Characterization of T cell responses to co-administered hookworm vaccine candidates Na-GST-1 and Na-APR-1 in healthy adults in Gabon.

Two hookworm vaccine candidates, Na-GST-1 and Na-APR-1, formulated with Glucopyranosyl Lipid A (GLA-AF) adjuvant, have been shown to be safe, well tolerated, and to induce antibody responses in a Phase 1 clinical trial (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02126462) conducted in Gabon. Here, we characterized T cell responses in 24 Gabonese volunteers randomized to get vaccinated three times with Na-GST-1 and Na-APR-1 at doses of 30μg (n = 8) or 100μg (n = 10) and as control Hepatitis B (n = 6). Blood was collected pre- and post-vaccination on days 0, 28, and 180 as well as 2-weeks after each vaccine dose on days 14, 42, and 194 for PBMCs isolation. PBMCs were stimulated with recombinant Na-GST-1 or Na-APR-1, before (days 0, 28 and 180) and two weeks after (days 14, 42 and 194) each vaccination and used to characterize T cell responses by flow and mass cytometry. A significant increase in Na-GST-1 -specific CD4+ T cells producing IL-2 and TNF, correlated with specific IgG antibody levels, after the third vaccination (day 194) was observed. In contrast, no increase in Na-APR-1 specific T cell responses were induced by the vaccine. Mass cytometry revealed that, Na-GST-1 cytokine producing CD4+ T cells were CD161+ memory cells expressing CTLA-4 and CD40-L. Blocking CTLA-4 enhanced the cytokine response to Na-GST-1. In Gabonese volunteers, hookworm vaccine candidate, Na-GST-1, induces detectable CD4+ T cell responses that correlate with specific antibody levels. As these CD4+ T cells express CTLA-4, and blocking this inhibitory molecules resulted in enhanced cytokine production, the question arises whether this pathway can be targeted to enhance vaccine immunogenicity.

Introduction

Human hookworm infection affects approximately 740 million people worldwide and, 85% of cases are caused by Necator americanus (N. americanus), while the remaining are accounted by Ancylostoma duodenale (A. duodenale) [1, 2]. Most people with light infections experience mild diarrhea and abdominal pain, while more severe and chronic infections may cause blood loss leading to severe anemia and hypoproteinaemia [3], compromising the health of children and pregnant women [3]. Currently, the main approach to control hookworm infections worldwide, is the annual Mass Drug Administration (MDA) with anti-helminthic drugs, mebendazole or albendazole. However, this approach has not led to a successful control or elimination of hookworm infections [4, 5] due to rapid reinfection in areas where transmission cannot be interrupted [6]. Therefore, to achieve effective control and elimination, it is important to develop an effective vaccine for human hookworm disease to complement MDA and other public health measures.

The proof of concept that hookworm vaccines can be effective comes from the field of veterinary medicine where a radiation-attenuated A. caninum infective larval stage (L3) vaccine was shown to offer high protection against canine hookworm infection [7]. Subsequent efforts have been directed towards discovery of L3-stage antigens that could mediate protective immunity in humans [8, 9] with the identification of L3-stage Na-ASP-2 protein as a potential vaccine candidate. Na-ASP-2 was shown to be safe and immunogenic in volunteers from non-endemic areas without history of hookworm infection [9]. However, when tested in an endemic area in Brazil it caused generalized IgE- mediated urticaria leading to the termination of the Phase 1 clinical trial [10]. Subsequent approaches targeted hidden proteins, less likely to induce sensitization during natural hookworm infection, such as enzymes involved in the blood-feeding process of adult worms [11, 12]. This led to the selection of the glutathione S-transferase (GST) and the aspartic protease (APR) hemoglobinases [13] as vaccine candidates. It was postulated that Na-GST-1 and Na-APR-1-specific antibodies would neutralize the function of these enzymes, leading to interruption of blood digestion and ultimately causing, parasite death. The Na-GST-1 vaccine candidate has already been tested in Phase 1 trials in hookworm-naive (in USA) and hookworm-exposed (in Brazil) adult volunteers [14] and was found to be safe and immunogenic leading to the induction of antigen-specific IgG antibodies in a dose-dependent manner [14].

To date, only limited data are available on the human cellular immune responses during hookworm infection [15-17] and none when testing hookworm vaccines candidates.

