Review

Acute inflammation and influenza: Innovative nanoparticle vaccination studies in a pig model

Gourapura J Renukaradhya1*

 

Author Affiliations

1*Professor, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Food Animal Health Building, 1680 Madison, Avenue Wooster, Ohio 44691, USA

 

Correspondence: Dr. Gourapura J Renukaradhya

gourapura.1@osu.edu

 

IJIR 2019;3(1):R1 DOI: 10.15305/ijir/v3i1/279

 

Submitted: 5 September 2018, Accepted: 25 September 2018, Published: 28 January 2019

 

© IJIR

 

Abstract

According to the reports of World Health Organization (WHO), around three to five million people are infected with seasonal influenza annually and approximately 250,000 to 500,000 people die worldwide. The risk of influenza associated complications are due to severe inflammatory reactions in the respiratory tract, and it is common in children <5 years, pregnant women, elderly individuals and people with chronic medical conditions. Influenza A virus (IAV) subtypes H1N1 and H3N2 are the major currently circulating viruses among humans. Vaccination is the most effective way to prevent influenza in humans. Influenza virus primarily infects epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract mucosa, and nasal virus shedding forms the means of viral transmission. Hence, induction of strong mucosal antibody and cell-mediated immune responses are beneficial for efficient protection during influenza epidemics and pandemics. But protection from currently used influenza vaccines varies from 10 to 60%, and it induces poor mucosal immune responses. Since inflammation associated with IAV infection is a ‘double edge sword’, control of infection-associated morbidity is essential. It is possible only through the use of potent intranasal influenza vaccines, which induce robust mucosal immune response and alleviates inflammation in the respiratory tract. This review article summarizes inflammatory responses triggered by IAV infection causing severe pulmonary disease, and the novel mucosal vaccination strategies, tested in a pig model, that have been showing promise to mitigate influenza-induced immunopathology.

 

History of flu pandemics, swine flu human sufferings

IAV infection is a serious respiratory tract problem responsible for a great number of deaths and hospitalizations worldwide. This year marked the 100th anniversary of the famous ‘Spanish flu’ outbreak. It  has been considered as the most devastating viral pandemic in human history responsible for death of over 50 million people.1, 2, 3 After the 1918 outbreak, four pandemic IAV infections  have been witnessed until now:  1957 Asian flu virus (H2N2), 1968 Hong Kong flu virus (H3N2), 1977 Russian flu virus (H1N1) and 2009 swine-origin flu virus (H1N1).4, 5 It is apparent and has been accepted universally that swine is an intermediate ‘mixing vessel’ host, as it plays a central role in the reassortment of viruses of human, avian and swine origin, which eventually recombine to form pandemic virus.6, 7 For example, the 1918 Spanish flu and the 2009 pandemic swine IAV (SIV) strains were present in swine for a very long period of time, before their emergence in humans.1, 4 Thus, prevention of SIV transmission requires high priority. 8, 9


