Measuring naturally acquired immune responses to candidate malaria vaccine antigens in Ghanaian adults.

BACKGROUND: To prepare field sites for malaria vaccine trials, it is important to determine baseline antibody and T cell responses to candidate malaria vaccine antigens. Assessing T cell responses is especially challenging, given genetic restriction, low responses observed in endemic areas, their variability over time, potential suppression by parasitaemia and the intrinsic variability of the assays. METHODS: In Part A of this study, antibody titres were measured in adults from urban and rural communities in Ghana to recombinant Plasmodium falciparum CSP, SSP2/TRAP, LSA1, EXP1, MSP1, MSP3 and EBA175 by ELISA, and to sporozoites and infected erythrocytes by IFA. Positive ELISA responses were determined using two methods. T cell responses to defined CD8 or CD4 T cell epitopes from CSP, SSP2/TRAP, LSA1 and EXP1 were measured by ex vivo IFN-γ ELISpot assays using HLA-matched Class I- and DR-restricted synthetic peptides. In Part B, the reproducibility of the ELISpot assay to CSP and AMA1 was measured by repeating assays of individual samples using peptide pools and low, medium or high stringency criteria for defining positive responses, and by comparing samples collected two weeks apart. RESULTS: In Part A, positive antibody responses varied widely from 17%-100%, according to the antigen and statistical method, with blood stage antigens showing more frequent and higher magnitude responses. ELISA titres were higher in rural subjects, while IFA titres and the frequencies and magnitudes of ex vivo ELISpot activities were similar in both communities. DR-restricted peptides showed stronger responses than Class I-restricted peptides. In Part B, the most stringent statistical criteria gave the fewest, and the least stringent the most positive responses, with reproducibility slightly higher using the least stringent method when assays were repeated. Results varied significantly between the two-week time-points for many participants. CONCLUSIONS: All participants were positive for at least one malaria protein by ELISA, with results dependent on the criteria for positivity. Likewise, ELISpot responses varied among participants, but were relatively reproducible by the three methods tested, especially the least stringent, when assays were repeated. However, results often differed between samples taken two weeks apart, indicating significant biological variability over short intervals.

Sterile protection against Plasmodium knowlesi in rhesus monkeys from a malaria vaccine: comparison of heterologous prime boost strategies.

Using newer vaccine platforms which have been effective against malaria in rodent models, we tested five immunization regimens against Plasmodium knowlesi in rhesus monkeys. All vaccines included the same four P. knowlesi antigens: the pre-erythrocytic antigens CSP, SSP2, and erythrocytic antigens AMA1, MSP1. We used four vaccine platforms for prime or boost vaccinations: plasmids (DNA), alphavirus replicons (VRP), attenuated adenovirus serotype 5 (Ad), or attenuated poxvirus (Pox). These four platforms combined to produce five different prime/boost vaccine regimens: Pox alone, VRP/Pox, VRP/Ad, Ad/Pox, and DNA/Pox. Five rhesus monkeys were immunized with each regimen, and five Control monkeys received a mock vaccination. The time to complete vaccinations was 420 days. All monkeys were challenged twice with 100 P. knowlesi sporozoites given IV. The first challenge was given 12 days after the last vaccination, and the monkeys receiving the DNA/Pox vaccine were the best protected, with 3/5 monkeys sterilely protected and 1/5 monkeys that self-cured its parasitemia. There was no protection in monkeys that received Pox malaria vaccine alone without previous priming. The second sporozoite challenge was given 4 months after the first. All 4 monkeys that were protected in the first challenge developed malaria in the second challenge. DNA, VRP and Ad5 vaccines all primed monkeys for strong immune responses after the Pox boost. We discuss the high level but short duration of protection in this experiment and the possible benefits of the long interval between prime and boost.