| Literature DB >> 32821824 |
Kate Luisi1, Kaitlyn M Morabito2, Katherine E Burgomaster3, Mayuri Sharma1, Wing-Pui Kong2, Bryant M Foreman3, Sonal Patel1, Brian Fisher2, Maya A Aleshnick3, Jason Laliberte1, Madison Wallace1, Tracy J Ruckwardt2, David N Gordon3, Christine Linton1, Nicole Ruggiero1, Jessica L Cohen1, Russell Johnson1, Kunal Aggarwal1, Sung-Youl Ko2, Eun Sung Yang2, Rebecca S Pelc3, Kimberly A Dowd3, Derek O'Hagan1, Jeffrey Ulmer1, Sally Mossman1, Anna Sambor1, Edith Lepine1, John R Mascola2, Theodore C Pierson3, Barney S Graham2, Dong Yu1.
Abstract
Zika virus (ZIKV) is the cause of a pandemic associated with microcephaly in newborns and Guillain-Barre syndrome in adults. Currently, there are no available treatments or vaccines for ZIKV, and the development of a safe and effective vaccine is a high priority for many global health organizations. We describe the development of ZIKV vaccine candidates using the self-amplifying messenger RNA (SAM) platform technology delivered by cationic nanoemulsion (CNE) that allows bedside mixing and is particularly useful for rapid responses to pandemic outbreaks. Two immunizations of either of the two lead SAM (CNE) vaccine candidates elicited potent neutralizing antibody responses to ZIKV in mice and nonhuman primates. Both SAM (CNE) vaccines protected these animals from ZIKV challenge, with one candidate providing complete protection against ZIKV infection in nonhuman primates. The data provide a preclinical proof of concept that a SAM (CNE) vaccine candidate can rapidly elicit protective immunity against ZIKV.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32821824 PMCID: PMC7413734 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aba5068
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Adv ISSN: 2375-2548 Impact factor: 14.136
Description of the SAM vaccine candidates.
| WT-prM-E | Wild-type (WT) prM-E sequence |
| CO-prM-E | Identical to WT-prM-E, except that |
| CO-prM-E.ESS.1 | Identical to CO-prM-E, except that |
| CO-prM-E.ESS.2 | Identical to CO-prM-E, except that |
| CO-C-prM-E.1 | Identical to CO-prM-E, except that |
| CO-C-prM-E.2 | Identical to CO-C-prM-E.1, except |
| CO-C-prM-E.3 | Identical to CO-C-prM-E.1, except |
| VRC5283 | CO prM-E sequence from the ZIKV |
| VRC5288 | Identical to VRC5283, except that |
Fig. 1Schematic of ZIKV SAM constructs.
Schematic of amino acid sequence differences of SAM constructs designed to express ZIKV prM-E or C-prM-E.
Fig. 2In vitro characterization of ZIKV SAM constructs.
(A) Potency of the ZIKV SAM constructs. The RNA was in vitro transcribed, and 0.1 μg of the RNA from each vaccine construct was electroporated into BHK cells. Cells were collected 24 hours later and stained with an anti-dsRNA antibody. The upper and lower panels show the percentage and MFI of dsRNA-positive cells determined using flow cytometry, respectively. Error bars represent the SD of technical triplicates. Shown are the representatives of at least two experiments. (B) ZIKV SAM RNA expression of prM-E protein. BHK cells were electroporated with 4.0 μg of the indicated SAM RNA. Twenty-four hours later, cells were collected and lysates were analyzed by immunoblotting using antibody 4G2 specific to flavivirus E protein or to β-tubulin. Shown are the representatives of at least two experiments.
Fig. 3ZIKV SAM (CNE) vaccines are immunogenic and protective in mice.
(A) BALB/c mice were immunized with ZIKV SAM (CNE) vaccines or VRC5283 DNA vaccine at the indicated doses at days 0 and 21 and subsequently challenged with 100 FFU of ZIKV at day 49. (B and C) Neutralizing antibody titers were determined by RVP neutralization assay at days 0, 14, and 35. Horizontal lines and error bars represent the mean log10 reciprocal EC50 (half-maximal neutralization of infection) dilution ± SD of 10 mice per group, respectively. The dotted line represents the limit of confidence (LOC), a reciprocal titer of 60. Any replicates below LOC were assigned a value of 30 (0.5 LOC). Significant difference by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s multiple comparison posttest between vaccines at the same doses as indicated: *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01, and ****P ≤ 0.0001. (D) Viral loads were determined by qRT-PCR at day 3 after challenge. Horizontal line and error bars represent mean log10 FFU equivalent/ml ± SD for 10 mice per group, respectively. Dotted line represents the LOC. Any replicates below the LOC were assigned a value of 0.5 LOC. #P < 0.0001 between all other groups by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparison posttest.
Fig. 4ZIKV SAM (CNE) vaccines are immunogenic and protective in NHPs.
(A) Rhesus macaques (n = 8 per group) were immunized with the indicated vaccines at days 0 and 28 and subsequently challenged with 1000 FFU of ZIKV at day 56. (B) Neutralizing antibody activity was determined by ZIKV RVP assay at days 0, 28, and 56. Horizontal line and error bars represent the mean log10 reciprocal EC50 dilutions ± SD of eight animals per group, respectively. Statistical difference is shown between vaccines at each time point by two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparison posttest. Dotted line represents the LOC. Any replicates below the limit of detection were assigned a value of 0.5 LOC. (C) Viral loads were determined by qRT-PCR at days 3, 4, 5, and 7 after challenge. Each animal is depicted as a single line. Dotted line represents the LOC. Any replicates below the LOC were assigned a value of 0.5 LOC. (D) Postchallenge anamnestic antibody response. Fold change in EC50-neutralizing antibody activity is shown relative to day 56. Each animal is depicted as a single line. Dotted line indicates a fold change of 4.