3). Epub 2018/12/12. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00846-18 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6386546. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Denoel P, Philipp MT, Doyle L, Martin D, Carletti G, Poolman JT. A protein-based pneumococcal vaccine protects rhesus macaques from pneumonia after experimental infection with Streptococcus pneumoniae. Vaccine. 2011;29(33):5495–501. Epub 2011/06/01. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.05.051 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5061031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Briles DE, Hollingshead SK, Paton JC, Ades EW, Novak L, van Ginkel FW, et al. Immunizations with pneumococcal surface protein A and pneumolysin are protective against pneumonia in a murine model of pulmonary infection with Streptococcus pneumoniae. J Infect Dis. 2003;188(3):339–48. Epub 2003/07/19. doi: 10.1086/376571 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Goulart C, Darrieux M, Rodriguez D, Pimenta FC, Brandileone MC, de Andrade AL, et al. Selection of family 1 PspA molecules capable of inducing broad-ranging cross-reactivity by complement deposition and opsonophagocytosis by murine peritoneal cells. Vaccine. 2011;29(8):1634–42. Epub 2011/01/08. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.12.074 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ramos CR, Abreu PA, Nascimento AL, Ho PL. A high-copy T7 Escherichia coli expression vector for the production of recombinant proteins with a minimal N-terminal His-tagged fusion peptide. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2004;37(8):1103–9. Epub 2004/07/27. /S0100-879X2004000800001 S0100-879X2004000800001 [pii]. doi: 10.1590/s0100-879x2004000800001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Berry AM, Alexander JE, Mitchell TJ, Andrew PW, Hansman D, Paton JC. Effect of defined point mutations in the pneumolysin gene on the virulence of Streptococcus pneumoniae. Infect Immun. 1995;63(5):1969–74. Epub 1995/05/01. doi: 10.1128/iai.63.5.1969-1974.1995 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC173251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hollingshead SK, Becker R, Briles DE. Diversity of PspA: mosaic genes and evidence for past recombination in Streptococcus pneumoniae. Infect Immun. 2000;68(10):5889–900. Epub 2000/09/19. doi: 10.1128/IAI.68.10.5889-5900.2000 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC101551. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mann B, Thornton J, Heath R, Wade KR, Tweten RK, Gao G, et al. Broadly protective protein-based pneumococcal vaccine composed of pneumolysin toxoid-CbpA peptide recombinant fusion protein. J Infect Dis. 2014;209(7):1116–25. Epub 2013/09/18. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jit502 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3952665. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rojas Converso T, Goulart C, Rodriguez D, Guerra MES, Darrieux M, Leite LCC. Immune response induced in mice by a hybrid rPotD-PdT pneumococcal protein. PloS one. 2022;17(8):e0273017. Epub 2022/08/23. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273017 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9394809. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Berry AM, Paton JC. Additive attenuation of virulence of Streptococcus pneumoniae by mutation of the genes encoding pneumolysin and other putative pneumococcal virulence proteins. Infect Immun. 2000;68(1):133–40. Epub 1999/12/22. doi: 10.1128/IAI.68.1.133-140.2000 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC97112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lima FA, Ferreira DM, Moreno AT, Ferreira PC, Palma GM, Ferreira JM Jr., et al. Controlled inflammatory responses in the lungs are associated with protection elicited by a pneumococcal surface protein A-based vaccine against a lethal respiratory challenge with Streptococcus pneumoniae in mice. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2012;19(9):1382–92. Epub 2012/07/05. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00171-12 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3428385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Xu Q, Surendran N, Verhoeven D, Klapa J, Ochs M, Pichichero ME. Trivalent pneumococcal protein recombinant vaccine protects against lethal Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumonia and correlates with phagocytosis by neutrophils during early pathogenesis. Vaccine. 2015;33(8):993–1000. Epub 2015/01/20. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.01.014 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Goulart C, Rodriguez D, Kanno AI, Silva J, Leite LCC. Early pneumococcal clearance in mice induced by systemic immunization with recombinant BCG PspA-PdT prime and protein boost correlates with cellular and humoral immune response in bronchoalveolar fluids (BALF). Vaccine X. 2020;4:100049. Epub 2020/01/01. doi: 10.1016/j.jvacx.2019.100049 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6928339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.van der Poll T, Keogh CV, Guirao X, Buurman WA, Kopf M, Lowry SF. Interleukin-6 gene-deficient mice show impaired defense against pneumococcal pneumonia. J Infect Dis. 1997;176(2):439–44. Epub 1997/08/01. doi: 10.1086/514062 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wilson R, Cohen JM, Jose RJ, de Vogel C, Baxendale H, Brown JS. Protection against Streptococcus pneumoniae lung infection after nasopharyngeal colonization requires both humoral and cellular immune responses. Mucosal Immunol. 2015;8(3):627–39. Epub 2014/10/30. doi: 10.1038/mi.2014.95 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4351900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ray Borrow