In order to understand the immunogenicity of a vaccine and to identify correlates of protection, it is important to characterize ex vivo vaccine- induced cellular as well as humoral responses [18]. The efficacy of most preventive vaccines relies on antibody responses [18] and in this context, activation of T-helper cells is required for the induction of high-affinity antibodies [18-20]. Therefore, we characterized intracellular cytokine production before and after vaccination of Gabonese volunteers with Na-GST-1 and Na-APR-1, by flow and mass cytometry following in vitro stimulation with vaccine candidates.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

The trial was approved by the National Ethics Committee of Gabon (reference number 0033/2014/SG/CNE) and was conducted under an Investigational New Drug (IND) application to the US Food and Drug Administration (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02126462). The trial followed Good Clinical Practice and Good Clinical and Laboratory Practice as defined by the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH E6[R2])

Study population

This study was conducted at the “Centre de Recherches Médicales de Lambaréné” (CERMEL) in Lambaréné, a semi-urban municipality in Gabon (central Africa), where hookworm infection is endemic. Healthy adults aged 18–50 years living in Lambaréné and the surrounding areas were recruited. Prior to inclusion a questionnaire to evaluate study comprehension was administered to the participants and written informed consent was obtained.

At baseline, the general health status of each participant was assessed by physical examination and laboratory tests. Participants with systemic disease, HIV or chronic hepatitis B/C infection, under corticosteroids or immunosuppressive treatment, having received a live vaccine within the previous month, or currently pregnant or breastfeeding were excluded. If at screening, helminth infections were detected by fecal (Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura, Necator americanus, Ancylostoma duodenale and Strongyloides stercoralis) and urine (Schistosoma hematobium) microscopy they were treated with either albendazole or praziquantel, respectively, at least two weeks before inclusion into the trial. Female participants included were asked to use reliable contraception up to one month after the last vaccination.

Phase 1 trial of Na-GST-1 and Na-APR-1

This study was a randomized double-blind controlled Phase 1 clinical trial of the Na-GST-1 and the Na-APR-1 hookworm vaccines. In total, 32 participants were enrolled in two cohorts of 16 participants each. The 16 participants included 12 participants vaccinated with both recombinant, Na-GST-1 and Na-APR-1 (M74), plus 5μg GLA-AF (experimental group) and 4 participants vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine (HBV) plus a buffer saline solution (control group). It has to be noted that Na-APR-1 (M74) is a catalytically inactive mutant protein that was designed to improve the stability of Na-APR-1 by genetically mutating two aspartic acid residues to alanine. Na-APR-1 (M74) induced antibodies that reacted to wild type Na-APR-1.

Vaccinations were delivered by intramuscular injection in the deltoid muscle. Each cohort was distinguished by the vaccine dose, namely low dose (30 μg) for group 1 and high dose (100 μg) for group 2. Participants received one dose of each vaccine tested, one in each upper arm. In the control group participants received HBV in one upper arm and saline in the other. Participants were vaccinated at days 0, 28 and 180 as detailed by Adegnika et al. [21] and in S1 Fig. Heparinized blood samples were collected before each vaccination at days 0, 28, 180, and at days 14, 42, 56, 194, 208, 270 and 360 following vaccination. For the immunogenicity assay days 0, 14, 28, 42, 180 and 194 were selected (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Vaccination and sampling time points.

Antibody measurement

The IgG antibody levels to Na-GST-1 was measured as described previously in great detail [21]. The mean of the optical density at 492 nm of each test sera was interpolated onto the standard calibration curve of reference serum to derive the arbitrary units (AU) of anti-Na-GST-1 or anti-Na-APR-1(M74) IgG [10, 22].

Cell isolation and storage

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were isolated from heparinized venous blood within 8 hours after venipuncture by density gradient centrifugation over Ficoll-Hypaque (Apotheek AZL, Leiden, The Netherlands) as described previously [23]. Isolated PBMCs were cryopreserved in RPMI 20% FCS 10% DMSO (Merk, cat: 67685) using a controlled-grade Mr. Frosty Freezing Container (Thermo Scientific, cat: 5100–0001) containing isopropyl alcohol, and stored overnight at -80°C prior to transfer into liquid nitrogen for long-term storage.

PBMC in vitro stimulation

PBMCs were thawed and rested overnight prior to in vitro stimulation with vaccine candidate antigens. All samples met the minimum criteria of >80% viability (trypan blue staining) after thawing and resting.

