4.7 Article

Clinical Assessment of a Recombinant Simian Adenovirus ChAd63: A Potent New Vaccine Vector

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 205, 期 5, 页码 772-781

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jir850

关键词

-

资金

  1. UK Medical Research Council [G0502018]
  2. UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre
  3. Wellcome Trust
  4. Medical Research Council [G0600424, G0502018] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0509-10233] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. MRC [G0600424, G0502018] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Vaccine development in human Plasmodium falciparum malaria has been hampered by the exceptionally high levels of CD8(+) T cells required for efficacy. Use of potently immunogenic human adenoviruses as vaccine vectors could overcome this problem, but these are limited by preexisting immunity to human adenoviruses. Methods. From 2007 to 2010, we undertook a phase I dose and route finding study of a new malaria vaccine, a replication-incompetent chimpanzee adenovirus 63 (ChAd63) encoding the preerythrocytic insert multiple epitope thrombospondin-related adhesion protein (ME-TRAP; n = 54 vaccinees) administered alone (n = 28) or with a modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) ME-TRAP booster immunization 8 weeks later (n = 26). We observed an excellent safety profile. High levels of TRAP antigen-specific CD8(+) and CD4(+) T cells, as detected by interferon gamma enzyme-linked immunospot assay and flow cytometry, were induced by intramuscular ChAd63 ME-TRAP immunization at doses of 5 x 10(10) viral particles and above. Subsequent administration of MVA ME-TRAP boosted responses to exceptionally high levels, and responses were maintained for up to 30 months postvaccination. Conclusions. The ChAd63 chimpanzee adenovirus vector appears safe and highly immunogenic, providing a viable alternative to human adenoviruses as vaccine vectors for human use.

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