4.7 Article

A Nanoparticle-Poly(I:C) Combination Adjuvant Enhances the Breadth of the Immune Response to Inactivated Influenza Virus Vaccine in Pigs

期刊

VACCINES
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines8020229

关键词

Nano-11; swine influenza virus; T and B cell peptides; poly(I:C); intranasal vaccination; mucosal immunity; pigs

资金

  1. National Pork Board

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intranasal vaccination elicits secretory IgA (SIgA) antibodies in the airways, which is required for cross-protection against influenza. To enhance the breadth of immunity induced by a killed swine influenza virus antigen (KAg) or conserved T cell and B cell peptides, we adsorbed the antigens together with the TLR3 agonist poly(I:C) electrostatically onto cationic alpha-D-glucan nanoparticles (Nano-11) resulting in Nano-11-KAg-poly(I:C) and Nano-11-peptides-poly(I:C) vaccines. In vitro, increased TNF-alpha and IL-1ss cytokine mRNA expression was observed in Nano-11-KAg-poly(I:C)-treated porcine monocyte-derived dendritic cells. Nano-11-KAg-poly(I:C), but not Nano-11-peptides-poly(I:C), delivered intranasally in pigs induced high levels of cross-reactive virus-specific SIgA antibodies secretion in the nasal passage and lungs compared to a multivalent commercial influenza virus vaccine administered intramuscularly. The commercial and Nano-11-KAg-poly(I:C) vaccinations increased the frequency of IFN gamma secreting T cells. The poly(I:C) adjuvanted Nano-11-based vaccines increased various cytokine mRNA expressions in lymph nodes compared to the commercial vaccine. In addition, Nano-11-KAg-poly(I:C) vaccine elicited high levels of virus neutralizing antibodies in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Microscopic lung lesions and challenge virus load were partially reduced in poly(I:C) adjuvanted Nano-11 and commercial influenza vaccinates. In conclusion, compared to our earlier study with Nano-11-KAg vaccine, addition of poly(I:C) to the formulation improved cross-protective antibody and cytokine response.

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