PBMCs were cultured in 200μl RPMI 1640 (Gibco, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) supplemented with 10% FCS (Greiner Bio-One GmbH, Frickenhausen, Germany), 100 U/ml penicillin (Astellas, Tokyo, Japan), 10 μg/ml streptomycin, 1mM pyruvate and 2mM L-glutamine (all from Sigma-Aldrich, CA, USA). Five hundred thousand cells per well were stimulated in sterile polypropylene U-bottom microtiter plates with medium (negative control), 1ug/ml Na-GST-1, 1ug/ml Na-APR-1 (M74) or 200 ng/ml staphylococcus enterotoxin B (SEB) (positive control), all in the presence of co-stimulatory antibodies CD28/CD49d (BD Biosciences cat: 555725/555501) both at a concentration of 2μg/ml. Brefeldin A (10μg/ml, Sigma; cat: B7651) was added to the cells culture 5 hours post- stimulation and cells were cultured for a total of 24 hours at 37°C in the presence of 5% CO2.

Immunophenotyping assays

Flow cytometry (FACS) intracellular cytokine staining

After in vitro stimulation, cells were directly stained with LIVE/DEAD Fixable Aqua dead cell Stain Kit (Invitrogen, cat: L34957) for 15 min in the dark at room temperature (RT), followed by 15 min fixation with 1.9% PFA in the dark at RT. Thereafter cells were stained for 30 min at 4°C with a cocktail of CD3-APC-eF780, CD4-PerCP-eF710, IFN-γ-BV-421, IL-2-FITC, IL-4/-5/-13-PE, IL-10-APC and TNF-α-PE-Cy7 antibodies (for dilutions and antibody details see S1 Table) prepared in permeabilization buffer (eBioscience, cat: 88-8824-00). Cells were acquired on BD FACSCanto II flow cytometer (BD Biosciences) and analyzed using FlowJo V10 (TreeStar, San Carlos, CA). CD4+ T cell producing cytokines were selected using the gating strategy shown in S2A Fig. Two subjects, one in the low dose group (30 μg) and one in the high dose (100 μg), were excluded from immunogenicity data analysis due to high spontaneous production of cytokines in culture medium.

Mass cytometry (CyTOF) intracellular analysis

Na-GST-1 stimulated PBMC (~3 millions of cells) were incubated with 1 mL of 500 μM Cell-ID intercalator-103Rh (Fluidigm, cat: 201103A; 500x dilution), for 15 min at RT to identify dead cells. Next, cells were incubated for 10 min at RT with 50 μL of human TruStain FcX Fc-receptor blocking solution (Biolegend, San Diego, CA, USA; 10x dilution), and were subsequently stained with 50μL of a surface antibody cocktail (cocktail 1), freshly prepared (S2 Table) for 45 min at RT prior to fixation with 1mL of 1x MaxPar Fix I buffer (Fluidigm, cat: 201065) for 20 minutes at RT. Additionally, cells were stained a second time for 30 minutes at RT with 50 μl of an intracellular antibody cocktail (cocktail 2) freshly prepared (S2 Table) in permeabilization buffer (Fluidigm, cat: 201066) and followed by overnight staining at 4°C with 1 mL of 125 μM Cell-ID Intercalator-Ir (Fluidigm, cat: 201192A; 1000x dilution) in MaxPar Fix and Perm buffer (Fluidigm, cat: 201067). Cells acquisition was performed using Helios mass cytometer (Fluidigm, South San Francisco, CA, USA) at a concentration of 1x106 cells/mL in Milli-Q water, filtered using cells-strainer and complemented with 10% EQ Four Element Calibration Beads (Fluidigm, cat: 201078). In addition to the antibody panel detection channels (including intercalator ones), calibration beads (140Ce, 151Eu, 153Eu, 165Ho and 175Lu) and contamination (133Cd, 138Ba, 208Pb) channels were activated. After cell acquisition, data from the calibration beads were used to normalize signal fluctuations. The normalized FCS files were exported and analyzed using FlowJo V10 (TreeStar, San Carlos, CA) in order to gate out EQ beads and select live CD45+ cells (S4 Fig). The FCS files from selected live CD45+ cells were then analyzed using the hierarchical stochastic neighbor embedding (HSNE) [24-26], a dimensionality reduction visualization tool, to identify CD4+ T cells responding to Na-GST-1 stimulation (S4 and S5 Figs).

CTLA-4 blocking assay

PBMC were incubated in culture medium (RPMI 10%FCS), with 3 μg/ml CTLA-4 blocking antibody (BPS Bioscience, cat: 71212) or IgG1 isotype (Invitrogen, cat: 16-4714-85), at a concentration of 5x105 cells/well, for 1hr at 37°C, 5% CO2 in sterile polypropylene U-bottom microtiter plates control. Next, cells were stimulated for 24 hours with either 1 μg/mL Na-GST-1, or culture medium only, as negative control, in the presence co-stimulatory antibodies CD28/CD49d (BD Biosciences cat: 555725/555501), both at a final concentration of 2μg/ml. Supernatants were collected to measure tumor necrosis factor (TNF) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (BD Biosciences, cat: 555212), following manufacturer’s recommendation. It has to be noted that it was not possible to show an increase in cytokine production when intracellular cytokine staining was used.