21 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-17627A fusion protein comprising Pneumococcal surface protein A and a Pneumolysin derivate confers protection in a

murine model of pneumococcal pneumonia.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Darrieux,

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 below during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 05 2022 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: https://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,

Ray Borrow, Ph.D., FRCPath

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. 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

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Overall this is a reasonable manuscript that follows up on a previous study. For the most part, the data supports the conclusions. Two points should be addressed. 1. While the purpose was to examine protection against pneumonia as opposed to sepsis, why was this data not included in the sepsis manuscript. There have already been pneumonia challenge models described for the pneumococcus. The authors could have use one of those rather than develop their own. 2. The authors state that their model had pneumococci restricted to the lungs and no other organs. However, there is no data to support this clam.

Reviewer #2: Summary observations

Abstract is clear and so is the introduction. The authors demonstrate the scientific basis for initiating the study. Appropriate references are quoted, institutional review board’s approval was obtained. The materials and methods section (mainly the Mouse pneumonia model part) need needs to be modified to reflect what is presented in the results section (Murine Model of pneumonia) (see Specific comments). The data were collected, analyzed, and interpreted by and large correctly. Figures are clear and readable but there are mistakes in some of the Figures. The results are adequately discussed.

Specific Comments

Introduction

L60 and L74 may have to be rewritten to avoid starting a new paragraph with a backward link to the previous paragraph but to start with a fresh topic sentence. Where there is a backward link, readers may conclude that this is simply ‘more of the same’ and so skip onwards to the next paragraph.

Materials and Methods

L89 and L126 ‘St’ is written in italic while elsewhere it is not (see L144, L147, L153. L199 and L246). In L177 it is ‘Sp’.

L144-147(Results section) and L254-258 - the authors present and discuss ‘lung colonization and determination of colonization end-point’; 5 days versus 7 days. However, information about comparing St 245/00 and P854 colonization of the lung (5 days versus 7 days) and determination of the endpoint is missing in the materials and methods section (mouse and pneumonia model). In fact, L111 starts with the words ‘After 7 days’ giving the impression that the comparison was done for ‘day 7’ only.

L116 - “Comparison between groups was performed using Students t test’. It is not clear which groups the authors are referring to. It is confusing. Is it BALF verses Lung? Or St 245/00 versus P854. Clarify.

Results

L114 (Methods-Mouse pneumonia model) reads ‘Serial dilutions of BALF…………were plated on blood agar…. for determination of bacterial counts …’. However, no data on BALF bacterial counts are provided; only CFU in the lung in presented (see Figure 1A)

In Figure 1A, the authors used ‘Lung CFU’ (Y-axis label) and in Figures 2A and 2B used ‘CFU in BALF’ and ‘CFU in Lung’ respectively. For consistency’s sake use the same ‘style’ of labelling.

