Vaccine composition comprising a system for delivering an inactivated whole bacterium via cationic polysaccharide nanoparticles without any adjuvant

Abstract

The invention relates to the field of vaccine compositions. The invention more particularly relates to a prophylactic vaccine composition that is intended for mammals and birds and comprises a killed whole bacterium, said bacterium being covered with a cationic agent, in particular cationic nanoparticles.

Description

[0001] DESCRIPTION

[0002] VACCINE COMPOSITION COMPRISING A DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR AN INACTIVATED WHOLE BACTERIUM VIA ADJUVANT-FREE CATIONIC POLYSACCHARIDE NANOPARTICLES

[0003] The invention relates to the field of vaccine compositions. It relates more particularly to a prophylactic vaccine composition for mammals and birds comprising a whole killed bacterium, said bacterium being coated with a cationic agent, in particular cationic nanoparticles.

[0004] Field of invention

[0005] Bacteria are responsible for many diseases. A single bacterial infection can be enough to cause a fatal disease, with devastating economic consequences for livestock farms, particularly poultry farms. Escherichia coli is a commensal bacterium in the digestive tract of animals and humans. It is the most common bacterium. It is found both in their environment and in their intestinal flora. Other pathogenic bacteria, such as Salmonella enterica, which causes salmonellosis, also represent a major challenge for poultry health.

[0006] To prevent the risk of infection in livestock, prophylactic vaccines have been developed to immunize individuals and eliminate the risk of infection and the resulting health consequences.

[0007] Prophylactic vaccination involves inducing an immune response in a healthy individual who has not yet been in contact with a pathogen in order to activate their immune defenses. To do this, an antigen, such as a pathogen or a fragment of a pathogen, is presented to the individual's immune cells. This presentation allows the activation of adaptive immune cells, B and T lymphocytes. They multiply and produce antibodies that neutralize and eliminate the antigen and / or a cellular response that destroys infected cells. This mechanism induces immune memory, allowing the individual to be protected the next time they encounter the said pathogen. Prophylactic vaccination therefore makes it possible to immunize healthy individuals in order to protect them from future diseases.

[0008] For this mechanism to be effective, it is essential that the pathogen be identified as an intruder by the individual's immune system so that it develops a protective immune response against the infection. Prior art teaches us that there are several types of prophylactic vaccines that can immunize poultry against pathogenic bacteria.

[0009] Patent EP2911688A1 relates to a serovar of Salmonella enterica serogroup Cl intended to be used to protect poultry against a disorder resulting from a Salmonella enterica infection. This serovar of Salmonella enterica is in inactivated form. The serovar is used to manufacture vaccines that can be multivalent. Chicks are vaccinated at 30 hours of age. The serovar is used to formulate a vaccine containing an adjuvant, such as, for example, aluminum hydroxide at approximately 25% v / v.

[0010] Patent EP0256792A2 describes a vaccine for protecting poultry against colibacillosis infections, comprising as an active ingredient E. coll cells inactivated via ultrasound treatment that destroys the bacteria. The vaccine may contain adjuvants, for example, an aluminum compound such as aluminum hydroxide gel. Inoculation of the vaccine into poultry is preferably carried out via the cloaca. However, the vaccine may also be inoculated conventionally, for example, intramuscularly, intravenously, or subcutaneously. The essence of the invention is the implementation of ultrasonic cell membrane disruption in the manufacture of a vaccine against colibacillosis in poultry.

[0011] Patent WO2022 / 008848 describes a process for preparing a vaccine composition from at least one lyophilized antigen comprising the steps of:

[0012] Providing an aqueous solution comprising a cationic nanoparticle consisting of a cationic polysaccharide core;

[0013] Add said lyophilized antigen into said aqueous solution

[0014] Incubate the resulting composition at room temperature.

[0015] The method according to this document includes the presence of a partial or total extract of pathogen which may contain proteins, polysaccharides and lipids. The antigen according to this document is a complex extract of proteins obtained from a whole pathogen.

[0016] Patent application US2021 / 093705 describes nanoparticle compositions for use as vaccines against Salmonella enteritidis in poultry. The vaccine composition comprises: highly immunogenic protein antigens (outer membrane proteins (OMP) or whole antigenic protein (KAg) and flagellar protein extracted from killed Salmonella enteritidis. These antigens are entrapped inside polyanhydride or chitosan nanoparticles. Patent application WO2021 / 021778 describes a composition comprising a polyacrylic acid mucosal adjuvant and / or inactivated antigens from respiratory or intestinal bacteria or viruses. In addition, the composition may comprise a cell suspension comprising non-cationic polyacrylic acid particles having a size ranging from 250 nm to 10 microns.

[0017] The paper by Anthony Pavic ET al. describes a study regarding the development of an autologous inactivated trivalent vaccine. The trivalent vaccine was produced from equal amounts of cell suspension (3x 108 cfu / mL), combined with an aluminum hydroxide adjuvant, and administered intramuscularly to the chickens in the breast at 12 to 17 weeks of age.

[0018] The accessibility of vaccination campaigns is often limited by the cost of a dose of vaccine composition. Indeed, current vaccines are often expensive, which limits their large-scale use, particularly in livestock farms where the number of individuals to be treated is significant. Although vaccines are marketed to prevent infections caused by bacteria for mammals and birds, these vaccines are not satisfactory because they do not generate total and effective protection at an affordable cost. In addition, the compositions proposed in the prior art all include vaccine adjuvants, necessary for their effectiveness, but whose side effects are widely documented.

[0019] Statement of the invention

[0020] The inventors have developed an adjuvant-free prophylactic vaccine composition for immunizing mammals and birds, particularly poultry, against pathogenic bacteria. In particular, the inventors have developed a novel delivery system in which coating at least one whole, killed pathogenic bacterium with cationic nanoparticles (NPs) improves the cellular uptake mechanism. This improves the mechanism for presenting bacterial antigens to immune cells and thus activates the immune system more quickly and effectively. Advantageously, the vaccine composition can be multivalent so as to induce broad-spectrum protection. The vaccine composition can thus make it possible to produce combination vaccines.

[0021] Endocytosis is a mechanism that allows extracellular material to enter a cell by invagination of the plasma membrane followed by the formation of vesicles that isolate themselves in the cytoplasm. When endocytosis is carried out by specialized immune cells (neutrophils, macrophages, dendritic cells), it is called phagocytosis. The prophylactic vaccine can be used as a treatment against avian salmonellosis, colibacillosis, campylobacteriosis, or any other bacterial infection.

[0022] Thus, the invention relates to an adjuvant-free prophylactic vaccine composition, in particular for mammals and birds, and more particularly poultry, comprising cationic nanoparticles consisting of a polysaccharide core and at least one inactivated bacterium, characterized in that said bacterium is whole and in that said cationic nanoparticles cover said bacterium. This composition makes it possible to limit the risks of contamination with respect to at least one disease resulting from an infection by a pathogenic bacterium. In a particular embodiment, the invention relates to a multivalent prophylactic vaccine composition intended for the treatment of salmonellosis or colibacillosis, in particular for mammals and birds, more specifically poultry such as laying hens, broiler chickens, turkeys, ducks, guinea fowl, ostriches, emus, quails, etc.

[0023] The invention also relates to the use of a vaccine composition for preventing a bacterial infection, in particular colibacillosis, salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis.

[0024] Advantage of the invention

[0025] Quite surprisingly, the inventors demonstrated that the administration of a vaccine composition comprising whole inactivated pathogenic bacteria coated with cationic agents, such as, for example, cationic nanoparticles, constituted a new antigen delivery system making it possible to effectively immunize against a pathogen of bacterial origin.

[0026] It is known from the prior art that cationic nanoparticles have the ability to increase the endocytosis phenomenon of immune cells by delivering small antigens of a size of the order of 5 to 15 nanometers, such as protein antigens from fragmented pathogens. In this configuration, a significant amount of nanoparticles is required to internalize each element of the fragmented bacterial cell. These delivery systems use cationic nanoparticles associated with a total or partial extract of a fragmented pathogenic bacterium which is, in this case, contained in the core of the nanoparticles; this “antigen in the core of the nanoparticle” configuration requires using more nanoparticles than antigens (by weight), preferably 10 to 100 times more nanoparticles than antigens. This can be even higher when using PLGA or liposome-type nanoparticles for example.This prior art delivery system cannot deliver whole bacteria, it only allows the delivery of small antigens of a size in the order of 5 to 15 nanometers, whereas whole cells have a size of at least 1 to 10 microns.

[0027] In the present work, the inventors have unexpectedly demonstrated that cationic nanoparticles enable the phenomenon of phagocytosis of whole bacterial cells. In other words, the inventors have developed a delivery system for delivering bacteria that are at least 100 times larger than protein antigens. This is therefore a new delivery system, in which the bacteria is covered by positively charged nanoparticles according to the invention, which makes possible its interaction with the cell membrane and its entry into immune cells by phagocytosis. Indeed, this combination makes it possible to imitate the process of virus entry into cells thanks to the modulation of the ionic charges provided by the nanoparticle.The coating of a whole bacterium with nanoparticles according to the invention makes it possible to confer a positive charge on the “nanoparticle coating a whole bacterium” combination. This positive charge promotes interaction with the cell membrane and allows the entry of the whole bacterium-nanoparticle complex by phagocytosis. This process is possible thanks to the particular combination, developed by the applicants, namely nanoparticles coating a whole inactive bacterium. No combination of the type coating a whole bacterium with nanoparticles has been described before.