Pathogenesis of influenza and inflammation

IAV primarily infects the epithelial cell lining of the entire respiratory tract in humans, some mammalian species and birds. The infection happens rapidly after exposure to virus, within few hours to a couple of days, depending on the pre-existing immune status of the host, releasing loads of viruses that reinfect other naïve cells.10 The acute burst of virus in infected cells leads to the rapid simultaneous activation of many signal transduction pathways, resulting in robust inflammatory responses. Though such inflammation is required to attract the immune cells to the site of virus infection and activate the adaptive immunity for the efficient control of virus proliferation, the sudden burst of secreted cytokines and chemokines cause severe discomfort, lung damage, morbidity and even death. Many studies have reported a strong association between inflammation and severe cases of IAV infection.12-14 Once inside the epithelial cells of the respiratory tract, IAV is recognized by the pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) of innate immune cells. The PRRs sense the pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) present in microorganisms including IAV. There are three types of PRRs that recognizes the danger signal of IAV infection: toll-like receptors (TLRs), nod-like receptors (NLRs) and retinoic acid-inducible gene-I-like receptors (RIG-I). All these receptors are activated during the IAV infection and replication, and act synergistically to activate transcription factors, including NF-kB and IRF3/7, resulting in rapid onset of proinflammatory response and local antiviral state.15-17 Furthermore, respiratory tract epithelial cells constitutively express TLR3, which is activated during IAV infection, contributing to the production of pro-inflammatory chemokines and cytokines.18 The NLRs are responsible for the cleavage of pro-caspase-1 in its active form, which cleaves pro-IL-1b and pro-IL-18 into IL-1b and IL-18 that contribute to the inflammatory response following IAV infection.19 Overall, the signaling pathways, activated by all classes of PRRs, lead to the transcription of pro-inflammatory genes and production of large amounts of cytokines and chemokines that orchestrate the inflammation in the lungs during IAV infection. The equilibrium of the inflammatory response in the lungs is the determinant for the outcome of IAV infection.

 

Balance of adaptive immunity and ‘cytokine storm’ due to influenza

Proinflammatory cytokines, such as interferons, interleukins, chemokines and tumor necrosis factor, are the key molecules controlling the lung environment during IAV infection.20 These molecules are responsible for the communication between immune and non-immune cells, and can drive several important response steps against IAV, including epithelium activation, leukocyte recruitment, cell proliferation and differentiation and development of adaptive immunity.20 Proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines activate and recruit leukocytes into the lungs and airways, and these cells can produce large amounts of these molecules in a positive feedback loop. If this cycle is not controlled, it can lead to the exacerbation of the inflammatory response. The systemic presence and large levels of these signaling molecules lead to an event known as ‘cytokine storm’, which is one of the causes of increased mortality during severe IAV infections.21-23 The cytokine storm is correlated with the emergence of severe clinical symptoms, including alveolar hemorrhage, acute pneumonia, extensive pulmonary edema, acute respiratory distress syndrome and death.12

 

Current flu vaccines and promising nanotechnology-based vaccines

Currently used flu vaccines induce virus strain-specific immunity against homologous virus infections. They are delivered by intramuscular route and thus provide weak mucosal immunity in the respiratory tract. Moreover, every year we need to match the dominant circulating virus strains in the vaccine formulation. If there is any mismatch in the vaccine virus, it can lead to severe inflammatory consequences, especially in children, aged people and individuals with immune deficiencies. Therefore, developing a potent intranasal mucosal vaccine, which provides local immunity in the respiratory tract and increases the breadth of cross-protective immunity is highly warranted. 

 

Nanotechnology is an important endeavor of the 21st century. Nanometer scale materials have favorable physicochemical properties for mucosal vaccine delivery; as their size, shape, charge and composition could be designed.24-27 Several biodegradable and biocompatible natural and synthetic polymers are approved by US Food and Drug Administration and European Medical Agency for drug delivery.26-31 Soluble vaccine antigens are poorly immunogenic, but it can be made highly immunogenic by entrapping in polymer-based nanoparticles.32,33 Induction of immunity by nanoparticle-delivered (<500 nm) vaccine antigens is mediated through its particulate nature, efficient internalization, processing and presentation of antigens by professional antigen presenting cells such as dendritic cells, macrophages and B cells. 34-37

 

