4.7 Article

Differences in Antibody Responses Between Trivalent Inactivated Influenza Vaccine and Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine Correlate With the Kinetics and Magnitude of Interferon Signaling in Children

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 210, 期 2, 页码 224-233

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiu079

关键词

Influenza vaccine; LAIV; TIV; children; interferon; HI antibodies; neutralizing antibodies

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [U19 AI089987]
  2. Nationwide Children's Hospital (intramural funds)
  3. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico from the Brazilian government [201277/2011-5]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) and trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) are effective for prevention of influenza virus infection in children, but the mechanisms associated with protection are not well defined. Methods. We analyzed the differences in B-cell responses and transcriptional profiles in children aged 6 months to 14 years immunized with these 2 vaccines. Results. LAIV elicited a significant increase in naive, memory, and transitional B cells on day 30 after vaccination, whereas TIV elicited an increased number of plasmablasts on day 7. Antibody titers against the 3 vaccine strains (H1N1, H3N2, and B) were significantly higher in the TIV group and correlated with number of antibody-secreting cells. Both vaccines induced overexpression of interferon (IFN)-signaling genes but with different kinetics. TIV induced expression of IFN genes on day 1 after vaccination in all age groups, and LAIV induced expression of IFN genes on day 7 after vaccination but only in children <5 years old. IFN-related genes overexpressed in both vaccinated groups correlated with H3N2 antibody titers. Conclusions. These results suggest that LAIV and TIV induced significantly different B-cell responses in vaccinated children. Early induction of IFN appears to be important for development of antibody responses.

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