4.7 Article

Magnitude and Breadth of the Neutralizing Antibody Response in the RV144 and Vax003 HIV-1 Vaccine Efficacy Trials

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 206, 期 3, 页码 431-441

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jis367

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  2. Center for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Immunology (Division of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, NIAID, NIH) [AI678501]
  3. US Army Medical Research [Y1-AI-2642-12]
  4. NIAID
  5. Materiel Command [Y1-AI-2642-12]
  6. Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine [W81XWH-07-2-0067]
  7. US Department of Defense [W81XWH-07-2-0067]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. A recombinant canarypox vector expressing human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) Gag, Pro, and membrane-linked gp120 (vCP1521), combined with a bivalent gp120 protein boost (AIDSVAX B/E), provided modest protection against HIV-1 infection in a community-based population in Thailand (RV144 trial). No protection was observed in Thai injection drug users who received AIDSVAX B/E alone (Vax003 trial). We compared the neutralizing antibody response in these 2 trials. Methods. Neutralization was assessed with tier 1 and tier 2 strains of virus in TZM-bl and A3R5 cells. Results. Neutralization of several tier 1 viruses was detected in both RV144 and Vax003. Peak titers were higher in Vax003 and waned rapidly in both trials. The response in RV144 was targeted in part to V3 of gp120. vCP1521 priming plus 2 boosts with gp120 protein was superior to 2 gp120 protein inoculations alone, confirming a priming effect for vCP1521. Sporadic weak neutralization of tier 2 viruses was detected only in Vax003 and A3R5 cells. Conclusion. The results suggest either that weak neutralizing antibody responses can be partially protective against HIV-1 in low-risk heterosexual populations or that the modest efficacy seen in RV144 was mediated by other immune responses, either alone or in combination with neutralizing antibodies.

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