| Literature DB >> 26529028 |
Liam Powles1, Sue D Xiang2,3, Cordelia Selomulya4, Magdalena Plebanski5,6.
Abstract
Malaria vaccine research has been ongoing since the 1980s with limited success. However, recent improvements in our understanding of the immune responses required to combat each stage of infection will allow for intelligent design of both antigens and their associated delivery vaccine vehicles/vectors. Synthetic carriers (also known as vectors) are usually particulate and have multiple properties, which can be varied to control how an associated vaccine interacts with the host, and consequently how the immune response develops. This review comprehensively analyzes both historical and recent studies in which synthetic carriers are used to deliver malaria vaccines. Furthermore, the requirements for a synthetic carrier, such as size, charge, and surface chemistry are reviewed in order to understand the design of effective particle-based vaccines against malaria, as well as providing general insights. Synthetic carriers have the ability to alter and direct the immune response, and a better control of particle properties will facilitate improved vaccine design in the near future.Entities:
Keywords: malaria; nanoparticles; particles; properties; synthetic; vaccine; vector
Year: 2015 PMID: 26529028 PMCID: PMC4693224 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines3040894
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vaccines (Basel) ISSN: 2076-393X
Figure 1The life cycle of the malaria parasite. A mosquito delivers sporozoites into the blood stream, which quickly travel to and infect hepatocytes. Inside liver cells, the sporozoites differentiate and proliferate to form merozoites, which upon release infect erythrocytes. Proliferation and release continues inside infected erythrocytes with a small fraction of merozoites differentiating into gametocytes. The gametocyte-infected erythrocytes are taken up by mosquitoes inside which gametes interact to form a zygote (ookinete) and eventually an oocyst, which produces sporozoites. The bubbles contain the primary immune response required against each stage. Figure developed using ChemBioDraw Ultra 14 (PerkinElmer Informatics, Waltham, MA, USA, 2014).
Summary of clinical and preclinical studies incorporating novel synthetic vector strategies.
| Vector | Size | Vaccine | Antibodies | Cytotoxic Response | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC 1 liposomes | Not reported | PyCSP 2 (tetrapeptide B cell, other B, T cell epitopes, RTS,S) | Yes | Some antigens | [ |
| Lipid core peptides | Not reported | PyCSP (CD4 and CD8 epitopes) | Minor IgE | ND 3 | [ |
| ICMV 4 | 180 nm (DLS 5) | PvCSP 6 (VMP001) | Yes | ND | [ |
| PCL 7/PLA 8 | 23–45 µm | PfCSP 9 (tetrapeptide, universal CD4) | Yes | ND | [ |
| PLA/PLGA 10 | 1–100 µm | PfCSP (tetrapeptide, universal CD4), Pb911 | Yes | Against Pb9 | [ |
| PLGA | 0.45–32.1 µm | Pb9 | ND | Yes | [ |
| Lipid enveloped PLGA | 290 nm (DLS) | PvCSP (VMP001) | Yes | ND | [ |
| Polystyrene Nanoparticles | 48 nm (DLS) | Pb9 | ND | Yes | [ |
| SAPN 12 | 40 nm (TEM 13, DLS) | PfCSP, PvCSP, CD8 and B epitopes, universal CD4 | Yes | Some antigens | [ |
| Polymer coated calcium carbonate | Not reported | PfCSP (B and T cell epitopes) | Yes | Yes | [ |
| PC Liposome | Not reported | PfMSP1–19 14 | Yes | ND | [ |
| PC Liposome | Not reported | PyIMP-66 15 | Yes | ND | [ |
| Not reported | Py soluble | Yes | Yes | [ | |
| Not reported | Py soluble | Yes | Yes | [ | |
| pH sensitive Liposome | 325–390 nm | PfMSP1–19 | Minor | ND | [ |
| PEI 18, γ-PGA 19 | 68 nm (DLS) | PyMSP1-C-terminus, PyTAM 20 (DNA) | Yes | With PyTAM | [ |
| ISCOM 21 | Not Reported | PfRESA 22 | Yes | ND | [ |
| ISCOM | Not Reported | PfRESA peptides | Yes | ND | [ |
