Comparison of the immune responses induced by Chimeric Alphavirus-Vectored and formalin-inactivated alum-precipitated measles vaccines in mice

M. Jeff Bergen, Chien Hsiung Pan, Catherine E. Greer, Harold S. Legg, John M. Polo, Diane Griffin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

A variety of vaccine platforms are under study for development of new vaccines for measles. Problems with past measles vaccines are incompletely understood and underscore the need to understand the types of immune responses induced by different types of vaccines. Detailed immune response evaluation is most easily performed in mice. Although mice are not susceptible to infection with wild type or vaccine strains of measles virus, they can be used for comparative evaluation of the immune responses to measles vaccines of other types. In this study we compared the immune responses in mice to a new protective alphavirus replicon particle vaccine expressing the measles virus hemagglutinin (VEE/SIN-H) with a non-protective formalin-inactivated, alum-precipitated measles vaccine (FI-MV). MV-specific IgG levels were similar, but VEE/SIN-H antibody was high avidity IgG2a with neutralizing activity while FI-MV antibody was low-avidity IgG1 without neutralizing activity. FI-MV antibody was primarily against the nucleoprotein with no priming to H. Germinal centers appeared, peaked and resolved later for FI-MV. Lymph node MV antibody-secreting cells were more numerous after FI-MV than VEE/SIN-H, but were similar in the bone marrow. VEE/SIN-H-induced T cells produced IFN-c and IL-4 both spontaneously ex vivo and after stimulation, while FI-MV-induced T cells produced IL-4 only after stimulation. In summary, VEE/SIN-H induced a balanced T cell response and high avidity neutralizing IgG2a while FI-MV induced a type 2 T cell response, abundant plasmablasts, late germinal centers and low avidity non-neutralizing IgG1 against the nucleoprotein.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere10297
JournalPLoS One
Volume5
Issue number4
StatePublished - 2010

Fingerprint

Alphavirus
Measles Vaccine
alum
formalin
Formaldehyde
Measles virus
immune response
vaccines
Vaccines
mice
Hemagglutinins
Viruses
T-cells
hemagglutinins
T-Lymphocytes
Nucleoproteins
Germinal Center
Immunoglobulin G
Interleukin-4
Antibodies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparison of the immune responses induced by Chimeric Alphavirus-Vectored and formalin-inactivated alum-precipitated measles vaccines in mice. / Bergen, M. Jeff; Pan, Chien Hsiung; Greer, Catherine E.; Legg, Harold S.; Polo, John M.; Griffin, Diane.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 5, No. 4, e10297, 2010.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bergen, M. Jeff ; Pan, Chien Hsiung ; Greer, Catherine E. ; Legg, Harold S. ; Polo, John M. ; Griffin, Diane. / Comparison of the immune responses induced by Chimeric Alphavirus-Vectored and formalin-inactivated alum-precipitated measles vaccines in mice. In: PLoS One. 2010 ; Vol. 5, No. 4.
@article{fe970cb3da954e1198c10b90232d6926,
title = "Comparison of the immune responses induced by Chimeric Alphavirus-Vectored and formalin-inactivated alum-precipitated measles vaccines in mice",
abstract = "A variety of vaccine platforms are under study for development of new vaccines for measles. Problems with past measles vaccines are incompletely understood and underscore the need to understand the types of immune responses induced by different types of vaccines. Detailed immune response evaluation is most easily performed in mice. Although mice are not susceptible to infection with wild type or vaccine strains of measles virus, they can be used for comparative evaluation of the immune responses to measles vaccines of other types. In this study we compared the immune responses in mice to a new protective alphavirus replicon particle vaccine expressing the measles virus hemagglutinin (VEE/SIN-H) with a non-protective formalin-inactivated, alum-precipitated measles vaccine (FI-MV). MV-specific IgG levels were similar, but VEE/SIN-H antibody was high avidity IgG2a with neutralizing activity while FI-MV antibody was low-avidity IgG1 without neutralizing activity. FI-MV antibody was primarily against the nucleoprotein with no priming to H. Germinal centers appeared, peaked and resolved later for FI-MV. Lymph node MV antibody-secreting cells were more numerous after FI-MV than VEE/SIN-H, but were similar in the bone marrow. VEE/SIN-H-induced T cells produced IFN-c and IL-4 both spontaneously ex vivo and after stimulation, while FI-MV-induced T cells produced IL-4 only after stimulation. In summary, VEE/SIN-H induced a balanced T cell response and high avidity neutralizing IgG2a while FI-MV induced a type 2 T cell response, abundant plasmablasts, late germinal centers and low avidity non-neutralizing IgG1 against the nucleoprotein.",
author = "Bergen, {M. Jeff} and Pan, {Chien Hsiung} and Greer, {Catherine E.} and Legg, {Harold S.} and Polo, {John M.} and Diane Griffin",
year = "2010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the immune responses induced by Chimeric Alphavirus-Vectored and formalin-inactivated alum-precipitated measles vaccines in mice

AU - Bergen, M. Jeff

AU - Pan, Chien Hsiung

AU - Greer, Catherine E.

AU - Legg, Harold S.

AU - Polo, John M.

AU - Griffin, Diane

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - A variety of vaccine platforms are under study for development of new vaccines for measles. Problems with past measles vaccines are incompletely understood and underscore the need to understand the types of immune responses induced by different types of vaccines. Detailed immune response evaluation is most easily performed in mice. Although mice are not susceptible to infection with wild type or vaccine strains of measles virus, they can be used for comparative evaluation of the immune responses to measles vaccines of other types. In this study we compared the immune responses in mice to a new protective alphavirus replicon particle vaccine expressing the measles virus hemagglutinin (VEE/SIN-H) with a non-protective formalin-inactivated, alum-precipitated measles vaccine (FI-MV). MV-specific IgG levels were similar, but VEE/SIN-H antibody was high avidity IgG2a with neutralizing activity while FI-MV antibody was low-avidity IgG1 without neutralizing activity. FI-MV antibody was primarily against the nucleoprotein with no priming to H. Germinal centers appeared, peaked and resolved later for FI-MV. Lymph node MV antibody-secreting cells were more numerous after FI-MV than VEE/SIN-H, but were similar in the bone marrow. VEE/SIN-H-induced T cells produced IFN-c and IL-4 both spontaneously ex vivo and after stimulation, while FI-MV-induced T cells produced IL-4 only after stimulation. In summary, VEE/SIN-H induced a balanced T cell response and high avidity neutralizing IgG2a while FI-MV induced a type 2 T cell response, abundant plasmablasts, late germinal centers and low avidity non-neutralizing IgG1 against the nucleoprotein.

AB - A variety of vaccine platforms are under study for development of new vaccines for measles. Problems with past measles vaccines are incompletely understood and underscore the need to understand the types of immune responses induced by different types of vaccines. Detailed immune response evaluation is most easily performed in mice. Although mice are not susceptible to infection with wild type or vaccine strains of measles virus, they can be used for comparative evaluation of the immune responses to measles vaccines of other types. In this study we compared the immune responses in mice to a new protective alphavirus replicon particle vaccine expressing the measles virus hemagglutinin (VEE/SIN-H) with a non-protective formalin-inactivated, alum-precipitated measles vaccine (FI-MV). MV-specific IgG levels were similar, but VEE/SIN-H antibody was high avidity IgG2a with neutralizing activity while FI-MV antibody was low-avidity IgG1 without neutralizing activity. FI-MV antibody was primarily against the nucleoprotein with no priming to H. Germinal centers appeared, peaked and resolved later for FI-MV. Lymph node MV antibody-secreting cells were more numerous after FI-MV than VEE/SIN-H, but were similar in the bone marrow. VEE/SIN-H-induced T cells produced IFN-c and IL-4 both spontaneously ex vivo and after stimulation, while FI-MV-induced T cells produced IL-4 only after stimulation. In summary, VEE/SIN-H induced a balanced T cell response and high avidity neutralizing IgG2a while FI-MV induced a type 2 T cell response, abundant plasmablasts, late germinal centers and low avidity non-neutralizing IgG1 against the nucleoprotein.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77956409183&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77956409183&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 20421972

AN - SCOPUS:77956409183

VL - 5

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 4

M1 - e10297

ER -