[0028] This new delivery system has the innovative advantage of being able to introduce a whole bacterium into a cell, via the vaccine composition according to the invention. Advantageously, a smaller quantity of nanoparticles can be used compared to the quantity by weight of the bacteria's proteins; in fact, the quantity of NP can be 3 to 100 times lower than that of the bacterial proteins.

[0029] Thus, very interestingly, a small amount of nanoparticles is sufficient for the entire bacterial cell to enter by phagocytosis and allow effective immunization.

[0030] Reducing the number of nanoparticles useful for vaccination significantly reduces the production costs of the vaccine composition, making vaccination against pathogenic bacteria accessible on a large scale, particularly in areas where cost is a real limitation to vaccination campaigns. One example is poultry farming with in ovo vaccination.

[0031] In addition, the vaccine composition has the advantage of being able to be, depending on the embodiment of the invention, multivalent. That is to say, it can comprise at least two strains of bacteria, each of which ensures the prevention of an infection. Thus, the invention makes it possible to easily obtain a combined vaccine. The vaccine composition also makes it possible, depending on the embodiment of the invention, to acquire cross-immunity. Indeed, the vaccine composition can comprise a bacterium which induces immunity against variants of the strain in question.

[0032] An interesting application for the present technology is in ovo inoculation. This approach is innovative: no previously described vaccine strategy has proposed administering a whole inactive bacterium directly into the egg. Here, the combination of whole inactive bacteria partially coated by cationic nanoparticles proves to be very effective in terms of vaccine protection and without any deleterious effect on hatching or on the chick. In addition, by intervening before hatching, the risks of contamination within the farm (between chicks) are reduced as well as the transmission of the disease within the farms. In particular, the inventors have shown that a vaccine composition comprising 3 different strains of E. Coli administered in ovo to the chick, makes it possible to protect the chick from a colibacillosis-type infection at a non-lethal dose but also at a lethal dose in bacterial challenge experiments.The bacterial load is reduced and the hatch rate is equivalent to that of unvaccinated eggs.

[0033] On the other hand, in another application, an intramuscular injection of a vaccine composition comprising a bacterial strain of Salmonella and cationic nanoparticles (NPL) in laying hens makes it possible to reduce the bacterial load and the hens lay more eggs than non-immunized hens.

[0034] The vaccine composition does not contain any adjuvants, which prevents adverse effects. This is advantageous because mineral adjuvants (i.e., mineral salts such as aluminum salts) remain in the body for a very long time. The nanoparticles act as a delivery agent for the killed bacteria to immune cells and help induce a protective response against infection.

[0035] In the case of in ovo vaccination, the fact of not introducing molecules likely to disrupt the development of the chick in ovo contributes to the effectiveness of the vaccination approach, the vaccine not disrupting the development of the chick or hatching.

[0036] The vaccine composition can be administered in ovo, but also by mucosal (oral, ocular, nasal) or intramuscular route. In addition, the vaccine approach according to the invention can be implemented in mammals as well as in birds, particularly in poultry.

[0037] The composition according to the present invention therefore provides a composition of simple formulation, easy to prepare and inexpensive which can be administered in ovo in particular. In addition, the fact that the composition comprises a whole and inactivated bacterium also has the advantage of being an antigen which is simpler to characterize than a partial or total extract of antigen.

[0038] DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0039] A first subject of the present invention relates to an adjuvant-free vaccine composition comprising cationic nanoparticles consisting of a polysaccharide core and at least one inactivated bacterium, characterized in that said bacterium is whole and in that said cationic nanoparticles cover said bacterium.

[0040] In a particular embodiment, the vaccine composition is intended for mammals and birds.

[0041] In another particular embodiment, the cationic nanoparticles cover said bacterium in a bacterial protein:NP ratio by weight greater than or equal to 1. In a preferred embodiment, said bacterial protein:NP ratio by weight is greater than or equal to 2, preferably greater than 5, and even more preferably greater than 10, or even 50 or 500.

[0042] The term "cationic nanoparticle consisting of a cationic polysaccharide core" means a solid nanoparticle comprising a cationic polysaccharide (NP) core. The NP may or may not be crosslinked. Its core may or may not be loaded with an anionic phospholipid. This NP is not surrounded by any phospholipid layer.

[0043] For the purposes of the present invention, cationic nanoparticles are particles having a size range of between 1 and 500 nanometers. More preferably, polysaccharide nanoparticles have a size range of between 10 and 300 nm, in particular between 20 and 250 nm. Furthermore, a nanoparticle according to the invention is advantageously used in solution. Thus, the term nanoparticle also includes particles or molecules which are in a nanoparticulate form in solution, such as for example chitosan and its derivatives. The solution may be an aqueous solution, a buffer solution or a serum solution. The inventors have in fact observed that certain linear molecules such as chitosan form nanometric coils in solution, which behave like conventional nanoparticles.Chitosan can thus be used in the form of a classic nanoparticle (eg Qi et al, Carbohydrate Research, 2004, 339(16), 2693-2700) or as such or in the form of a hydrolyzate in solution.

[0044] In a first particular embodiment, the cationic polysaccharide forming the core of the nanoparticle (NP) is a non-crosslinked polymer obtained by the reaction between a polysaccharide chosen from starch, dextran, chitosan, dextrin, and maltodextrin, polyfructoses (inulin), polymannoses, polygalactoses, polygalactomannans (guar gum) and at least one cationic ligand chosen from a primary, secondary, tertiary amine or quaternary ammoniums. The core is not loaded with lipids.In other words, in this embodiment, the nanoparticle is a cationic nanoparticle consisting of a non-crosslinked and non-lipid-loaded polysaccharide core consisting of (i) a polysaccharide chosen from starch, dextran, chitosan, dextrin, and maltodextrin, polyfructoses (inulin), polymannoses, polygalactoses, polygalactomannans (guar gum) and (ii) at least one cationic ligand chosen from a primary, secondary, tertiary amine or quaternary ammoniums.

[0045] In a second particular embodiment, the cationic polysaccharide forming the core of the nanoparticle (NP) is a crosslinked polymer obtained by the reaction between a polysaccharide chosen from starch, dextran, chitosan, dextrin, and maltodextrin, polyfructoses (inulin), polymannoses, polygalactoses, polygalactomannans (guar gum) and at least one cationic ligand chosen from a primary, secondary, tertiary amine or quaternary ammoniums, then the addition of a crosslinking agent. The crosslinking agent is chosen from epichloridrine, a dicarboxylic acid or an acid chloride, such as sebacic acid. The core is not loaded with lipids.In other words, in this embodiment, the nanoparticle is a cationic nanoparticle consisting of a crosslinked polysaccharide core and not loaded with lipid consisting of (i) a polysaccharide chosen from starch, dextran, chitosan, dextrin, and maltodextrin, polyfructoses (inulin), polymannoses, polygalactoses, polygalactomannans (guar gum) (ii) at least one cationic ligand chosen from a primary, secondary, tertiary amine or quaternary ammoniums, and (iii) a crosslinking agent is chosen from epichloridrine, a dicarboxylic acid or an acid chloride, such as sebacic acid.

[0046] In a third embodiment, the nanoparticle (NP) is a nanoparticle consisting of a non-crosslinked cationic polysaccharide core loaded with phospholipid. In other words, in this embodiment, the nanoparticle is a cationic nanoparticle consisting of a non-crosslinked polysaccharide core loaded with anionic phospholipid consisting of (i) a polysaccharide chosen from starch, dextran, chitosan, dextrin, and maltodextrin, polyfructoses (inulin), polymannoses, polygalactoses, polygalactomannans (guar gum), (ii) at least one cationic ligand chosen from a primary, secondary, tertiary amine or quaternary ammoniums, and (iii) an anionic phospholipid chosen from diacylphosphatidyl glycerol, diacylphosphatidyl serine or diacylphosphatidyl inositol. In a fourth embodiment of the invention,the nanoparticle (NP) is a cationic nanoparticle consisting of a crosslinked polysaccharide core and loaded with anionic phospholipid consisting of (i) a polysaccharide chosen from starch, dextran, chitosan, dextrin, and maltodextrin, polyfructoses (inulin), polymannoses, polygalactoses, polygalactomannans (guar gum), (ii) at least one cationic ligand chosen from a primary, secondary, tertiary amine or quaternary ammoniums, (iii) a crosslinking agent is chosen from epichloridrine, a dicarboxylic acid or an acid chloride, such as sebacic acid, and (iv) an anionic phospholipid chosen from diacylphosphatidyl glycerol, diacylphosphatidyl serine or inositol diacylphosphatidyl.,

[0047] In a preferred embodiment applying to the four types of nanoparticles (NP) described above, the cationic polysaccharide is based on maltodextrin; it is obtained by the reaction between maltodextrin and glycidyltrimethylammonium, whether the NP is crosslinked or not, lipidated or not. In other words, the cationic polysaccharide core comprises maltodextrin and a glycidyltrimethylammonium.

