4.4 Article

Toward the Rational Design of a Malaria Vaccine Construct Using the MSP3 Family as an Example: Contribution of Immunogenicity Studies in Models

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 78, 期 1, 页码 477-485

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.00941-08

关键词

-

资金

  1. French Ministry of Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plasmodium falciparum merozoite surface protein 3 (MSP3), the target of antibodies that mediate parasite killing in cooperation with blood monocytes and are associated with protection in exposed populations, is a vaccine candidate under development. It belongs to a family of six structurally related genes. To optimize immunogenicity, we attempted to improve its design based on knowledge of antigenicity of various regions from the conserved C terminus of the six proteins and an analysis of the immunogenicity of tailored constructs. The immunogenicity studies were conducted in BALB/c and C57BL/6J mice, using MSP3 (referred to here as MSP3-1) as a model. Four constructs were designed in order to assess the effect of sequences flanking the 69-amino-acid region of MSP3-1 previously shown to be the target of biologically active antibodies. The results indicate major beneficial effects of removing (i) the subregion downstream from the 69-amino-acid sequence, since antibody titers increased by 2 orders of magnitude, and (ii) the upstream subregion which, although it defines a T-helper cell epitope, is not the target of antibodies. The construct, excluding both flanking sequences, was able to induce Th1-like responses, with a dominance of cytophilic antibodies. This led to design a multigenic construct based on these results, combining the six members of the MSP3 family. This new construction was immunogenic in mice, induced antibodies that recognized the parasite native proteins, and inhibited parasite growth in the functional antibody-dependent cellular inhibition assay, thus satisfying the preclinical criteria for a valuable vaccine candidate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据