throbber
28
`
`Gut 1996; 38: 28-32
`
`Oral administration of protease inhibits
`enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli receptor activity in
`piglet small intestine
`
`T L Mynott, R KJ Luke, D S Chandler
`
`Abstract
`The virulence of enterotoxigenic Escheri-
`chia coli (ETEC) is attributed to their
`ability to adhere via fimbrial adhesins to
`specific receptors located on the intestinal
`mucosa. A novel approach to preventing
`ETEC induced diarrhoea wouldbe to pre-
`vent attachment of ETECto intestine by
`proteolytically modifying the receptor
`attachment sites. This study aimed to
`examinethe effect of bromelain, a prote-
`olytic extract obtained from pineapple
`stems, on ETEC receptor activity in
`porcine small
`intestine. Bromelain was
`administered orally to piglets and K88*
`ETECattachment to small intestine was
`measured at 50 cm intervals using an
`enzyme immunoassay. K88* ETECattach-
`ment to intestinal sections that were not
`treated with bromelain varied appreciably
`between sampling sites. Variability in
`receptor activity along the intestinal sur-
`face is thoughtto be caused bythe localised
`effects of endogenous proteases. Oral
`administration of exogenous protease
`inhibited K88+ ETEC attachment to pig
`small
`intestine in a dose dependent
`manner
`(p<0-05). Attachment of K88*
`ETEC was negligible after
`treatment,
`resemblingthe levels of attachment of K88
`to piglets of the genetically determined
`non-adhesive phenotype, which areresist-
`ant to K88+ ETEC infection. Serum bio-
`chemical analysis and histopathological
`examination of treated piglets showed no
`adverseeffects ofthe bromelain treatment.
`It
`is concluded that administration of
`bromelain can inhibit ETEC receptor
`activity in vivo and maytherefore be useful
`for prevention of K88* ETEC induced
`diarrhoea.
`(Gut 1996; 38: 28-32)
`
`Keywords: enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli, diarrhoea,
`K88 ETEC,pig intestine, protease.
`
`youngpiglets. K88 occurs in several antigenic
`types or variants,all of which adhereto piglet
`enterocytes.> K88ab, K88ac, K88ad, and
`K88ad(e) variants have been characterised.® 7
`In 1975, Rutter et al® showed that somepigs
`are resistant to colonisation and disease caused
`by K88-positive (K88*) E coli. An adhesive
`phenotype (one susceptible to infection)
`is
`related directly to the ability of K88* bacteria
`to recognise intestinal receptors and attach to
`piglet
`intestinal brush border membranes.
`Intestine obtained from the non-adhesive
`phenotype (disease resistant pigs) do not bind
`K88+t E coli and as a result such animals
`are resistant to K88* E coli infection.? The
`receptors on non-adhesive intestinal brush
`border cells may be absent or non-functional.
`A genetic basis for expression of the adhesive
`or non-adhesive phenotype exists.8!° Differ-
`ent phenotypes may also be distinguished,
`depending on the serological variant of the
`K88antigen.!! Also, in addition to genotype,
`physiological factors, particularly the level of
`intestinal proteolysis within the small intestine,
`mayinfluence the ability of ETEC to attach to
`intestine.!2 13
`The ability of protease to prevent attach-
`ment of ETEC to small intestinal samples in
`vitro is well documented.!3?"!8 Presumably
`attachment ability is prevented because of
`proteolytic cleavage of ETEC receptorsites.
`This
`study aimed to investigate whether
`exogenousprotease, administered orally, could
`inhibit porcine K88+ ETECreceptoractivity
`in vivo and therefore inhibit K88t ETEC
`attachment
`to small
`intestine. The use of
`protease, through its ability to modify intesti-
`nal receptor sites and reduce the binding
`properties of the intestinal mucosa, may be an
`important way of protecting the small intestine
`from microbial colonisation and disease.!? !3
`
`Methods
`
`ANIMALS
`
`Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) are an
`important cause of disease in young children!
`and young animals.? The virulence of ETEC
`strains is attributed to their ability to adhere,
`via
`fimbrial
`adhesins,
`to highly specific
`receptors located on the intestinal mucosa.?
`These strains also liberate heat labile (LT)
`and/or heat stable (ST) enterotoxins which
`cause fluid secretion and diarrhoea. E coli
`strains which carry the K88 adhesin ontheir
`surface are a significant cause of diarrhoea in
`
`Approval for animal experiments was granted
`by the Victorian Institute for Animal Science
`Animal Experimentation Ethics Committee.
