Effects of oil-based adjuvants on the immune response of pigs after dermal administration of antigen and evaluation of the immunization level after a subsequent Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae challenge in pigs

Route of vaccine delivery can greatly impact the immunogenicity, efficacy and safety of the vaccine. Four groups of piglets were immunised transdermally (t.d.), intradermally (i.d.) or intramuscularly (i.m.) with the same doses of antigen in combination with a water-in-oil-in-water emulsion adjuvant Montanide™ ISA 201 VG or with a microemulsion adjuvant Montanide™ IMS 1313 VG N ST (Seppic, France). The last group was left without vaccination as a control group. All animals were subsequently exposed to the infection induced by Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae (App). The immune response was evaluated with respect to the intensity of systemic and mucosal antibody formation, their isotype characterisation and rate of cell-mediated immunity. These findings were compared with the intensity of adverse local reactions and level of protection in experimental challenge. Monitoring of the local reaction at the injection site after each administration showed that microemulsion adjuvant IMS 1313 was less reactogenic than the water-in-oil-in-water emulsion ISA 201. In terms of efficacy, both dermal administrations were less immunogenic than the i.m route. The i.m. injection induced higher anti-App9 IgG and IgM titres. Nevertheless, IgG1 and IgG2 isotypes analysis revealed a close immunological profile between i.m. and i.d. routes. The concentration of IFN-γ from peripheral blood after in vitro restimulation with the specific antigen was only increased in the i.m. group at the day of challenge (D35) and two weeks after (D49). Interestingly, the smallest gross pulmonary lesions were observed in the i.d. vaccinated group (3.4%) compared to the control group (39.4%) and to groups with other routes of administration. Taken together, these results suggest that i.d. administration of vaccines is a promising approach. Even the i.d. vaccine was more reactogenic and slightly less immunogenic than the i.m. vaccine, its protection effectiveness seemed to be superior.