4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

A comparison of IFNγ detection methods used in tuberculosis vaccine trials

Journal

TUBERCULOSIS
Volume 88, Issue 6, Pages 631-640

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.tube.2008.06.005

Keywords

Human; Tuberculosis; Vaccine; IFN gamma

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [R01-AI065653, N01-AI70022] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Wellcome Trust [080929, 076943] Funding Source: Medline
  4. Department of Health Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Interferon gamma (IFN gamma) is a critical component of the pro-inflammatory immune response that provides protection against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. In the absence of an immunological correlate of protection, antigen-specific production of IFN gamma is a commonly used marker of a protective immune response. To facilitate the evaluation of tuberculosis candidate vaccines three different IFN gamma detection methods were compared. The cultured whole blood ELISA, ex vivo IFN gamma ELISpot and whole blood ex vivo intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) assays were performed head-to-head during a Phase I clinical trial using the candidate vaccine MVA85A. Whilst at three assays detected significant increases in IFN gamma production immediately following vaccination, distinctions between the assays were apparent. Higher baseline IFN gamma responses were detected using the cultured whole blood ELISA, whereas the ex vivo ELISpot assay was the most sensitive in detecting long-term (52 weeks) post-vaccination responses. The whole blood ex vivo ICS assay provided novel information by dissecting the IFN gamma response into responding CD4, CD8 and gamma/delta T cell subsets. Future tuberculosis vaccine trials and immunology studies should ideally include a combination of ex vivo and cultured assays to ensure a thorough and multifaceted evaluation of the immune response is achieved. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available