`Five pregnant sows (Large White X Landrace
`X Duroc) were purchased from a commercial
`farm where the incidence of pigs with the non-
`adhesive phenotypeis low (1 in 10).!9 Piglets
`were born within three days of each other in
`the animal housing facility at the Victorian
`Institute of Animal Science (VIAS-Attwood,
`Victoria, Australia). Piglets were weaned at
`approximately 3 weeks of age (weight notless
`
`MSNExhibit 1046 - Page 1 of 5
`MSNv.Bausch - IPR2023-00016
`
`School of Agriculture,
`La Trobe University,
`Bundoora,Victoria
`3083, Australia
`T L Mynott
`RKJ Luke
`Victorian Institute of
`Animal Science,
`Department of
`Agriculture, Attwood,
`Victoria 3049,
`Australia
`TL Mynott
`D S Chandler
`
`Correspondenceto:
`Dr T L Mynott, Digestive
`Diseases Research Centre,
`The Medical College of Saint
`Bartholomew’s Hospital, 4th
`Floor Science Block, Charter
`House Square, London
`ECIM 6BQ. United
`Kingdom.
`Accepted for publication
`31 May 1995
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘yyBuAdooAqpayejold‘sanAq1Z0z‘0%Jequiesequo/WOdflugq\nby//:dyjYyWoypepeojumoq966]AVenuer|UOgz"LgeINB/QELLOLSsePeysiqndysuy:3nND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`K88* enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) attachmentto piglet small intestine
`terminal ileum was 8 to 10 m)ofall pigs was
`removed immediately at death. Brush border
`K88 receptor activity (mean (SD))¢
`Protease
`Non-adhesive
`material was obtained at 50 cm intervals
`StrongS
`Group*
`(mgt
`(Wr
`Non-adhesive
`Moderate
`(n=19 samples per pig) by gently scraping 1
`0
`A
`
`0-409 (0-244) cm sectionsofthe villous surface withasterile
`0-211 (0-178)
`0-078 (0-029)
`29
`0-709 (0-090)
`0-311 (0-108)
`0-069 (0-045)
`cotton-tipped swab. The swabs were then
`0-230 (0-095)
`0-660 (0-096)
`immersed in 3 ml of a working dilution buffer
`0-295 (0-139)
`0-312 (0-187)
`(WDB)consisting of phosphate buffered saline
`(PBS; 0-1 M, pH 7-4) to which bovine serum
`albumin (BSA; 0-25% w/v), EDTA (di-sodium
`salt;
`1 mM), Tween 20 (0:05% v/v) and
`sodium azide (0:02% w/v) had been added.
`The swabs were vortexed to recover the epithe-
`lial cells. Brush border samples were assessed
`for their ability to attach to K88* ETEC
`(strain WG (0149:K91(B):K88ac:H10)2° by
`enzyme immunoassay (EIA)
`as_ previously
`described.!3 2! The EIA gives 95%correlation
`with results obtained by traditional micro-
`scopic adhesiontests for assessing K88 pheno-
`type?! (piglets genetic propensity to produce
`K88receptoronits intestinal surface). Briefly,
`K88+t ETEC are immobilised to wells of a
`microtitre plate and incubated with mucosal
`samples. Mucosal material, bound to the bac-
`teria is detected with antibody (rabbit IgG)
`raised against porcine intestine followed by
`urease-conjugated
`goat
`anti-rabbit
`IgG
`(Sigma) and urea substrate.
`Disposable polystyrene microtitre plates
`(Nunc, Denmark) were used for all assays.
