Introduction

Rhodococcus equi (R. equi) is a zoonotic opportunistic pathogen that mainly causes fatal lung and extrapulmonary abscesses in foals and immunocompromised individuals and threatens the health of the livestock industry and public health safety worldwide [1,2,3]. Although R. equi affects a variety of animal species, R. equi is a well-known major horse pathogen in veterinary medicine, causing life-threatening multifocal pneumonia in foals with frequent extrapulmonary involvement. Attack rates in horse-breeding farms where the disease caused by R. equi is endemic are typically 20–40% [3, 4]. In humans, R. equi mainly causes pneumonia that radiographically and pathologically resembles pulmonary tuberculosis. In recent years, R. equi has become more widely recognized due to the growing number of human cases [3, 5,6,7,8].

The standard treatment for R. equi infection in foals combines macrolides (erythromycin, clarithromycin, or azithromycin) and rifampicin [9]. With the widespread use of these antibiotics, the emergence and rapid evolution of multidrug-resistant (MDR) isolates have been reported in the USA, China, Poland, and other countries [10,11,12]. Vaccines are an effective strategy against MDR pathogens, but currently, no licensed vaccines against R. equi exist. Oral administration (gavage) of live virulent R. equi has been shown to protect foals against severe R. equi challenges [13, 14]. However, the use of live virulent pathogens as vaccines is not permitted due to risks to the environment and host. The inactivated vaccine ensures the structural integrity of R. equi and can induce humoral and cellular immune responses in foals, but it is not effective in protecting foals from the challenge of virulent R. equi [15, 16]. To date, the only licenced approach to reduce the incidence and severity of R. equi pneumonia is prophylactic transfusion of R. equi-specific hyperimmune plasma, but the results of this approach in experimental and field studies are conflicting [17, 18]. Indeed, similar to Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M. tb), the cellular immune response against this intracellular bacterium pathogen is largely thought to exert major immune protection, although the antibody response also mediates immune protection [19, 20]. Cellular immunity is the basis of host responses against R. equi infection. In this context, antigen-based subunit vaccines may be safer and effective options. However, only a limited number of R. equi antigens have been reported and validated, among which virulence-associated proteins (Vaps) have been widely investigated in vaccine development to prevent R. equi infections. Vaps-based recombinant protein subunit vaccines, recombinant DNA vaccines, vector vaccines, and other engineered vaccines can induce specific humoral and cellular immune responses in the host to varying degrees, but they provide inadequate protection for foals [21,22,23]. Bacteria have a complete cellular structure, and the complexity of their composition makes it theoretically impossible for a single antigen to be better than inactivated or live attenuated vaccines. Therefore, screening and identifying more antigens and develo** multitargeted vaccines against R. equi infection may be a safer and effective strategy.

Reverse vaccinology is a powerful approach for screening vaccine targets. This approach is based on the pathogenic genome sequence and uses a series of bioinformatics tools to predict pathogen virulence factors, essential proteins, membrane surface proteins and extracellular proteins and to evaluate the antigenicity, physicochemical properties and toxicity of proteins [24]. This approach can be used to efficiently screen antigens for the development of vaccines without cultivating pathogens, overcoming the limitations of traditional vaccine development methods. Reverse vaccinology has been extensively used for the screening of vaccine candidates for various pathogens, such as serogroup B Neisseria meningitidis (menB) [25], Acinetobacter baumannii [26], Brucella spp. [27], Shigella dysenteriae [28], and Mycoplasma synoviae [29]. With this approach, menB vaccines have been successfully developed [25]. In a previous report, we screened conserved core proteins from the complete genomes of 16 R. equi isolates from different hosts in different countries. Then, we used reverse vaccinology strategies to identify 12 vaccine candidates from the core protein pool based on host homology, subcellular localization, antigenicity, transmembrane helices, physicochemical properties, immunogenicity, and virulence factor/antigen database alignment [30]. Here, five vaccine candidates, namely, ABC transporter substrate-binding protein (ABC transporter), penicillin-binding protein 2 (PBD2), NlpC/P60 family protein (NlpC/P60), esterase family protein (Esterase), and M23 family metallopeptidase (M23), were selected, and their potential to induce protection immune against challenges by R. equi in mice was further evaluated.

Notably, equine infection models have also been used for the development of R. equi vaccines [31, 32]. However, using horses for in vivo studies with R. equi poses obvious economic and logistical constraints, and BALB/c mice have been developed as models to investigate R. equi infections and vaccine development [33, 34]. Therefore, the focus of this study was to validate the efficacy of five vaccine candidates in inducing antigen-specific immune responses and protection against challenges by R. equi. This study aimed to establish an antigen library for the development of an R. equi vaccine, which can be gradually refined it in future work.

Methods

Bacterial strains and animals

The R. equi 103S strain was kindly provided by Prof. Haixia Luo (College of Life Sciences, Ningxia University, Ningxia, China). Six-week-old female BALB/c mice were purchased from the Laboratory Animal Center, ** of the vaccine candidates. (b) Purification of a recombinant ABC transporter (~ 57 kDa), PBD2 (~ 51 kDa), NlpC/P60 (~ 38 kDa), Esterase (38 ~ kDa), and M23 (~ 28 kDa) protein. Line M, 180 kDa protein marker; Line 1, protein after lysis in 8 M urea buffer; Line 2, flow-through from the resin; Line 3, wash-through from the resin by 100 mM imidazole; Line 4, purified protein eluted by 600 mM imidazole