Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Trends Microbiol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 October 1.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2770165

An “omics” approach to uropathogenic Escherichia coli vaccinology

Urinary tract infection (UTI) occurs when bacteria, most commonly uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) [1], contaminate the periurethral area and traverse the urethra to colonize the bladder. Left untreated, UPEC ascend the ureters and establish a secondary infection in the kidney parenchyma. At this juncture, UPEC can elicit serious complications including renal scarring, septicemia, and even death. While young women are the most affected population, children, elderly, and hospitalized individuals are also at high risk. Up to 30% of patients experience recurrent episodes, contributing to billions of dollars spent annually to treat these infections [2]. Given the paucity of recent vaccine developments, the increasing rate of UPEC antibiotic resistance, and the need to reduce healthcare expenditures, new avenues of UTI vaccine research need to be explored.

Conventional vaccinology approaches targeting bona fide virulence factors, namely FimH of type I fimbriae, have generated promising data in animal models [3] yet no vaccine is currently available in the United States. In Europe, licensed treatments consist of a complex mixture of whole killed bacteria; however, clinical data from the United States regarding recurrence and specific antibody titers does not suggest lasting immunity has been generated by this regimen [4]. Despite the advances afforded by reverse vaccinology (an in silico genomics-based approach to vaccine development [5]), it is not practical for UPEC due to a lack of high-throughput methods to test for protection. A more optimal approach to UPEC vaccine discovery would be one that is broad and unbiased yet has some aspect of selectivity to narrow the list of candidates. An example of this has been employed in pneumococcal vaccinology [6]. Applied to UPEC, it might be useful to target only PASivE candidates, UPEC proteins that are Pathogen-specific, Antigenic, Surface-exposed, and in vivo Expressed. These particular traits are attractive because they ensure that the targets are not widely expressed by commensal E. coli, are accessible to and recognized by the host immune system, and are synthesized specifically in vivo and likely important for infection and pathogenesis.

To distinguish PASivE UPEC proteins, we can collectively analyze the results of genomic, proteomic, and metabolomic screens that each individually implicates proteins with one or more PASivE qualities (Table 1). The utility of large-scale genomic screens in bacterial pathogenesis and vaccine research has already been described [5]. In silico analyses, similar to those performed in reverse vaccinology studies, can also limit the candidate pool by predicting surface-exposed proteins, potential targets for secreted antibodies. While each screen has disadvantages, together they provide a comprehensive and impartial way to determine genes that encode PASivE proteins. Thus, screening for these specific candidates enriches for antigens that might provide protection based on biological relevance and creates a manageable number of genes to clone, express, and test in the murine model of ascending UTI.

Table 1
Screens that can be used to identity PASivE UPEC vaccine candidates.

The results generated by published and ongoing screens are particularly striking. Most of the screens primarily identified different classes of iron acquisition receptors. These outer membrane proteins are responsible for uptake of distinct siderophores or heme and are now PASivE candidates suitable for vaccine trials. This result supports the notion that similar to many other organisms, iron is crucial for UPEC to survive in its respective host niche, and the genomic dedication to functional redundancy supports the fact that the mammalian urinary tract is iron-limited. Indeed, mice vaccinated with the denatured IroN siderophore receptor are protected from transurethral UPEC challenge [7], a proof-of-concept for testing other PASivE proteins indicated by “omics” screens. Other potential targets identified by these studies include an array of metabolic transporters, putative adhesins, and hypothetical proteins that may represent novel virulence factors.

The testing phase presents a new challenge for UPEC vaccinology. The field should advance towards a subunit vaccine directed against PASivE proteins. Additionally, being a mucosal pathogen, the vaccine must be administered with an appropriate adjuvant by a route and schedule that stimulates long-term immunity and not tolerance against UPEC. To this end, animal trials must be used to address these issues and also distinguish immunological correlates of protection and details regarding the molecular and cellular factors that play a role in the adaptive immune response to UTI.

Screening for PASivE candidates requires the pathogen be culturable and have an animal model of infection, is limited to the identification of protein antigens, and is benefited greatly by a sequenced and annotated genome. Moreover, while lacking the breadth of coverage and total objectivity of reverse vaccinology, an “omics”-based screening initiative for PASivE proteins is particularly useful to produce a list of probable vaccine candidates. This scheme represents a rational approach for vaccine design to curb the social, economic, and personal burden caused by UPEC-mediated UTI. This approach can easily be translated to identify vaccine candidates for other significant human pathogens which are known to cause mucosal and systemic disease.


Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.


1. Wiles TJ, et al. Origins and virulence mechanisms of uropathogenic. Escherichia coli. Exp Mol Pathol. 2008;85:11–19. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
2. Mobley HLT, Warren JW. Urinary tract infections: molecular pathogenesis and clinical management. 1996 ASM Press.
3. Langermann S, et al. Vaccination with FimH adhesin protects cynomolgus monkeys from colonization and infection by uropathogenic. Escherichia coli. J Infect Dis. 2000;181:774–778. [PubMed]
4. Hopkins WJ, et al. Vaginal mucosal vaccine for recurrent urinary tract infections in women: results of a phase 2 clinical trial. J Urol. 2007;177:1349–1353. [PubMed]
5. Capecchi B, et al. The genome revolution in vaccine research. Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2004;6:17–27. [PubMed]
6. Giefing C, et al. Discovery of a novel class of highly conserved vaccine antigens using genomic scale antigenic fingerprinting of pneumococcus with human antibodies. J Exp Med. 2008;205:117–131. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
7. Russo TA, et al. The siderophore receptor IroN of extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli is a potential vaccine candidate. Infect Immun. 2003;71:7164–7169. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8. Lloyd AL, et al. Defining genomic islands and uropathogen-specific genes in uropathogenic Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 2007;189:3532–3546. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9. Chen SL, et al. Identification of genes subject to positive selection in uropathogenic strains of Escherichia coli: a comparative genomics approach. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:5977–5982. [PubMed]
10. Hagan EC, Mobley HL. Uropathogenic Escherichia coli outer membrane antigens expressed during urinary tract infection. Infect Immun. 2007;75:3941–3949. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
11. Walters MS, Mobley HLT. Identification of uropathogenic Escherichia coli surface proteins by shotgun proteomics. Journal of Microbiological Methods. 2009 In Press, Corrected Proof. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
12. Snyder JA, et al. Transcriptome of uropathogenic Escherichia coli during urinary tract infection. Infect Immun. 2004;72:6373–6381. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
13. Alteri CJ, Mobley HL. Quantitative profile of the uropathogenic Escherichia coli outer membrane proteome during growth in human urine. Infect Immun. 2007;75:2679–2688. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Henderson JP, et al. Quantitative metabolomics reveals an epigenetic blueprint for iron acquisition in uropathogenic Escherichia coli. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5:e1000305. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
15. Bahrani-Mougeot FK, et al. Type 1 fimbriae and extracellular polysaccharides are preeminent uropathogenic Escherichia coli virulence determinants in the murine urinary tract. Mol. Microbiol. 2002;45:1079–1093. [PubMed]