4.5 Article

The pan HLA DR-binding epitope improves adjuvant-assisted immunization with a recombinant protein containing a malaria vaccine candidate

期刊

IMMUNOLOGY LETTERS
卷 92, 期 3, 页码 259-268

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.imlet.2004.01.006

关键词

pan HLA DR-binding epitope; recombinant vaccines and adjuvants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pan HLA DR-binding epitope (PADRE) has been proposed as a simple carrier epitope suitable for use in the development of synthetic and recombinant vaccines. Using the mouse model, we evaluated whether PADRE could improve adjuvant-assisted immunizations with a recombinant malarial protein containing the 19 kDa C-terminal region of merozoite surface protein 1 (MSP1(19)) that is a Plasmodium vivax vaccine candidate. Initially, the antibody immune response was evaluated in C57BL/6 mice, a mouse strain which develops a strong T cell immune response to PADRE. When administered in distinct adjuvant formulations, antibody titers induced by the recombinant protein His(6)MSP1(19)-PADRE were not significantly different to those generated by complete/incomplete Freund's adjuvant (CFA/IFA) in terms of magnitude, affinity, IgG subclasses and longevity. However, in C57BL/6 mice immunized with the recombinant protein His(6)MSP1(19), strong antibody responses could be generated in the presence of CFA/IFA but not other classes of adjuvants such as CpG ODN 1826 or MPL/TDM. Similarly, in BALB/c mice that do not develop T cells specific for PADRE, the recombinant protein His(6)MSP1(19)-PADRE failed to induce high antibody titers in the presence of adjuvants other than CFA/IFA. Our results indicated that when adjuvants that are not as strong as CFA/IFA are employed, the presence of PADRE greatly improved adjuvant-assisted antibody immune responses induced by a malarial recombinant antigen. Considering the great limitations of adjuvants for human use, our observation may improve the rational design of new vaccine formulations. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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