4.6 Article

MVA-LACK as a safe and efficient vector for vaccination against leishmaniasis

期刊

MICROBES AND INFECTION
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 810-822

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.micinf.2005.10.004

关键词

leishmaniasis; cutaneous; vaccination; poxvirus vectors; prime/boost

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An optimal vaccine against leishmaniasis should elicit parasite specific CD4+ and cytotoxic CD8+ T cells. In this investigation, we described a prime/boost immunization approach based on DNA and on poxvirus vectors (Western Reserve, WR, and the highly attenuated modified vaccinia virus Ankara, MVA), both expressing the LACK antigen of Leishmania infantum, that triggers different levels of specific CD8+ T cell responses and protection (reduction in lesion size and parasitemia) against L. major infection in mice. A primelboost vaccination with DNA-LACK/MVA-LACK elicits higher CD8+ T cell responses than a similar protocol with the replication competent VV-LACK. Both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were induced by DNA-LACK/MVA-LACK immunization. The levels of IFN-gamma and TNF-alpha secreting CD8+ T cells were higher in splenocytes from DNA-LACK/MVA-LACK than in DNA-LACK/VV-LACK immunized animals. Moreover, protection against L. major was significantly higher in DNA-LACK/MVA-LACK than in DNA-LACK/VV-LACK immunized animals when boosted with the same vir-us dose, and correlated with high levels of IFN-gamma and TNF-alpha secreting CD8+ T cells. In DNA-LACK/MVA-LACK vaccinated animals, the extent of lesion size reduction ranged from 65 to 92% and this protection was maintained for at least 17 weeks after challenge with the parasite. These findings demonstrate that in heterologous prime/boost immunization approaches, the protocol DNA-LACK/MVA-LACK is superior to DNA-LACK/VV-LACK in triggering specific CD8+ T cell immune responses and in conferring protection against cutaneous leishmaniasis. Thus, MVA-LACK is a safe and efficient vector for vaccination against leishmaniasis. (c) 2005 Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.

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