| SPIONs 23 | 20 nm (unknown) | PfMSP1–42 | Yes | ND | [ |
| PEI coated SPIONs | 147 nm (DLS) | PyMSP1–19 (DNA) | Yes | ND | [ |
| Gold nanoparticle | 17 nm (TEM) | Pf/PvMSP1–19 | Yes | ND | [ |
| Quantum Dots | 15 nm (unknown) | PfMSP1–42 | Yes | ND | [ |
| Carbon Nanotubes | 20–30/500–2000 nm | PvAMA1 4peptides | Yes | ND | [ |
| Hydroxyapatite | 784 nm (DLS) | MSP1–19 | Yes | ND | [ |
| PLGA | 0.5–2 µm | SPf66, PfMSP2 25 peptides, PfS3 | Yes | ND | [ |
| PLGA-alginate-RGD | 0.8–1 µm | SPf66, PfS3 | Yes | ND | [ |
| PLGA | 1–2 µm | PvCSP, MSP1, AMA1, Pvs24 (all with B and T epitopes) | Yes | ND | [ |
| Gel core liposomes | 1–1.2 µm | Pfs25 | Yes | ND | [ |
1: Phosphatidylcholine; 2: Plasmodium yoelii circumsporozoite protein; 3: Not Done; 4: Interbilayer-crosslinked multilamellar vesicles; 5: Dynamic light scattering; 6: Plasmodium vivax; 7: Polycaprolactone; 8: Poly(lactic acid); 9: Plasmodium falciparum; 10: Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid); 11: Plasmodium berghei; 12: Self-Assembling protein nanoparticle; 13: Transmission electron microscopy; 14: Merozoite Surface Protein 1; 15: Integral Membrane Protein; 16: Escherichia coli; 17: Saccharomyces cerevisiae; 18: Polyethyleneimine; 19: γ-polyglutamic acid; 20: PyGPI8p-transamidase-related protein; 21: Immune stimulating complex; 22: Ring-infected erythrocyte surface antigen; 23: Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles; 24: Apical Membrane Antigen 1; 25: Merozoite Surface Protein 2.
Figure 2A selection of different particle types that have been used as vectors for malaria vaccines. Note the different vaccine types and methods of incorporation. (a) PC liposomes, the antigen is encapsulated inside an aqueous compartment; (b) PLGA particles, antigen encapsulated both in and on the surface of particle; (c) Self assembled protein nanoparticles, peptide incorporated into protein to enable repetitive display; (d) Iron oxide nanoparticle, antigen covalently conjugated to polymeric coating; (e) Carbon Nanotube; (f) Hydroxyapatite particle, antigen adsorbed to the surface; (g) PEI/PGA nanoparticle construct, DNA vaccine electrostatically bound to PEI. Figure developed using ChemBioDraw Ultra 14.
Comparison of advantages and disadvantages of different nanoparticle types.
| Particle Type | Advantages | Disadvantages | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lipid-Based | Wide size range Antigen encapsulated or on surface Hydrophobic or hydrophilic antigen FDA approved/Non-toxic Biodegradable | Expensive materials Reproducibility issues Oxidative Degradation | [ |
| PLGA | Antigen encapsulated or on surface Biodegradable FDA approved/Non-toxic Prolonged release of antigen | Antigen degradation Scale-up Antigen burst releases | [ |
| Polystyrene | Biocompatible Non-toxic Wide size range Readily available | Non-biodegradable | [ |
| SAPN | Repetitive presentation Biodegradable | Complex design Limited Data | [ |
| PEI/γ-PGA | Good for DNA vaccine Small size | Limited Data | [ |
| ISCOM | Natural adjuvant Readily available Biodegradable Scalable Well-tolerated | Encapsulation limited Single size | [ |
| SPION | Biodegradable Magnetic FDA approved Size control | Coating required Stability issues | [ |
| Quantum Dot | Fluorescent Stable | Toxic materials Non-biodegradable | [ |
| Calcium Based | Low cytotoxicity Surface modification | Limited degradability Limited study | [ |
| Gold | Size control Low cytotoxicity | Non-biodegradable Coating required | [ |
Figure 3Properties of nanoparticles that can be controlled via synthetic or post-synthetic modification. (a) Size; (b) Shape; (c) Surface charge; (d) Surface roughness; (e) Biodegradation rate; (f) Crystallinity; (g) Active targeting; (h) Protein corona formation. Figure developed using ChemBioDraw Ultra 14.