Immunogenicity and Protective Capacity of a Virus-like Particle Vaccine against Chlamydia trachomatis Type 3 Secretion System Tip Protein, CT584.

An effective vaccine against Chlamydia trachomatis is urgently needed as infection rates continue to rise and C. trachomatis causes reproductive morbidity. An obligate intracellular pathogen, C. trachomatis employs a type 3 secretion system (T3SS) for host cell entry. The tip of the injectosome is composed of the protein CT584, which represents a potential target for neutralization with vaccine-induced antibody. Here, we investigate the immunogenicity and efficacy of a vaccine made of CT584 epitopes coupled to a bacteriophage virus-like particle (VLP), a novel platform for Chlamydia vaccines modeled on the success of HPV vaccines. Female mice were immunized intramuscularly, challenged transcervically with C. trachomatis, and assessed for systemic and local antibody responses and bacterial burden in the upper genital tract. Immunization resulted in a 3-log increase in epitope-specific IgG in serum and uterine homogenates and in the detection of epitope-specific IgG in uterine lavage at low levels. By contrast, sera from women infected with C. trachomatis and virgin controls had similarly low titers to CT584 epitopes, suggesting these epitopes are not systemically immunogenic during natural infection but can be rendered immunogenic by the VLP platform. C. trachomatis burden in the upper genital tract of mice varied after active immunization, yet passive protection was achieved when immune sera were pre-incubated with C. trachomatis prior to inoculation into the genital tract. These data demonstrate the potential for antibody against the T3SS to contribute to protection against C. trachomatis and the value of VLPs as a novel platform for C. trachomatis vaccines.

Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts.

Many early-career researchers are involved in the peer review of manuscripts for scientific journals, typically under the guidance of or jointly with their advisor, but most of the evidence about this activity is anecdotal. Here we report the results of a literature review and a survey of researchers, with an emphasis on co-reviewing and 'ghostwriting'. The literature review identified 36 articles that addressed the involvement of early-career researchers in peer review, most of them about early-career researchers and their advisors co-reviewing manuscripts for the purposes of training: none of them addressed the topic of ghostwriting in detail. About three quarters of the respondents to the survey had co-reviewed a manuscript. Most respondents believe co-reviewing to be a beneficial (95%) and ethical (73%) form of training in peer review. About half of the respondents have ghostwritten a peer review report, despite 81% responding that ghostwriting is unethical and 82% agreeing that identifying co-reviewers to the journal is valuable. Peer review would benefit from changes in both journal policies and lab practices that encourage mentored co-review and discourage ghostwriting.