[0048] In a preferred embodiment applicable to nanoparticles (NPs) whose core is loaded with phospholipid, the NP is a cationic polysaccharide nanoparticle loaded with DPPG, whether the NP is crosslinked or not.

[0049] The group of birds includes poultry in particular. Poultry, as used herein, are domestic birds that serve as a source of eggs or meat and include commercially important species such as, for example, chickens, laying hens, turkeys, ducks, geese, guinea fowl, pheasants, pigeons, and peacocks.

[0050] In a preferred embodiment, the bacterium is selected from the following group: Salmonella enterica ser.Typhi; Streptococcus Pneumoniae; Haemophilus influenzae type b; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Extraintestinal pathogenic E.Coli (ExPEC); enterotoxigenic E.Coli (ETEC); S.enterica ser.; Paratyphi A; Neisseria Gonorheae; Clostridium Difficile; Campylobacter spp; Shigella spp; Staphylobacter Aureus; Helicobacter pylori.

[0051] For the purposes of the invention, the term "whole bacterium" means an unfragmented bacterium in its complete form, in particular one whose cell membrane is intact. In other words, this means that the membranes of the bacteria remain unaltered. Conversely, bacteria whose membranes are damaged, fragmented or exploded cannot be considered as whole bacteria for the purposes of the present invention. For the purposes of the invention, the term "cationic agent" means an agent with a positive electrical charge, such as a cationic nanoparticle.

[0052] For the purposes of the invention, the term "inactivated or inactive bacteria" means a non-living bacterium that has been previously killed but is intact. "Intact" means a bacterium whose membrane is unaltered. They can be killed, for example, by treatment with formaldehyde or any other inactivation method known to those skilled in the art.

[0053] For the purposes of the invention, the term "covered with cationic nanoparticles" means that the nanoparticles coat the surface of the inactivated bacteria. The nanoparticles cover the killed bacteria with a homogeneous layer. The coverage rate can be defined by the weight ratio of bacterial proteins:NP. In a preferred embodiment, the weight ratio of bacterial proteins:NP is greater than or equal to 2, preferably greater than 5 and even more preferably greater than 10, or even 50 or 500.

[0054] Good efficacy of the bacteria coated with NP associated with prevention of infection was observed for a ratio of bacterial proteins (by dry weight): NP by weight of between 1:0.01 and 1:10 and more particularly between 1:0.01 and 1:3. That is approximately 100 times less nanoparticles by weight compared to the weight of the bacteria. In a particular embodiment, this ratio is greater than 1, in particular the quantity by weight of bacterial proteins is at least equal to that of the NP and can be up to 100 times greater (ratio of between 1:1 and 1:0.01). In an even more preferred embodiment, the quantity by weight of bacterial proteins is 2 to 100 times greater than that of NP (ratio is between 1:0.5 and 1:0.01). In a further preferred embodiment, the amount by weight of bacterial proteins is 10 to 100 times greater than that of NP (ratio is between 1:0.01 and 1:0.1).In particular embodiments, this ratio may be between 1:0.1 and 1:10 or even between 1:0.1 and 1:3.

[0055] The vaccine composition includes at least one bacterium capable of inducing effective protection to prevent, or at least reduce, a bacterial infection.

[0056] By "avoiding an infection" is meant, within the meaning of the invention, that the vaccine composition can protect 100% against the risks of infection or, if it does not completely avoid the risk of infection, then the protection conferred by the vaccine is sufficient so that the individual does not trigger the disease or if it does trigger it, the symptoms of the infection are at least reduced and the individual avoids death. Avoiding an infection also consists of preventing the infection from spreading within the livestock.

[0057] In one embodiment of the invention, the vaccine composition is prophylactic. For the purposes of the invention, the term "a prophylactic vaccine composition" means a vaccine composition that can induce an immune response in a healthy individual who has not yet been in contact with a pathogen in order to activate their immune defenses and prepare the immune system to react against a future infection.

[0058] In another embodiment of the invention, the vaccine composition is intended for birds. In a particular embodiment of the invention, the prophylactic vaccine composition is intended for poultry, in particular the embryo in the egg.

[0059] For the purposes of the invention, the term "multivalent vaccine composition" means that the vaccine composition comprises several different bacteria making it possible to induce immunity against several diseases associated with the different bacteria.

[0060] In a particular embodiment, the vaccine composition makes it possible to develop combined vaccines.

[0061] For the purposes of the invention, the term "combined vaccines" means a vaccine composition comprising several bacteria of different species or families so as to induce, simultaneously, immunity against several different bacteria.

[0062] In one embodiment, the vaccine composition comprises at least one whole and inactivated bacterium which makes it possible to induce cross-immunity in the individual having been vaccinated.

[0063] For the purposes of the invention, "cross-immunity" means acquired immunity against a bacterial pathogen which confers immunity against another bacterial pathogen of a different species, strain or family which is not part of the vaccine composition.

[0064] Cross-immunity is related to the phenomenon of cross-reactivity. Antibodies are usually specific for a particular antigen. It is thanks to this specificity that antibodies target and eliminate the antigens they have detected. A mutant bacterium retains common antigens that can be the target of a vaccine-induced response.

[0065] Thus, there may be cross-reactions with bacteria of closely related species. A bacterium has many surface antigens. When an animal is immunized against a bacterium by injecting whole bacteria, it produces antibodies against many bacterial antigens. If two bacteria have the same or similar antigen, the individual will have acquired immunity against both bacteria. In another embodiment of the invention, the vaccine composition is multivalent and comprises at least two different strains of bacteria of different species or families, said bacteria being whole and inactivated.

[0066] The vaccine composition can, for example, be composed of 3 inactivated E. coli strains mixed with lipidated maltodextrin nanoparticles (NP) in order to prevent colibacillosis.

[0067] Thus, according to the different embodiments of the vaccine composition, said composition may comprise:

[0068] - An inactivated and whole bacterium, covered with cationic nanoparticles consisting of a porous polysaccharide core in cross-linked form loaded with anionic phospholipid.

[0069] - An inactivated and whole bacterium, covered with cationic nanoparticles consisting of a porous polysaccharide core in cross-linked form not loaded with lipid.

[0070] - An inactivated and whole bacterium, covered with cationic nanoparticles consisting of a polysaccharide core in non-crosslinked form loaded with anionic phospholipid.

[0071] - An inactivated and whole bacterium, covered with cationic nanoparticles consisting of a polysaccharide core in non-crosslinked form not loaded with lipid.

[0072] - At least two bacteria of different strains and / or species or families, said bacteria being inactivated and whole, covered with cationic nanoparticles consisting of a core of porous polysaccharide in cross-linked form loaded with phospholipid.

[0073] - At least two bacteria of different strains and / or species or families, said bacteria being inactivated and whole, covered with cationic nanoparticles consisting of a polysaccharide core in cross-linked form not loaded with lipid.

[0074] - At least two bacteria of different strains and / or species or families, said bacteria being inactivated and whole, covered with cationic nanoparticles consisting of a core of porous polysaccharide in non-crosslinked form loaded with phospholipid.

[0075] - At least two bacteria of different strains and / or species or families, said bacteria being inactivated and whole, covered with cationic nanoparticles consisting of a polysaccharide core in non-crosslinked form not loaded with lipid.

[0076] A second subject of the invention relates to a vaccine composition as defined above comprising at least two different inactivated bacteria, characterized in that said bacteria are whole and that they are covered with cationic nanoparticles consisting of a polysaccharide core. It is used in a form suitable for administration by intramuscular, mucosal or in ovo administration. This composition is therefore multivalent and can be used to obtain a combined vaccine.

[0077] For the purposes of the invention, the term "different inactivated bacteria" means bacteria of different strains and / or species or families.

[0078] A third subject of the invention relates to the use of a vaccine composition as defined above to prevent a bacterial infection in a mammal or a bird.

[0079] In particular embodiments of the invention, the bacterial infection is salmonellosis, colibacillosis or campylobacteriosis.

[0080] In a preferred embodiment, this use applies to the prevention of bacterial infection in the poultry embryo in ovo (by in ovo administration).

[0081] The invention also relates to a method for preventing a disease linked to a bacterial infection intended for mammalian animals and birds, comprising a vaccine composition comprising at least one inactivated whole pathogenic bacterium covered with cationic nanoparticles consisting of a polysaccharide core and comprising the following steps:

[0082] Have cationic nanoparticles consisting of a polysaccharide core and at least one whole bacterium.

[0083] Proceed to inactivate the entire bacteria using formaldehyde.

[0084] Mixing said cationic nanoparticles with said inactivated whole bacteria to obtain said vaccine composition

[0085] Administer said vaccine composition to said animals.

[0086] In a particular embodiment, the mixture of cationic nanoparticles with said inactivated whole bacterium is produced so that said nanoparticles cover said bacterium in a bacterial protein:NP ratio by weight greater than or equal to 1. In a preferred embodiment, said bacterial protein:NP ratio by weight is greater than or equal to 5.

