4.7 Article

AAV-Delivered Antibody Mediates Significant Protective Effects against SIVmac239 Challenge in the Absence of Neutralizing Activity

期刊

PLOS PATHOGENS
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005090

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Health [R01AI098446, U19AI095985, P01AI100263]
  2. National Cancer Institute
  3. National Institutes of Health [HHSN261200800001E]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long-term delivery of potent broadly-neutralizing antibodies is a promising approach for the prevention of HIV-1 infection. We used AAV vector intramuscularly to deliver anti-SIV monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in IgG1 form to rhesus monkeys. Persisting levels of delivered mAb as high as 270 mu g/ml were achieved. However, host antibody responses to the delivered antibody were observed in 9 of the 12 monkeys and these appeared to limit the concentration of delivered antibody that could be achieved. This is reflected in the wide range of delivered mAb concentrations that were achieved: 1-270 mu g/ml. Following repeated, marginal dose, intravenous challenge with the difficult-to-neutralize SIVmac239, the six monkeys in the AAV-5L7 IgG1 mAb group showed clear protective effects despite the absence of detectable neutralizing activity against the challenge virus. The protective effects included: lowering of viral load at peak height; lowering of viral load at set point; delay in the time to peak viral load from the time of the infectious virus exposure. All of these effects were statistically significant. In addition, the monkey with the highest level of delivered 5L7 mAb completely resisted six successive SIVmac239 i.v. challenges, including a final challenge with a dose of 10 i.v. infectious units. Our results demonstrate the continued promise of this approach for the prevention of HIV-1 infection in people. However, the problem of anti-antibody responses will need to be understood and overcome for the promise of this approach to be effectively realized.

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