4.6 Article

Differential immunogenicity of various heterologous prime-boost vaccine regimens using DNA and viral vectors in healthy volunteers

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 174, Issue 1, Pages 449-455

Publisher

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.174.1.449

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [G84/6323] Funding Source: Medline
  2. MRC [G84/6323] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Heterologous prime-boost vaccination has been shown to be an efficient way of inducing T cell responses in animals and in humans. We have used three vaccine vectors, naked DNA, modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA), and attenuated fowlpox strain, FP9, for prime-boost vaccination approaches against Plasmodium falciparum malaria in humans. In this study, we characterize, using two types of ELISPOT assays and FACS analysis, cell-mediated immune responses induced by different prime-boost combinations where all vectors encode a multiepitope string fused to the pre-erythrocytic Ag thrombospondin-related adhesion protein. We show that these different vectors need to be used in a specific order for an optimal ex vivo IFN-gamma response. From the different combinations, DNA priming followed by MVA boosting and FP9 priming followed by MVA boosting were most immunogenic and in both cases the IFN-gamma response was of broad specificity and cross-reactive against two P. falciparum strains (3D7 and T9/96). Immunization with all three vectors showed no improvement over optimal two vector regimes. Strong ex vivo IFN-gamma responses peaked 1 wk after the booster dose, but cultured ELISPOT assays revealed longer-lasting T cell memory responses for at least 6 mo. In the DNA-primed vaccinces the IFN-gamma response was mainly due to CD4+ T cells, whereas in the FP9-primed vaccinees it was mainly due to CD4-dependent CD8+ T cells. This difference may be of importance for the protective efficacy of these vaccination approaches against various diseases.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available