Advertisement

Impact of Nutrition on Adult Vaccination Efficacy

  • Claudio FranceschiEmail author
  • Aurelia Santoro
Chapter
Part of the Practical Issues in Geriatrics book series (PIG)

Abstract

A certain proportion of patients fail to mount a response to routine vaccines, and non-responsiveness increases with age. In older individuals, vaccination with a new vaccine is associated with a high rate of low or non-responsiveness. This has led immunologists to posit that to improve the efficacy of vaccination, not only chronological age but also biological age should be considered. Biological age takes account of variance in markers of chronological age between individuals, whereby individuals can have a marker level that matches the expected level for their age in the population or the level of a younger age group (i.e. biological age may be lower than chronological age) or the level of an older age group (i.e. biological age may be higher than chronological age). Research in fields such as epigenetics and glycomics has helped to shed light on the determinants of ageing; results are reviewed here. The utility of considering biological age to evaluate risk is addressed, and the phenomenon termed “inflammaging” is described. Overall, there remain significant gaps in our knowledge regarding the effects of nutrition in vaccine efficacy, and complex biological, immunological, genetic, behavioural and environmental factors are intricately involved in the outcome of vaccination, especially in older adults.

Keywords

Nutrition Vaccination Inflammation Ageing Epigenetics Geroscience Glycomics Accelerated ageing 

References

  1. 1.
    Wiedermann U, Garner-Spitzer E, Wagner A. Primary vaccine failure to routine vaccines: why and what to do? Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2016;12(1):239–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deelen J, Beekman M, Capri M, Franceschi C, Slagboom PE. Identifying the genomic determinants of aging and longevity in human population studies: progress and challenges. BioEssays. 2013;35(4):386–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Horvath S. DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types. Genome Biol. 2013;14(10):R115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horvath S, Pirazzini C, Bacalini MG, Gentilini D, Di Blasio AM, Delledonne M, et al. Decreased epigenetic age of PBMCs from Italian semi-supercentenarians and their offspring. Aging (Albany NY). 2015;7(12):1159–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Horvath S, Garagnani P, Bacalini MG, Pirazzini C, Salvioli S, Gentilini D, et al. Accelerated epigenetic aging in down syndrome. Aging Cell. 2015;14(3):491–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dall’Olio F, Vanhooren V, Chen CC, Slagboom PE, Wuhrer M, Franceschi C. N-glycomic biomarkers of biological aging and longevity: a link with inflammaging. Ageing Res Rev. 2013;12(2):685–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borelli V, Vanhooren V, Lonardi E, Reiding KR, Capri M, Libert C, et al. Plasma N-glycome signature of down syndrome. J Proteome Res. 2015;14(10):4232–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cole JH, Underwood J, Caan MW, De Francesco D, van Zoest RA, Leech R, et al. Increased brain-predicted aging in treated HIV disease. Neurology. 2017;88(14):1349–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Francesco D, Oehlke S, Burkle A, Wit FW, Franceschi C, Kootstra NA, et al. Biomarkers of ageing in HIV-positive individuals and matched controls. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; Seattle, Washington, February 13–16. Abstract P672. 2017. http://www.croiconference.org/sites/default/files/posters-2017/672_DeFrancesco.pdf. Accessed 18 Feb 2018.
  10. 10.
    Belsky DW, Caspi A, Houts R, Cohen HJ, Corcoran DL, Danese A, et al. Quantification of biological aging in young adults. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(30):E4104–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kennedy BK, Berger SL, Brunet A, Campisi J, Cuervo AM, Epel ES, et al. Geroscience: linking aging to chronic disease. Cell. 2014;159(4):709–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barabasi AL. Network medicine—from obesity to the “diseasome”. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(4):404–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franceschi C, Bonafe M, Valensin S, Olivieri F, De Luca M, Ottaviani E, et al. Inflamm-aging. An evolutionary perspective on immunosenescence. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000;908:244–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Franceschi C, Garagnani P, Vitale G, Capri M, Salvioli S. Inflammaging and ‘Garb-aging’. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2017;28(3):199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Biagi E, Nylund L, Candela M, Ostan R, Bucci L, Pini E, et al. Through ageing, and beyond: gut microbiota and inflammatory status in seniors and centenarians. PLoS One. 2010;5(5):e10667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Biagi E, Franceschi C, Rampelli S, Severgnini M, Ostan R, Turroni S, et al. Gut microbiota and extreme longevity. Curr Biol. 2016;26(11):1480–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grignolio A, Mishto M, Faria AM, Garagnani P, Franceschi C, Tieri P. Towards a liquid self: how time, geography, and life experiences reshape the biological identity. Front Immunol. 2014;5:153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Netea MG, Quintin J, van der Meer JW. Trained immunity: a memory for innate host defense. Cell Host Microbe. 2011;9(5):355–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Valdez Y, Brown EM, Finlay BB. Influence of the microbiota on vaccine effectiveness. Trends Immunol. 2014;35(11):526–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Praharaj I, John SM, Bandyopadhyay R, Kang G. Probiotics, antibiotics and the immune responses to vaccines. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1671):20140144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations