4.4 Article

Leish-111f, a recombinant polyprotein vaccine that protects against visceral leishmaniasis by elicitation of CD4+ T cells

期刊

INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
卷 75, 期 9, 页码 4648-4654

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.00394-07

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI25038, R01 AI025038] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Leishmania-derived recombinant polyprotein Leish-111f or its three component proteins, thiol-specific antioxidant (TSA), Leishmania major stress-inducible protein I (LmSTI1), and Leishmania elongation initiation factor (LeIF), have previously been demonstrated to be efficacious against cutaneous or mucosal leishmaniasis in mice, nonhuman primates, and humans. In this study we demonstrate that Leish-111f is also a vaccine antigen candidate against visceral leishmaniasis (VL) caused by Leishmania infantum. We evaluated the immune response and protection induced by Leish-111f formulated with monophosphoryl lipid A in a stable emulsion (Leish-111f+MPL-SE) and demonstrated that mice developed strong Immoral and T-cell responses to the vaccine antigen. Analysis of the cellular immune responses of immunized, uninfected mice demonstrated that the vaccine induced a significant increase in CD4(+) T cells producing gamma interferon, interleukin 2, and tumor necrosis factor cytokines, indicating a Th1-type immune response. Experimental infection of immunized mice and hamsters demonstrated that Leish-111f+MPL-SE induced significant protection against L. infantum infection, with reductions in parasite loads of 99.6%, a level of protection greater than that reported for other vaccine candidates in animal models of VL. Taken together, our results suggest that this vaccine represents a good candidate for use against several Leishmania species. The Leish111f+MPL-SE product we report here is the first defined vaccine for leishmaniasis in human clinical trials and has completed phase I and 2 safety and immunogenicity testing in normal, healthy human subjects.

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

4.4
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