4.6 Article

Interplay of diverse adjuvants and nanoparticle presentation of native-like HIV-1 envelope trimers

期刊

NPJ VACCINES
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41541-021-00364-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [681137]
  2. U.S. National Institutes of Health [P01 AI110657]
  3. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation through the Collaboration for AIDS Vaccine Discovery (CAVD) [OPP1111923, OPP1132237, INV-002022]
  4. Vici grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study showed that ISCOMATRIX was the most effective adjuvant, while GLA-LSQ adjuvant unexpectedly induced strong antibody response, though it may compromise the production of more desired anti-trimer antibodies due to an off-target effect. Both adjuvants and nanoparticle display can enhance the antibody response to SOSIP trimers, but the optimal combination requires experimental identification.
The immunogenicity of HIV-1 envelope (Env) trimers is generally poor. We used the clinically relevant ConM SOSIP trimer to compare the ability of different adjuvants (squalene emulsion, ISCOMATRIX, GLA-LSQ, and MPLA liposomes) to support neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses in rabbits. The trimers were administered as free proteins or on nanoparticles. The rank order for the adjuvants was ISCOMATRIX > SE > GLA-LSQ similar to MPLA liposomes > no adjuvant. Stronger NAb responses were elicited when the ConM SOSIP trimers were presented on ferritin nanoparticles. We also found that the GLA-LSQ adjuvant induced an unexpectedly strong antibody response to the ferritin core of the nanoparticles. This off-target effect may have compromised its ability to induce the more desired antitrimer antibodies. In summary, both adjuvants and nanoparticle display can improve the magnitude of the antibody response to SOSIP trimers but the best combination of trimer presentation and adjuvant can only be identified experimentally.

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

4.6
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