Promising candidate influenza nanoparticle vaccines studies in a pig model

Similar to humans, pigs are natural hosts for influenza and get infected by similar IAV subtypes such as H1N1, H3N2 and H1N2. Vaccines promoting protective immunity in pigs could help reduce/block the transmission of SIV to humans. The pig lung has marked similarities to that of humans in terms of tracheobronchial-tree structure, airway morphology, abundance of airway submucosal glands, and in producing cytokines and chemokines.38-40 The functions and electrophysiological properties of the pig airway epithelium and submucosal glands resemble to that of humans.41-43 The pig genome and protein sequence share high homologies (>80%) with the human counterparts, in contrast to mice (<10%). Porcine immune responses more closely resemble human responses than mouse responses with >80% of parameters studied. Mice showed only <10% similarity to humans.44, 45 The availability of swine genome sequence  and genetically modified pigs has further increased the use of the pig model in biomedical research.46-51 Like humans, pigs are outbred species, and pig models have been in use in research on several human diseases.45-61 In summary, because of the anatomical, genetic and immunological similarities between pig and humans, pig can recapitulate pathogenesis of flu and specific mucosal immunity in the respiratory tract of humans.61-63 To demonstrate cross-reactive immunity and reduce inflammation in the lungs, we developed and evaluated a few biodegradable and biocompatible polymer nanoparticle-based vaccine delivery platforms in the pig model.

 

Influenza virus-conserved peptides have the potential to elicit increased breadth of immunity. But without the help of potent adjuvant and delivery system, they are poorly immunogenic. Biodegradable polylactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) nanoparticle-based vaccine was shown to enhance cross-presentation of antigens to CD8+ T cells by dendritic cells.36 In a study, norovirus P particle containing SIV M2e (extracellular domain of the matrix protein 2) chimera and highly conserved two each of H1N1 peptides of 2009 pandemic and classical human influenza viruses were entrapped in PLGA nanoparticle. Pigs vaccinated with this vaccine formulation and challenged with a virulent and zoonotic SIV H1N1 had no clinical fever and any signs of flu. This candidate vaccine significantly increased the frequency of antigen-specific IFN-γ secreting CD4 and CD8 T cells in the lung lymphocytes.65 Thus, our initial study in pigs demonstrated that influenza H1N1 conserved peptides cocktail entrapped in biodegradable nanoparticle, delivered intranasally as mist, induced epitope specific effector and memory T cell responses. However, it failed to induce the mucosal and systemic antibody response.

 

In another study, with a goal to improve the antibody response, we used killed SIV H1N2 entrapped in PLGA nanoparticle, instead of peptides and delivered as intranasal mist to pigs.66 In vaccinated and virulent heterologous SIV H1N1 challenged pigs, clinical flu signs were absent. This was associated with reduced gross and microscopic inflammatory lung pathology and reduced viral antigenic mass in the lung sections with clearance of infectious challenge virus in most of the nanoparticle vaccinated pig lung airways. Immunologically, our candidate PLGA-based vaccine, irrespective of not boosting the mucosal antibody response, augmented the frequency of IFN-ϒ secreting total T cells, T-helper and cytotoxic T cells against both the vaccine and challenge SIV. Both these studies using PLGA nanoparticle delivery system demonstrated that intranasal vaccination using potent particle flu vaccine could induce strong cytotoxic T cell response and cross-protection against IAV-induced lung inflammation. Since the robust cytotoxic T cell response is capable of providing heterosubtypic immunity in influenza infections, PLGA-based vaccination approach forms an ideal platform to use the pig model for translation of particulate candidate flu vaccine to effectively control flu-induced inflammation in humans. However, upper respiratory tract infection and nasal virus shedding was not reduced due to the lack of induction of mucosal secretory IgA by PLGA particle delivery system. In yet another study with the goal to augment mucosal IgA response against IAV antigens, we adapted the novel mucoadhesive chitosan nanoparticle vaccine delivery platform to administer killed SIV H1N2 as intranasal mist.67 We evaluated the immune response and cross-protective efficacy. Interestingly, pigs vaccinated with chitosan particle vaccine enhanced both serum IgG and robust mucosal secretory IgA antibody response in the nasal passage and in the lungs reactive to homologous (H1N2), heterologous (H1N1) and heterosubtypic (H3N2) IAV strains. In animals challenged with a zoonotic and virulent heterologous SIV H1N1 reduced severity of macroscopic and microscopic influenza-associated inflammatory pulmonary lesions was noted. Importantly, the infectious SIV titers in nasal passage and lungs were significantly reduced. In addition to B cell response, the T cell response was also elicited in pigs received chitosan particles system, but it was not as robust as PLGA particle delivery system. The increased T-cell response was detected, especially in the lung draining tracheobronchial lymph nodes of pigs. Thus, our study revealed that chitosan-based influenza nanovaccine may be an ideal candidate vaccine platform, and pig is a useful animal model for preclinical testing of particulate intranasal human influenza vaccines. This vaccination strategy may help to mitigate inflammation in the respiratory tract and transmission of genetically variant emerging field viruses to susceptible people in the real field scenario.