Statistical analysis

For each stimulation condition, the percentages of CD4+ T cells producing each cytokine or cytokine combination were determined. The response to stimulation with medium was subtracted from the Ag stimulated responses to give us antigen specific percentage of cytokine producing cells. Linear mixed-effects models [27] were used to assess the change in cytokine producing CD4+ T cells over time, in the vaccinated groups and control. The participant ID was modeled as random effect, the time as fixed effect and the percentage for cytokine producing cells as the dependent variable. To assess the change between the frequency of CD4+ T cells producing one or more cytokines at day 194 compared to baseline, pairwise comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon paired test. The statistical test was one-tailed with significance level set at p ≤ 0.05. Spearman’s correlation was used to determine the correlation between percentages of CD4+ T cells producing cytokines and the antibody response. Kruskal Wallis test was used to compare TNF production following anti-CTLA-4 blocking with isotype and medium conditions. All statistical analysis were performed in R software [28].

Results

Characteristics of study participants

Out of 32 participants enrolled in the trial, 24 completed the full vaccination schedule and were included in the analysis of the responses to hookworm vaccine candidates (S1 Fig). These were 6 participants in the control group (HBV vaccine), 8 participants in the low dose group (30 μg Na-GST + 30 μg Na-APR) and 10 participants in the high dose group (100 μg Na-GST + 100 μg Na-APR). The characteristics of the study participants are given in Table 1. There were no significant difference between the groups in terms of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), living area, and helminth infection status.

Table 1

Characteristics of study participants (N = 24).

	HBV (control)	Low dose (30μg)	High dose (100μg)	P-value
N	6	8	10
Age years; mean (range)	21.5 (19–24)	29 (18–50)	21.1 (19–44)	0.077b
BMI (mean± SD)	21.8 ± 2.4	21.5 ± 8.8	21.8 ±7.9	0.297b
Sex female;
Female; n(%)	1 (16.7%)	3 (37.5%)	3 (30%)	0.706a
Living Area
Rural; n(%)	4 (72.7%)	7 (87.5%)	5 (50%)	0.260a
Helminth infection
Any helminth n (%)	2 (33.3%)	7 (77.8%)	7 (70%)	0.110a
Ascaris lumbricoides	0/6	1/8	2/10
Trichuris trichiura	1/6	0/8	2/10
Hookworm	0/6	2/8	1/10
Strongoloides stercoralis	0/6	0/8	2/10
Schistosoma haematobium	1/6	5/8	4/10
Other	0/6	0/8	1/10*

aChi-Square

bKruskalWallis

*Tenia sp

CD4+ T cell responses to Na-GST-1 and Na-APR -1 following immunization

At baseline, there were no detectable cytokine producing CD4+ T cells in response to Na-GST-1, there were to Na-APR-1 (S3 Fig). Following vaccination, in the high dose group (100 μg), CD4+ T cells expressing IL-2 (p = 0.048) or TNF (p = 0.013) (Fig 2A), as well as co-expressing TNF and IL-2 (p = 0.0156) (Fig 2B), increased significantly, in response to Na-GST-1, from day 0 (before vaccination) up to day 194 (two weeks after the third vaccination). No significant changes over time were detected for IFN-γ, TH2 cytokines (IL-4/-5/-13) or IL-10 in response to Na-GST-1. No significant increase over time, compared to baseline (day 0), were detected when considering low dose Na-GST-1 vaccinated group (Fig 2A). With respect to Na-APR-1, there was no significant increase in cytokine producing CD4+ T cells from baseline (day 0) up to day 194.

Fig 2

Cytokine responses to Na-GST-1 vaccination.

(A) The frequency of IL-2 and TNF producing CD4+ T cells in response to Na-GST-1 stimulation, over time compared to baseline (day 0), in control (green line), low dose (orange line) and high dose group (blue line), using linear mixed model for statistical analysis. Cells producing cytokines are expressed as percentage of CD4+ T cells. The mean and standard deviation of cytokine producing cells is given for each time point and each vaccine group. (B) Frequency of CD4+ T cells producing IL-2 or TNF alone or together in response to Na-GST-1 on day 0 and day 194, in the high dose (100 μg) group. Data are presented as boxplots representing the median, 1st and 3rd quantile. Whiskers are extending to the maximum/minimum, no further than 1.5x the IQR (interquartile range). Wilcoxon one-tailed paired test was performed for comparison between day 0 and day 194. (C) Correlation between the change induced by vaccination in Na-GST-1 specific IgG antibody levels and the frequency of TNF producing CD4+ T cells, in the high dose group (Spearman correlation test rho = 0.83, p = 0.003). The change in IgG and cytokine producing cells was determine by subtracting the baseline value (day 0) from day 194 value. The antibody levels are given as arbitrary unit (AU). The frequency of cytokine producing cells in (A), (B) and (C) was determined as percentage of total number of CD4+ T cell. (*) indicates the significance p≤0.05 in (A) and (B).

