Franco Pissani1, Delphine C Malherbe2, Jason T Schuman3, Harlan Robins4, Byung S Park5, Shelly J Krebs6, Susan W Barnett7, Nancy L Haigwood8. 1. Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97217, United States; The Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute, Beaverton, OR 97006, United States; Oregon National Primate Research Center, Beaverton, OR 97006, United States. 2. Oregon National Primate Research Center, Beaverton, OR 97006, United States. 3. GE Healthcare, Life Sciences, Piscataway, NJ 08854, United States. 4. Division of Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109, United States. 5. Oregon National Primate Research Center, Beaverton, OR 97006, United States; Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239, United States. 6. The Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute, Beaverton, OR 97006, United States; Oregon National Primate Research Center, Beaverton, OR 97006, United States. 7. Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States. 8. Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97217, United States; The Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute, Beaverton, OR 97006, United States; Oregon National Primate Research Center, Beaverton, OR 97006, United States. Electronic address: haigwoon@ohsu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Developing HIV envelope (Env) vaccine components that elicit durable and protective antibody responses is an urgent priority, given the results from the RV144 trial. Optimization of both the immunogens and vaccination strategies will be needed to generate potent, durable antibodies. Due to the diversity of HIV, an effective Env-based vaccine will most likely require an extensive coverage of antigenic variants. A vaccine co-delivering Env immunogens as DNA and protein components could provide such coverage. Here, we examine a DNA and protein co-immunization strategy by characterizing the antibody responses and evaluating the relative contribution of each vaccine component. METHOD: We co-immunized rabbits with representative subtype A or B HIV gp160 plasmid DNA plus Env gp140 trimeric glycoprotein and compared the responses to those obtained with either glycoprotein alone or glycoprotein in combination with empty vector. RESULTS: DNA and glycoprotein co-immunization was superior to immunization with glycoprotein alone by enhancing antibody kinetics, magnitude, avidity, and neutralizing potency. Importantly, the empty DNA vector did not contribute to these responses. Humoral responses elicited by mismatched DNA and protein components were comparable or higher than the responses produced by the matched vaccines. CONCLUSION: Our data show that co-delivering DNA and protein can augment antibodies to Env. The rate and magnitude of immune responses suggest that this approach has the potential to streamline vaccine regimens by inducing higher antibody responses using fewer vaccinations, an advantage for a successful HIV vaccine design.
BACKGROUND: Developing HIV envelope (Env) vaccine components that elicit durable and protective antibody responses is an urgent priority, given the results from the RV144 trial. Optimization of both the immunogens and vaccination strategies will be needed to generate potent, durable antibodies. Due to the diversity of HIV, an effective Env-based vaccine will most likely require an extensive coverage of antigenic variants. A vaccine co-delivering Env immunogens as DNA and protein components could provide such coverage. Here, we examine a DNA and protein co-immunization strategy by characterizing the antibody responses and evaluating the relative contribution of each vaccine component. METHOD: We co-immunized rabbits with representative subtype A or B HIV gp160 plasmid DNA plus Env gp140 trimeric glycoprotein and compared the responses to those obtained with either glycoprotein alone or glycoprotein in combination with empty vector. RESULTS: DNA and glycoprotein co-immunization was superior to immunization with glycoprotein alone by enhancing antibody kinetics, magnitude, avidity, and neutralizing potency. Importantly, the empty DNA vector did not contribute to these responses. Humoral responses elicited by mismatched DNA and protein components were comparable or higher than the responses produced by the matched vaccines. CONCLUSION: Our data show that co-delivering DNA and protein can augment antibodies to Env. The rate and magnitude of immune responses suggest that this approach has the potential to streamline vaccine regimens by inducing higher antibody responses using fewer vaccinations, an advantage for a successful HIV vaccine design.
Authors: Christopher Sundling; Sijy O'Dell; Iyadh Douagi; Mattias N Forsell; Andreas Mörner; Karin Loré; John R Mascola; Richard T Wyatt; Gunilla B Karlsson Hedestam Journal: J Virol Date: 2010-07-07 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Olga V Masalova; Ekaterina I Lesnova; Alexei V Pichugin; Tatiana M Melnikova; Vadim V Grabovetsky; Natalia V Petrakova; Olga A Smirnova; Alexander V Ivanov; Alexei D Zaberezhny; Ravshan I Ataullakhanov; Maria G Isaguliants; Alla A Kushch Journal: Vaccine Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Joseph P Nkolola; Hanqin Peng; Ethan C Settembre; Michael Freeman; Lauren E Grandpre; Colleen Devoy; Diana M Lynch; Annalena La Porte; Nathaniel L Simmons; Ritu Bradley; David C Montefiori; Michael S Seaman; Bing Chen; Dan H Barouch Journal: J Virol Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Lesley C Dupuy; Christopher P Locher; Madan Paidhungat; Michelle J Richards; Cathleen M Lind; Russell Bakken; Michael D Parker; Robert G Whalen; Connie S Schmaljohn Journal: Vaccine Date: 2009-05-09 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Supachai Rerks-Ngarm; Punnee Pitisuttithum; Sorachai Nitayaphan; Jaranit Kaewkungwal; Joseph Chiu; Robert Paris; Nakorn Premsri; Chawetsan Namwat; Mark de Souza; Elizabeth Adams; Michael Benenson; Sanjay Gurunathan; Jim Tartaglia; John G McNeil; Donald P Francis; Donald Stablein; Deborah L Birx; Supamit Chunsuttiwat; Chirasak Khamboonruang; Prasert Thongcharoen; Merlin L Robb; Nelson L Michael; Prayura Kunasol; Jerome H Kim Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christopher Sundling; Mattias N E Forsell; Sijy O'Dell; Yu Feng; Bimal Chakrabarti; Srinivas S Rao; Karin Loré; John R Mascola; Richard T Wyatt; Iyadh Douagi; Gunilla B Karlsson Hedestam Journal: J Exp Med Date: 2010-08-02 Impact factor: 14.307
Authors: Sean P McBurney; Justine E Sunshine; Sarah Gabriel; Jeremy P Huynh; William F Sutton; Deborah H Fuller; Nancy L Haigwood; William B Messer Journal: Vaccine Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Ebony Gary; Margaret O'Connor; Marita Chakhtoura; Virginie Tardif; Ogan K Kumova; Delphine C Malherbe; William F Sutton; Nancy L Haigwood; Michele A Kutzler; Elias K Haddad Journal: Vaccine Date: 2020-04-10 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Delphine C Malherbe; Franco Pissani; D Noah Sather; Biwei Guo; Shilpi Pandey; William F Sutton; Andrew B Stuart; Harlan Robins; Byung Park; Shelly J Krebs; Jason T Schuman; Spyros Kalams; Ann J Hessell; Nancy L Haigwood Journal: J Virol Date: 2014-09-10 Impact factor: 5.103