 

Conclusion

Influenza-induced acute inflammation leading to severe morbidity and mortality can be mitigated using novel intranasal vaccine delivery platforms, which induce robust local mucosal immunity in the respiratory tract. Swine is an ideal animal model system to conduct intranasal flu vaccine preclinical trials to successfully translate the novel human flu vaccine formulations.  

Competing interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 

References

1.     Medina RA. 1918 influenza virus: 100 years on, are we prepared against the next influenza pandemic? Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018 Jan 15;16(2):61-62.

2.     Gao GF. From “A”IV to “Z”IKV: Attacks from emerging and re-emerging pathogens. Cell. 2018 Mar 8;172(6):1157-1159.

3.     Taubenberger JK, Reid AH, Krafft AE, Bijwaard KE, Fanning TG. Initial genetic characterization of the 1918 “Spanish” influenza virus. Science. 1997 Mar 21;275(5307):1793-1796.

4.     Neumann G, Noda T, Kawaoka Y. Emergence and pandemic potential of swine-origin H1N1 influenza virus. Nature. 2009 Jun 18;459(7249):931-939.

5.     Franco-Paredes C, Hernandez-Ramos I, Del Rio C, Alexander KT, Tapia-Conyer R, Santos-Preciado JI. H1N1 influenza pandemics: comparing the events of 2009 in Mexico with those of 1976 and 1918-1919. Archives of medical research. 2009 Nov;40(8):669-672.

6.     Steel J, Lowen, AC. Influenza A virus reassortment. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2014;385:377-401.

7.     Crisci E., Mussa T., Fraile L, Montoya, M. Review: influenza virus in pigs. Mol Immunol. 2013 Oct;55(3-4):200-211.

8.     Reperant LA, Grenfell BT, Osterhaus AD. Quantifying the risk of pandemic influenza virus evolution by mutation and re-assortment. Vaccine. 2015 Dec 8;33(49):6955-6966.

9.     Pappaioanou M, Gramer M. Lessons from pandemic H1N1 2009 to improve prevention, detection, and response to influenza pandemics from a One Health perspective. ILAR journal / National Research Council, Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources. 2010;51(3):268-280.

10.   Yassine HM, Lee CW, Gourapura R, Saif YM. Interspecies and intraspecies transmission of influenza A viruses: viral, host and environmental factors. Anim Health Res Rev.  Jun;11(1):53-72.

11.   Tavares LP, Teixeira MM, Garcia CC.The inflammatory response triggered by Influenza virus: a two edged sword. Inflamm Res. 2017 Apr;66(4):283-302.

12.   Peiris JS, Cheung CY, Leung CY, Nicholls JM. Innate immune responses to influenza A H5N1: friend or foe? Trends Immunol. 2009 Dec;30(12):574-584.

13.   Baskin CR, Bielefeldt-Ohmann H, Tumpey TM, Sabourin PJ, Long JP, García-Sastre A,et al. Early and sustained innate immune response defines pathology and death in nonhuman primates infected by highly pathogenic influenza virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Mar 3;106(9):3455-3460.

14.   Perrone LA, Szretter KJ, Katz JM, Mizgerd JP, Tumpey TM. Mice lacking both TNF and IL-1 receptors exhibit reduced lung inflammation and delay in onset of death following infection with a highly virulent H5N1 virus. J Infect Dis. 2010 Oct 15;202(8):1161-1170.

