4.8 Review

Targeting innate immunity for tuberculosis vaccination

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
Volume 129, Issue 9, Pages 3482-3491

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/JCI128877

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Research Council [833247]
  2. Spinoza grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research
  3. Washington University in St. Louis, NIH [HL105427, AI111914, AI123780, AI134236]
  4. Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) Foundation Grant [FDN-143273]
  5. Broad Institute TB program
  6. NIH [AI 109725]
  7. NIAID

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vaccine development against tuberculosis (TB) is based on the induction of adaptive immune responses endowed with long-term memory against mycobacterial antigens. Memory B and T cells initiate a rapid and robust immune response upon encounter with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, thus achieving long-lasting protection against infection. Recent studies have shown, however, that innate immune cell populations such as myeloid cells and NK cells also undergo functional adaptation after infection or vaccination, a de facto innate immune memory that is also termed trained immunity. Experimental and epidemiological data have shown that induction of trained immunity contributes to the beneficial heterologous effects of vaccines such as bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG), the licensed TB vaccine. Moreover, increasing evidence argues that trained immunity also contributes to the anti-TB effects of BCC vaccination. An interaction among immunological signals, metabolic rewiring, and epigenetic reprogramming underlies the molecular mechanisms mediating trained immunity in myeloid cells and their bone marrow progenitors. Future studies are warranted to explore the untapped potential of trained immunity to develop a future generation of TB vaccines that would combine innate and adaptive immune memory induction.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available