`K88* ETECdiluted to approximately 210°
`bacteria/ml
`in sodium bicarbonate buffer
`(NaHCO,/Na,CO;3; 0-1 M, pH 9-6), were
`adsorbed to wells (100 jl/well) by incubation
`overnight at 4°C. Active binding sites remain-
`ing on wells following coating procedures were
`routinely blocked by incubation (30 min at
`37°C) with BSA (1%w/v) dissolved in PBS
`(200 l/well). Mucosal material bound to
`K88*+ ETEC was detected using rabbit IgG
`raised against a Triton X-100 extract of K88-
`adhesive phenotype brush border vesicles,
`diluted in WDB.?! Anti-rabbit urease-con-
`jugated IgG (Sigma) was diluted in WDB
`containing ovalbumin (from hen egg, gradeII,
`Sigma 1%w/v). All incubation steps, exclud-
`ing the coating procedures, were performedat
`37°C for 30 minutes. Between each of the
`incubation steps,
`supernatant
`liquid was
`removed from the wells which were then
`washed three times with washing buffer (0-1 M
`PBS; 0-05%v/v Tween 20). Before the incuba-
`tion with substrate, wells were washed with
`distilled water to removeanyeffect of residual
`buffer on substrate solutions. Urea substrate
`[bromocresol purple (0-15 mM)urea (16 mM),
`EDTA (disodium salt,
`1 mM); pH 4-8, 100
`pl/well] was used to detect the presence of
`bound, conjugated enzyme. A positive reaction
`was indicated by a colour change from yellow
`to purple which was measured spectro-
`photometrically at Asqonm- All assays were
`standardised by developing the reaction until
`a positive control attained an EIA value of
`0-6.
`intestine
`the
`The K88 phenotype of
`scrapings wasassessed andan adhesion pattern
`for the small intestine of each pig was estab-
`lished. To obtain an overall indication of the
`
`125
`
`250
`
`625
`
`0-359 (0-225),
`
`0-224 (0-195),
`
`57
`
`86
`
`86
`
`86
`
`Oral administration ofprotease inhibits enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli receptor activity in piglet small intestine
`
`29
`
`0-080 (0-099).)
`0-119 (0-071) ¢)
`0-034 (0-014),
`0-055 (0-026)
`0-061 (0-027),
`0-079 (0-057),
`0-039 (0-013).
`0-191 (0-117)
`0-045 (0-017)
`0-044 (0-021)
`0-096 (0-036),
`0-176 (0-118)
`0-033 (0-015)9)
`0-099 (0-115),
`0-034 (0-015)
`0-064 (0-022)
`0-036 (0-015),
`0-059 (0-015).
`0-032 (0-009)(9)
`0-050 (0-040)(9)
`0-033 (0-015)
`0-182 (0-135)
`
`
`1250
`
`0-238 (0-183)
`
`*Numberofpigs per group is 7. tAmountof bromelain administered per dose, three times a day
`for either two (2) days (n=4)or five days (n=3). There was nosignificant difference between
`duration of treatment and reduction in EIA activity (p=0-82). Ability of protease to reduce K88
`receptoractivity was significant (p<0-05; ANOVA). {Values represent the mean (SD)
`absorbanceof the A 549 nm Value of 19 sampling sites per pig. The large SD observed in some
`pigs reflect the variability of receptor activity along the length of the small intestine. |K88*
`ETECattachmentexpressed as strongly adhesive (EIA activities >0-4); moderately adhesive
`GIA activities 0-20 to 0-40); and non-adhesive (EIA activity <0-2). tNumber of K88*t ETEC
`non-adhesive versus numbertested expressed as a percentage. Ofthe total numberofpigs
`treated with protease, 79% (22 of 28) were non-adhesive compared with 29%(2 of 7) pigs not
`treated with protease (p<0-02, Fisher’s exact test).
`
`than 6 kg), and housed in stables with straw
`bedding. Piglets were fed ad libitum a commer-
`cial
`starter
`diet
`(Gropower,
` Barastoc,
`Australia)
`for
`two weeks
`after weaning,
`followed by Grower 8 (Barastoc, Australia) in
`three divided meals (160 g/6 kg of body weight
`daily) until experimentation. Thirty five piglets
`of weight 20 to 25 kg (aged 10 to 16 weeks)
`were used for the study and randomly allo-
`cated between five treatment groups (Table).
`
`PIGLET TREATMENT
`
`cysteine
`a
`is
`Bromelain (E.C. 3.4.22.4)
`stems.
`protease obtained from pineapple
`Bromelain is a glycoprotein and active across a
`wide pH range,thereforeit is ideally suited for
`the gastrointestinal environment. Different
`amounts
`of enteric protected bromelain
`(Detach, Cortecs Ltd, Middlesex UK; 1 g of
`Detach contains 125 mg of bromelain) was
`administered to pigs for two or five days to
`investigate the effect of duration of treatment
`on K88* ETECreceptoractivity and to inves-
`tigate the safety of treatment. The bromelain
`preparation was suspended in water (1g per 5
`ml) and administered by mouth usinga plastic
`syringe, three times a day 15 min before feed-
`ing (Table). Control piglets were untreated
`and administered 25 ml of water. All animals
`were monitored daily to observe any adverse
`clinical effects attributable to treatment. At the
`completion of the experiment animals were
`killed by barbiturate overdose, and autopsied.
