The HIV-1 viral inhibition assay (VIA) measures CD8 T cell-mediated inhibition of HIV replication in CD4 T cells and is increasingly used for clinical testing of HIV vaccines and immunotherapies. The VIA has multiple sources of variability arising from in vitro HIV infection and co-culture of two T cell populations. Here, we describe multiple modifications to a 7-day VIA protocol, the most impactful being the introduction of independent replicate cultures for both HIV infected-CD4 (HIV-CD4) and HIV-CD4:CD8 T cell cultures. Virus inhibition was quantified using a ratio of weighted averages of p24+ cells in replicate cultures and the corresponding 95% confidence interval. An Excel template is provided to facilitate calculations. Virus inhibition was higher in people living with HIV suppressed on antiretroviral therapy (n=14, mean: 40.0%, median: 43.8%, range: 8.2 to 73.3%; p < 0.0001, two-tailed, exact Mann-Whitney test) compared to HIV-seronegative donors (n = 21, mean: -13.7%, median: -14.4%, range: -49.9 to 20.9%) and was stable over time (n = 6, mean %COV 9.4%, range 0.9 to 17.3%). Cross-sectional data were used to define 8% inhibition as the threshold to confidently detect specific CD8 T cell activity and determine the minimum number of culture replicates and p24+ cells needed to have 90% statistical power to detect this threshold. Last, we note that, in HIV seronegative donors, the addition of CD8 T cells to HIV infected CD4 T cells consistently increased HIV replication, though the level of increase varied markedly between donors. This co-culture effect may contribute to the weak correlations observed between CD8 T cell VIA and other measures of HIV-specific CD8 T cell function.

In this paper, we review the key elements that should be considered to take a novel vaccine from the laboratory through to licensure in the modern era. This paper is divided into four sections. First, we discuss the host immune responses that we engage with vaccines. Second, we discuss how in vivo and in vitro studies can inform vaccine design. Third, we discuss different vaccine modalities that have been licensed or are in testing in humans. Last, we overview the basic principles of vaccine approvals. Throughout we provide real‐world examples of vaccine development against infectious diseases, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19).

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is not curative due to the existence of cellular reservoirs of latent HIV-1 that persist during therapy. Current research efforts to cure HIV-1 infection include "shock and kill" strategies to disrupt latency using small molecules or latency-reversing agents (LRAs) to induce expression of HIV-1 enabling cytotoxic immune cells to eliminate infected cells. The modest success of current LRAs urges the field to identify novel drugs with increased clinical efficacy. Aminobisphosphonates (N-BPs) that include pamidronate, zoledronate, or alendronate, are the first-line treatment of bone-related diseases including osteoporosis and bone malignancies. Here, we show the use of N-BPs as a novel class of LRA: we found in ex vivo assays using primary cells from ART-suppressed people living with HIV-1 that N-BPs induce HIV-1 from latency to levels that are comparable to the T cell activator phytohemagglutinin (PHA). RNA sequencing and mechanistic data suggested that reactivation may occur through activation of the activator protein 1 signaling pathway. Stored samples from a prior clinical trial aimed at analyzing the effect of alendronate on bone mineral density, provided further evidence of alendronate-mediated latency reversal and activation of immune effector cells. Decay of the reservoir measured by IPDA was however not detected. Our results demonstrate the novel use of N-BPs to reverse HIV-1 latency while inducing immune effector functions. This preliminary evidence merits further investigation in a controlled clinical setting possibly in combination with therapeutic vaccination.

In the published article, an author name was incorrectly written as Nadia Roan. The correct spelling is Nadia R. Roan.In the published article, an author name was incorrectly written as Cindy Gay. The correct spelling is Cynthia Gay.The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

No abstract