4.7 Article

Rational development of a protective P. vivax vaccine evaluated with transgenic rodent parasite challenge models

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep46482

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MR/N019008/1]
  2. EVIMalaR's Program [242095]
  3. Wellcome Trust [095540/Z/11/Z]
  4. MRC [MR/N019008/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Medical Research Council [MR/N019008/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0514-10158] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Wellcome Trust [104750/Z/14/Z] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Development of a protective and broadly-acting vaccine against the most widely distributed human malaria parasite, Plasmodium vivax, will be a major step towards malaria elimination. However, a P. vivax vaccine has remained elusive by the scarcity of pre-clinical models to test protective efficacy and support further clinical trials. In this study, we report the development of a highly protective CSP-based P. vivax vaccine, a virus-like particle (VLP) known as Rv21, able to provide 100% sterile protection against a stringent sporozoite challenge in rodent models to malaria, where IgG2a antibodies were associated with protection in absence of detectable PvCSP-specific T cell responses. Additionally, we generated two novel transgenic rodent P. berghei parasite lines, where the P. berghei csp gene coding sequence has been replaced with either full-length P. vivax VK210 or the allelic VK247 csp that additionally express GFP-Luciferase. Efficacy of Rv21 surpassed viral-vectored vaccination using ChAd63 and MVA. We show for the first time that a chimeric VK210/247 antigen can elicit high level cross-protection against parasites expressing either CSP allele, which provide accessible and affordable models suitable to support the development of P. vivax vaccines candidates. Rv21 is progressing to GMP production and has entered a path towards clinical evaluation.

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