15.   Akira S, Uematsu S, Takeuchi O. Pathogen recognition and innate immunity. Cell. 2006 Feb 24;124(4):783-801.

16.   Xagorari A, Chlichlia K. Toll-like receptors and viruses: induction of innate antiviral immune responses. Open Microbiol J. 2008;2:49-59.

17.   Berri, F, Le VB, Jandrot-Perrus, M, Lina B, Riteau B. Switch from protective to adverse inflammation during influenza: viral determinants and hemostasis are caught as culprits. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2014 Mar;71(5):885-898.

18.   Le Goffic R, Pothlichet J, Vitour D, Fujita, T, Meurs E, Chignard M.et al. Cutting Edge: Influenza A virus activates TLR3-dependent inflammatory and RIG-I-dependent antiviral responses in human lung epithelial cells. J Immunol. 2007 Mar 15;178(6):3368-3372.

19.   Owen DM, Gale, M Jr. Fighting the flu with inflammasome signaling. Immunity. 2009 Apr 17;30(4):476-478.

20.   Tisoncik JR, Korth MJ, Simmons CP, Farrar J, Martin TR, Katze MG. Into the eye of the cytokine storm. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2012 Mar;76(1):16-32.

21.   Walsh KB, Teijaro JR, Wilker PR, Jatzek A, Fremgen DM, Das SC, et al. Suppression of cytokine storm with a sphingosine analog provides protection against pathogenic influenza virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jul 19;108(29):12018-12023.

22.   Tscherne DM, García-Sastre A.Virulence determinants of pandemic influenza viruses. J Clin Invest. 2011 Jan;121(1):6-13.

23.   Damjanovic D, Small CL, Jeyanathan M, McCormick S, Xing Z. Immunopathology in influenza virus infection: uncoupling the friend from foe. Clin Immunol. 2012 Jul;144(1):57-69.

24.   Magenheim, B, Benita S. Nanoparticle charecterization: a comprehensive physicochemical approach. S T P Pharma Sci. 1991;1:221-241.

25.   Nel A, Xia T, Mädler L, Li N. Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science. 2006 Feb 3;311(5761):622-627.

26.   Panyam J, Labhasetwar V. Biodegradable nanoparticles for drug and gene delivery to cells and tissue. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2003 Feb 24;55(3):329-347.

27.   Duncan R. Nanomedicine gets clinical. Materials Today. 2005;8:16-17.

28.   Rytting E, Nguyen J, Wang X, Kissel T. Biodegradable polymeric nanocarriers for pulmonary drug delivery. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2008 Jun;5(6):629-639.

29.   McNeil SE. Nanotechnology for the biologist. J Leukoc Biol. 2005 Sep;78(3):585-594.

30.   Thomas C, Rawat A, Hope-Weeks L, Ahsan F. Aerosolized PLA and PLGA Nanoparticles Enhance Humoral, Mucosal and Cytokine Responses to Hepatitis B Vaccine. Mol Pharm. 2011 Apr 4;8(2):405-415.

31.   Lü JM, Wang X, Marin-Muller C, Wang H, Lin PH, Yao Q, et al. Current advances in research and clinical applications of PLGA-based nanotechnology. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2009 May;9(4):325-341.

32.   Bacon A, Makin J, Sizer PJ, Jabbal-Gill I, Hinchcliffe M, Illum L. et al. Carbohydrate biopolymers enhance antibody responses to mucosally delivered vaccine antigens. Infect Immun. 2000 Oct;68(10):5764-5770.

33.   Bertram U, Bernard MC, Haensler J, Maincent P, Bodmeier R. In situ gelling nasal inserts for influenza vaccine delivery. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2010 May;36(5):581-593.

34.   Woodrow KA, Bennett KM, Lo DD. Mucosal vaccine design and delivery. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2012;14:17-46.

