Antibody reactions of horses against various domains of the EHV-1 receptor-binding protein gD1.

Abstract

Equid alphaherpesviruses 1 (EHV-1) and 4 (EHV-4) are closely related and both endemic in horses worldwide. Both viruses replicate in the upper respiratory tract, but EHV-1 may additionally lead to abortion and equine herpesvirus myeloencephalopathy (EHM). We focused on antibody responses in horses against the receptor-binding glycoprotein D of EHV-1 (gD1), which shares a 77% amino acid identity with its counterpart in EHV-4 (gD4). Both antigens give rise to cross-reacting antibodies, including neutralizing antibodies. However, immunity against EHV-4 is not considered protective against EHM. While a diagnostic ELISA to discriminate between EHV-1 and EHV-4 infections is available based on type-specific fragments of glycoprotein G (gG1 and gG4, respectively), the type-specific antibody reaction against gD1 has not yet been sufficiently addressed. Starting from the N-terminus of gD1, we developed luciferase immunoprecipitation system (LIPS) assays, using gD1-fragments of increasing size as antigens, i.e. gD1_83 (comprising the first 83 amino acids), gD1_160, gD1_180, and gD1_402 (the full-length molecule). These assays were then used to analyse panels of horse sera from Switzerland (n = 60) and Iceland (n = 50), the latter of which is considered EHV-1 free. We detected only one true negative horse serum from Iceland, whereas all other sera in both panels were seropositive for both gG4 (ELISA) and gD1 (LIPS against gD1_402). In contrast, seropositivity against gG1 was rather rare (35% Swiss sera; 14% Icelandic sera). Therefore, a high percentage of antibodies against gD1 could be attributed to cross-reaction and due to EHV-4 infections. In contrast, the gD1_83 fragment was able to identify sera with type-specific antibodies against gD1. Interestingly, those sera stemmed almost exclusively from vaccinated horses. Although it is uncertain that the N-terminal epitopes of gD1 addressed in this communication are linked to better protection, we suggest that in future vaccine developments, type-common antigens should be avoided, while a broad range of type-specific antigens should be favored.