Monoclonal antibodies of three different immunoglobulin G isotypes produced by immunization with a synthetic peptide or native protein protect mice against challenge with Plasmodium yoelii sporozoites.

Passive transfer of monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) against malaria circumsporozoite (CS) proteins protects animals against malaria. Active immunization with synthetic or recombinant peptides induces a level of polyclonal antibodies to sporozoites comparable to those found after passive immunization but does not provide comparable protection. In the Plasmodium yoelii system, synthetic or recombinant peptide-induced antibodies have never been shown to protect. The current studies were designed to determine whether immunogen structure (native protein versus synthetic peptide) or immunoglobulin G (IgG) subclass of antibodies was responsible for the absolute differences between protective, passively transferred MAbs and nonprotective, actively induced polyclonal antibodies. In this study we produced two MAbs, QGP-S1 (IgG1) and QGP-S2 (IgG2b), by immunization with a synthetic peptide based on the P. yoelii CS major repeat, (QGPGAP)4, conjugated to keyhole limpet hemocyanin. These MAbs were compared tp NYS1 (IgG3), an anti-CS protein MAb previously produced by immunization with irradiated P. yoelii sporozoites, which recognizes (QGP GAP)2. QGP-S1 and QGP-S2 passively transferred protection. However, when compared with NYS1, there was a hierarchy of protection, NYS1 > QGP-S1 > QGP-S2. There was no correlation between antibody level at challenge as determined by immunofluorescent antibody test against sporozoites or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay against (QGPGAP)2 or apparent antibody avidity for (QGPGAP)2 by sodium thiocyanate elution assay. The data demonstrate that a synthetic peptide can induce protective antibodies and that a specific antibody subclass is not required for protection. Work to determine whether antibody affinity or fine specificity can explain the hierarchy of protection among the MAbs is under way.