The absence of cytokine production in response to Na-GST-1 in the HBV vaccinated control group, as well as the lack of any differences seen in response to SEB stimulation over time (S2B Fig) indicates that Na-GST-1 vaccination leads to antigen specific T cell responses.

Correlation between IgG antibody titers and cytokine responses to Na-GST-1

Na-GST-1 specific IgG antibody level [21] was shown to be highest in the high dose group after the third vaccination on day 194. A significant positive correlation (p = 0.003, rho = 0.83) was seen between CD4+ T cells secreting TNF and Na-GST-1 specific IgG on day 194 (Fig 2C). No correlation was found between IL-2 producing, or IL-2 and TNF co-producing CD4+ T cells and antigen specific IgG (S2C Fig).

CTLA-4 expression on Na-GST-1 -specific CD4+ T cells

We next, examined in detail, the phenotype of these Na-GST-1 -specific CD4+ T cells in 3 donors, by mass cytometry. To this end, a 37-metal isotope-tagged monoclonal antibody panel for mass cytometry was used (S2 Table). Hierarchical stochastic neighbor embedding (HSNE) [24] plots in Fig 3A, are depicting the cellular heterogeneity of Na-GST-1 specific CD4+ T cell population, and identifying five subsets. Within the five distinct subsets (Fig 3A), the frequency of TNF and IL-2 producing cells in Na-GST-1 stimulated cells compared to medium, was high in subset 5, for all donors (S5B Fig). Subset 5 comprises of CD161+ CD4+ memory T cells (Fig 3A). Further analysis of this subset revealed 15 phenotypically distinct clusters, with the markers depicted in the heatmap (Fig 3B). The TNF and IL-2 producing cells in response to antigen were largely in cluster 15 in all donors (Figs 3C and S5C). Cluster 15 is defined by the expression of CD40-L and CTLA-4, within the CD161+ CD4+ memory T cell compartment (Fig 3D). In this cluster, TNF was found to be the main cytokine produced in response to Na-GST-1 stimulation, and to a lesser extent IL-2 (S5C Fig).

Fig 3

Na-GST-1 specific cell phenotype.

(A) HSNE embedding of 1.1 million CD4+ T cells at day 194 in Na-GST-1 high dose (100 μg) recipients (n = 3), depicting 5 subsets. The colour represents arcsin5- transformed expression values of indicated markers. (B) Heatmap summarizing the median expression of markers present on identified clusters of CD4+ CD161+ T cell subset (subset 5). The colours are the same as for the HSNE plots in A. (C) Bar plots depicting the frequency of clusters producing cytokines relative to CD4+ CD161+ T cells. (D) Cluster partitioning of CD4+ CD161+ T cells and HSNE plots highlighting cluster 15, which has an increased expression of both CD40-L and CTLA-4.

CTLA-4 blockade in vitro enhances Na-GST-1 antigen-specific TNF production

As CTLA-4 is known to be an inhibitory molecule [29], the question whether CTLA-4 can result in dampening the cytokine response of antigen stimulated CD4+ T cells was examined next. PBMC of 6 donors from the high dose vaccinated group, taken at pre and at day 194 post vaccination, were stimulated with Na-GST-1 in the presence and the absence of anti-CTLA-4 blocking antibodies. The increase from day 0 to day 194 in TNF production after anti- CTLA-4 antibody was used, was significantly more than the increase seen with control antibodies or medium (p = 0.003) (Fig 4).

Fig 4

Antigen specific cytokine production following blocking of CTLA-4.

Analysis of TNF production in response to Na-GST-1 in cells treated with anti-CTLA-4. Data are presented as boxplots showing the median and IQR. Whiskers are extending to the maximum/minimum, no further than 1.5x the IQR. Individual values are shown as points. The change in TNF production in response to Na-GST-1 was determine by subtracting baseline (day 0) value from day 194 value when either medium, control IgG or anti CTLA-4 was used. A significant increase in TNF production was observed after CTLA-4 blocking compared to IgG isotype or medium control. Statistical significance was determined using Kruskal Wallis test. (*) indicates the significance p≤0.05.

