4.8 Article

An effective second-generation outer surface protein A-derived Lyme vaccine that eliminates a potentially autoreactive T cell epitope

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0305680101

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01-RR0054, M01 RR000054] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR045386, AR45386, F32 AR08547, F31 AR008547] Funding Source: Medline
  3. ODCDC CDC HHS [CCU618387] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The antigenic component of a common Lyme disease vaccine is recombinant outer surface protein A (rOspA) of Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb), the causative agent of Lyme disease. Coincidentally, patients with chronic, treatment-resistant Lyme arthritis develop an immune response against OspA, whereas those with acute Lyme disease usually do not. Treatment-resistant Lyme arthritis occurs in a subset of Lyme arthritis patients and is linked to HLA.DRB1*0401 (DR4) and related alleles. Recent work from our laboratory identified T cell crossreactivity between epitopes of OspA and lymphocyte function-associated antigen 1alpha(L) chain (LFA-1alpha(L)) in these patients. We generated a form of rOspA, FTK-OspA, in which the LFA-1alpha(L)/rOspA crossreactive T cell epitope was mutated to reduce the possible risk of autoimmunity in genetically susceptible individuals. FTK-OspA did not stimulate human or mouse DR4-restricted, WT-OspA-specific T cells, whereas it did stimulate antibody responses specific for WT-OspA that were similar to mice vaccinated WT-OspA. We show here that the protective efficacy of FTK-OspA is indistinguishable from that of WT-OspA in vaccination trials, as both C3H/HeJ and BALB/c FTK-OspA-vaccinated mice were protected from Bb infection. These data demonstrate that this rOspA-derived vaccine lacking the predicted cross-reactive T cell epitope, but retaining the capacity to elicit antibodies against infection, is effective in generating protective immunity.

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