Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Down selecting adjuvanted vaccine formulations: a comparative method for harmonized evaluation.
Younis, Sumera Y; Barnier-Quer, Christophe; Heuking, Simon; Sommandas, Vinod; Brunner, Livia; Vd Werff, Nicole; Dubois, Patrice; Friede, Martin; Kocken, Clemens; Collin, Nicolas; Remarque, Ed.
Afiliação
  • Younis SY; Biomedical Primate Research Centre, Department of Parasitology, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.
  • Barnier-Quer C; Vaccine Formulation Laboratory, University of Lausanne, Epalinges, Switzerland.
  • Heuking S; Vaccine Formulation Laboratory, University of Lausanne, Epalinges, Switzerland.
  • Sommandas V; Biomedical Primate Research Centre, Department of Parasitology, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.
  • Brunner L; Vaccine Formulation Laboratory, University of Lausanne, Epalinges, Switzerland.
  • Vd Werff N; Biomedical Primate Research Centre, Department of Parasitology, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.
  • Dubois P; Vaccine Formulation Laboratory, University of Lausanne, Epalinges, Switzerland.
  • Friede M; WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
  • Kocken C; Biomedical Primate Research Centre, Department of Parasitology, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.
  • Collin N; Vaccine Formulation Laboratory, University of Lausanne, Epalinges, Switzerland.
  • Remarque E; Biomedical Primate Research Centre, Department of Parasitology, Rijswijk, The Netherlands. remarque@bprc.nl.
BMC Immunol ; 19(1): 6, 2018 01 31.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29386070
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The need for rapid and accurate comparison of panels of adjuvanted vaccine formulations and subsequent rational down selection, presents several challenges for modern vaccine development. Here we describe a method which may enable vaccine and adjuvant developers to compare antigen/adjuvant combinations in a harmonized fashion. Three reference antigens Plasmodium falciparum apical membrane antigen 1 (AMA1), hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg), and Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigen 85A (Ag85A), were selected as model antigens and were each formulated with three adjuvants aluminium oxyhydroxide, squalene-in-water emulsion, and a liposome formulation mixed with the purified saponin fraction QS21.

RESULTS:

The nine antigen/adjuvant formulations were assessed for stability and immunogenicity in mice in order to provide benchmarks against which other formulations could be compared, in order to assist subsequent down selection of adjuvanted vaccines. Furthermore, mouse cellular immune responses were analyzed by measuring IFN-γ and IL-5 production in splenocytes by ELISPOT, and humoral responses were determined by antigen-specific ELISA, where levels of total IgG, IgG1, IgG2b and IgG2c in serum samples were determined.

CONCLUSIONS:

The reference antigens and adjuvants described in this study, which span a spectrum of immune responses, are of potential use as tools to act as points of reference in vaccine development studies. The harmonized methodology described herein may be used as a tool for adjuvant/antigen comparison studies.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ensaio de Imunoadsorção Enzimática / Vacinas / Adjuvantes Imunológicos / ELISPOT Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Animals Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ensaio de Imunoadsorção Enzimática / Vacinas / Adjuvantes Imunológicos / ELISPOT Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Animals Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article