3.9 Article

Cellular Immune Responses in Humans Induced by Two Serogroup B Meningococcal Outer Membrane Vesicle Vaccines Given Separately and in Combination

期刊

CLINICAL AND VACCINE IMMUNOLOGY
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 353-362

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/CVI.00666-15

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIPH
  2. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

MenBvac and MeNZB are safe and efficacious outer membrane vesicle (OMV) vaccines against serogroup B meningococcal disease. Antibody responses have previously been investigated in a clinical trial with these two OMV vaccines given separately (25 mu g/dose) or in combination (12.5 and 12.5 mu g/dose) in three doses administered at 6-week intervals. Here, we report the results from analyzing cellular immune responses against MenBvac and MeNZB OMVs in terms of antigen-specific CD4(+) T cell proliferation and secretion of cytokines. The proliferative CD4(+) T cell responses to the combined vaccine were of the same magnitude as the homologous responses observed for each individual vaccine. The results also showed cross-reactivity in the sense that both vaccine groups receiving separate vaccines responded to both homologous and heterologous OMV antigen when assayed for antigen-specific cellular proliferation. In addition, a multiplex bead array assay was used to analyze the presence of Th1 and Th2 cytokines in cell culture supernatants. The results showed that gamma interferon, interleukin-4 (IL-4), and IL-10 responses could be detected as a result of vaccination with both the MenBvac and the MeNZB vaccines given separately, as well as when given in combination. With respect to cross-reactivity, the cytokine results paralleled the observations made for proliferation. In conclusion, the results demonstrate that cross-reactive cellular immune responses involving both Th1 and Th2 cytokines can be induced to the same extent by different tailor-made OMV vaccines given either separately or in combination with half the dose of each vaccine.

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

3.9
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