| Literature DB >> 23122325 |
Christopher B Fox1, Lucien Barnes V, Tara Evers, James D Chesko, Thomas S Vedvick, Rhea N Coler, Steven G Reed, Susan L Baldwin.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adjuvant formulations are critical components of modern vaccines based on recombinant proteins, which are often poorly immunogenic without additional immune stimulants. Oil-in-water emulsions comprise an advanced class of vaccine adjuvants that are components of approved seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccines. However, few reports have been published that systematically evaluate the in vitro stability and in vivo adjuvant effects of different emulsion components.Entities:
Keywords: Oil-in-water emulsion; pandemic influenza; vaccine adjuvant
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23122325 PMCID: PMC5781216 DOI: 10.1111/irv.12031
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Influenza Other Respir Viruses ISSN: 1750-2640 Impact factor: 4.380
Emulsion component structures
Emulsion composition and physical characterization
| Emulsion | Oil (% v/v) | Surfactant (% w/v) | Excipients | Dilution for injection | Hemolysis (%) | Zeta potential (mV) | Dynamic viscosity (cP) | pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EM057 | Squalene (10) | P188 (1·9) | – | 5× | 0·1 | −5·5 | 1·9 | 7·6 |
| EM016 | Squalene (10) | P80 (1·9) | – | 5× | 0·1 | −12·6 | 1·5 | 6·2 |
| EM074 | Squalene (10) | eggPC (1·9) | – | 5× | 0·1 | −15·1 | 1·5 | 7·1 |
| EM059 | MCT (10) | eggPC (1·9) | – | 5× | 0·4 | −25·7 | 1·6 | 4·2 |
| EM058 | Squalene (10) | eggPC/P188 (1·9/0·1) | Phosphate buffer | 5× | 0·6 | −6·3 | 1·6 | 5·5 |
| EM030 | Squalene (10) | eggPC/P188 (1·9/0·1) | Phosphate buffer, glycerol | 5× | 0·1 | −4·5 | 1·6 | 5·6 |
| EM001 | Squalene (10) | eggPC/P188 (1·9/0·1) | Phosphate buffer, glycerol, α‐toc | 5× | 0·0 | −7·0 | NM | 5·6 |
| EM022* | Squalene (5) | P80/S85 (0·5/0·5) | Citrate buffer | 2× | 0·1 | −22·3 | 1·2 | 6·1 |
Hemolysis measured near date of manufacture; zeta potential, viscosity, and pH measured ∼3 months post‐manufacture. To more closely mimic MF59®, EM022 was manufactured at 5%25v/v oil, whereas all other emulsions were manufactured at 10% v/v oil (corresponding physical measurements could be affected by the lower oil content in EM022, e.g. viscosity).
MCT, medium‐chain triglyceride; eggPC, egg phosphatidylcholine; P80, polysorbate 80; P188, poloxamer 188; S85, sorbitan trioleate; α‐toc, α‐tocopherol; NM, not measured.
Figure 1Emulsion particle size and cryo‐TEM characterization. Particle size as measured by dynamic light scattering of various emulsions stored at (A) 5°C, (B) RT, (C) 37°C, or (D) 60°C. Cryo‐TEM images of antigen‐adjuvant mixtures elucidate formulation spherical nanoparticle morphology of representative emulsions (E) rH5 + EM022, (F) rH5 + EM057, (G) rH5 + EM016. Oil droplets are indicated by black arrow; white arrows point to smaller particles indicative of protein.
Figure 2Antigen‐adjuvant compatibility evaluation by intrinsic fluorescence spectroscopy. (A) Intrinsic fluorescence emission of rH5 antigen in oil‐in‐water emulsions. From the spectra in (a), intensity maxima and center of mass are determined (B). Shifts in emission maxima and fluorescence emission band center of mass correlate to changes in antigen structure or chemical microenvironment.
Figure 3Antibody responses to rH5 vaccines containing various emulsions as measured after prime and boost immunizations. For simplicity, not all significant differences between groups are displayed on the graphs; those not indicated on the graphs are described below. (A) Post‐prime IgG1 and IgG2c antibody endpoint titers. (B) Post‐boost IgG1 and IgG2c antibody endpoint titers. Statistical differences between groups not indicated on the graph are as follows (P < 0·05): (IgG1) EM001 versus EM030, EM058, and EM074; EM016 versus EM058 and EM074; (IgG2) EM030 versus EM001, EM057, EM016, and EM058; EM074 versus EM058. (C) Long‐lived antibody‐secreting cells in the bone marrow detected post‐boost. Statistical differences between groups not indicated on the graph are as follows (P < 0·05): EM030 versus EM074. Error bars represent standard deviation of the mean.
Figure 4HI titers against homologous and heterologous vaccine strains. (A) Post‐prime HI titer against vaccine strain. (B) Post‐boost HI titers against homologous and heterologous strains. Error bars represent standard deviation of the mean.
Figure 5Antigen‐specific IL‐5 producing cells detected (A) 1 or (B) 4 weeks after boost immunization. Statistical differences between groups not indicated on the graph are as follows (P < 0·05): (4 weeks post‐boost) EM001 versus EM057. Error bars represent standard deviation of the mean.
Figure 6HI titers against the homologous vaccine strain (A) post‐prime and (B) post‐boost; and HI titers (post‐boost) against heterologous vaccine strains after immunization with rH5 vaccines at (C) 0·1 μg of rH5 with emulsions or (D) 0·01 μg of rH5 with emulsions. Error bars represent standard deviation of the mean. All emulsion‐containing vaccines induced significantly higher HI titers compared with antigen alone at any dose for each pathogen strain with the exception of the HI titers against the A/Turkey/turkey with the lowest dose of rH5, where only the EM057 group induced higher responses than any dose of rH5 alone.
Stability and biological activity effects of emulsion components
| Component | Structural classes evaluated | Effect on emulsion stability | Effect on vaccine adjuvant activity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oil | Triterpene | − | ++ |
| Triglyceride | |||
| Emulsifier | Polysorbate | ++ | − |
| Poloxamer | |||
| Phospholipid | |||
| Excipients | Buffer | + | − |
| Isotonic agent | |||
| Antioxidant |
Qualitative rating of the component effects on stability or biological activity: large effect (++), some effect (+), little or no effect (−).