3.9 Article

Enhancement of Serum and Mucosal Immune Responses to a Haemophilus influenzae Type B Vaccine by Intranasal Delivery

期刊

CLINICAL AND VACCINE IMMUNOLOGY
卷 20, 期 11, 页码 1690-1696

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/CVI.00215-13

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy
  2. USMRMC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intranasal (i.n.) vaccination is potentially the most direct method for conveying upper respiratory and mucosal immunity to respiratory pathogens. However, for unclear reasons, vaccines introduced into the nasal sinuses often have lower efficacy than vaccines administered by the more frequently used parenteral routes. We examined i.n. vaccination in a mouse immune-response model with a commonly used Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine (Hibv) composed of the polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP) capsule antigen conjugated to tetanus toxoid. Intranasal vaccination with Hibv using a Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) agonist as an adjuvant significantly increased the levels of IgA specific for the PRP capsule antigen in blood serum, saliva, and mucosal secretion specimens. In contrast, control mice vaccinated transdermally (t.d.) with Hibv did not produce significant levels of PRP-specific IgA in the blood serum and saliva, and anti-PRP IgG was increased only in serum. The i.n. and t.d. vaccinations resulted in equivalent bactericidal antibody responses in blood serum, suggesting that vaccine-derived IgG is protective against infection. Elevated levels of IgG specific for the tetanus toxoid carrier protein were measured in nasal sinuses and vaginal secretions in mice vaccinated by either the t.d. or i.n. route. Tissue culture studies confirmed that the nasopharynx-associated lymphoid tissue (NALT) was at least one of the sources of PRP-specific IgA and carrier-specific IgG within the nasal sinuses. We conclude that i.n. vaccination aided by a TLR4 agonist results in robust immune responses to both the carrier protein and bacterial polysaccharide components of the Hibv.

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

3.9
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