Junwei Li1, Maria T Arévalo1, Yanping Chen1, Shan Chen1, Mingtao Zeng2. 1. Center of Excellence for Infectious Diseases, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Paul L. Foster School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 5001 El Paso Drive, El Paso, TX 79905, USA. 2. Center of Excellence for Infectious Diseases, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Paul L. Foster School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 5001 El Paso Drive, El Paso, TX 79905, USA. Electronic address: mt.zeng@ttuhsc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antigenic drift and shift of influenza viruses require frequent reformulation of influenza vaccines. In addition, seasonal influenza vaccines are often mismatched to the epidemic influenza strains. This stresses the need for a universal influenza vaccine. METHODS: BALB/c mice were vaccinated with the trivalent live attenuated (LAIV; FluMist) or inactivated (TIV; FluZone) influenza vaccines and challenged with PR8 (H1N1), FM/47 (H1N1), or HK/68 (H3N2) influenza virus. Cytokines and antibody responses were tested by ELISA. Furthermore, different LAIV dosages were applied in BALB/c mice. LAIV vaccinated mice were also depleted of T-cells and challenged with PR8 virus. RESULTS: LAIV induced significant protection against challenge with the non-vaccine strain PR8 influenza virus. Furthermore, protective immunity against PR8 was dose-dependent. Of note, interleukin 2 and interferon gamma cytokine secretion in the lung alveolar fluid were significantly elevated in mice vaccinated with LAIV. Moreover, T-cell depletion of LAIV vaccinated mice compromised protection, indicating that T-cell-mediated immunity is required. In contrast, passive transfer of sera from mice vaccinated with LAIV into naïve mice failed to protect against PR8 challenge. Neutralization assays in vitro confirmed that LAIV did not induce cross-strain neutralizing antibodies against PR8 virus. Finally, we showed that three doses of LAIV also provided protection against challenge with two additional heterologous viruses, FM/47 and HK/68. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the potential use of the LAIV as a universal influenza vaccine under a prime-boost vaccination regimen.
BACKGROUND: Antigenic drift and shift of influenza viruses require frequent reformulation of influenza vaccines. In addition, seasonal influenza vaccines are often mismatched to the epidemic influenza strains. This stresses the need for a universal influenza vaccine. METHODS: BALB/c mice were vaccinated with the trivalent live attenuated (LAIV; FluMist) or inactivated (TIV; FluZone) influenza vaccines and challenged with PR8 (H1N1), FM/47 (H1N1), or HK/68 (H3N2) influenza virus. Cytokines and antibody responses were tested by ELISA. Furthermore, different LAIV dosages were applied in BALB/c mice. LAIV vaccinated mice were also depleted of T-cells and challenged with PR8 virus. RESULTS:LAIV induced significant protection against challenge with the non-vaccine strain PR8 influenza virus. Furthermore, protective immunity against PR8 was dose-dependent. Of note, interleukin 2 and interferon gamma cytokine secretion in the lung alveolar fluid were significantly elevated in mice vaccinated with LAIV. Moreover, T-cell depletion of LAIV vaccinated mice compromised protection, indicating that T-cell-mediated immunity is required. In contrast, passive transfer of sera from mice vaccinated with LAIV into naïve mice failed to protect against PR8 challenge. Neutralization assays in vitro confirmed that LAIV did not induce cross-strain neutralizing antibodies against PR8 virus. Finally, we showed that three doses of LAIV also provided protection against challenge with two additional heterologous viruses, FM/47 and HK/68. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the potential use of the LAIV as a universal influenza vaccine under a prime-boost vaccination regimen.
Authors: Rafael A Medina; Mark Rojas; Astrid Tuin; Stephen Huff; Marcela Ferres; Constanza Martinez-Valdebenito; Paula Godoy; Adolfo García-Sastre; Yuriy Fofanov; John SantaLucia Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Stephanie Gras; Lukasz Kedzierski; Sophie A Valkenburg; Karen Laurie; Yu Chih Liu; Justin T Denholm; Michael J Richards; Guus F Rimmelzwaan; Anne Kelso; Peter C Doherty; Stephen J Turner; Jamie Rossjohn; Katherine Kedzierska Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-06-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Ioanna Skountzou; Dimitrios G Koutsonanos; Jin Hyang Kim; Ryan Powers; Lakshmipriyadarshini Satyabhama; Feda Masseoud; William C Weldon; Maria Del Pilar Martin; Robert S Mittler; Richard Compans; Joshy Jacob Journal: J Immunol Date: 2010-06-28 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Grace L Chen; Yuk-Fai Lau; Elaine W Lamirande; Amber W McCall; Kanta Subbarao Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-01-03 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Min Z Levine; Judith M Martin; F Liaini Gross; Stacie Jefferson; Kelly Stefano Cole; Crystal Ann Archibald; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Michael Susick; Krissy Moehling; Sarah Spencer; Jessie R Chung; Brendan Flannery; Richard K Zimmerman Journal: Clin Vaccine Immunol Date: 2016-10-04
Authors: Karen M Segovia; Monique S França; Christina L Leyson; Darrell R Kapczynski; Klaudia Chrzastek; Charlie S Bahnson; David E Stallknecht Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 3.240