4.7 Article

Enhanced immunogenicity of a bivalent nicotine vaccine

期刊

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 8, 期 11, 页码 1589-1594

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2008.07.001

关键词

Nicotine; Antibody; Immunotherapy; Vaccine; Bivatent; Immunogenicity

资金

  1. PHS [DA10714, F31-DA021946, T32-DA07097, P50-DA013333]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The efficacy of nicotine vaccines for smoking cessation is dependent upon their ability to elicit sufficiently high serum antibody concentrations. This study compared two nicotine immunogens representing different hapten presentations, 3'-aminomethyl nicotine conjugated to recombinant Pseudomonas exoprotein A (3'-AmNic-rEPA) and 6-carboxymethlureido nicotine conjugated to keyhole limpet hemocyanin (6-CMUNic-KLH), and assessed whether their concurrent administration would produce additive serum antibody concentrations in rats. Effects of vaccination on nicotine pharmacokinetics were also studied. Vaccination of rats with these immunogens produced non cross-reacting nicotine-specific antibodies (NicAb). Serum NicAb concentrations elicited by each individual immunogen were not affected by whether the immunogens were administered alone as monovalent vaccines or together as a bivalent vaccine. The total NicAb concentration in the bivalent vaccine group was additive compared to that of the monovalent vaccines atone. Higher serum NicAb concentrations, irrespective of which immunogen elicited the antibodies, were associated with greater binding of nicotine in serum, a tower unbound nicotine concentration in serum, and Lower brain nicotine concentration. These results demonstrate that it is possible to design immunogens which provide distinct nicotine epitopes for immune presentation, and which produce additive serum antibody levels. The concurrent administration of these immunogens as a bivalent vaccine may provide a general strategy for enhancing the antibody response to small molecules such as nicotine. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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