4.7 Article

In vitro evaluation of TLR4 agonist activity: Formulation effects

期刊

COLLOIDS AND SURFACES B-BIOINTERFACES
卷 113, 期 -, 页码 312-319

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2013.09.006

关键词

Vaccine adjuvant formulation; TLR4 agonist; In vitro bioactivity; Particle size; Physicochemical characterization; Glucopyranosyl lipid adjuvant

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services [HHSN272200800045C]
  2. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, Department of Health and Human Services [HHSO100201000039C]
  3. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [42387]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effective in vitro evaluation of vaccine adjuvants would allow higher throughput screening compared to in vivo studies. However, vaccine adjuvants comprise a wide range of structures and formulations ranging from soluble TLR agonists to complex lipid-based formulations. The effects of formulation parameters on in vitro bioactivity assays and the correlations with in vivo adjuvant activity is not well understood. In the present work, we employ the Limulus amebocyte lysate assay and a human macrophage cellular cytokine production assay to demonstrate the differences in in vitro bioactivity of four distinct formulations of the synthetic TLR4 agonist GLA: an aqueous nanosuspension (GLA-AF), an oil-in-water emulsion (GLA-SE), a liposome (GLA-LS), and an alum-adsorbed formulation (GLA-Alum). Furthermore, we demonstrate the importance of the localization of GLA on in vitro potency. By comparing to previous published reports on the in vivo bioactivity of these GLA-containing formulations, we conclude that the most potent activators of the in vitro systems may not be the most potent in vivo adjuvant formulations. Furthermore, we discuss the formulation considerations which should be taken into account when interpreting data from in vitro adjuvant activity assays. (C) 2013 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

4.7
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