Comparison of intranasal inoculation of influenza HA vaccine combined with cholera toxin B subunit with oral or parenteral vaccination

Hirabayashi, Yoshihiro; Kurata, Hideki; Funato, Hirono; Nakagawa, Takashi; Aizawa, Chikara; Tamura, Shinichi; Shimada, Kaoru; Kurata, Takeshi

doi:10.1016/0264-410x(90)90053-o

Cited by 119 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar findings were made by Hirabayashi et al (12). In the current study, we did not observe higher mucosal immune responses in mice immunized with Salmonella expressing SBR-CTA2/B compared to mice immunized with Salmonella expressing SBR alone.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Induction of Protective Immunity againstStreptococcus mutansColonization after Mucosal Immunization with AttenuatedSalmonella entericaSerovar Typhimurium Expressing anS. mutansAdhesin under the Control of In Vivo-InduciblenirBPromoter

Huang¹,

Hajishengallis

Michalek³

2001

Infect Immun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an attenuated Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium vaccine strain expressing the saliva-binding region (SBR) of the Streptococcus mutans antigen I/II adhesin, either alone or linked with the mucosal adjuvant cholera toxin A2 and B subunits (CTA2/B) and under the control of the anaerobically inducible nirB promoter, in inducing a protective immune response against S. mutans infection. BALB/c mice were immunized by either the intranasal or the intragastric route with a single dose of 10 9 or 10 10 Salmonella CFU, respectively. The Salmonella vaccine strain expressing an unrelated antigen (fragment C of tetanus toxin [TetC]) was also used for immunization as a control. Samples of serum and secretion (saliva and vaginal washes) were collected prior to and following immunization and assessed for antibody activity by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Anti-SBR antibodies were detected in the serum and saliva of experimental animals by week 3 after immunization. A booster immunization at week 17 after the initial immunization resulted in enhanced immune responses to the SBR. The serum immunoglobulin G subclass profiles were indicative of T helper type 1 responses against both the vector and the SBR antigen. To determine the effectiveness of these responses on the protection against S. mutans infection, mice were challenged after the second immunization with a virulent strain of S. mutans which was resistant to tetracycline and erythromycin. Prior to the challenge, mice were treated for 5 days with tetracycline, erythromycin, and penicillin. S. mutans was initially recovered from all of the challenged mice. This bacterium persisted at high levels for at least 5 weeks in control TetC-immunized or nonimmunized mice despite the reappearance of indigenous oral organisms. However, mice immunized with Salmonella clones expressing SBR or SBR-CTA2/B demonstrated a significant reduction in the number of S. mutans present in plaque compared to the control groups. These results provide evidence for the effectiveness of the Salmonella vector in delivering the SBR antigen for the induction of mucosal and systemic immune responses to SBR. Furthermore, the induction of a salivary anti-SBR response corresponded with protection against S. mutans colonization of tooth surfaces.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Induction of Protective Immunity againstStreptococcus mutansColonization after Mucosal Immunization with AttenuatedSalmonella entericaSerovar Typhimurium Expressing anS. mutansAdhesin under the Control of In Vivo-InduciblenirBPromoter

Huang¹,

Hajishengallis

Michalek³

2001

Infect Immun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As with MV, the nasal route was more effective than the oral immunization when CTB was used as adjuvant to immunize BALB/c mice against influenza (Hirabayashi et al, 1990) or Sendai virus (Liang et al, 1988). Our findings are in line with these and other observations that BALB/c mice are low responders after intragastric immunization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cholera toxin B stimulates systemic neutralizing antibodies after intranasal co-immunization with measles virus

Beauverger¹,

Schneider²,

Jung³

et al. 1995

Journal of General Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An effÉcient mucosal vaccination has a number of obvious advantages over invasive routes of immunization. The immune response to measles virus (MV) was investigated after intranasal and intragastric coimmunization of mice with cholera toxin B (CTB) as an adjuvant. High titres of virus-specific IgG antibodies and a transient IgA response were detected in the sera after intranasal but not after intragastric immunization when CTB was used. In the presence of CTB, higher titres were reached with less antigen and fewer intranasal boosts. Neutralizing antibodies were found in all animals only after co-immunization with MV and CTB. In the nasal wash and the saliva, IgG and IgA titres were significant only in the MV plus CTB groups; IgG levels were comparable to those found after intraperitoneal (i.p.) immunization with complete Freund's adjuvant. Specific IgA was detected in the mucosal fluids only after intranasal immunization with MV plus CTB but not after i.p. or intragastric immunization. The antibody response consisted of 99 % IgG1 after MV immunization. In the CTB groups 10% IgG2b and 1% IgG2a were detected in addition to the predominant IgG1 antibodies.

show abstract

“…Importantly, intranasal vaccination can be self‐administered and is needle‐free, thus facilitating an efficient mass‐vaccination regime and reducing the risk of accidental infection by blood‐borne pathogens 17 . Also, intranasal vaccination with influenza antigen resembles natural infection and can elicit both systemic and local immune responses 18 , 19 , 20 . The local mucosal antibodies limit epithelial contact and protect mucosal surfaces from invading infectious agents 21 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The mucosal and systemic immune responses elicited by a chitosan‐adjuvanted intranasal influenza H5N1 vaccine

Svindland

Jul-Larsen

Pathirana

et al. 2011

Influenza Resp Viruses

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this paper as: Svindland et al. The mucosal and systemic immune responses elicited by a chitosan‐adjuvanted intranasal influenza H5N1 vaccine. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses DOI:10.1111/j.1750‐2659.2011.00271.x. Background Development of influenza vaccines that induce mucosal immunity has been highlighted by the World Health Organisation as a priority (Vaccine 2005;23:1529). Dose‐sparing strategies and an efficient mass‐vaccination regime will be paramount to reduce the morbidity and mortality of a future H5N1 pandemic. Objectives This study has investigated the immune response and the dose‐sparing potential of a chitosan‐adjuvanted intranasal H5N1 (RG‐14) subunit (SU) vaccine in a mouse model. Methods Groups of mice were intranasally immunised once or twice with a chitosan (5 mg/ml)‐adjuvanted SU vaccine [7·5, 15 or 30 μg haemagglutinin (HA)] or with a non‐adjuvanted SU vaccine (30 μg HA). For comparison, another group of mice were intranasally immunised with a whole H5N1 (RG‐14) virus (WV) vaccine (15 μg HA), and the control group consisted of unimmunised mice. Results The chitosan‐adjuvanted SU vaccine induced an immune response superior to that of the non‐adjuvanted SU vaccine. Compared with the non‐adjuvanted SU group, the chitosan‐adjuvanted SU vaccine elicited higher numbers of influenza‐specific antibody‐secreting cells (ASCs), higher concentrations of local and systemic antibodies and correspondingly an improved haemagglutination inhibition (HI) and single radial haemolysis (SRH) response against both the homologous vaccine strain and drifted H5 strains. We measured a mixed T‐helper 1/T‐helper 2 cytokine response in the chitosan‐adjuvanted SU groups, and these groups had an increased percentage of virus‐specific CD4+ T cells producing two Thelper 1 (Th1) cytokines simultaneously compared with the non‐adjuvanted SU group. Overall, the WV vaccine induced higher antibody concentrations in sera and an HI and SRH response similar to that of the chitosan‐adjuvanted SU vaccine. Furthermore, the WV vaccine formulation showed a stronger bias towards a T‐helper 1 profile than the SU vaccine and elicited the highest frequencies of CD4+ Th1 cells simultaneously secreting three different cytokines (INFγ+, IL2+ and INFα+). As expected, two immunisations gave a better immune response than one in all groups. The control group had very low or not detectable results in the performed immunoassays. Conclusion The cross‐clade serum reactivity, improved B‐ and T‐cell responses and dose‐sparing potential of chitosan show that a chitosan‐adjuvanted intranasal influenza vaccine is a promising candidate vaccine for further preclinical development.

show abstract

Comparison of intranasal inoculation of influenza HA vaccine combined with cholera toxin B subunit with oral or parenteral vaccination

Cited by 119 publications

References 23 publications

Induction of Protective Immunity againstStreptococcus mutansColonization after Mucosal Immunization with AttenuatedSalmonella entericaSerovar Typhimurium Expressing anS. mutansAdhesin under the Control of In Vivo-InduciblenirBPromoter

Induction of Protective Immunity againstStreptococcus mutansColonization after Mucosal Immunization with AttenuatedSalmonella entericaSerovar Typhimurium Expressing anS. mutansAdhesin under the Control of In Vivo-InduciblenirBPromoter

Cholera toxin B stimulates systemic neutralizing antibodies after intranasal co-immunization with measles virus

The mucosal and systemic immune responses elicited by a chitosan‐adjuvanted intranasal influenza H5N1 vaccine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About