Usage Information
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI135020.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The live attenuated BPZE1 vaccine candidate induces protection against B. pertussis and prevents nasal colonization in animal models. Here we report on the responses in humans receiving a single intranasal administration of BPZE1.METHODS We performed multiple assays to dissect the immune responses induced in humans (n = 12) receiving BPZE1, with particular emphasis on the magnitude and characteristics of the antibody responses. Such responses were benchmarked to adolescents (n = 12) receiving the complete vaccination program of the currently used acellular pertussis vaccine (aPV). Using immunoproteomics analysis, potentially novel immunogenic B. pertussis antigens were identified.RESULTS All BPZE1 vaccinees showed robust B. pertussis–specific antibody responses with regard to significant increase in 1 or more of the following parameters: IgG, IgA, and memory B cells to B. pertussis antigens. BPZE1–specific T cells showed a Th1 phenotype, and the IgG exclusively consisted of IgG1 and IgG3. In contrast, all aPV vaccines showed a Th2-biased response. Immunoproteomics profiling revealed that BPZE1 elicited broader and different antibody specificities to B. pertussis antigens as compared with the aPV that primarily induced antibodies to the vaccine antigens. Moreover, BPZE1 was superior at inducing opsonizing antibodies that stimulated ROS production in neutrophils and enhanced bactericidal function, which was in line with the finding that antibodies against adenylate cyclase toxin were only elicited by BPZE1.CONCLUSION The breadth of the antibodies, the Th1-type cellular response, and killing mechanisms elicited by BPZE1 may hold prospects of improving vaccine efficacy and protection against B. pertussis transmission.TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02453048, NCT00870350.FUNDING ILiAD Biotechnologies, Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet), Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation.
Authors
Ang Lin, Danijela Apostolovic, Maja Jahnmatz, Frank Liang, Sebastian Ols, Teghesti Tecleab, Chenyan Wu, Marianne van Hage, Ken Solovay, Keith Rubin, Camille Locht, Rigmor Thorstensson, Marcel Thalen, Karin Loré
Usage data is cumulative from January 2020 through March 2020.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 1,524 | 0 |
| 587 | 0 | |
| Figure | 57 | 0 |
| Table | 4 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 91 | 0 |
| Citation downloads | 22 | 0 |
| Totals | 2,285 | 0 |
| Total Views | 2,285 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
Copyright © 2020 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)