`
`ASSESSMENT OF K88 PHENOTYPE BY ENZYME
`IMMUNOASSAY(EIA)
`The small intestine (length from pyloris to the
`
`MSNExhibit 1046 - Page 2 of 5
`MSNv. Bausch - IPR2023-00016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘yyuBuAdooAqpayoejosg}sanbAq|Z0z‘oz4equue0eqUO/WOOd'fwq'}n6//:dyyWoypepeojumog‘966Asenuer|UOgz'LgEINHB/9VELL'OLSepeysiqndjsulJjn
`
`

`

`30
`
`K88-adhesivenessof a pig, the mean EJA value
`of all sampling sites (n=19 per pig) was deter-
`mined. The adhesiveness of a particular pig
`could be designated as
`strongly adhesive
`(S; mean EIA>0-4); moderately adhesive
`(M; mean EIA 0-2 to 0-4) or non-adhesive
`(N; mean EIA<0-2). (See Table.)
`
`SERUM BIOCHEMISTRY
`
`Blood samples (10 ml) were collected from
`piglets via the jugular vein one day before
`experimentation and again immediately before
`death. Serum samples were stored at —20°C
`until completion of the experiment, at which
`time they were submitted for biochemical
`analysis. Tests performed include a full bio-
`chemicalprofile, liver function tests, creatinine
`kinase, lipase, and amylase. As normal values
`for biochemical parameters cited in the litera-
`ture vary becauseoffactors such as differences
`in sample handling, assay technique, dietary
`influences or genetic differences between
`animals, pre-treatment values were taken as an
`indication of baseline normal values. These
`values were within the normal ranges cited in
`the literature.2? 23 Differences between serum
`samples before and after treatment were com-
`pared for each pig. In addition,
`the mean
`serum value for each parameterfor the treated
`groups was compared with that for the non-
`treatmentgroup.
`
`HISTOPATHOLOGY
`
`All animals weresacrificed by barbiturate over-
`dose two or five days after beginning treat-
`ment. At autopsy, specimens were immediately
`processed for histological examination after
`fixation with neutral buffered formalin (0°65%
`(wiv) Na,zHPO,, 0-45 (w/v) NaH,PO,, 10%
`(v/v) formalin). Sections of duodenum, mid-
`jejunum,andileum,werestained with haema-
`toxylin and eosin and examined by light
`microscopy
`for morphological
`changes.
`Sectionsof heart, kidney, liver, and mesenteric
`lymph nodeswerealso investigated.
`
`STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
`
`parameters,
`biochemical
`in
`Differences
`between serum samples, before andaftertreat-
`ment, and differences between treatment
`groups were assessed for clinical relevance by
`veterinary pathologists
`at VIAS-Attwood.
`Differences among mean serum biochemical
`values between treatment groups were sub-
`jected
`to
`one-way
`analysis of variance
`(ANOVA)using Microstat. Difference among
`mean EIA values for all treatment groups (0
`mg to 1250 mg) representing mean K88t
`ETEC receptor activity was analysed by
`Genestat V for analysis of variance.
`
`Results
`
`K88+t ETEC ATTACHMENT TO SMALL
`INTESTINE OF UNTREATED (CONTROLPIGS)
`Wefirst examined the ability of K88* ETEC
`
`0-9
`0-8
`0-7
`06
`0-5
`0-4
`0.3
`0.2
`0-1
`0.0
`
`0-9
`0-8
`0.7
`0-6
`0-5
`0-4
`0.3
`0.2
`0-1
`0.0
`
`50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900ileum
`
`S
`
`N
`
`
`
`K88ETECreceptoractivity(Asaonm)
`
`
`
`
`
`Mynott, Luke, Chandler
`
`to attach to the small intestine of pigs that were
`not treated with bromelain (group A). The
`Table summarises the results obtained from all
`untreated pigs. Two pigs were of the strongly
`adhesive phenotype, three pigs were moder-
`ately adhesive and two pigs were of non-
`adhesive phenotype. Figure 1
`shows EIA
`values obtained from intestine of three pigs to
`showthe three phenotypes obtained.
