4.7 Article

Antigen delivery via hydrophilic PEG-b-PAGE-b-PLGA nanoparticles boosts vaccination induced T cell immunity

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2016.02.014

关键词

Poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide); Polyethylene glycol; Poly(allyl glycidyl ether); Vaccination; Nanomedicines; Cellular uptake

资金

  1. BMBF [13N11454]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Here, we evaluate the use of hydrophilic PEG-b-PAGE-b-PLGA (PPP) for the preparation of antigen loaded nanoparticles (NPs) as a platform for prophylactic vaccination. To investigate the suitability of PPP-NPs for antigen delivery, we used the double emulsion evaporation technique to prepare NPs of different sizes, antigen-loading efficiencies and -release kinetics for the model antigen Ovalbumin (OVA). Prior to applying the PPP-NPs in biological in vitro or in vivo models, all materials were tested for absence of cytotoxicity and endotoxins. While the uptake of NPs in antigen presenting cells was size but not polymer dependent, the efficiency of cross presentation of NP-associated antigen on MHC I molecules for CD8 T cell activation depended on the polymer type. T cell activation by antigen-presenting cells was significantly increased in vitro if antigen was delivered via PPP NPs compared to PLGA NPs or soluble OVA, although antigen content was the same in all tested formulations. Subcutaneous application of PPP OVA-NPs even without adjuvants led to generation of potent CD8 T cell-mediated OVA-specific cytotoxicity in vivo that was more pronounced than after application of OVA alone or PLGA-OVA-NPs. Our data suggest that PPP-NPs can serve as platform for antigen-delivery in future vaccination formulations. Although PPP-NPs already bear intrinsic adjuvant-function, the complementation with TLR ligands loaded inside NPs may further strengthen the immune response to a point, where it might be possible to use it as a therapeutic vaccine to break immune tolerance in chronic disease states. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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