4.5 Article

Antibody responses in adult and neonatal BALB/c mice to immunization with novel Bordetella pertussis vaccine formulations

期刊

VACCINE
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 1595-1604

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.12.083

关键词

Pertussis vaccine; Th1 response; Neonatal vaccines; Adjuvants

资金

  1. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  2. CIHR through the Grand Challenges in Global Health Initiative
  3. Krembil Foundation
  4. Canada Research Chair

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A balanced or Th-1 type immune response is required for effective clearance of many pathogens such as Bordetella pertussis, the causative agent of whooping cough. Since current acellular pertussis vaccines induce limited Th-1 type immune responses, novel vaccine formulations are needed to induce protective immunity in the infant in the earliest stages of life. Here, we developed a novel vaccine platform consisting of genetically detoxified pertussis toxoid (PTd) with multiple adjuvant components including CpG oligodeoxynucleotides, polyphosphazenes, and cationic innate defence regulator peptides. Co-formulation with these immunomodulators increased the serum IgG2a and IgG1 antibody titres in adult mice when compared to immunization with each of the selected adjuvants or immunization with PTd antigen alone. When used in combination, these adjuvants were able to induce a superior IgG2a response in both adult and neonatal mice, when compared to antigen alone or commercial vaccines. The increased response observed when using this adjuvant formulation was also initiated earlier and, moreover, was maintained over a period of greater than 22 months. The adjuvant platform also showed an ability to induce an immune response in a greater number of mice as compared to antigen alone. This suggests that this uniquely adjuvanted vaccine induces a stronger and more balanced immune response with an earlier onset of this response than vaccination with PTd antigen alone. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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