4.7 Article

Design of Polymeric Nanocapsules for Intranasal Vaccination against Mycobacterium Tuberculosis: Influence of the Polymeric Shell and Antigen Positioning

期刊

PHARMACEUTICS
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12060489

关键词

6 kDa early secretory antigenic target (ESAT-6); 10 kDa culture filtrate protein (CFP-10); vaccination; Imiquimod; Toll-like receptor-7 (TLR-7); antibodies; cytokines; complement system; reactive oxygen species (ROS)

资金

  1. Xunta de Galicia (plan I2C), Spain [ED481A-2018/294, ED481D-2017/017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tuberculosis (TB) is the leading cause of death from a single infectious microorganism and Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG), the only authorized vaccine, does not confer protection against pulmonary TB. Based on the hypothesis that mucosal protection could help to prevent the infection at the site of entrance, the objective of this work was to develop an intranasal vaccine againstMycobacterium tuberculosis(Mtb), the microorganism that causes TB. Our approach consisted of the use of polymeric nanocapsules (NCs) with an oily core and a polymer shell made of chitosan (CS) or inulin/polyarginine (INU/pArg). The immunostimulant Imiquimod, a Toll-like receptor-7 (TLR-7) agonist, was encapsulated in the oily core and a fusion protein, formed by two antigens of Mtb, was absorbed either onto the NC surface (CS:Ag and INU:pArg:Ag) or between two polymer layers (INU:Ag:pArg) in order to assess the influence of the antigen positioning on the immune response. Although CS NCs were more immunostimulant than the INU/pArg NCs in vitro, the in vivo experiments showed that INU:pArg:Ag NCs were the only prototype inducing an adequate immunoglobulin A (IgA) response. Moreover, a previous immunization with BCG increased the immune response for CS NCs but, conversely, decreased for INU/pArg NCs. Further optimization of the antigen and the vaccination regime could provide an efficacious vaccine, using the INU:pArg:Ag NC prototype as nanocarrier.

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