`We next compared the binding of K88*
`ETECto different sections of intestine in indi-
`vidual pigs. K88* ETEC attachment
`to
`intestine varied markedly between samples
`taken at 50 cm intervals (Fig 1). Multiple
`scrapings taken at
`the same site revealed
`similar results indicating that the variability
`between sites was a function of that section of
`intestine, not
`the assay. Earlier, Chandler
`et al'3 observed a similar variation in binding
`between sampling sites and related this
`variation to the state of distention or constric-
`tion of the small intestine at the samplingsite.
`Despite the variation seen between individual
`scrapings, a consistent pattern was observed
`
`0.9
`0.8
`0.7
`0-6
`0-5
`0-4
`0.3
`0.2
`0-1
`0-0 oooooece|co
`WOoONMNOMONMWdMS
`TENNAMYS SLO 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
`
`Distance along small intestine (cm)
`Figure 1: Use ofenzyme immunoassay to demonstrate
`variability in K88* enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli
`(ETEC) receptor activity and attachment ofETEC to
`three untreated pigs. Columns represent the mean
`absorbance of the A540 nm values of duplicate wells. S,
`strongly adhesive; M, moderately adhesive; N, non-
`adhesive.
`
`MSNExhibit 1046 - Page 3 of 5
`MSNv. Bausch - IPR2023-00016
`
`
`
`
`
`‘yyuBuAdooAqpayoejosg}sanbAq|Z0z‘oz4equue0eqUO/WOOd'fwq'}n6//:dyyWoypepeojumog‘966Asenuer|UOgz'LgEINHB/9VELL'OLSepeysiqndjsulJjn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Oral administration ofprotease inhibits enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli receptor activity in piglet small intestine
`
`31
`
`0-4
`
`p<0-05
`
`and after treatment (data not shown). Pre- and
`post treatment parameters measured remained
`within the normal range.?? 23
`
`
`
`
`
`K88ETECreceptoractivity(Agqopm)
`
`
`
`0
`
`125
`
`250
`
`625
`
`1250
`
`Bromelain dose (mg, 3 times/d)
`Figure 2: K88* enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli ETEC
`receptor activity of small intestine samples ofpigs treated
`with bromelain or untreated. Columns with bars represent
`the mean (SEM) A540 nm values of 19 samples taken from
`each pig (n=7pigs per group). The reduction in enzyme
`immunoassay activity was significant (p<0-05).
`
`intestine
`between segments. The mid-small
`typically had high EIA values,
`indicative of
`high levels of K88 receptor activity and there-
`fore K88+ ETECattachment. In comparison,
`the duodenum andthe ileum had lowerattach-
`mentactivity, as observed previously. !3
`
`K88+t ETEC ATTACHMENT ACTIVITY IN
`PROTEASE TREATED PIGS
`
`To investigate whether exogenous bromelain
`could inhibit K88-attachment to piglet intes-
`tine, we orally administered different amounts
`of the protease and measuredtheability of K88
`to attach to intestine after treatment. Figure 2
`shows mean EIA values for each treatment
`group. A dose-dependent inhibition of K88
`attachment to pig intestine is observed. An
`analysis of variance revealed a significant treat-
`ment effect
`(p<0-05), confirming that
`the
`reduction in K88+ ETEC receptor binding
`activity was dependenton the protease and not
`a result of inherent variation. Bromelain admin-
`istered in amounts of 250 mg or more were
`mosteffective in reducing K88+ ETEC attach-
`ment. In groups C, D and E, which received
`250 mg, 625 mg or 1250 mgof protease per
`dose, six of seven (87%) pigs in each group
`were non-adhesive after treatment (p<0-05) in
`comparison with only two of seven (29%) in
`untreated pigs (Table). Of the 28 pigs receiving
`protease, 22 were non-adhesive (79%) in com-
`parison with 29%in non-protease treated pigs
`(p<0-02, Fischer’s exacttest).
`
`CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS
`
`Because of the direct effect of an exogenous
`protease on theintestine, we conducted some
`preliminary serological and histopathological
`examination of samples obtained from pigs to
`investigate any adverse effects of treatment.
