We have previously reported that Vivax Malaria Protein 001 (VMP001), a vaccine candidate based on the circumsporozoite protein of Plasmodium vivax, is immunogenic in mice and rhesus monkeys in the presence of various adjuvants. In the present study, we evaluated the immunogenicity and efficacy of VMP001 formulated with a TLR9 agonist in a water-in-oil emulsion. Following immunization, the vaccine efficacy was assessed by challenging Aotus nancymaae monkeys with P. vivax sporozoites. Monkeys from both the low- and high-dose vaccine groups generated strong humoral immune responses to the vaccine (peak median titers of 291,622), and its subunits (peak median titers to the N-term, central repeat and C-term regions of 22,188; 66,120 and 179,947, respectively). 66.7% of vaccinated monkeys demonstrated sterile protection following challenge. Protection was associated with antibodies directed against the central repeat region. The protected monkeys had a median anti-repeat titer of 97,841 compared to 14,822 in the non-protected monkeys. This is the first report demonstrating P. vivax CSP vaccine-induced protection of Aotus monkeys challenged with P. vivax sporozoites.
BackgroundArtemisinin-based combination therapy is the first-line anti-malarial treatment for uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum infection in Angola. To date, the prevalence of polymorphisms in the pfk13 gene, associated with artemisinin resistance, and pfmdr1, associated with lumefantrine resistance, have not been systematically studied in Angola.MethodsDNA was isolated from pretreatment and late treatment failure dried blood spots collected during the 2015 round of therapeutic efficacy studies in Benguela, Lunda Sul, and Zaire Provinces in Angola. The pfk13 propeller domain and pfmdr1 gene were sequenced and analysed for polymorphisms. Pfmdr1 copy number variation was assessed using a real-time PCR method. The association between pfmdr1 and pfk13 mutations and treatment failure was investigated.ResultsThe majority of pretreatment (99%, 466/469) and all late treatment failure (100%, 50/50) samples were wild type for pfk13. Three of the pretreatment samples (1%) carried the A578S mutation commonly observed in Africa and not associated with artemisinin resistance. All 543 pretreatment and day of late treatment failure samples successfully analysed for pfmdr1 copy number variation carried one copy of pfmdr1. The NYD haplotype was the predominant pfmdr1 haplotype, present in 63% (308/491) of pretreatment samples, followed by NFD, which was present in 32% (157/491) of pretreatment samples. The pfmdr1 N86 allele was overrepresented in day of late treatment failure samples from participants receiving artemether–lumefantrine (p value 0.03).ConclusionsThe pretreatment parasites in patients participating in therapeutic efficacy studies in 2015 in Angola’s three sentinel sites showed genetic evidence of susceptibility to artemisinins, consistent with clinical outcome data showing greater than 99% day 3 clearance rates. The lack of increased pfmdr1 copy number is consistent with previous reports from sub-Saharan Africa. Although pfmdr1 NYD and NFD haplotypes were overrepresented in artemether–lumefantrine late treatment failure samples, their role as markers of resistance was unclear given that these haplotypes were also present in the majority of successfully treated patients in the artemether–lumefantrine treatment arms.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12936-018-2233-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Background Histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2)-based malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are effective and widely used for the detection of wild-type Plasmodium falciparum infections. Although recent studies have reported false negative HRP2 RDT results due to pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene deletions in different countries, there is a paucity of data on the deletions of these genes in Tanzania. Methods A community-based cross-sectional survey was conducted between July and November 2017 in four regions: Geita, Kigoma, Mtwara and Ruvuma. All participants had microscopy and RDT performed in the field and provided a blood sample for laboratory multiplex antigen detection (for Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase, aldolase, and P. falciparum HRP2). Samples showing RDT false negativity or aberrant relationship of HRP2 to pan-Plasmodium antigens were genotyped to detect the presence/absence of pfhrp2/3 genes. Results Of all samples screened by the multiplex antigen assay (n = 7543), 2417 (32.0%) were positive for any Plasmodium antigens while 5126 (68.0%) were negative for all antigens. The vast majority of the antigen positive samples contained HRP2 (2411, 99.8%), but 6 (0.2%) had only pLDH and/or aldolase without HRP2. Overall, 13 samples had an atypical relationship between a pan-Plasmodium antigen and HRP2, but were positive by PCR. An additional 16 samples with negative HRP2 RDT results but P. falciparum positive by microscopy were also chosen for pfhrp2/3 genotyping. The summation of false negative RDT results and laboratory antigen results provided 35 total samples with confirmed P. falciparum DNA for pfhrp2/3 genotyping. Of the 35 samples, 4 (11.4%) failed to consistently amplify positive control genes; pfmsp1 and pfmsp2 and were excluded from the analysis. The pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 genes were successfully amplified in the remaining 31 (88.6%) samples, confirming an absence of deletions in these genes. Conclusions This study provides evidence that P. falciparum parasites in the study area have no deletions of both pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 genes. Although single gene deletions could have been missed by the multiplex antigen assay, the findings support the continued use of HRP2-based RDTs in Tanzania for routine malaria diagnosis. There is a need for the surveillance to monitor the status of pfhrp2 and/or pfhrp3 deletions in the future.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.