Discussion

This is the first study to examine T cell responses following vaccination with hookworm vaccine candidates Na-GST-1 and Na-APR-1, which was assessed in a population residing in a hookworm endemic area in Africa. Both vaccine candidates have been reported to be safe and immunogenic [21]. Here, we characterized T cells immune response to both, Na-GST-1 and Na-APR-1 vaccine candidates. There was no response at baseline to Na-GST-1, but following vaccination, T cell responses became detectable. This was different from Na-APR-1, to which cytokine (TNF) producing T cells were detectable before vaccination but did not increase following vaccination. The fact that already detectable Na-APR-1 response was not boosted by vaccination, might be due to the low sensitivity of intracellular cytokine staining [30] that does not allow the detection of an incremental increase in the response. It might also reflect the effect of pre-existing antibodies on vaccine responses, often described to interfere with live vaccine efficacy [31]. In any case, it is in line with the lower vaccine induced antibody response to Na-APR-1 compared to Na-GST-1 [21]. The question remains This might whether either higher doses of Na-APR-1 or a different adjuvant would help to get a better response.

Na-GST-1 -specific IL-2 and TNF producing CD4+ T cells were increased in frequency after the third vaccination (day 194), in the group receiving the high dose vaccine. We did not find antigen- specific IFN-γ production following vaccination. This seems to also be the case during natural hookworm infection where TNF production in response to antigen was shown to be elevated in infected subjects, in contrast to IFN-γ [32, 33], and was negatively correlated with egg burden [33], suggesting a role for TNF production in natural immunity to hookworm infection.

In some other vaccination studies, the prominence of TNF rather than IFN-γ response has been reported [34, 35]. Data from a study in healthy Brazilian volunteers vaccinated with a Schistosoma mansoni vaccine candidate Sm14, also showed an increase in CD4+ T cells producing TNF and IL-2, 30 days after the third vaccination, with little IFN-γ detected [34]. Similarly, studies assessing cytokine responses in subjects immunized with vaccines such as hepatitis B, tetanus toxoid or malaria (RTS’S/AS and AMA-1), have shown that TNF and IL-2 are the main cytokines detected following immunization [35-38]. Moreover, we show an increase in TNF and IL-2 co-expressing CD4+ T cells upon vaccination, which might be important, as vaccine-induced CD4+ T cells producing more than one cytokine have been shown to correlate with protection in several vaccine studies [39-41].

We found a positive correlation between antibody levels and Na-GST-1 specific TNF producing CD4+ T cells, two weeks after the third vaccination (day 194). This could suggest that TNF secretion is involved in antibody production as previous studies have shown antibody responses to vaccines are compromised in patients treated with TNF blockade [42-44].

Characterization in more detail of the phenotype of antigen stimulated CD4+ T cells producing cytokines in response to Na-GST-1 showed that the cells had a memory phenotype and expressed CD40-L which indicate stimulation through TCR signaling [45, 46]. Moreover, these antigen responding cells, expressed CD161, a marker that characterizes CD4+ T cells with potent functional capacity [47]. In addition, CTLA-4, which negatively regulates T-cell responses [48], was expressed by Na-GST-1 responsive cells. Blocking of CTLA-4 with a neutralizing antibody resulted in enhanced TNF production upon in vitro stimulation. The question remains as to whether the expression of CTLA-4 on Na-GST-1 specific CD4+ T cells is characteristic of cells from vaccinated subjects that reside in areas endemic for hookworm infection or whether the same is true for vaccinated subjects from North America with no prior exposure to hookworms [14]. This might be relevant to the observations that some vaccines show poor immunogenicity or efficacy in Africa [49, 50]. However, comparing antibody responses between North Americans [14] and Gabonese [21] vaccinated with Na-GST-1 and Na-APR-1, does not seem to show large differences in antibody levels. Therefore, further studies on quality of the antibodies are needed before we consider the relevance of CTLA-4 expression on CD4+ T cells induced upon vaccination in Gabonese volunteers.

In summary, we were able to characterize CD4+ T cell responses to vaccination with Na-GST-1, showing a prominent TNF production by antigen stimulated cells that correlated with antibody production. The cells were characterized by expression of CD45RO, CD161, CD40L and CTLA-4. Blocking of CTLA-4 enhanced the production of TNF. Whether CTLA-4 expression restricts immunogenicity or functionality of the vaccine candidates will need to be investigated further.

