Concurrent vaccination with two distinct vaccine platforms targeting the same antigen generates phenotypically and functionally distinct T-cell populations
- 137 Downloads
Studies comparing two or more vaccine platforms have historically evaluated each platform based on its ability to induce an immune response and may conclude that one vaccine is more efficacious than the other(s), leading to a recommendation for development of the more effective vaccine for clinical studies. Alternatively, these studies have documented the advantages of a diversified prime and boost regimen due to amplification of the antigen-specific T-cell population. We hypothesize here that two vaccine platforms targeting the same antigen might induce shared and distinct antigen-specific T-cell populations, and examined the possibility that two distinct vaccines could be used concomitantly.
Using recombinant poxvirus and yeast vaccines, we compared the T-cell populations induced by these two platforms in terms of serum cytokine response, T-cell gene expression, T-cell receptor phenotype, antigen-specific cytokine expression, T-cell avidity, and T-cell antigen-specific tumor cell lysis.
These studies demonstrate for the first time that vaccination with a recombinant poxvirus platform (rV/F-CEA/TRICOM) or a heat-killed yeast vaccine platform (yeast-CEA) elicits T-cell populations with both shared and unique phenotypic and functional characteristics. Furthermore, both the antigen and the vector play a role in the induction of distinct T-cell populations.
In this study, we demonstrate that concurrent administration of two vaccines targeting the same antigen induces a more diverse T-cell population that leads to enhanced antitumor efficacy. These studies provide the rationale for future clinical studies investigating concurrent administration of vaccine platforms targeting a single antigen to enhance the antigen-specific immune response.
KeywordsVaccinia Saccharomyces cerevisiae Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) T-cell populations Antitumor immunity
The authors acknowledge the excellent technical assistance of Marion Taylor and Anais Kasten-Sportes, and the editorial assistance of Bonnie L. Casey in the preparation of this manuscript.
- 3.Naslund TI, Uyttenhove C, Nordstrom EK, Colau D, Warnier G, Jondal M et al (2007) Comparative prime-boost vaccinations using Semliki Forest virus, adenovirus, and ALVAC vectors demonstrate differences in the generation of a protective central memory CTL response against the P815 tumor. J Immunol 178(11):6761–6769PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Mylin LM, Schell TD, Roberts D, Epler M, Boesteanu A, Collins EJ et al (2000) Quantitation of CD8(+) T-lymphocyte responses to multiple epitopes from simian virus 40 (SV40) large T antigen in C57BL/6 mice immunized with SV40, SV40 T-antigen-transformed cells, or vaccinia virus recombinants expressing full-length T antigen or epitope minigenes. J Virol 74(15):6922–6934CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Casimiro DR, Chen L, Fu TM, Evans RK, Caulfield MJ, Davies ME et al (2003) Comparative immunogenicity in rhesus monkeys of DNA plasmid, recombinant vaccinia virus, and replication-defective adenovirus vectors expressing a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 gag gene. J Virol 77(11):6305–6313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Wunderlich J, Shearer G (1994) Induction and measurement of cytotoxic T lymphocyte activity. In: Coligan J, Kruisbeek A, Margulies D, Shevach E, Strober W (eds) Current protocols in immunology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
- 33.Zhou X, Jun DY, Thomas AM, Huang X, Huang LQ, Mautner J et al (2005) Diverse CD8+ T-cell responses to renal cell carcinoma antigens in patients treated with an autologous granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor gene-transduced renal tumor cell vaccine. Cancer Res 65(3):1079–1088CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Marshall JL, Hoyer RJ, Toomey MA, Faraguna K, Chang P, Richmond E et al (2000) Phase I study in advanced cancer patients of a diversified prime-and-boost vaccination protocol using recombinant vaccinia virus and recombinant nonreplicating avipox virus to elicit anti-carcinoembryonic antigen immune responses. J Clin Oncol 18(23):3964–3973PubMedGoogle Scholar