`We observed no abnormal morphological
`changesin tissue specimens, even at the high-
`est protease treatment level. There was no
`clinical or statistical difference (p>0-2) in any
`of the parameters. measured in samples before
`
`Discussion
`Attachment of K88* enterotoxigenic E coli to
`specific receptors located on the intestinal
`brush border is an importantinitial factor in
`the establishment of diarrhoeal disease. The
`receptors
`for K88ac ETEC have been
`described as mucin-type sialoglycoproteins.?4
`In vitro, protease treatmentofintestinal brush
`bordercells containing these receptors inhibits
`receptoractivity and therefore prevents attach-
`ment of K88* ETEC. Similarly, protease
`treatment of human and calf small intestine
`inhibits receptor activity and attachment of
`ETECstrains which carry the CFA/I and
`CFA/II, and K99 adhesins,
`isolated from
`human and calf diarrhoea, respectively.!* 25
`Because of ETEC receptor
`sensitivity to
`protease, one possible way of preventing
`ETEC diarrhoea would be to prevent attach-
`mentofbacteria to intestine by proteolytically
`modifying receptor attachmentsites.!213 In
`the present study, we investigated whether
`oral administration of bromelain, a cysteine
`protease, could inhibit K88+t ETEC receptor
`activity in vivo and therefore inhibit K88
`attachmentto porcine small intestine.
`In pigs that were not treated with bromelain,
`K88receptoractivity varied appreciably along
`the length of the small intestine. This vari-
`ability supports our earlier observations!3 and
`those of others investigating ETEC receptor
`activity in small intestine obtained from calves
`and lambs.76 Variable patterns in receptor
`activity may reflect masking of receptorsites or
`release of receptors from the intestinal epithe-
`lium in vivo.27 Alternatively, the fluctuating
`levels of receptor activity may reflect the action
`of endogenous enzymes in that part of the
`intestine. Several observations support a role
`for protease modification of intestinal recep-
`tors in vivo. ETEC receptor sites have been
`shown to be readily inactivated by trypsin!+
`andbyintestinal contents with high proteolytic
`activity.!3 Also, stabilisation of K88 receptor
`can be achieved by the addition of trypsin
`inhibitor
`to
`sample
`collection
`buffers.!4
`Furthermore, pancreatic proteases are known
`to play a role in the final processing of
`microvillus proteins, and affect the release of
`some membrane-bound proteins
`into the
`lumen of the small intestine.2® 29 Some of the
`proteins that are released may be receptors for
`bacteria.
`To confirm an effect of protease on ETEC
`receptorsites in vivo, we administered various
`amounts
`of protease
`orally
`to
`piglets.
`Exogenous
`protease,
`administered
`orally
`inhibited K88+ ETEC receptor activity and
`therefore ETEC attachmentto small intestine.
`The effect of bromelain on K88 receptor
`activity was dose dependent, in that binding
`activity decreased with increased protease dose
`rate
`(p<0-05). Presumably,
`the protease
`modified K88+ ETEC enterocyte receptor
`sites, such that K88* bacteria could no longer
`MSNExhibit 1046 - Page 4 of 5
`MSNv. Bausch - IPR2023-00016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘yyBuAdooAqpayoejosg}senbAq|Z0z‘oz4equue0eqUo/WOOdfwiq’}n6//:dyyWoypepeojumog‘966|)Asenuer|UOgzLgeINHB/9ELL'OLSepeysiqndjsulJjn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`32
`
`recognise and attach to the small intestinal
`brush border.
`The pattern of non-adhesiveness observed
`in protease
`treated pigs
`resembled that
`observedin pigs of the genetically determined,
`non-adhesive phenotype. Piglets of the non-
`adhesive phenotype are resistant
`to K88*
`ETECinfection because they lack functional
`receptors for ETEC.® ° Therefore, the inability
`of K88* bacteria to recognise receptorsites on
`the small intestine of bromelain treated piglets
`should renderthe animals resistant to colonisa-
`tion by these bacteria and prevent diarrhoeal
`disease. We have previously shown that the
`oral administration of enteric-coated brome-
`lain to rabbits inhibits colonisation of CFA/I*
`ST+LT* E coli (H10407) and protects against
`diarrhoea and diarrhoea induced death.!?
`Further
`studies
`have
`demonstrated that
`bromelain significantly reduces diarrhoea in
`piglets challenged with K88+ ETEC (Chandler
`and Mynott, manuscript in preparation).
