4.8 Article

Quantitative evaluation of protective antibody response induced by hepatitis E vaccine in humans

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-17737-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81871247, 31730029, 81701576]
  2. Major Infectious Disease Project of China [2018ZX10101001-002]
  3. Scientific Research Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Molecular Vaccinology and Molecular Diagnostics [2018ZY001]
  4. HIV Vaccine Research and Design (HIVRAD) program [P01 AI124337]
  5. NIH [R01 AI129698, R01 AI140844]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Efficacy evaluation through human trials is crucial for advancing a vaccine candidate to clinics. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) can be used to quantify B cell repertoire response and trace antibody lineages during vaccination. Here, we demonstrate this application with a case study of Hecolin (R), the licensed vaccine for hepatitis E virus (HEV). Four subjects are administered the vaccine following a standard three-dose schedule. Vaccine-induced antibodies exhibit a high degree of clonal diversity, recognize five conformational antigenic sites of the genotype 1 HEV p239 antigen, and cross-react with other genotypes. Unbiased repertoire sequencing is performed for seven time points over six months of vaccination, with maturation pathways characterize for a set of vaccine-induced antibodies. In addition to dynamic repertoire profiles, NGS analysis reveals differential patterns of HEV-specific antibody lineages and highlights the necessity of the long vaccine boost. Together, our study presents a quantitative strategy for vaccine evaluation in small-scale human studies. The authors provide a comprehensive characterization of the human antibody response to a licensed hepatitis E virus (HEV) vaccine, Hecolin, in four individuals over the course of six months post vaccination. They demonstrate diverse patterns of antibody response underlying the vaccine protection.

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

4.8
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