BACKGROUND: The identification of tumor-associated antigens and the cloning of DNA sequences encoding them have enabled the development of anticancer vaccines. Such vaccines target tumors by stimulating an immune response against the antigens. One method of vaccination involves the delivery of antigen-encoding DNA sequences, and a number of recombinant vectors have been used for this purpose. To optimize the efficacy of recombinant vaccines, we compared primary and booster treatment regimens that used a single vector (i.e., homologous boosting) with regimens that used two different vectors (i.e., heterologous boosting). METHODS: Pulmonary tumors (experimental metastases) were induced in BALB/c mice inoculated with CT26.CL25 murine colon carcinoma cells, which express recombinant bacterial beta-galactosidase (the model antigen). Protocols for subsequent vaccination used three vectors that encoded beta-galactosidase--vaccinia (cowpox) virus, fowlpox virus, naked bacterial plasmid DNA. Mouse survival was evaluated in conjunction with antibody and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte responses to beta-galactosidase. RESULTS: Heterologous boosting resulted in significantly longer mouse survival than homologous boosting (all P<.0001, two-sided). Potent antigen-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes were generated following heterologous boosting with poxvirus vectors. This response was not observed with any of the homologous boosting regimens. Mice primed with recombinant poxvirus vectors generated highly specific antibodies against viral proteins. CONCLUSIONS: The poor efficacy of homologous boosting regimens with viral vectors was probably a consequence of the induction of a strong antiviral antibody response. Heterologous boosting augmented antitumor immunity by generating a strong antigen-specific cytotoxic T-lymphocyte response. These data suggest that heterologous boosting strategies may be useful in increasing the efficacy of recombinant DNA anticancer vaccines that have now entered clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: The identification of tumor-associated antigens and the cloning of DNA sequences encoding them have enabled the development of anticancer vaccines. Such vaccines target tumors by stimulating an immune response against the antigens. One method of vaccination involves the delivery of antigen-encoding DNA sequences, and a number of recombinant vectors have been used for this purpose. To optimize the efficacy of recombinant vaccines, we compared primary and booster treatment regimens that used a single vector (i.e., homologous boosting) with regimens that used two different vectors (i.e., heterologous boosting). METHODS:Pulmonary tumors (experimental metastases) were induced in BALB/c mice inoculated with CT26.CL25 murinecolon carcinoma cells, which express recombinant bacterial beta-galactosidase (the model antigen). Protocols for subsequent vaccination used three vectors that encoded beta-galactosidase--vaccinia (cowpox) virus, fowlpox virus, naked bacterial plasmid DNA. Mouse survival was evaluated in conjunction with antibody and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte responses to beta-galactosidase. RESULTS: Heterologous boosting resulted in significantly longer mouse survival than homologous boosting (all P<.0001, two-sided). Potent antigen-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes were generated following heterologous boosting with poxvirus vectors. This response was not observed with any of the homologous boosting regimens. Mice primed with recombinant poxvirus vectors generated highly specific antibodies against viral proteins. CONCLUSIONS: The poor efficacy of homologous boosting regimens with viral vectors was probably a consequence of the induction of a strong antiviral antibody response. Heterologous boosting augmented antitumor immunity by generating a strong antigen-specific cytotoxic T-lymphocyte response. These data suggest that heterologous boosting strategies may be useful in increasing the efficacy of recombinant DNA anticancer vaccines that have now entered clinical trials.
Authors: B S McKenzie; A J Corbett; J L Brady; C M Dyer; R A Strugnell; S J Kent; D R Kramer; J S Boyle; A M Lew Journal: Immunol Res Date: 2001 Impact factor: 2.829
Authors: Kimberly R Lindsey; Linda Gritz; Richard Sherry; Andrea Abati; Patricia A Fetsch; Lisa C Goldfeder; Monica I Gonzales; Kimberly A Zinnack; Linda Rogers-Freezer; Leah Haworth; Sharon A Mavroukakis; Donald E White; Seth M Steinberg; Nicholas P Restifo; Dennis L Panicali; Steven A Rosenberg; Suzanne L Topalian Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-04-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Chrystal M Paulos; Andrew Kaiser; Claudia Wrzesinski; Christian S Hinrichs; Lydie Cassard; Andrea Boni; Pawel Muranski; Luis Sanchez-Perez; Douglas C Palmer; Zhiya Yu; Paul A Antony; Luca Gattinoni; Steven A Rosenberg; Nicholas P Restifo Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-09-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ainhoa Perez-Diez; Paul J Spiess; Nicholas P Restifo; Polly Matzinger; Francesco M Marincola Journal: J Immunol Date: 2002-01-01 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Lukas Flatz; Rahul Roychoudhuri; Mitsuo Honda; Abdelali Filali-Mouhim; Jean-Philippe Goulet; Nadia Kettaf; Min Lin; Mario Roederer; Elias K Haddad; Rafick P Sékaly; Gary J Nabel Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Richard A Koup; Mario Roederer; Laurie Lamoreaux; Jennifer Fischer; Laura Novik; Martha C Nason; Brenda D Larkin; Mary E Enama; Julie E Ledgerwood; Robert T Bailer; John R Mascola; Gary J Nabel; Barney S Graham Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-02-02 Impact factor: 3.240