L126 - L128. BALF was collected after seven days to determine cellular infiltrate and cytokine production. However, Figures 3A and 4A &B are for cellular infiltrate and cytokine production for time points 2-48 hrs and not for day 7. Clarify the ‘‘After seven days.’

L129 reads ‘Blood and liver were also collected for CFU count’. No data are provided.

L146 -L147 read ‘…we have proceeded with the challenge experiments using St 245/00 and 7 days as the colonization endpoint.’ and L255 goes ‘Challenge with the serotype 14 strain, St 245/00, resulted in lung colonization at day five, which increased at day seven, with less variations among individuals. Therefore, this strain was chosen to evaluate the effects of vaccination on pneumonia.’ Given that both St 245/00 and P854 gave ‘comparable’ results (Figure 1A), it would appear then that St245/00 was chosen on the basis of ‘less variations among individuals., However, the data on ‘variations among individuals’ have not been provided.

L168-L169 and L178 refer to bacterial loads in the BALF but Figure 2B is about ‘CFU in Lung”

Figure 1B-The Y axis label should be ‘BALF cells x 104/ml’ not just ‘cells x 104/ml’

Figure 4A and B. In the legend, it should be 48 hrs not 168hrs

**********

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: Yes: Enoch Sepako, PhD

**********

[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. 2022 Dec 7;17(12):e0277304. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277304.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

11 Oct 2022

We would like to thank the reviewers for the careful analysis of the manuscript.

All the suggestions were accepted and incorporated in the final version (the modifications are highlighted in yellow). We have addressed each comment individually, as follows:

Reviewer #1: Overall this is a reasonable manuscript that follows up on a previous study. For the most part, the data supports the conclusions. Two points should be addressed. 1. While the purpose was to examine protection against pneumonia as opposed to sepsis, why was this data not included in the sepsis manuscript. There have already been pneumonia challenge models described for the pneumococcus. The authors could have use one of those rather than develop their own. 2. The authors state that their model had pneumococci restricted to the lungs and no other organs. However, there is no data to support this clam.

1. The sepsis data was generated earlier as part of the project of another student at the lab. She was comparing different vaccine formulations including Pspa and pneumolysoids, and she focused on the sepsis model, which was already well stablished in our lab. The pneumonia model was stablished later, when we identified pneumococcal strains of serotypes with lower invasiveness to use in this infection model. We have, in fact, based our pneumonia model in previously described work, but we selected strains from our bacterial bank and therefore some adjustments were necessary due to particularities in these specific strains.

2. No bacteria were found in the blood and liver of the immunized or control mice in any time point after challenge. This information was added to the text (lines 170-171).

Reviewer #2:

Summary observations

Abstract is clear and so is the introduction. The authors demonstrate the scientific basis for initiating the study. Appropriate references are quoted, institutional review board’s approval was obtained. The materials and methods section (mainly the Mouse pneumonia model part) need needs to be modified to reflect what is presented in the results section (Murine Model of pneumonia) (see Specific comments). The data were collected, analyzed, and interpreted by and large correctly. Figures are clear and readable but there are mistakes in some of the Figures. The results are adequately discussed.

Specific Comments

Introduction

L60 and L74 may have to be rewritten to avoid starting a new paragraph with a backward link to the previous paragraph but to start with a fresh topic sentence. Where there is a backward link, readers may conclude that this is simply ‘more of the same’ and so skip onwards to the next paragraph.

These sentences have been modified as suggested

Materials and Methods

L89 and L126 ‘St’ is written in italic while elsewhere it is not (see L144, L147, L153. L199 and L246). In L177 it is ‘Sp’.

The abbreviations have been corrected and kept as St throughout the manuscript.

L144-147(Results section) and L254-258 - the authors present and discuss ‘lung colonization and determination of colonization end-point’; 5 days versus 7 days. However, information about comparing St 245/00 and P854 colonization of the lung (5 days versus 7 days) and determination of the endpoint is missing in the materials and methods section (mouse and pneumonia model). In fact, L111 starts with the words ‘After 7 days’ giving the impression that the comparison was done for ‘day 7’ only.

The section was corrected as indicated.

L116 - “Comparison between groups was performed using Students t test’. It is not clear which groups the authors are referring to. It is confusing. Is it BALF verses Lung? Or St 245/00 versus P854. Clarify.

The comparison was performed between days 5 and 7 of infection with each strain. This information was added to the manuscript.

Results

L114 (Methods-Mouse pneumonia model) reads ‘Serial dilutions of BALF…………were plated on blood agar…. for determination of bacterial counts …’. However, no data on BALF bacterial counts are provided; only CFU in the lung in presented (see Figure 1A)

The reviewer is correct. For bacterial counts, we have collected and plated the lung homogenates at days 5 and 7 post-infection. We used the BALF for analysis of the cellular infiltrates at 0, 3, 6, 12, 24 and 48 h following challenge. This information was corrected in the methods section.

In Figure 1A, the authors used ‘Lung CFU’ (Y-axis label) and in Figures 2A and 2B used ‘CFU in BALF’ and ‘CFU in Lung’ respectively. For consistency’s sake use the same ‘style’ of labelling.

The figure has been adjusted as indicated.

L126 - L128. BALF was collected after seven days to determine cellular infiltrate and cytokine production. However, Figures 3A and 4A &B are for cellular infiltrate and cytokine production for time points 2-48 hrs and not for day 7. Clarify the ‘‘After seven days.’

The information was corrected on the text. The animals were euthanized at various time points.

L129 reads ‘Blood and liver were also collected for CFU count’. No data are provided.

No bacteria were found in the blood and liver of the immunized or control mice in any time point after challenge. This information was added to the text (lines 170-171).

L146 -L147 read ‘…we have proceeded with the challenge experiments using St 245/00 and 7 days as the colonization endpoint.’ and L255 goes ‘Challenge with the serotype 14 strain, St 245/00, resulted in lung colonization at day five, which increased at day seven, with less variations among individuals. Therefore, this strain was chosen to evaluate the effects of vaccination on pneumonia.’ Given that both St 245/00 and P854 gave ‘comparable’ results (Figure 1A), it would appear then that St245/00 was chosen on the basis of ‘less variations among individuals., However, the data on ‘variations among individuals’ have not been provided.

Although both bacteria behaved similarly in the challenge experiment, the results were a little less disperse with St 245/00, as indicated by the slightly lower standard deviation bar on this group. This information was added to the manuscript (lines 143-145).

L168-L169 and L178 refer to bacterial loads in the BALF but Figure 2B is about ‘CFU in Lung”

The information was corrected in the text.

Figure 1B-The Y axis label should be ‘BALF cells x 104/ml’ not just ‘cells x 104/ml’

Figure 1B has been adjusted as indicated.

Figure 4A and B. In the legend, it should be 48 hrs not 168hrs

The figure legends have been

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx

Click here for additional data file. (18.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Ray Borrow

25 Oct 2022

A fusion protein comprising Pneumococcal surface protein A and a Pneumolysin derivate confers protection in a

murine model of pneumococcal pneumonia.

PONE-D-22-17627R1

Dear Dr. Darrieux,

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,

Ray Borrow, Ph.D., FRCPath

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Ray Borrow

2 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-17627R1

A fusion protein comprising Pneumococcal surface protein A and a Pneumolysin derivate confers protection in a murine model of pneumococcal pneumonia

Dear Dr. Darrieux:

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. Ray Borrow

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 Appendix. Cytokine production analysis by CBA kit.

    The cytokine production was analyzed in the BALF after 6, 12, 24 and 168 hours after infection using the Cytometric Bead Array (CBA, BD Biosciences).

    (DOCX)

    Click here for additional data file. (181.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (18.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

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

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES