Submit a comment
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
Guidelines
The Editorial Board will only consider comments that are deemed relevant and of interest to readers. The Journal will not post data that have not been subjected to peer review; or a comment that is essentially a reiteration of another comment.
- Comments appear on the Journal’s website and are linked from the original article’s web page.
- Authors are notified by email if their comments are posted.
- The Journal reserves the right to edit comments for length and clarity.
- No appeals will be considered.
- Comments are not indexed in PubMed.
Specific requirements
- Maximum length, 400 words
- Entered as plain text or HTML
- Author’s name and email address, to be posted with the comment
- Declaration of all potential conflicts of interest (even if these are not ultimately posted); see the Journal’s conflict-of-interest policy
- Comments may not include figures
Copyright © 2022 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)