[0087] In the vaccine composition, said cationic nanoparticles may be chosen from:

[0088] Cationic nanoparticles consisting of a non-crosslinked, non-lipid-loaded polysaccharide core consisting of (i) a polysaccharide chosen from starch, dextran, chitosan, dextrin, and maltodextrin, polyfructoses (inulin), polymannoses, polygalactoses, polygalactomannans (guar gum) and (ii) at least one cationic ligand chosen from a primary, secondary, tertiary amine or quaternary ammoniums;

[0089] Cationic nanoparticles consisting of a crosslinked, lipid-free polysaccharide core consisting of (i) a polysaccharide selected from starch, dextran, chitosan, dextrin, and maltodextrin, polyfructoses (inulin), polymannoses, polygalactoses, polygalactomannans (guar gum) (ii) at least one cationic ligand selected from a primary, secondary, tertiary amine or quaternary ammoniums, and (iii) a crosslinking agent selected from epichloridrine, a dicarboxylic acid or an acid chloride, such as sebacic acid;

[0090] Cationic nanoparticles consisting of a non-crosslinked polysaccharide core loaded with anionic phospholipid consisting of (i) a polysaccharide selected from starch, dextran, chitosan, dextrin, and maltodextrin, polyfructoses (inulin), polymannoses, polygalactoses, polygalactomannans (guar gum), (ii) at least one cationic ligand selected from a primary, secondary, tertiary amine or quaternary ammoniums, and (iii) an anionic phospholipid selected from diacylphosphatidyl glycerol, diacylphosphatidyl serine or diacylphosphatidyl inositol;

[0091] Cationic nanoparticles consisting of a crosslinked polysaccharide core loaded with anionic phospholipid consisting of (i) a polysaccharide selected from starch, dextran, chitosan, dextrin, and maltodextrin, polyfructoses (inulin), polymannoses, polygalactoses, polygalactomannans (guar gum), (ii) at least one cationic ligand selected from a primary, secondary, tertiary amine or quaternary ammoniums, (iii) a crosslinking agent selected from epichloridrine, a dicarboxylic acid or an acid chloride, such as sebacic acid, and (iv) an anionic phospholipid selected from diacylphosphatidyl glycerol, diacylphosphatidyl serine or inositol. diacylphosphatidyl.

[0092] In a preferred embodiment, the cationic polysaccharide is obtained by the reaction between maltodextrin and glycidyltrimethylammonium, whether the NP is crosslinked or not.

[0093] In a particular embodiment, said prevention method comprises a vaccine composition inoculated by mucosal route, injectable and / or administered in ovo.

[0094] In particular embodiments of the invention, the vaccine composition is administered to poultry, namely in ovo, mucosally and orally in chicks and intramuscularly in laying hens. DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

[0095] Figure 1: E. coli uptake after NPL coating by cells. The delivery of whole E. coli bacteria was evaluated in human H292 cells. Fluorescent E. coli-FITC, alone or associated with NPL (ratio 1:3 to 1:0.05) were incubated with human H292 cells for 4 h, and the percentage of positive cells was measured by flow cytometry without or with trypan blue (TB). Results represent the mean ± SEM of 3 experiments. Statistical analysis: two-way ANOVA, ** p < 0.01, *** p < < 0.001.

[0096] Figure 2: Intracellular delivery by confocal microscopy, with a 1:3 ratio. The delivery of E. coli bacteria was evaluated in H292 cells. Fluorescent E. coli-FITC associated with NPLs (1:3 ratio) were incubated with H292 cells for 4 h, and the intracellular localization was observed by confocal microscopy. A representative image was taken. Red: plasma membrane; blue: nuclei; green: E. coli. Scale bar: 10 pm.

[0097] Figure 3: Schematic of the vaccination protocol for the in ovo vaccination trial. The commercial vaccine was administered only to the positive control.

[0098] Figure 4: Intestinal permeability test for 8 birds from each group, 6 days after challenge (D20). Results represent the mean ± SD.

[0099] Figure 5: Analysis of anti-E. coli slgA in feces of 8 birds from each group, 13 days after challenge (D27). Results represent the mean ± SD of absorbance values ​​obtained by ELISA. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA, * p < 0.05.

[0100] Figure 6: Clinical score of liver lesions from 8 birds in each group, 6 days after challenge (D20). Results represent the mean ± SD of the group scores. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA, * p < 0.05.

[0101] Figure 7: Schematic diagram of the in ovo vaccination trial protocol. Only the positive group was vaccinated on day 1 with the commercial vaccine (Poulvac).

[0102] Figure 8: The percentage of mortality in each group after the lethal challenge on D14 (n=30).

[0103] Figure 9: Measurement of bacterial load in the air sacs of birds from each group, assessed 2 days after challenge (D16) on 8 birds, by MPN. Results represent the mean ± SD. Statistical analyses were performed by one-way ANOVA, * p < 0.05. Figure 10: Intestinal permeability of 8 birds from each group 6 days after challenge (D20). Results represent the mean ± SD. Statistical analyses were performed by one-way ANOVA, * p < 0.05.

[0104] Figure 11: Intestinal lesion score of 8 birds from each group 6 days after challenge (D20). Results represent mean ± SD. Statistical analyses were performed by one-way ANOVA, * p < 0.05.

[0105] Figure 12: Schematic diagram of the intramuscular vaccination trial protocol.

[0106] Figure 13: Egg laying. Top: Daily number of eggs laid by hens in each group after the challenge. Error bars are hidden to clarify the graph. Bottom: Average daily number of eggs laid by hens in each group after the challenge. Statistical analyses: one-way ANOVA * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001, **** p < 0.0001.

[0107] Figure 14: Quantification of bacterial load in the chicken cecum of each group, measured by qPCR. Results represent the mean ± SEM. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

[0108] Figure 15: Quantification of bacterial load in the chicken cecum of each group, measured by qPCR. Results represent the mean ± SEM.

[0109] Figure 16: Timeline of the in ovo vaccination trial protocol. Only the “positive control” group was vaccinated on day 1 with the commercial vaccine (Poulvac).

[0110] Figure 17: Measurement of bacterial infection in the trachea (above) and alveoli (below) of birds in each group, assessed on 8 birds, by most probable number (MPN). The results represent the number of positive and negative birds per group.

[0111] Figure 18: Analysis of anti-E. coli slgA in the feces of 8 birds from each group after challenge. Results represent the mean ± SD of the Ab titers. Statistical analysis: One-way ANOVA for each day.

[0112] Figure 19: Lung lesion score of 8 birds per group after challenge. Results represent the mean of each group. Statistical analyses were performed for each day by one-way ANOVA.

[0113] Figure 20: Delivery of whole E. coli bacteria was evaluated in H292 cells. The E. coli-

[0114] Fluorescent FITCs, alone or combined with NPs, were incubated with H292 cells for 4 h, and the percentage of positive cells was measured by flow cytometry. Results represent the mean ± SD of 2 experiments.

[0115] Figure 21: Delivery of whole E. coli bacteria was evaluated in THP-1 cells. Fluorescent i-FITC E. col, alone or combined with NPs, were incubated with THP-1 cells for 4 h, and the percentage of positive cells was measured by flow cytometry. Results represent the mean ± SD of 2 experiments.

[0116] EXAMPLES

[0117] Abbreviations:

[0118] • NPL: Cross-linked lipidated maltodextrin nanoparticles

[0119] • id: Intradermal

[0120] • in: Intranasal

[0121] • ip: Intraperitoneal

[0122] • im: Intramuscular

[0123] EXAMPLE 1: Optimization of the formulation with cationic nanoparticles

[0124] The objective of this study is to confirm the efficacy as a delivery system of a composition, based on nanoparticles and an inactivated whole E. coli strain, to activate immune cells.

[0125] 1-A Materials and methods:

[0126] A-Vaccine formulations

[0127] Cationic nanoparticles (NPL) are cationic lipidated maltodextrin nanoparticles.

[0128] The composition was made with an inactivated E. coli strain mixed with cationic nanoparticles. The E. coli bacteria were inactivated with 0.4% formaldehyde and then purified by centrifugation. The protein content was measured by micro BCA assay. The composition was made by mixing the killed bacteria with an aqueous solution of NPL, at different weight ratios (100pg of E. coli proteins with 5, 10, 30, 50, 100 or 300pg of NPL). The size and surface charge of the formulation were characterized by dynamic light scattering (DLS) and electrophoretic light scattering (ELS) (Zetasizer NanoZS, Malvern Analytical, France), respectively, to observe whether the nanoparticles cover the surface of the killed bacteria.

[0129] B-E. coli delivery The ability of NPLs to increase the uptake of whole inactivated E. coli by immune cells was assessed by flow cytometry and confocal microscopy.

[0130] • Labeling of E. coli with fluorescein:

[0131] Inactivated bacteria were labeled with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) by mixing 5 mg of E. coli with 50 pg of FITC (1%, Sigma, France) in sodium carbonate buffer at pH 8.3 for 2 h. They were then dialyzed on a 10 kDa dialysis cassette (Thermofisher, France). Protein content was measured by micro BCA assay (Pierce, France). Labeled bacteria were then combined with NPLs at different weight ratios.

[0132] • Flow cytometry:

[0133] H292 cell lines were seeded in 24-well plates at 50,000 cells per well, until confluent. Cells were then incubated with the equivalent of 1 pg of protein alone or associated with different ratios of NPL, for 4 hours. Then, cells were washed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), harvested with trypsin, and analyzed by flow cytometry on an Attune Nxt (ThermoFisher, France). To distinguish intracellular delivery of bacteria from membrane fixation, cells were incubated with 40 pg / mL of Trypan blue (TB, Sigma France) to quench external FITC fluorescence.

[0134] • Confocal microscopy

[0135] H292 cell lines were seeded in Labtek chambers (Fisher Sci., France) at 10,000 cells per well until confluence. Then, cells were incubated with 1 pg of protein alone from killed or NPL-associated whole bacteria for 4 hours. Cells were washed, and the nucleus was stained by incubating Hoechst 33342 (Sigma, France) at 0.1 pg / mL for 5 minutes at 37°C. Cells were then washed, and the plasma membrane was labeled with AF-633-labeled agglutinin (WGA, Invitrogen France) at 1 pg / mL for 10 minutes at 37°C. The slides were washed again with PBS, fixed with 0.4% formaldehyde for 20 minutes, and mounted for observation under a microscope (LSM 710 Zeiss, France).

[0136] 1-B Results:

[0137] Characterization of formulations:

[0138] Table 1: Characterization of E. coli / NPL formulation size by dynamic light scattering (DLS) and zeta potential by electrophoretic light scattering (ELS). Inactivated whole E. coli were mixed with increasing amounts of NPL.

[0139] DLS and ELS analyses showed that the inactivated E. coli had a homogeneous size of 1.42 pm with a PDI of 0.08, and an anionic surface charge of -4.6 mV. This indicates that the structure of the bacteria remained intact despite inactivation. When increasing amounts of NPL were added, the overall size did not change, but the zeta potential gradually increased, until it became cationic from the ratio 1:0.5. This indicates that the bacteria were gradually covered by NPL without any aggregation.

[0140] The delivery of E. coli by NPLs was assessed by flow cytometry (see Figure 1), on human airway epithelial cells (H292). Without NPLs, bacteria were endocytosed by 14% of the cells. As no difference was observed in the presence of TB, this suggests that the bacteria were actually endocytosed (inside the cells). When coated by NPLs, bacteria were taken up by at least 40% of cells, confirming their potential as a delivery system. Moreover, delivery was significantly more efficient with a low amount of NPLs, and the highest release was observed with a 1:0.3 ratio (77%) and 1:0.1 ratio (75.7%). In the presence of TB, 65.6% of the cells were still positive with a ratio of 1 / 0.3 and 63% with a ratio of 1 / 0.1, which confirms that most of the bacteria were inside the cells.Intracellular delivery was also confirmed by confocal microscopy, with a 1:3 ratio. Approximately 20 to 30 E. coli bacteria (green) were observed in each cell, near the nuclei, confirming intracellular localization.

[0141] Conclusion :

[0142] The E. coli / NPL vaccine formulation consists of inactivated whole bacteria coated with NPL. Coating this bacterium, even with a small amount of NPL, has a significant impact on the ability of this bacterium to be taken up by cells.

[0143] EXAMPLE 2: In ovo vaccination trial against colibacillosis

[0144] 2-A Materials and methods:

[0145] A-Preparation of vaccines

[0146] The vaccine consists of 3 inactivated E. coli strains mixed with lipidated maltodextrin nanoparticles (LNPs). Briefly, O78:K80, O1:K1, O2:K1 strains were inactivated with 0.4% formaldehyde, and the protein content was measured by pBCA assay. Finally, 33.3 pg per strain was mixed with LNP to obtain 100 pg of protein per vaccine dose.

[0147] B-Animals

[0148] All animal work was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee for Animal Research of Imunova Analises Biolôgicas, protocol number 06 / 2021.

[0149] For this experiment, a quantity of 390 fertile eggs were acquired from a commercial incubator and incubated at the Imunova experimental unit. The eggs were randomly divided into seven different experimental groups and placed in an industrial hatchery, with precise temperature and humidity control, for 21 days. The groups used in this test consisted of 30 animals and are identified in Table 1.

[0150] Table 2: Identification of experimental groups.

[0151] All groups, including the negative control, received orally the live attenuated Mass I - H120 infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) vaccine at a dose 100 times higher than that recommended by the manufacturer, to sensitize the animals to an E. coli challenge. infection with 10 8CFU of Escherichia coli, at a dose of 100 pL / bird orally. The challenge was confirmed by microbiological recovery of bacteria from the inoculum.

[0152] C-Vaccination

[0153] Animals in group 3 received, on day 1 after hatching, a dose of Poulvac® E. coli live vaccine. Animals in group 4 received, on the 18th eme day of incubation, an in ovo application of the vaccine with a regulatory vaccine dose of 50 μL. After hatching, groups of one-day-old broiler chickens were housed in isolators (1.2 m 2 ) and were fed ad libitum according to the recommendations for their age.

[0154] D-Challenge

[0155] On D10, all animals, including those in the negative control group, received orally a live attenuated Mass I - H120 vaccine against infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) at a dose 100 times higher than that recommended by the manufacturer.

[0156] At D14, animals in groups 2, 3 and 4 were infected with 10 8 Escherichia coli CFU (strain 19501, a different strain than that used in the vaccine), 100 pL / bird, orally.

[0157] The vaccination protocol is shown in Figure 3.

[0158] E-Sampling

[0159] Samples and analyses were carried out on 8 birds, on D16, D20 or D27.

[0160] F-Analysis

[0161] • Intestinal permeability:

[0162] Intestinal permeability was assessed by oral administration of FITC-Dextran, a non-absorbable fluorescent marker (FITC-Dextran, 3000 to 4000 kDa), and identified in plasma / serum, to monitor gastrointestinal epithelial integrity (Vicuiïa et al., 2015).

[0163] Cytokine expression Cytokine expression was assessed by qPCR (IL-ip, IFNy, IL-10, IL-4), using specific primers for each target. In this type of analysis, each target and sample combination generates a threshold value, the Ct (cycle threshold) is a relative measure of the target-specific messenger RNA (mRNA) concentration in the sample. This value must be normalized to the expression of a certain reference gene, in this case, the geometric mean of the GAPDH and ACTB genes was used, generating an ACt value (Ct of the target / Mean Ct of GAPHD+ACTB) (Bustin et al., 2009). In addition to this normalization, the data were also normalized to the mean ACt of the control group, generating an AACt (ACt / Mean ACt Control). For undefined results, the maximum CT value (40) was considered and, for analysis purposes, was artificially modified to 41.

[0164] • Quantification of anti-E slgA. coli

[0165] E. coli-specific secretory IgA production was assessed by ELISA. Briefly, samples were diluted in 1% casein in PBS. ELISA plates were coated with E. coli LPS (field-isolated strain). Plates were then washed three times with 200 μL / well PBS + 0.05% Tween 20 for 5 min / wash. Wells were blocked with 1% casein in PBS. Samples were tested in serial dilution. Plates were washed, and chicken anti-IgA was added (BioRad) diluted in 0.1% casein. After washing, the assay was revealed with TM B solution (Life Technologies). Absorbance was read at 450 nm.

[0166] • Detection and quantification of E. coli

[0167] Detection and quantification by MPN (Most probable number) of E. coli was performed according to ISO 7251:2005. E. coli counts were determined according to standard microbiological methods (dilution in enrichment medium followed by inoculation in a selective / different medium). Briefly, samples were enriched in buffered peptone water (BPE), then in EC broth and finally in EMB and MacConkey agar plates. Samples were serially diluted in triplicate in EPB before incubation, to allow quantification by the most probable number technique (Blodgett et al., 2015). For E. coli detection, only the serial dilution step was ignored. Isolated suspect colonies were tested biochemically and confirmed.

[0168] Liver histology: Birds were euthanized, and liver samples were collected and fixed according to the method of Rebel et al (2011). Samples were embedded in paraffin and mounted on slides. All histopathological assessments and readings were performed under a microscope by an experienced veterinary histopathologist.

[0169] Table 3: List of histological parameters for scoring liver lesions.

[0170] 2-B Results: Intestinal permeability of unvaccinated and unchallenged birds (negative control) was 0.26 pg / mL, and 0.31 pg / mL for challenged and unvaccinated birds (positive control). When vaccinated with the commercial vaccine, permeability was 0.26 pg / mL, as for the negative control, confirming the efficacy of this vaccine. Furthermore, when vaccinated in ovo with the VXN-E. coli formulation, all birds showed low permeability (0.18 pg / mL), lower than that of the negative control, although not significant.

[0171] Intestinal anti-E. coli (LPS) sIgA Secretory anti-LPS IgA directed against E. coli was analyzed in feces by ELISA. The absorbance obtained for negative control birds was approximately 0.05 AU, and 0.095 pg / mL for positive control birds, indicating that oral challenge did not induce intestinal IgA secretion. Moreover, for birds vaccinated mucosally with the commercial vaccine, the OD remained at 0.055 AU, as for the negative control, suggesting that this vaccine failed to promote a mucosal humoral response. In contrast, birds vaccinated in ovo with the VXN-E. coli formulation showed a significantly higher OD of 0.16 AU.

[0172] B-Histopathology of the liver

[0173] Liver lesion score was measured 6 days after challenge. Birds in the negative control group had a mean score of approximately 1, representing mild hyperplasia. In contrast, unvaccinated birds in the positive control group had a mean score of 2.35, suggesting liver lesions and necrosis induced by E. coli infection. When vaccinated with the commercial vaccine, the bird's mean lesion score was 1, as in the negative control group. Birds vaccinated in ovo had a mean lesion score < 1. These results show that both the commercial vaccine and in ovo vaccination protect against E. coli-induced liver lesions.

[0174] Conclusion :

[0175] This first trial indicates that in ovo vaccination with the VXN-E. coli vaccine protects birds against hepatic infection by E. coli and induces the secretion of slgA against the bacteria in the intestine.

[0176] EXAMPLE 3: In ovo vaccination against a lethal E. coli challenge

[0177] This second trial was identical to the first in ovo trial in terms of schedule, animals per group, and treatment, but with a lethal E. coli challenge. Analyses then focused on the protection provided by the vaccines against bacterial load in representative organs, physiological abnormalities, and subsequent mortality observed in each group.

[0178] 3-A. Materials and methods

[0179] A-Challenge

[0180] On D10, all animals, including the negative control, received orally a live attenuated Mass I - H120 vaccine against infectious bronchitis virus (IBV), at a dose 100 times higher than that recommended by the manufacturer.

[0181] At D14, each animal in the determined group was confronted with 4.2xl0 12CFU of Escherichia coli (strain 19501), at a rate of 100 pL / bird in the air sacs.

[0182] The general timetable is detailed in Figure 7.

[0183] B-Analysis

[0184] • Intestinal permeability:

[0185] Intestinal permeability was assessed by oral administration of FITC-Dextran, a non-absorbable fluorescent marker (FITC-Dextran, 3000 to 4000 kDa), and identified in plasma / serum, to monitor gastrointestinal epithelial integrity (Vicuiïa et al., 2015).

[0186] • Detection and quantification of E. coli:

[0187] Detection and quantification by MPN (most probable number) of E. coli was performed according to ISO 7251:2005. E. coli counts were determined according to standard microbiological methods (dilution in enrichment medium followed by inoculation in a selective / different medium). Briefly, samples were enriched in buffered peptone water (BPE), then in EC broth, and finally in EMB and MacConkey agar plates. Samples were serially diluted in triplicate in EPB before incubation to allow quantification by the most probable number technique (Blodgett et al., 2015). For E. coli detection, only the serial dilution step was ignored. Isolated suspect colonies were tested biochemically and confirmed.

[0188] Intestinal histology: Birds were euthanized, and intestinal samples were collected and fixed according to the method of Rebel et al (2011). Ileal samples were embedded in paraffin and mounted on slides. All histopathological assessments and readings were performed under a microscope by an experienced veterinary histopathologist.

[0189] Table 4: List of histological parameters for the assessment of intestinal lesions (ileum).

[0190] 3-B. Results A-Outbreak Tl

[0191] Table 5: Percentage of hatching in the in ovo vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated groups (negative control, positive control, commercial vaccine).

[0192] Hatchability was measured in this study to assess the safety of the in ovo VXN / E. coli vaccine. Thus, the hatchability of vaccinated eggs (n=60) was compared with that of unvaccinated eggs (n=180), before randomization into each group (negative control, positive control, and commercial vaccine). A similar percentage of hatchability was observed between vaccinated (78.3%) and unvaccinated (81.2%) eggs. Therefore, the vaccine formulation is safe as it has no impact on hatchability.

[0193] B-Bird survival after lethal challenge

[0194] The E. coli challenge was performed on D14 with 4.2xl0 12CFU and directly into the air sacs. Bird survival after lethal challenge is shown in Figure 8. This high dose had an impact on bird survival, as 26% mortality was observed in unvaccinated birds. Furthermore, mortality increased to 36% in birds vaccinated with the commercial mucosal vaccine, suggesting that it did not induce protection against lethal E. coli infection. In contrast, it was only 10% for birds vaccinated in ovo with the VXN / E. coli vaccine, suggesting better protection against infection.

[0195] C-Quantification of E. coli in air sacs by MPN

[0196] Infection was assessed by quantifying bacteria in the air sacs, by MPN. The measurement of bacterial load in the air sacs by MPN is shown in Figure 9. Negative control birds had only a low amount of bacteria in the air sacs, relative to the natural bacterial flora. Non-immunized and challenged birds had a higher amount of E. coli (10 4 MPN / g), which confirms the efficacy of the challenge. A significantly stronger infection was observed in the air sacs of birds vaccinated with the commercial mucosal vaccine (10 6 MPN / g), corroborating the survival results. In contrast, as with the survival results, lower infection was observed for birds vaccinated in ovo with the E. coli / NPL vaccine (3xl0 3 MPN / g), confirming its effectiveness in protecting against this bacterial infection.

[0197] D-Intestinal permeability

[0198] Intestinal permeability of unvaccinated and unchallenged birds was 0.22 pg / mL, and 0.18 pg / mL for challenged and unvaccinated birds. Intestinal permeability is shown in Figure 10. Upon vaccination with the commercial vaccine or in ovo with the VXN / E. coli vaccine, permeability significantly decreased to 1.2 pg / mL, suggesting vaccine-induced protection.

[0199] E-Intestinal Histopathology

[0200] The ileal lesion score was measured 6 days after challenge. The intestinal lesion score is shown in Figure 11. Birds in the negative control group obtained a mean score below 1 (0.25), representing a healthy and normal-looking ileum, as expected. In contrast, unvaccinated birds in the positive control group obtained a significantly higher mean score of 1.7, suggesting ileal lesions with vascular disorders and desquamation, induced by E. coli infection. Surprisingly, when the birds were vaccinated with the commercial vaccine, the lesions significantly worsened with a mean score of 2. In contrast, birds vaccinated in ovo had a mean score of 1, suggesting protection against E. coli-induced intestinal lesions.

[0201] Conclusion :

[0202] This second trial indicates that the in ovo VXN-E. coli vaccine protects birds from mortality induced by a lethal E. coli infection. In addition, this vaccine reduces the bacterial load in the air sacs and intestinal lesions due to the infection, confirming the value of this vaccine.

[0203] EXAMPLE 4: Intramuscular vaccination trial against Salmonella in laying hens

[0204] 2-A. Materials and methods:

[0205] A-Preparation of vaccines

[0206] The vaccine is made from an inactivated strain of Salmonella enteritidis mixed with lipidated maltodextrin nanoparticles (LNPs). Briefly, Salmonella strain SE147 was inactivated and the protein content was measured by a pBCA assay. Finally, 200 pg of killed bacteria were mixed with either LNPs (formulation named "Vaxinano 1") or non-crosslinked LNPs (formulation named "Vaxinano 2"), at a rate of 200 pg of protein per vaccine dose. The non-crosslinked LNP is composed of linear cationic maltodextrin with an anionic inner core.

[0207] B-Animals

[0208] For this experiment, a total of 84 LSL chickens (from a commercial breeding farm) were randomly allocated to 12 pens (7 birds / pen) as described in Table 7. Serum was collected and tested for Salmonella antibody titer (performed by DGZ using the Biochek kit).

[0209] Table 6: Identification of experimental groups.

[0210] C-Vaccination

[0211] At W12, all chickens were vaccinated IM in the breast with either 500 μL of saline, 500 μL of the Vaxinano 1 or Vaxinano 2 formulation (containing 200 μg of Salmonella protein), or the commercial vaccine. One month later, at W16, the animals received a second dose of the same vaccine formulation.

[0212] D-Challenge

[0213] One month after the boost, all animals were challenged intravenously with 500pL of 1.3xl0 8 CFU of S. enteritidis SE147.

[0214] The general program is shown in Figure 12.

[0215] E-Direct Debits

[0216] From W20 to W25, eggs were collected and individually bacteriologically analyzed for Salmonella. At W25, all chickens were euthanized, serum and liver were collected and stored at -20°C. The spleen and cecum were bacteriologically analyzed for Salmonella.

[0217] F-Analyses

[0218] Laying: Eggs were collected daily after the challenge (except Saturday) and stored at 4°C. The number of eggs per group was reported.

[0219] Infection: Infection was quantified by qPCR in the spleen and cecum of each chicken at W25.

[0220] 2-B. Results

[0221] A-Egg laying

[0222] The average number of eggs laid in each group was counted each day after the challenge. Egg laying is shown in Figure 13. Hens vaccinated with a mock vaccine laid a low number of eggs after the challenge, with an average of 2.6 eggs per day, confirming the bird's infection. In contrast, birds vaccinated with Salenvac laid significantly more eggs than the control group, with an average of 4.9 eggs per day (p < 0.001), suggesting protection against the challenge. Similarly, both formulations of Vaxinano allowed the hens to lay significantly more eggs, with an average of 4.3 eggs per day for Vaxinano 1 (p < 0.05) and 4.7 for Vaxinano 2 (p < 0.001), suggesting equivalent protection against the challenge.

[0223] B-Infection of the cecum and spleen

[0224] Infection was assessed by quantification of bacterial load in the cecum and spleen.

[0225] Post-challenge infection was assessed by quantifying the bacterial load in the cecum and spleen. This quantification is shown in Figure 14. Chickens that received a saline injection had a significant infection, with a mean infection of 400 CFU / g, but with more than 50% of birds above 1000 CFU / g. In contrast, all birds vaccinated with the Vaxinano formulation or with Salenvac had a significantly lower infection, with a mean infection below the threshold of birds vaccinated with Vaxinano 1. This confirms the strong protection provided by IM vaccination.

[0226] The infection was finally quantified in the spleen. This quantification is shown in Figure 15. Although the infection was lower than in the cecum, 77% of the birds vaccinated with saline were still positive in the spleen, while only 35% of the birds vaccinated with Vaxinano 1, 36% of the birds vaccinated with Vaxinano 2 and 35% of the birds vaccinated with the commercial vaccine, confirming the protection provided by IM vaccination. Conclusion:

[0227] This trial indicates that the whole inactivated Salmonella / NP vaccine administered intramuscularly protects birds from S. enteritidis challenge, regardless of the formulation, allowing birds to lay significantly more eggs than non-immunized animals.

[0228] EXAMPLE 5: Mucosal vaccination against colibacillosis

[0229] This trial was designed in the same way as the in ovo trial. Analyses then focused on vaccine protection against infection in target organs, physiological abnormalities, and mucosal antibody titers.

[0230] 5-A Materials and methods:

[0231] A-Preparation of the vaccine

[0232] The vaccine is made from 3 strains of inactivated E. coli bacteria mixed with lipidated maltodextrin nanoparticles (LNPs). The O78:K80, O1:K1, and O2:K1 strains were inactivated with 0.4% formaldehyde and the protein content was measured by BCA assay. Finally, 33.3 pg per strain was then mixed with LNP at a rate of 100 pg of protein per vaccine dose.

[0233] B-Animals

[0234] All animal work was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee for Animal Research of Imunova Analises Biologicas, protocol number 06 / 2021.

[0235] For this experiment, 150 one-day-old chicks were acquired from a commercial hatchery, and randomly sorted into five experimental groups, in individual isolation units within Imunova, and were treated according to the following table:

[0236] Table 7: Identification of experimental groups.

[0237] All groups, including the negative control, were infected with the live attenuated Mass I - H120 vaccine against infectious bronchitis virus (IBV), orally, at a dose 100x that recommended by the manufacturer to sensitize the animals to the E. coli challenge.

[0238] 2Infection with 108 CFU of Escherichia coli, at a dose of 100 μL / bird orally. Infection was confirmed by microbiological recovery of bacteria from the inoculum.

[0239] C-Vaccination

[0240] Animals in the 'VXN SC Vaccine', 'VXN Mucosal Vaccine' and 'Commercial Vaccine' (Poulvac® E. coli, Zoetis) groups received a primary immunization on day 1 and a second dose on day 12. For the 'VXN mucosal vaccine', administrations were made in the eye, beak and nostril and for the 'commercial vaccine' the doses were administered in the drinking water.

[0241] D-Challenge

[0242] The challenge strain was a field isolate that was confirmed as APEC by PCR identification of 5 pathogenicity genes (iuaT, iroN, ompC, iss, hly). It was also verified to belong to phylogroup F by the typing method described by Clermont (Clermont et al., 2013). All animals received a 100x dose of attenuated IBV vaccine (Massachusetts H-120 strain, Mass® I, Zoetis) on day 14. E. coli challenge was performed in all groups except the “negative control” and 108 CFU / bird were used.

[0243] The overall schedule of the in ovo vaccination trial protocol is presented in Figure 16.

[0244] E-Analyses

[0245] Quantification of anti-E. coli IgA: The production of specific anti-E. coli IgA was assessed by ELISA. Briefly, samples were diluted in 1% casein in PBS. ELISA plates were coated with E. coli LPS (field isolate strain). The plates were then washed three times with 200 μL / well PBS + 0.05% Tween-20 for 5 min / wash. The wells were blocked with 1% casein in PBS. Samples were tested by serial dilution. Plates were washed and anti-chicken IgA was added (Bio-Rad) diluted in 0.1% casein. After washing, the test was revealed with a single solution of TMB (Life Technologies). Absorbance was read at 450 nm and quantification was performed with a proprietary methodology / kit developed by Imunova.

[0246] Quantification and detection of E. coli infection:

[0247] E. coli detection by MPN (most probable number) was performed based on ISO 7251:2005. E. coli counts were determined according to standard microbiological methods (dilution in enrichment medium followed by plating in selective / differential medium). Briefly, samples were enriched in buffered peptone water (BPW), followed by EC broth, and finally plating in EMB and MacConkey agar. Samples were serially diluted in triplicate in BPW before incubation, to allow quantification by the MPN technique (Blodgett et al., 2015). In E. coli detection, only the serial dilution step was skipped. Suspect isolated colonies were biochemically tested and confirmed.

[0248] Histology of the lungs:

[0249] The birds were euthanized and lung samples were collected and fixed. The samples were embedded in paraffin and mounted on slides. All histopathological assessments and readings were performed under a microscope by an experienced veterinary histopathologist.

[0250] Table 8: List of histological parameters for the evaluation of lung damage scores

[0251] 5-B: Results Presence of E.coli in the airways (MPN)

[0252] Infection was assessed by quantifying the number of infected birds in the trachea and air sacs, by MPN. The extent of bacterial infection in the trachea and alveoli is shown in Figure 17. Three unchallenged birds were infected in the trachea and seven in the air sacs, probably due to the presence of natural pathogenic E. coli in the environment. In contrast, unvaccinated challenged birds were more infected in the trachea confirming the efficacy of the challenge. The same number of birds were infected in the group receiving the commercial vaccine compared to the infected control group, suggesting a lack of protection. However, among birds vaccinated with the mucosal VXN vaccine, only one bird was infected in the trachea and none in the air sacs. This confirms that the mucosal VXN E. coli vaccine protected the birds from the challenge.

[0253] Presence of anti-E. coli slgA sIgA in feces Secretory anti-E. coli LPS IgA was analyzed in feces by ELISA. The results of the anti-E. coli slgA analysis are shown in Figure 18. From D16 to D28, the Ab titer of the negative control birds was the same as that of the positive control, indicating that the oral challenge did not induce intestinal IgA secretion. However, for birds vaccinated by the mucosal route, both with the VXN E. coli formulation and with the commercial vaccine, a significant increase in Ab titers was observed at D21. The mucosal vaccine was thus able to induce a humoral response in the intestine.

[0254] Clinical score in the

[0255] Lung lesion scores were measured from day 16 to day 28. The lesion scores are shown in Figure 19. Although they had the lowest histopathological score from day 16 (score = 2) to day 28 (score = 1.7), birds in the negative control group had endobronchitis, mucofibrinous exudation, and polymorphonuclear neutrophil infiltration, which is likely related to natural infection (Figure 17). In addition, unvaccinated challenged birds in the positive control group had the highest score, 3.4 at day 16 and 2.7 at day 28, due to E. coli challenge. In contrast, birds vaccinated via the mucosal route with the VXN-E. coli formulation had a mean lesion score of 2.3 at day 16, lower than the commercial vaccine (score = 2.9).Finally, at D28, both groups of birds vaccinated by the mucosal route had a score comparable to the negative control (1.6 for the commercial vaccine, 1.8 for the VXN vaccine) suggesting protection against lung lesions induced by E. coli infection.

[0256] EXAMPLE 6: Optimization of the formulation with different cationic particles

[0257] A study was carried out on an inactivated whole E. coli strain, to compare formulations prepared with different maltodextrin-based particles, measuring their uptake by immune cells in vitro.

[0258] 6-A Materials and methods:

[0259] A- Vaccine formulations

[0260] The vaccine formulations were made with one of the inactivated E. coli strains used in the vaccine (11101), mixed with maltodextrin nanoparticles (NP+) or lipidated (NPL), as well as cationized but not crosslinked maltodextrin, simple (NP+NR) or lipidated (NPL-NR). The nanoparticles partially to very partially cover the bacteria.

[0261] B- Particle synthesis and characterization NP+ are nanoparticles synthesized from cationic and crosslinked maltodextrin. More precisely, the synthesis consists of maltodextrin (Roquette, France) dissolved in a 2M NaOH solution under magnetic stirring and at room temperature. Epichlorohydrin (Merck group, France) was then added as a crosslinking agent, as well as glycydyltrimethylammonium (GTMA, Merck group, France) as a cationizing agent. The gel obtained was then neutralized with acetic acid, then ground through a very high pressure homogenizer (LM20, Microfluidics, France). The ground material was finally purified by tangential flow filtration (AKTA flux 6, GE Healthcare, France) through a 750 kDa membrane (GE Healthcare, France) to obtain purified NP+.These NP+ are capable of encapsulating antigens from various pathogens (viruses, bacteria or parasites) and delivering them to immune cells (1).