Flow cytometry antibody panel.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Mass cytometry (CyTOF) antibody panel.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Study flow chart.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

(A) Flow cytometry gating strategy of CD4+ T cells for one representative sample after SEB stimulation. Cells were first gated on time or Forward scatter (FSC)-W and FSC-H to select singlets. Thereafter, cells were gated on viability dye and FSC-A to select live cells. Subsequently, cells producing IL-2, TNF, IFN-γ, IL-10 and the TH2 cytokines (IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13) were gated from cells expressing CD3 and CD4. (B) Cytokine response to SEB over time. Boxplots representing the median, 1st and 3rd quantile. Whiskers are extending to the maximum/minimum, no further than 1.5x the IQR. All points are shown. (C) Spearman correlation between the change (day 194 –day 0) induced by vaccination in Na-GST-1 specific IgG antibody levels, given in arbitrary units (AU), and the frequency of IL-2 producing CD4+ T cells, in the high dose group. Solid line indicates predicted values from linear regression analysis with the shaded band showing the 95% confidence interval.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

The frequency of IL-2 and TNF producing CD4+ T cells in response to Na-GST-1 or Na-APR-1 stimulation compared to medium at baseline (day 0), in control (green line), low dose (orange line) and high dose group (blue line). Cells producing cytokines are expressed as percentage of CD4+ T cells. Each line represents an individual donor. Wilcoxon one-tailed paired test was performed for comparison between medium and Na-GST-1 or Na-APR-1 stimulation. (*) indicates the significance p≤0.05 in (A) and (B).

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Single live CD45+ cells were manually gated in stimulated and unstimulated samples using the Gaussian parameter (Residual, Center, Offset and Width).

Unsupervised analysis was performed using HSNE on Cytosplore to visualize the relative distribution of cell populations within the CD45+ cell. At the first level HSNE embedding was used where CD45+ cells clustered based on surface markers expression, identifying the major immune lineages were identified.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

(A) HSNE embedding depicting the marker expression of the major immune lineages identified within CD45+ cells. The colour represents the arcsin5- transformed expression values of indicated markers. (B) Cytokines producing CD4+ T cell populations in Na-GST-1 stimulated cells. The frequency of cytokine producing cells is of total number of CD4+ T cells. (C) Cytokines producing CD161+ CD4+ T cell population in Na-GST-1 stimulated cells in all donors. The frequency of cytokine producing is of total number of CD161 expressing CD4+ T cell. Both medium (MED) and Na-GST-1 (GST) stimulation is shown and lines depict the same donors in (B) and (C).

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

1 Jul 2021

Dear Mrs Mouwenda,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Characterization of T cell responses to co-administered hookworm vaccine candidates Na-GST-1 and Na-APR-1 in healthy adults in Gabon" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Keke C Fairfax, PhD

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Keke Fairfax

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: Methods: Sufficient information should be provided on subject selection an immunization without having to read reference 21. A flow diagram would be useful showing randomizations (N=32) and losses to follow-up yielding number finally analyzed (n=24). Figure 1, although useful, is not helpful in this respect because it does not show randomizations (allocated to what?) and shows the number followed-up rather than the number randomized with the final ‘3-group’ composition (presumably the groups to which subjects were randomized?).

Methods: I am curious why the subjects were vaccinated intramuscularly in the forearm (line 129) rather than the upper arm where the deltoid muscle is found?

Methods (line 141): What is ‘(M74)’?

Methods (line 148): did the Frosty™ Freezing Container contain isopropyl alcohol?

Methods (line 207): 5*105 = 5x105?

Methods (line 209): 500x diluted?

Methods (statistical analysis) – this needs to be edited carefully for clarity

Reviewer #2: The methods are sound and well written. There is no ethics or regulatory concerns.

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The paper is overall clear and well written, but sometimes lack in details in the description of results.

For example regarding Figure 2, the authors state : "Following vaccination Na-GST-1-specific responses were detectable, but Na-APR-1-specific responses were not.” This is a broad statement, especially as the first sentence of the paragraph. Could the author better explain their results? Is it that restimulation with Na-APR-1 did not give any T cell response at all, or no specific cytokine response. which cytokines have been tested? Here the negative result is actually quite important and should be further defined. Have the authors considered measuring total cytokines released in the medium after stimulation, as it might be more sensitive that intracellular detection.

Figure 2 legend : Figure 2, in the legend on the figure orange is indicated as GST 30 ug and blue for GST 100ug. To my understanding all participants have been immunized with both vaccine candidates (Na-GST-1 and Na-APR-1). It is unclear thus if the color refer to the immunisations or whether it refer to restimulation of the PBMC in vitro.