35.   Heit A, Schmitz F, Haas T, Busch DH, Wagner H. Antigen co-encapsulated with adjuvants efficiently drive protective T cell immunity. Eur J Immunol. 2007 Aug;37(8):2063-2074.

36.   Schliehe C, Redaelli C, Engelhardt S, Fehlings M, Mueller M, van Rooijen N et al. CD8- dendritic cells and macrophages cross-present poly(D,L-lactate-co-glycolate) acid microsphere-encapsulated antigen in vivo. J Immunol. 2011 Sep 1;187(5):2112-2121.

37.   Foged C Brodin B, Frokjaer S, Sundblad A. Particle size and surface charge affect particle uptake by human dendritic cells in an in vitro model. Int J Pharm. 2005 Jul 25;298(2):315-322.

38.   Choi HK, Finkbeiner WE, Widdicombe JH. A comparative study of mammalian tracheal mucous glands. J Anat. 2000 Oct;197 Pt 3:361-372.

39.   Cunningham S, Meng QH, Klein N, McAnulty RJ, Hart SL. Evaluation of a porcine model for pulmonary gene transfer using a novel synthetic vector. J Gene Med. 2002 Jul-Aug;4(4):438-446.

40.   Hayden FG, Fritz R, Lobo MC, Alvord W, Strober W, Straus SE. Local and systemic cytokine responses during experimental human influenza A virus infection. Relation to symptom formation and host defense. J Clin Invest. 1998 Feb 1;101(3):643-649.

41.   Ballard ST, Trout L, Garrison J, Inglis SK. Ionic mechanism of forskolin-induced liquid secretion by porcine bronchi. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2006 Jan;290(1):L97-104.

42.   Ballard ST, Inglis SK. Liquid secretion properties of airway submucosal glands. J Physiol. 2004 Apr 1;556(Pt 1):1-10.

43.   Inglis SK, Corboz MR, Taylor AE, Ballard ST. Regulation of ion transport across porcine distal bronchi. Am J Physiol. 1996 Feb;270(2 Pt 1):L289-297.

44.   Dawson H. A comparative assessment of the pig, mouse, and human genomes: structural and functional analysis of genes involved in immunity and inflammation. In: McAnulty PA, DayanGanderup ADN-C, Hastings KL, eds. The Minipig in Biomedical Research. London: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. 2011:321–341.

45.   Meurens F, Summerfield A, Nauwynck H, Saif L, Gerdts V. The pig: a model for human infectious diseases. Trends Microbiol. 2012 Jan;20(1):50-57.

46.   Groenen MA, Archibald AL, Uenishi H, Tuggle CK, Takeuchi Y, Rothschild MF, et al. Analyses of pig genomes provide insight into porcine demography and evolution. Nature. 2012 Nov 15;491(7424):393-398.

47.   Yang G, Artiaga BL, Hackmann TJ, Samuel MS, Walters EM, Salek-Ardakani S et al. Targeted disruption of CD1d prevents NKT cell development in pigs. Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society. 2015 Jun;26(5-6):264-270.

48.   Mendicino M, Ramsoondar J, Phelps C, Vaught T, Ball S, LeRoith T et al. Generation of antibody- and B cell-deficient pigs by targeted disruption of the J-region gene segment of the heavy chain locus. Transgenic research. 2011 Jun;20(3):625-641.

49.   Phelps CJ, Ball SF, Vaught TD, Vance AM, Mendicino M, Monahan JA. et al. Production and characterization of transgenic pigs expressing porcine CTLA4-Ig. Xenotransplantation. 2009 Nov-Dec;16(6):477-485.

50.   Luo Y, Lin L, Bolund L, Jensen TG, Sørensen CB. Genetically modified pigs for biomedical research. Journal of inherited metabolic disease. 2012 Jul;35(4):695-713.

51.   Suzuki S, Iwamoto M, Saito Y, Fuchimoto D, Sembon S, Suzuki M, et al. Il2rg gene-targeted severe combined immunodeficiency pigs. Cell stem cell. 2012 Jun 14;10(6):753-758.

52.   Yuan L, Saif LJ. Induction of mucosal immune responses and protection against enteric viruses: rotavirus infection of gnotobiotic pigs as a model. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2002 Sep 10;87(3-4):147-160.

53.   Saif LJ, Ward LA, Yuan L, Rosen BI, To TL. The gnotobiotic piglet as a model for studies of disease pathogenesis and immunity to human rotaviruses. Arch Virol Suppl. 1996;12:153-161.

54.   Heinritz SN, Mosenthin R, Weiss E. Use of pigs as a potential model for research into dietary modulation of the human gut microbiota. Nutr Res Rev. 2013 Dec;26(2):191-209.

55.   Rogers CS, Stoltz DA, Meyerholz DK, Ostedgaard LS, Rokhlina T, Taft PJ,et al. Disruption of the CFTR gene produces a model of cystic fibrosis in newborn pigs. Science. 2008a Sep 26;321(5897):1837-1841.

56.   Rogers CS, Abraham WM, Brogden KA, Engelhardt JF, Fisher JT, McCray PB Jr, et al. The porcine lung as a potential model for cystic fibrosis. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2008b Aug;295(2):L240-263.

57.   Stoltz DA, Rokhlina T, Ernst SE, Pezzulo AA, Ostedgaard LS, Karp PH, et al. Intestinal CFTR expression alleviates meconium ileus in cystic fibrosis pigs. J Clin Invest. 2013 Jun 3;123(6):2685-2693.

58.   Lunney JK. Advances in swine biomedical model genomics. International journal of biological sciences. 2007 Feb 10;3(3):179-184.

59.   Kuzmuck K, Schook L. Pigs as a model for biomedical sciences. The Genetics of the Pig (2nd ed), Rothschild M, Ruvinsky A (Eds), CAB International, Oxfordshire, UK. 2011:426–444.

60.   Humphray SJ, Scott CE, Clark R, Marron B, Bender C, Camm N, et al. A high utility integrated map of the pig genome. Genome biology. 2007;8(7):R139.

61.   M Mair KH, Sedlak C, Käser T, Pasternak A, Levast B, Gerner W, et al. The porcine innate immune system: An update. Dev Comp Immunol. 2014 Aug;45(2):321-343.

62.   Bailey M, Christoforidou Z, Lewis MC. The evolutionary basis for differences between the immune systems of man, mouse, pig and ruminants. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2013 Mar 15;152(1-2):13-19.

63.   Khatri M, Dwivedi V, Krakowka S, Manickam C, Ali A, Wang L, Qin Z. et al. Swine influenza H1N1 virus induces acute inflammatory immune responses in pig lungs: a potential animal model for human H1N1 influenza virus. J Virol. 2010 Nov;84(21):11210-11218.

64.   Yassine HM, Lee CW, Gourapura R, Saif YM. Interspecies and intraspecies transmission of influenza A viruses: viral, host and environmental factors. Anim Health Res Rev. 2010 Jun;11(1):53-72.

65.   Hiremath J, Kang KI, Xia M, Elaish M, Binjawadagi B, Ouyang K., et al. Entrapment of H1N1 Influenza Virus Derived Conserved Peptides in PLGA Nanoparticles Enhances T Cell Response and Vaccine Efficacy in Pigs. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0151922.

66.   Dhakal S, Hiremath J, Bondra K, Lakshmanappa YS, Shyu DL, Ouyang K, et al. Biodegradable nanoparticle delivery of inactivated swine influenza virus vaccine provides heterologous cell-mediated immune response in pigs. J Control Release. 2017 Jan 02;247:194-205.

67.   Dhakal S, Renu S, Ghimire S, Shaan Lakshmanappa Y, Hogshead BT, et al. Mucosal Immunity and Protective Efficacy of Intranasal Inactivated Influenza Vaccine Is Improved by Chitosan Nanoparticle Delivery in Pigs. Front Immunol. 2018;9:934.