`Thedata in this study support the view that
`increased proteolytic activity in the intestine
`favours
`low receptor activity, and hence
`resistance to ETEC colonisation. In addition
`to acidity in the stomach,
`local
`intestinal
`immunity,
`the flushing action of intestinal
`peristalsis, and competition with commensal
`organisms, intestinal proteolysis may be a pre-
`viously undescribed host-defense mechanism.
`The novel concept of host receptor modifica-
`tion by oral administration of protease is a new
`approachto disease control that could provide
`broad spectrum protection and obviate the
`potential difficulty of antigenic variability of
`microbial virulence determinants.
`
`thank Leigh Callinan, Biometric Services,
`The authors
`Victorian Department of Agriculture,
`(Bendigo, Victoria,
`Australia) for conducting the Genestat analysis. We would also
`like to thank Jim Parsons and Mike Forsyth, VIAS-Attwood
`(Victoria, Australia) for histopathological assessmentof tissues
`and evaluation of serological parameters, respectively. We also
`acknowledge discussions with Ray King, VIAS-Werribee
`(Victoria Australia) on the estimated daily feed intake ofpigs.
`Serum biochemistry analysis were conducted by the Bio-
`chemistry Department at VIAS-Attwood. T M thanks Jim
`Nataro, Christian Engwerda, and Mike Field for comments on
`the manuscript and acknowledges the support of Cortecs Ltd.
`
`1 Cravioto A, Reyes RE, Ortega R, Fernandez G, Hernandez
`R, Lopez D. Prospective study of diarrhoeal disease in a
`cohort of rural Mexican children: incidence and isolated
`pathogens during the first two years of life. Epidem Inf
`1988; 101: 123-34.
`2 Smith HW, Lingood MA. Further observations on
`Escherichia coli enterotoxins with particular regard to those
`produced by atypical piglet strains and by calf and lamb
`strains: the transmissible nature of these enterotoxins and
`of a K antigen Possessed|by calf and lambstrains. 7 Med
`Microbiol 1982; 5: 243-50.
`3 Gaastra W, de Graaf FK. Host specific fimbrial adhesins of
`non-invasive
`enterotoxigenic Escherichia
`coli
`strains.
`Microbiol Rev 1982: 46: 129-61.
`4 Jones GW,Rutter JM. Role of the K88 antigen in the patho-
`genesis of neonatal diarrhoea caused by Escherichia coli in
`piglets. Infect Immun 1972; 6: 918-27.
`5 Cox E, Houvenaghel A.
`In vitro adhesion of K88ab-,
`K88ac- and K88ad-positive Escherichia coli to intestinal
`
`Mynott, Luke, Chandler
`
`villi, to buccal cells and to erythrocytes of weanedpiglets.
`Vet Microbiol 1987; 15: 201-7.
`6 Mooi FR, de Graaf FK. Isolation and characterisation of
`K88 antigens. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1979; 5: 17-20.
`7 KlemmP.Fimbrial adhesins of Escherichia colt. Rev Infect
`Dis 1985; 7: 321-40.
`8 Rutter JM, Burrows MR, Sellwood R, Gibbons RA. A
`genetic basis for resistance to enteric disease caused by
`Escherichia coli. Nature 1975; 257: 135-6.
`9 Sellwood R, Gibbons RA, Jones GW, Rutter JW. Adhesion
`of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli to pig intestinal brush
`borders:
`the existence of two pig phenotypes. 7 Med
`Microbiol 1975; 8: 405-10.
`10 Gibbons RA, Sellwood R Burrows M, Hunter PA.
`Inheritance of resistance to neonatal Escherichia coli
`diarrhoea in the pig. Examination of the genetic system.
`Theor Appl Genet 1977; 51: 65-70.
`11 Bijlsma IGW, de Nijs A, Van der MeerC,Frik JF. Different
`pig phenotypes affect adherence of Escherichia coli to jeju-
`nal brush borders by K88ab, K88ac, or K88ad antigen.
`Infect Immun 1982; 3: 891-94.
`12 Mynott TL, Chandler DS, Luke RKJ. Efficacy of enteric-
`coated protease in preventing attachment of entero-
`toxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) and diarrhoeal disease
`in the RITARD model.
