4.5 Article

Human immunodeficiency virus-like particles with consensus envelopes elicited broader cell-mediated peripheral and mucosal immune responses than polyvalent and monovalent Env vaccines

期刊

VACCINE
卷 27, 期 32, 页码 4337-4349

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.04.032

关键词

HIV-1 vaccine; Consensus; Polyvalent; Virus-like particles

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI068507] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Envelope (Env) sequences from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) strains can vary by 15-20% within a single clade and as much as 35% between clades. Previous AIDS vaccines based upon a single isolate often could not elicit protective immune responses against heterologous viral challenges. In order to address the vast sequence diversity in Env sequences, consensus sequences were constructed for Glade B and clade C envelopes and delivered to the mouse lung mucosa on the surface of virus-like particles (VLP). Consensus sequences decrease the genetic difference between the vaccine strain and any given viral isolate. The elicited immune responses were compared to a mixture of VLPs with Envs from primary viral isolates. This polyvalent vaccine approach contains multiple, diverse Envs to increase the breadth of epitopes recognized by the immune response and thereby increase the potential number of primary isolates recognized. Both consensus and polyvalent clade B Env VLP vaccines elicited cell-mediated immune responses that recognized a broader number of clade B Env peptides than a control monovalent Env VLP vaccine in both the systemic and the mucosal immune compartments. All three clade C Env vaccine strategies elicited similar responses to Glade C peptides. However, both the consensus B and C Env VLP vaccines were more effective at eliciting cross-reactive cellular immune responses to epitopes in other clades. This is the first study to directly compare the breadth of cell-mediated immune responses elicited by consensus and polyvalent Env vaccines. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据