4.8 Article

Systems analysis of protective immune responses to RTS, S malaria vaccination in humans

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1621489114

关键词

malaria; vaccine; systems vaccinology; systems biology; immune

资金

  1. MVI-Path
  2. National Institutes of Health [U19AI090023, U19AI057266]
  3. National Science Foundation [NSF-1516074, NSF-1361532]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

RTS,S is an advanced malaria vaccine candidate and confers significant protection against Plasmodium falciparum infection in humans. Little is known about the molecular mechanisms driving vaccine immunity. Here, we applied a systems biology approach to study immune responses in subjects receiving three consecutive immunizations with RTS, S (RRR), or in those receiving two immunizations of RTS, S/AS01 following a primary immunization with adenovirus 35 (Ad35) (ARR) vector expressing circumsporozoite protein. Subsequent controlled human malaria challenge (CHMI) of the vaccinees with Plasmodium-infected mosquitoes, 3 wk after the final immunization, resulted in similar to 50% protection in both groups of vaccinees. Circumsporozoite protein (CSP)-specific antibody titers, prechallenge, were associated with protection in the RRR group. In contrast, ARR-induced lower antibody responses, and protection was associated with polyfunctional CD4(+) T-cell responses 2 wk after priming with Ad35. Molecular signatures of B and plasma cells detected in PBMCs were highly correlated with antibody titers prechallenge and protection in the RRR cohort. In contrast, early signatures of innate immunity and dendritic cell activation were highly associated with protection in the ARR cohort. For both vaccine regimens, natural killer (NK) cell signatures negatively correlated with and predicted protection. These results suggest that protective immunity against P. falciparum can be achieved via multiple mechanisms and highlight the utility of systems approaches in defining molecular correlates of protection to vaccination.

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