Mucosal vaccine efficacy against intrarectal SHIV is independent of anti-Env antibody response

27Citations
Citations of this article
42Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

It is widely believed that protection against acquisition of HIV or SIV infection requires anti-envelope (anti-Env) antibodies, and that cellular immunity may affect viral loads but not acquisition, except in special cases. Here we provide evidence to the contrary. Mucosal immunization may enhance HIV vaccine efficacy by eliciting protective responses at portals of exposure. Accordingly, we vaccinated macaques mucosally with HIV/SIV peptides, modified vaccinia Ankara–SIV (MVA-SIV), and HIV-gp120–CD4 fusion protein plus adjuvants, which consistently reduced infection risk against heterologous intrarectal SHIV SF162P4 challenge, both high dose and repeated low dose. Surprisingly, vaccinated animals exhibited no anti-gp120 humoral responses above background and Gag- and Env-specific T cells were induced but failed to correlate with viral acquisition. Instead, vaccine-induced gut microbiome alteration and myeloid cell accumulation in colorectal mucosa correlated with protection. Ex vivo stimulation of the myeloid cell–enriched population with SHIV led to enhanced production of trained immunity markers TNF-α and IL-6, as well as viral coreceptor agonist MIP1α, which correlated with reduced viral Gag expression and in vivo viral acquisition. Overall, our results suggest mechanisms involving trained innate mucosal immunity together with antigen-specific T cells, and also indicate that vaccines can have critical effects on the gut microbiome, which in turn can affect resistance to infection. Strategies to elicit similar responses may be considered for vaccine designs to achieve optimal protective efficacy.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sui, Y., Lewis, G. K., Wang, Y., Berckmueller, K., Frey, B., Dzutsev, A., … Berzofsky, J. A. (2019). Mucosal vaccine efficacy against intrarectal SHIV is independent of anti-Env antibody response. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 129(3), 1314–1328. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI122110

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free