Lines246-247 , the authors state “No significant changes were detected when considering low dose Na-GST-1vaccinated group (Fig 2A)”. Is it compared to day 0 (baseline) or to the other groups (HBV or NA-GST-1 100ug).

Line 289 : There is no letter D in Figure S4

Fig 3 D while quite standard, really poor choice of color for the level of expression as the cluster 15 appears in white and can barely be seen in the image. Maybe the authors could use black rather than white in the middle of the gradient to facilitate visualization of the results.

Figure S4 The mass cytometry panel is quite comprehensive and allow detection of numerous populations. While the authors might want to keep some of the exploitation of this work for future publications, a few interesting questions could enhance the current study:

- Has the day 194 been compared to any other time point, such as the baseline ? Is there any changes observed in any population? It would indeed be interesting to understand whether the characteristics of the memory T cells here, results from a previous infection with hookworms ( other other endemic pathogen) or whether it results from the vaccination. CTLA-4 might be high regardless of the vaccination with Na proteins. What happens in the HBV control group.

- Do the results confirm the results from figure 2, is the sensitivity/resolution any better in particular for the type 2 cytokines. One might wonder whether stimulating with APR-1 as well might be interesting.

As total PBMC have been stimulated, are T cells the only or main TNF/IL-2 producing cells ? Is there other population responding to the restimulation.

Figure 4 :The authors speculate in the discussion that the cytokine production in response to APR-1 stimulation could be due to a too low level of production, because of insufficient priming with NA-APR-1. Is CTLA-4 blockade enhancing cytokine production in response to APR-1 stimulation as well ? If yes, which cytokines are increased ?

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: Yes, conclusions supported by data presented

Reviewer #2: The conclusion is well written and support the data presented. Just a comment for the authors:

The authors state “No significant changes over time were detected for IFN-γ, TH2cytokines (IL-4/-5/-13) or IL-10 in response to Na-GST-1” As type 2 responses are usually associated with protection against helminths, these results are quite surprising, could the authors expand further their comments on this in the discussion. In particular on what could be expected in terms of efficacy of the treatment. To my knowledge it is unknown even in animal models how the immunisation with APR-1 is working. Are only the antibodies required or do the cellular immune response need to be polarised as well.

The subclass of IgG in animal model for APR-1 have been proposed to be IgG1 and IgG4, which depends on IL-4 and IL-10 respectively for class switching. A poor modified type 2 response could explain the low antibody response to APR-1. As immunization with GST-1 has been shown to give rise to IgG3 and IgG1, the type 2 cytokines might not be as required ?

overall, it might be that it is not that much the dose of APR-1 that needs to be increased but maybe that an other adjuvant is required.

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: Abstract/Methods: It would be useful to provide more information on methods in the abstract: x (32 or 24?) Gabonese volunteers were randomized to vaccination with three doses of a low-dose (n=8) or high-dose (n=10) combination Na-GST-1 or Na-APR-1 or Hepatitis B vaccine (n=6) over a 6-month period. Blood was collected pre-vaccination on days 0, 28, and 180 and 2-weeks after each vaccine dose on days 14, 42, and 194. PBMCs were isolated from blood samples…etc.

Abstract/Results: would be good to include some relevant data?

Introduction: Lines 114-115: Please correct: “(Ascaris lubricoides, Trichuris trichura, Necator ankylostoma and Strongiloides stercoralis)”

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: A short report of the cytokine response to two hookworm vaccine candidates. The paper requires a bit more information in the abstract and method but otherwise is clear and appears scientifically sound.

Reviewer #2: Mouwenda et al, describe the specific CD4 T cell response after vaccination with the two-vaccine candidates Na-GST1 and Na-APR-1 in an endemic population. The authors show limited specific response of CD4 T cells to Na-APR1, while specific T cells to Na-GST-1 were mostly found to release IL-2 and TNFa. Using mass cytometry the authors further show that TNFa producing memory CD4 T cells express high level of the inhibitory molecule CTLA-4. In vitro blockade of CTLA-4 increase TNFa production upon specific Na-GST-1 stimulation, suggesting that an intervention with anti-CTLA-4 in vaccinated human could be beneficiary.

--------------------

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

7 Aug 2021

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 Aug 2021

Dear Mrs Mouwenda,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Characterization of T cell responses to co-administered hookworm vaccine candidates Na-GST-1 and Na-APR-1 in healthy adults in Gabon' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Keke C Fairfax, PhD

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Keke Fairfax

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

14 Sep 2021

Dear Mrs Mouwenda,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Characterization of T cell responses to co-administered hookworm vaccine candidates Na-GST-1 and Na-APR-1 in healthy adults in Gabon," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases