2017
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jix173
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Doctrine of Original Antigenic Sin: Separating Good From Evil

Abstract: The term “original antigenic sin” was coined approximately 60 years ago to describe the imprinting by the initial first influenza A virus infection on the antibody response to subsequent vaccination. These studies did not suggest a reduction in the response to current antigens but instead suggested anamnestic recall of antibody to earlier influenza virus strains. Then, approximately 40 years ago, it was observed that sequential influenza vaccination might lead to reduced vaccine effectiveness (VE). This conclu… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

6
143
1
6

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 152 publications
(158 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
(53 reference statements)
6
143
1
6
Order By: Relevance
“…imprints on the immune memory the antigenic type of the infecting influenza virus. 13 This first infection may differentially imprint an antibody repertoire that can later effect immune responses to subsequent influenza virus exposures. [13][14][15] Most studies on imprinting have focused on IAV viruses, but this condition most likely also occurs during IBV infections.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…imprints on the immune memory the antigenic type of the infecting influenza virus. 13 This first infection may differentially imprint an antibody repertoire that can later effect immune responses to subsequent influenza virus exposures. [13][14][15] Most studies on imprinting have focused on IAV viruses, but this condition most likely also occurs during IBV infections.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…13 This first infection may differentially imprint an antibody repertoire that can later effect immune responses to subsequent influenza virus exposures. [13][14][15] Most studies on imprinting have focused on IAV viruses, but this condition most likely also occurs during IBV infections. It is not currently well understood if high HAI titers to a specific IBV lineage reflects the dominate circulating IBV strains at the time of first IBV infection.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We demonstrate that the magnitude of the response to B/Phuket in the whole cohort is approximately twofold lower than the two FluA components, and is reflected in both the seroprotection and seroconversion rates. The reason for this is unclear, but may result from the original antigenic sin hypothesis, where exposure to different circulating viral strains that prime the immune system during childhood which may then go on to determine which response is able to be boosted by the vaccine [28]. While the high level of pre-existing seroprotection to A/H1N1 in all groups is probably a result of the inclusion of the same components in both the 2014 and 2015 TIV, the other differences between the groups are harder to reconcile.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the young controls appeared to respond less well to the A/H3N2 components than either the COPD or age-matched controls. The reason for this is unclear, but may result from the original antigenic sin hypothesis, where exposure to different circulating viral strains that prime the immune system during childhood which may then go on to determine which response is able to be boosted by the vaccine [28]. Thus, the A/H3N2 may have been more dominant during the maturation of the immune response in the older volunteers, whereas A/H1N1 may have been more dominant at the time of immune maturation in the young volunteers.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…17 This was the first time in the recent era that such a reduction was documented, thus continuing historical debates on whether repeat vaccination resulted in reduced protection. [27][28][29][30] These original findings of a repeat vaccination effect prompted a furthering of the hypothesis that antibody response to vaccination was decreased after multiple annual administration of vaccines of similar antigenic make-up.…”
Section: Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness and Effect Of Prior Vaccinationmentioning
confidence: 99%