[0262] Similarly, NPLs are NP+ in which an anionic phospholipid core (DPPG) has been added. Specifically, a solution of dipalmitoyl-phosphatidylglycerol (DPPG, Lipoid, Germany) is dissolved in solutol and then injected into a stirred NP+ solution at a mass percentage of 70%. The phospholipids are incorporated into the nanoparticle core, forming NPLs. These NPLs are also capable of encapsulating antigens from various pathogens (viruses, bacteria, or parasites) and delivering them to immune cells (2-4).

[0263] Finally, NP+NR and NPL-NR constitute their respective equivalents, synthesized according to the same synthesis scheme but without crosslinking agent, thus forming linear cationic polymers.

[0264] The particles were characterized according to their size by dynamic light scattering (DLS) and according to their surface charge (or zeta potential) by electrophoretic light scattering (ELS), using a Zetasizer Nano ZS (Malvern, France).

[0265] C - Inactivation of E.coli bacteria

[0266] Bacteria were inactivated with 0.4% formaldehyde and then purified by centrifugation. The protein content of whole bacteria was measured by micro BCA assay. The formulation was made by mixing the killed bacteria with an aqueous solution of particles, at different weight ratios (100 pg of E. coli protein with 1, 5, 10, 30, 50 or 100 pg of particles).

[0267] D- Delivery of E.coli into cells by particles The ability of particles to increase the uptake by phagocytosis of whole inactivated E.coli by epithelial cells and macrophages was assessed by flow cytometry.

[0268] Labeling proteins with fluorescein:

[0269] Inactivated E. coli were labeled with fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC), by mixing 5 mg of E. coli with 50 μg of FITC (1% w / w, Merck, France) in sodium carbonate buffer at pH 8.3 for 2 h. They were then dialyzed on a 10 kDa dialysis cassette (Thermofisher, France). The protein content of whole bacteria was measured by micro BCA assay (Pierce, France). The labeled bacteria were then associated with particles at different weight ratios.

[0270] E- Flow cytometry:

[0271] H292 cell lines were seeded in 24-well plates at 50,000 cells per well and treated after 3 days of culture. THP-1 cell lines were seeded in 24-well plates at 100,000 cells per well and differentiated into macrophages with 20ng / mL PMA for 24h. After changing the culture medium, cells were incubated with 1pg of killed bacteria, alone or associated with particles, for 4h. Cells were then washed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), harvested with trypsin, and analyzed by flow cytometry on an Attune Nxt (ThermoFisher, France).

[0272] 6-B Results:

[0273] Particle characterization

[0274] Table 9: Characterization of the size of the different particles (Z-average and Number) as well as their surface charge (zeta potential). The physicochemical characteristics of the different particles were analyzed after their synthesis (Table 9). The NP+ had a diameter of 33 nm and a surface charge of 36 mV, and the NPL had a diameter of 36 nm and a surface charge of 39 mV, indicating that the phospholipids were indeed associated with the particles not at their surface but inside their maltodextrin structure.

[0275] The NP+NRs exhibited a diameter of 17 nm with a surface charge of 32 mV, and the NPL-NRs had a diameter of 23 nm with a surface charge of 38 mV, similarly indicating that the phospholipids were well associated within the maltodextrin structure.

[0276] In the absence of a crosslinking agent, the resulting particles appeared to have a smaller diameter. Indeed, without a crosslinking agent, maltodextrin in solution should remain predominantly linear, but it could also fold back on itself through hydrophobic bonds, thus forming nanoparticles detected during analysis. in association with the

[0277] The delivery of E. coli by particles was first evaluated on respiratory epithelial cells (H292). Without particles, bacteria were not endocytosed by the cells (Figure 2). When covered by particles, their uptake greatly increased, reaching 20 to 50% of positive cells, regardless of the particles used. Furthermore, the improvement of phagocytosis could be observed from the ratio 1 / 0.01, which demonstrates that a small amount of particles partially covering the bacteria is sufficient to improve intracellular delivery.

[0278] Similarly, E. coli phagocytosis by particles was assessed on differentiated macrophages (THP-1). Without particles, bacteria were phagocytosed by 0.2% of cells (Figure 3). When covered by particles, their phagocytosis increased to reach 4 to 15% of positive cells depending on the ratios. Furthermore, the improvement in phagocytosis could be observed from the ratio 1 / 0.01, which again demonstrates that a small amount of particles covering the bacteria is sufficient to improve the delivery of bacteria.

[0279] Conclusion

[0280] Adhesion and uptake of bacteria by respiratory epithelial cells and macrophages can be enhanced by single cationized maltodextrin nanoparticles (NPs + ) or lipidated (NPL), as well as by non-crosslinked, simple cationic maltodextrin (NP +NR) or lipidated (NPL-NR), and this in an equivalent manner between the NPs. A low dose of particles (10 to 100 times fewer particles than bacteria in mass %) is sufficient to improve this delivery to cells.

Claims

CLAIMS 1. Adjuvant-free vaccine composition comprising cationic nanoparticles consisting of a polysaccharide core and at least one inactivated bacterium, characterized in that said bacterium is whole and in that said cationic nanoparticles cover said bacterium.

2. Vaccine composition according to claim 1, wherein said cationic nanoparticles cover said bacterium in a bacterial protein:NP ratio greater than or equal to 1 (by weight).

3. Vaccine composition according to claim 2, wherein said bacterial protein:NP ratio is greater than or equal to 5 (by weight).

4. Vaccine composition according to one of claims 1 to 3, wherein said nanoparticles are cationic nanoparticles consisting of a crosslinked polysaccharide core not loaded with lipid consisting of (i) a polysaccharide chosen from starch, dextran, chitosan, dextrin, and maltodextrin, polyfructoses (inulin), polymannoses, polygalactoses, polygalactomannans (guar gum) (ii) at least one cationic ligand chosen from a primary, secondary, tertiary amine or quaternary ammoniums, and (iii) a crosslinking agent is chosen from epichloridrine, a dicarboxylic acid or an acid chloride, such as sebacic acid.

5. Vaccine composition according to one of claims 1 to 3, in which said nanoparticles are cationic nanoparticles consisting of a non-crosslinked and non-lipid-loaded polysaccharide core consisting of (i) a polysaccharide chosen from starch, dextran, chitosan, dextrin, and maltodextrin, polyfructoses (inulin), polymannoses, polygalactoses, polygalactomannans (guar gum) and (ii) at least one cationic ligand chosen from a primary, secondary, tertiary amine or quaternary ammoniums.

6. Vaccine composition according to one of claims 1 to 3, wherein said nanoparticles are cationic nanoparticles consisting of a crosslinked polysaccharide core loaded with phospholipids consisting of (i) a polysaccharide chosen from starch, dextran, chitosan, dextrin, and maltodextrin, polyfructoses (inulin), polymannoses, polygalactoses, polygalactomannans (guar gum), (ii) at least one cationic ligand chosen from a primary, secondary, tertiary amine or quaternary ammoniums, (iii) a crosslinking agent is chosen from epichloridrine, a dicarboxylic acid or an acid chloride, such as sebacic acid, and (iv) an anionic phospholipid chosen from diacylphosphatidyl glycerol, serine diacylphosphatidyl or diacylphosphatidyl inositol.

7. Vaccine composition according to one of claims 1 to 3, wherein said nanoparticles are cationic nanoparticles consisting of a non-crosslinked polysaccharide core loaded with phospholipid consisting of (i) a polysaccharide chosen from starch, dextran, chitosan, dextrin, and maltodextrin, polyfructoses (inulin), polymannoses, polygalactoses, polygalactomannans (guar gum), (ii) at least one cationic ligand chosen from a primary, secondary, tertiary amine or quaternary ammoniums, and (iii) an anionic phospholipid chosen from diacylphosphatidyl glycerol, diacylphosphatidyl serine or diacylphosphatidyl inositol.

8. Vaccine composition according to one of claims 4 to 7, wherein said cationic polysaccharide core comprises maltodextrin and a glycidyltrimethylammonium.

9. Composition according to one of claims 6 or 7 in which said cationic polysaccharide core is loaded with anionic phospholipid chosen from diacylphosphatidyl glycerol, diacylphosphatidyl serine or diacylphosphatidyl inositol.

10. Vaccine composition according to one of the preceding claims, comprising at least 2 different strains of bacteria.

11. Vaccine composition according to one of the preceding claims, wherein said bacterium is selected from the following group: Salmonella enterica ser.Typhi; Streptococcus Pneumoniae; Haemophilus influenzae type b; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Extraintestinal pathogenic E.Coli (ExPEC); enterotoxigenic E.Coli (ETEC); S.enterica ser.; Paratyphi A; Neisseria Gonorheae; Clostridium Difficile; Campylobacter spp; Shigella spp; Staphylococcus Aureus; Helicobacter pylori.

12. Vaccine composition as in one of the preceding claims, for use in a form suitable for administration by intramuscular, mucosal or in ovo administration.

13. Vaccine composition according to one of the preceding claims, for use in preventing a bacterial infection in a mammal or a bird.

14. Vaccine composition according to one of the preceding claims, for its use in the prevention of salmonellosis, colibacillosis or campylobacteriosis.

15. Composition according to claim 14, for its use in the prevention of a bacterial infection in the poultry embryo in ovo.

Images