`Infect
`Immun 1991; 59:
`708-14
`13 Chandler DS, Mynott TL, Luke RKJ, Craven JA. The dis-
`tribution and stability of the Escherichia coli K88 receptor
`in the gastrointestinal tract of the pig. Vet Microbiol 1994;
`38: 203-15.
`14 Staley TE, Wilson JB. Soluble pig intestinal cell membrane
`components with affinities for Escherichia coli K88* anti-
`gen. Mol Cell Biochem 1983; 52: 177-89.
`15 Laux DC, McSweegan EF, Williams TJ, Wadolkowski EA,
`Cohen PS.Identification and characterisation of mouse
`small intestine mucosal receptors for Escherichia coli K-12
`(K88ab). Infect Immun 1986; 52: 18-25.
`16 Mouricout MA, Julien RA. Pilus mediated binding of
`bovine enterotoxigenic Escherichia colt to calf small intesti-
`nal mucins. Infect Immun 1987; 55: 1216-23.
`17 Metcalfe JW, Krogfelt KA, Krivan HC, Cohen SC, Laux
`DC.Characterisation and identification of a small intes-
`tine mucusreceptor for the K88ab fimbrial adhesin. Infect
`Immun 1991; 59: 91-96.
`18 Mynott TL, Chandler DS. Receptor modification: a novel
`approach to prevent disease caused by enterotoxigenic
`Escherichia coli (Abstract). Proceedings of the 93rd General
`Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology 1993.
`16-20 May; 104.
`19 Chandler DS. Inherited resistance of K88* Escherichia coli in
`pigs. 1986. Ph.D Thesis. School of Agriculture, La Trobe
`University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
`20 Tzipori S, Chandler DS, Smith M, Makin TJ, Hennessy D.
`Factors contributing to postweaning diarrhoea in a large
`intensive piggery. Aust Ver J 1980; 56: 274-8.
`21 Chandler DS, Chandler HM, Luke RKJ, Tzipori SR,
`Craven JA. Screening of pig intestine for K88 non-adhe-
`sive phenotype by enzyme immunoassay. Vet Microbiol
`1986; 11: 153-61.
`22 KanekoJJ (ed.). In: Clinical biochemistry of domestic animals.
`3rd ed. New York: Academic Press, 1980; 790-6.
`23 Mitruka BM, Rawnsley HM (eds.). In: Clinical biochemical
`and haematological reference values in normal experimental
`animals
`and normal humans. New York: Masson
`Publishing, 1982; 216-54.
`24 Erickson AK, Baker DR, Bosworth, BT, Casey TA,
`Benfield DA, Francis DH. Characterisation of porcine
`intestinal receptors for the K88ac fimbrial adhesin of
`Escherichia coli as mucin-type sialoglycoproteins.
`Infect
`Immun 1994; 62: 5404-10.
`25 Mynott TL, Luke RKJ, Chandler DS. Detection of attach-
`mentof enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli ETEC) to human
`small
`intestinal cells by enzyme immunoassay. FEMS
`Immunol Med Microbiol 1995; 10: 207-18.
`26 Sellwood R, Lees D. Adhesion of Escherichia coli patho-
`genic in pigs, calves and lambsto intestinal epithelial cell
`brush borders. In: de Leeuw PW, Guinee PAM eds,
`Laboratory diagnosis in neonatal calf and pig diarrhoea.
`Current topics in veterinary medicine and animal science.
`1980; 13: 163-70.
`27 Dean EA, Whipp S, Moon H.Age-specific colonisation of
`porcineintestinal epithelium by 987P-piliated enterotoxi-
`genic Escherichia coli. Infect Immun 1989; 57: 82-7.
`28 Hauri HP, Quaroni A, Isselbacher KJ. Biogenesis ofintesti-
`nal plasma membrane:post-translational route and cleav-
`age of sucrase-isomaltase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1979;
`76: 5183-6.
`29 Kidder DE, Manners MJ. In: Digestion in the pig. Bristol:
`Wright-Scientechnica, 1978.
`
`MSNExhibit 1046 - Page 5 of 5
`MSNv. Bausch - IPR2023-00016
`
`
`
`
`
`‘yyuBuAdooAqpayoejosg}sanbAq|Z0z‘oz4equue0eqUO/WOOd'fwq'}n6//:dyyWoypepeojumog‘966Asenuer|UOgz'LgEINHB/9VELL'OLSepeysiqndjsulJjn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket