Advanced search
Publication Cover
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Volume 15, 2019 - Issue 9
Submit an article Journal homepage
1,226
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Commentary

B-cell restriction – an alternative piece to the puzzle

Jonathan M. GershoniSchool of Molecular Cell Biology and Biotechnology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv, IsraelCorrespondence[email protected]
ORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6118-6051View further author information
ORCID Icon
Pages 2044-2049 | Received 04 Mar 2019, Accepted 20 Mar 2019, Published online: 23 Apr 2019

ABSTRACT

Effective vaccination is based on three critical aspects of the B-cell response towards infectious agents: (i) that B-cells can generate specific antibodies towards a vast molecular diversity of antigens; proteins, sugars, DNA and lipids. There seems to be no limit to the ability to raise antibodies to everything. (ii) once stimulated, B-cells can perfect their antibodies through affinity maturation to complement every nook and cranny of the epitope and (iii) that the pathogen remains genetically stable and does not change to any great extent. Thus, antibodies produced against the vaccine and subsequent boosts recognize the viral virulent field isolates in future encounters and effectively knock them out. However, some vaccine targets, such as flu virus and HIV, are extremely genetically dynamic. The rapid genetic drift of these viruses renders them moving targets which assist in their ability to evade immune surveillance. Here we postulate that in the case of hyper-variable pathogens the B-cell response actually might be “too good”. We propose that restricting B-cell activities may prove effective in counteracting the genetic diversity of variant viruses such as flu and HIV. We suggest two levels of “B-cell restriction”: (i) to focus the B-cell response exclusively towards neutralizing epitopes by creating epitope-based immunogens; (ii) to restrict affinity maturation of B-cells to prevent the production of overly optimized exquisitely specific antibodies. Together, these “B-cell restrictions” provide a new modality for vaccine design.

This article is part of the following collections:
The International Society for Vaccines 2018 Annual Congress, Atlanta, Oct. 28–30, 2018

Training the immune system with vaccines has proven as an enormously effective means to prevent disease and save lives.Citation1 Since Jenner, millions and millions of children worldwide are protected yearly against diseases that in many countries and societies are now almost forgotten threats of the past. The general principle of vaccination is rather simple and straightforward; train our immune systems with dummy pathogens to gain experience and protection in the event that we encounter virulent forms in the future. Yet, while some vaccines work, others do not.

Vaccines that work

So long as pathogens remain genetically stable, vaccines prove amazingly effective. The measles, mumps and rubella vaccines afford lifelong protection and have changed little since they were first licensed.Citation2 Smallpox has been vaccine-eradicatedCitation3-Citation5 and polio is just about there.Citation3 Much of the success of these vaccines lies in their ability to deposit and store reservoirs of trained B-cells able to produce fine-tuned, highly efficient neutralizing antibodies.Citation1 Consequently, future encounters with virulent field virus-isolates are met with an immediate cross-reactive secondary response perfected and ready to knock-out the intrusion.

Three properties of the B-cell response contribute much towards successful prophylaxis.

The ability to produce highly specific and discriminating lead antibodies … to everything

Tonegawa discovered the ability of chromosomes to rearrange and produce VJ/VDJ junctions.Citation6 This breakthrough cracked the long-lasting perplexing conundrum of how, with so few open reading frames in our genome, we are able to produce millions and millions of unique antibodies, each the product of a distinct B-cell clone. The wealth of antibodies is further increased by the introduction of P and N nucleotides at the combinatorial junctions. Thus, there seems to be no limit to the diversity of antibodies we are able to produce. Antigens can be proteins, nucleic acids,Citation7,Citation8 sugarsCitation9,Citation10 as well as lipids.Citation11-Citation13 So long as there is even marginal affinity of the B-cell receptor (BCR) for an epitope of the immunogen, clonal expansion is launched and ever-improved antibodies are generated.

  • The ability to perfect exquisitely specific antibodies. Somatic hyper-mutation accompanied with multiple rounds of immunogen/B-cell encounters are the steps that lead to affinity maturation.Citation14 An initial binding event of a pathogen by a B-cell launches clonal expansion and the production of lead IgM antibodies. Initially, the efficacy of these relatively broad-spectrum weak binders to counteract invading pathogens lies in the avidity gained by the deca-valency of IgM.Citation15 However, as AID-mediated mutagenesis of the variable domains kicks in, the fit of the CDR loops to the idiosyncrasies of the epitope being bound gradually improves. Mutation, followed by the selection of those B-cell clones that gain ever-increasing affinity, drive the antibody to perfection and the ability to continually clear the pathogen as its concentration ever decreases. Ultimately, an optimized antibody is produced whose paratope neatly complements the nooks and crannies of the epitope with precision, exhibiting binding affinities of KD < 10−9– 10−10 M.Citation14,Citation16–Citation18

  • The deposit and recall of mature memory cells. This process of developing perfected B-cell responses takes time. However, when naturally encountering a virulent pathogen, this time can be critical, giving the pathogen an opportunity to replicate and establish a life-threatening infection. Vaccination, on the other hand, affords our immune system the chance to study harmless versions of the pathogen, elicit clonal expansion of select B-cells and the ability to go through repeated rounds of somatic hypermutation to perfect affinity matured antibodies.Citation1 The success of vaccination lies in the option to train effective B-cells and store mature memory cells in the absence of disease and to recall them upon demand. The archive of perfected memory B-cell clones ensures that future encounters with virulent field isolates of the pathogen are met with an immediate B-cell frenzy secreting perfectly matched antibodies that intercept the pathogens and knock them out before infection sets in and disease ensues.

Evasion

Despite an impressive collection of pathogens for which vaccination has proven remarkably effective, some viruses simply do not comply.Citation19–Citation22 All attempts to produce protective vaccines against HIV have failed and influenza continues to be a very challenging adversary.Citation19–Citation22 There are numerous different strategies employed by viruses to evade immunity. The following examples are some tactics viruses use to interfere with the ability of B-cells to mount potent long-lasting cross-reactive neutralizing antibodies.

  • Concealing neutralizing epitopes. Antibody-mediated neutralization is based on the B-cell targeting of critical neutralizing epitopes of the virus. Viruses, for example, gain entry to their target host-cells by exploiting cell surface-proteins that serve as “receptors”. Obviously, the “receptor binding site” (RBS) of the viral spike protein thus, presents a good neutralizing epitope.Citation23–Citation26 Antibodies that bind and thus occlude the RBS prevent the virus from being able to associate with the target cell surface. Hence, keeping the RBS concealed reduces its immunogenicity. The CD4 binding site of HIV-1 gp120 tends to be buried in a crypt and is certainly much less accessible than the surrounding surfaces of the spike protein.Citation27 Therefore, generally prime neutralizing epitopes are less available to B-cell scrutiny.

  • Shadowing neutralizing surfaces. Glycan-shields are another strategy employed by some viruses.Citation28–Citation30 Viral spike proteins are typically highly glycosylated. The glyco-moieties loom over the surface of the virus and shadow the access to the underlying spike amino-acid surfaces. Thus, access to the more immunogenic aspects of the spike is limited by steric hindrance imposed by the multiple glycan branches stemming from strategically positioned N or O glycosylation sites of the spike.Citation28,Citation30,Citation31

  • Display of multiple non-neutralizing epitopes. The viral surface contains only a select, very few, truly critical neutralizing epitopes which may be hidden or shadowed. That being said, there is an extensive accessible surface of the spike that can and does interact with B-cells. The enormous diversity of B-cells that can complement literally any and every antigenic surface of the virus thus leads to a plethora of generally useless antibodies. Indeed, HIV and influenza stimulate a robust serological response upon infection; however, the vast majority of antibodies produced do little to counteract the invasion.Citation26,Citation32 Flooding the system with impotent antibodies can reduce viral load to some degree but does not really perturb the infectious process. A special case of distracting targets is realized by shedding “chaff” soluble spike components.

  • Dispensing chaff and false targets. Viral spikes often contain multiple subunits. In HIV-1, for example, gp160 is cleaved to produce membrane-anchored gp41 which is non-covalently associated with soluble gp120. The mature spike is then assembled to form a trimer consisting of three gp41/gp120 monomers. The buried inner-surfaces where the gp41/gp120 monomers meet to produce trimers do not contain neutralizing epitopes, as these surfaces are never exposed in the native functional spike.Citation33–Citation35 However, shedding of monomeric gp120s into the serum reveals the previously buried surfaces of the spike.Citation36 B-cells, that target these “decoy” false targets of the virus, are dissuaded and immunity is evaded by the chaff-like shed gp120.Citation33

  • Dynamic genetic variations. The success of polio and smallpox vaccines lies in that these viruses tend to be genetically stable. However, HIV and influenza exhibit extensive genetic instability. These viruses have evolved unique mechanisms to increase genetic variation. The RNA-DNA-RNA cycling of the HIV genome via reverse transcriptase is highly error-prone.Citation37 Influenza benefits from both genetic drift and shift.Citation20,Citation38 These dynamic instabilities produce vast amounts of variant viruses, many of which may be non-productive progeny. However, with each replicative cycle of the virus some amino acid compositional variations – mutations, are produced that do not compromise viral infection. These mutant virus variants may not be recognized by the antibodies previously raised against the original viral infectious isolate and thus, offer an escape route for the virus and the ability to evade immunity.

Cases where the B-cell response might be too good

The dynamic dialogue between pathogens and our immune defenses leads to serial rounds of co-evolution. Our B-cells encounter vast repertoires of epitopes presented by a virus. The virus evolves to best conceal its most vulnerable targets while in turn presents multiple distracting non-neutralizing epitopes; banking on the fact that B-cells indiscriminately bind and respond to everything.Citation39 Multiple antibodies are produced, most of which, do not hit critical neutralizing epitopes. Those that do, however, initiate rounds of somatic hypermutations and go on to optimize their affinity to precisely target and complement the founder infectious strain of virus.Citation14,Citation40–Citation42 As affinity-maturation proceeds, the antibodies focus and gain perfection for that specific strain initially encountered, all the while losing ability to bind divergent viral genetic variants yet to emerge.Citation14 Perfection of highly target-specific neutralizing affinity-matured antibodies goes hand in hand with loss of broad cross-reactivity that allows recognition of ever variant members of the evolving viral swarm. Perfection of potent exquisitely specific neutralizing antibodies opens the back door for viral mutations to escape scrutiny and go on to spread infection and havoc.Citation43

Curiously, two strong points of B-cells physiology, the ability to (i) bind and react to everything and (ii) affinity-perfect their antibodies, provide some advantage for the most challenging virus targets, those that are hypervariable, constantly changing while luring B-cells in false directions. Paradoxically, what might prove to be the best strategy for production of vaccines towards hyper-variant viruses like HIV and influenza is to restrict the B-cell response!

B-cell restriction #1

In view of the seemingly endless capacity of B-cells to generate antibodies towards every nuance of an infectious virus, it would make sense to restrict and focus the immune response exclusively towards neutralizing epitopes. It certainly makes sense to invest all B-cell energy in producing exceptionally effective antibodies, antibodies that ensure that each binding event cripples the virus and directly interferes with infectivity. So, the first restriction of the B-cell response towards viruses should prevent the production of antibodies to non-neutralizing surfaces of the virus. We should try to focus on the immune response such that every antibody counts.

There are a number of approaches that can be used to restrict and focus the B-cell response.

Shielding irrelevant surfaces

Assuming that one has mapped the preferred neutralizing surfaces of a given virus, it might be possible to accentuate these targets by occluding and shielding otherwise distracting surfaces. Strategically placing glyco-moieties to shield surfaces of the spike protein has been proposed so to leave only the neutralizing surfaces exposed and subject to B-cell scrutiny.Citation44,Citation45 In essence, the use of trimeric spike proteins, as in the case of SOSIP trimers for HIV-1, ensures that the inner surfaces of gp120 “chaff decoys” are avoided.Citation46–Citation48

Subunit vaccines

One means to better focus the response towards select neutralizing epitopes would be to remove all otherwise distracting antigens. Subunit vaccines are the first step towards this goal. Instead of vaccinating with intact Pertussis bacterium (some 2000 proteins), a-cellular vaccines present to our immune system a handful of only the most relevant Pertussis antigens.Citation49,Citation50 Similarly, Hepatitis B surface antigen is a good example of a successful subunit vaccine.Citation51–Citation53 Recently, the Human Papilloma Virus subunit vaccine illustrates how the use of recombinant L1 capsid protein can reduce the occurrence of cervical cancer.Citation54–Citation57 If one is able to dissect out the neutralizing epitope exclusively, this could lead to the ultimate form of targeted vaccination, i.e., epitope-based vaccines.Citation58

Epitope-based vaccines

For this, the nature of the neutralizing epitope first needs to be mapped with precision. Then systematic removal of all other viral surfaces should leave only the desired epitope as an immunogen. Obviously, this is not a simple task, as most epitopes are discontinuous and highly conformational.Citation59 It should not be expected that by simply expressing the correct peptide sequences corresponding to the epitope, the native conformation of a functional epitope surface would be achieved. We have addressed this task of “epitope reconstitution” by implementing a novel combinatorial approach.Citation60 The RBS of SARS Coronavirus (SARS CoV) is contained in a sub-domain of the viral spike of about 200aa. The actual surface that contacts the viral receptor is less than 40 amino acid residues situated on two discontinuous antiparallel beta strands.Citation60,Citation61 Using combinatorial linkers to bridge the two strands of the bona fide RBS has enabled the affinity selection of functionally reconstituted neutralizing epitopes of the virus.Citation60 This same approach has since been found effective for the reconstitution of neutralizing epitopes of MERS Coronavirus and Dengue virus (not published). Focusing the immune response on exclusively neutralizing epitopes may be particularly important in Dengue prevention as it may obviate the development of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).Citation62,Citation63

Hence, the first level of B-cell restriction that should improve vaccines is to discard all irrelevant and distracting pathogen antigens and focus the B-cell response exclusively where it counts, towards neutralizing epitopes.

B-cell restriction #2

Curiously, the perfection of antibodies via affinity maturation might be over-doing it in some cases. The evolution of the humoral immune system may not have been able to predict hypervariable pathogens such as HIV-1 as well as shifting and drifting viruses like flu.Citation64,Citation65 Thus driving antibodies to perfection by gaining extreme specificity and high affinity ensures the ability to clear pathogens as their concentrations dwindle below the initial KD of the first generation of antibodies. Paradoxically, this is precisely a boon for dynamically changing virus opponents. The natural first generation response is a bit fuzzy in its recognition and more tolerant of epitope variation. There is a need to recognize and handle any virus that may infect us. Therefore, germline responses tend to be more cross-reactive, loose-fitting paratopes that bind enough to launch clonal expansion. The multiple rounds of perfection that follow produce the ultimate-fit antibody targeting the initial infectious virus. Gain of specificity and affinity, however, is at the expense of loss of flexibility, tolerance and cross-reactivity. Thus, as the virus accumulates mutations and genetic variants, it gradually morphs to slowly escape the range of recognition of the perfected and high-affinity antibody that matured.Citation66–Citation68

If only one could restrict the B-cell response it might prove to be the answer to dynamic genetic drift!

If one could stimulate early B-cell lineages yet prevent their further affinity maturation, “fuzzy vaccines” would be possible. Fuzzy-Vaccines would be those that do not train our system to forge ahead and develop antibodies with single variant specificity. Rather, the preferred germline B-cells would be activated but not allowed to affinity mature beyond a certain point, thus gaining the ability to cope not only with the infectious isolate but also with emerging variants yet to appear.

Hence, the second mode of B-cell restriction should teach our system to be happy with cross-reactive antibodies, mediocre to some degree, but precisely what is needed to counteract genetic drift and emerging virus variation.

How to produce such “fuzzy vaccines” is a challenge worth meeting.

Final remarks

The immune system has evolved to effectively counteract and eliminate infectious viruses. Vaccination has been the most effective medical intervention since immunity was first discovered. However, for some viruses, the paradigm of training our immune system with a discrete immunogen faithfully representing the native pathogen in its entirety simply does not work. The evolution of “virus fast moving-targets”, hypervariable species that evade the canonical “expected” B-cell response, presents a challenge to the vaccine industry. Here is where next-generation biotechnological ingenuity must step in. Our understanding of the natural B-cell response is extensive. One means to outwit HIV-1 and counter influenza is to play outside the box where virus evolution cannot anticipate. Paradoxically, one way of achieving this goal is by B-cell restriction.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Acknowledgments

The concepts described here are the product of numerous discussions with my students over many years with whom I have had the privilege to collaborate with. I especially thank Dr. Anna Roitburd-Berman, Dr. Yael Weiss-Ottolenghi and Chen Piller for their critical comments and assistance in making this article possible.

Additional information

Funding

I thank the Israel Science Foundation (Grant #437/16) and the Joint Canada-Israel Health Research Program (Grant #2641/16) for their support of the epitope reconstitution studies and the Frankel Foundation and Dr. Peter Kraus for their continued support of my research.

References

  • Wilson CB, Marcuse EK. Vaccine safety–vaccine benefits: science and the public‘s perception. Nat Rev Immunol. 2001;1(2):160–65. doi:10.1038/35100585.
  • Meissner HC, Strebel PM, Orenstein WA. Measles vaccines and the potential for worldwide eradication of measles. Pediatrics. 2004;114(4):1065–69. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-0440.
  • Barquet N, Domingo P. Smallpox: the triumph over the most terrible of the ministers of death. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:635–42.
  • Henderson DA. The history of smallpox eradication. Henry E Sigerist Suppl Bull Hist Med. 1980;4:99–114.
  • Henderson DA. Smallpox eradication. Public Health Rep. 1980;95:422–26.
  • Hozumi N, Tonegawa S. Evidence for somatic rearrangement of immunoglobulin genes coding for variable and constant regions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1976;73:3628–32.
  • Marc MA, Dominguez-Alvarez E, Gamazo C. Nucleic acid vaccination strategies against infectious diseases. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2015;12(12):1851–65. doi:10.1517/17425247.2015.1077559.
  • Robinson HL. Nucleic acid vaccines: an overview. Vaccine. 1997;15:785–87.
  • Knirel YA. Polysaccharide antigens of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Crit Rev Microbiol. 1990;17(4):273–304. doi:10.3109/10408419009105729.
  • Liu CC, Ye XS. Carbohydrate-based cancer vaccines: target cancer with sugar bullets. Glycoconj J. 2012;29(5–6):259–71. doi:10.1007/s10719-012-9399-9.
  • Larrouy-Maumus G, Layre E, Clark S, Prandi J, Rayner E, Lepore M, de Libero G, Williams A, Puzo G, Gilleron M. Protective efficacy of a lipid antigen vaccine in a guinea pig model of tuberculosis. Vaccine. 2017;35(10):1395–402. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.01.079.
  • Leitner DR, Feichter S, Schild-Prufert K, Rechberger GN, Reidl J, Schild S. Lipopolysaccharide modifications of a cholera vaccine candidate based on outer membrane vesicles reduce endotoxicity and reveal the major protective antigen. Infect Immun. 2013;81(7):2379–93. doi:10.1128/IAI.01382-12.
  • Vartabedian VF, Savage PB, Teyton L. The processing and presentation of lipids and glycolipids to the immune system. Immunol Rev. 2016;272(1):109–19. doi:10.1111/imr.12431.
  • Gitlin AD, Shulman Z, Nussenzweig MC. Clonal selection in the germinal centre by regulated proliferation and hypermutation. Nature. 2014;509(7502):637–40. doi:10.1038/nature13300.
  • Eisen HN, Siskind GW. Variations in affinities of antibodies during the immune response. Biochemistry. 1964;3:996–1008.
  • Milstein C. From antibody structure to immunological diversification of immune response. Science. 1986;231:1261–68.
  • Milstein C. Affinity maturation of antibodies. Immunol Today. 1991;12(2):93–94. doi:10.1016/0167-5699(91)90164-O.
  • Poulsen TR, Jensen A, Haurum JS, Andersen PS. Limits for antibody affinity maturation and repertoire diversification in hypervaccinated humans. J Immunol. 2011;187(8):4229–35. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1000928.
  • Amorij JP, Huckriede A, Wilschut J, Frijlink HW, Hinrichs WL. Development of stable influenza vaccine powder formulations: challenges and possibilities. Pharm Res. 2008;25(6):1256–73. doi:10.1007/s11095-008-9559-6.
  • Kumar A, Meldgaard TS, Bertholet S. Novel platforms for the development of a universal influenza vaccine. Front Immunol. 2018;9:600. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2018.00600.
  • Medina-Ramirez M, Sanders RW, Sattentau QJ. Stabilized HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein trimers for vaccine use. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2017;12(3):241–49. doi:10.1097/COH.0000000000000363.
  • Rios A. Fundamental challenges to the development of a preventive HIV vaccine. Curr Opin Virol. 2018;29:26–32. doi:10.1016/j.coviro.2018.02.004.
  • Coughlin MM, Prabhakar BS. Neutralizing human monoclonal antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus: target, mechanism of action, and therapeutic potential. Rev Med Virol. 2012;22(1):2–17. doi:10.1002/rmv.706.
  • Prabakaran P, Gan J, Feng Y, Zhu Z, Choudhry V, Xiao X, Ji X, Dimitrov DS. Structure of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus receptor-binding domain complexed with neutralizing antibody. J Biol Chem. 2006;281(23):15829–36. doi:10.1074/jbc.M600697200.
  • Sui J, Li W, Murakami A, Tamin A, Matthews LJ, Wong SK, Moore MJ, Tallarico AS, Olurinde M, Choe H, et al. Potent neutralization of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus by a human mAb to S1 protein that blocks receptor association. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:2536–41.
  • Knossow M, Skehel JJ. Variation and infectivity neutralization in influenza. Immunology. 2006;119(1):1–7. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2567.2006.02421.x.
  • Kwong PD, Wyatt R, Robinson J, Sweet RW, Sodroski J, Hendrickson WA. Structure of an HIV gp120 envelope glycoprotein in complex with the CD4 receptor and a neutralizing human antibody. Nature. 1998;393(6686):648–59. doi:10.1038/31405.
  • Behrens AJ, Crispin M. Structural principles controlling HIV envelope glycosylation. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2017;44:125–33. doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2017.03.008.
  • Goffard A, Callens N, Bartosch B, Wychowski C, Cosset FL, Montpellier C, Dubuisson J. Role of N-linked glycans in the functions of hepatitis C virus envelope glycoproteins. J Virol. 2005;79(13):8400–09. doi:10.1128/JVI.79.13.8400-8409.2005.
  • Tate MD, Job ER, Deng YM, Gunalan V, Maurer-Stroh S, Reading PC. Playing hide and seek: how glycosylation of the influenza virus hemagglutinin can modulate the immune response to infection. Viruses. 2014;6(3):1294–316. doi:10.3390/v6031294.
  • Vieyres G, Thomas X, Descamps V, Duverlie G, Patel AH, Dubuisson J. Characterization of the envelope glycoproteins associated with infectious hepatitis C virus. J Virol. 2010;84(19):10159–68. doi:10.1128/JVI.01180-10.
  • Mayr LM, Su B, Moog C. Non-neutralizing antibodies directed against HIV and their functions. Front Immunol. 2017;8:1590. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2017.01590.
  • Douek DC, Kwong PD, Nabel GJ. The rational design of an AIDS vaccine. Cell. 2006;124(4):677–81. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.02.005.
  • Prabakaran P, Dimitrov AS, Fouts TR, Dimitrov DS. Structure and function of the HIV envelope glycoprotein as entry mediator, vaccine immunogen, and target for inhibitors. Adv Pharmacol. 2007;55:33–97. doi:10.1016/S1054-3589(07)55002-7.
  • Ward AB, Wilson IA. The HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein structure: nailing down a moving target. Immunol Rev. 2017;275(1):21–32. doi:10.1111/imr.12507.
  • Moore JP, McKeating JA, Weiss RA, Sattentau QJ. Dissociation of gp120 from HIV-1 virions induced by soluble CD4. Science. 1990;250:1139–42.
  • Smyth RP, Davenport MP, Mak J. The origin of genetic diversity in HIV-1. Virus Res. 2012;169(2):415–29. doi:10.1016/j.virusres.2012.06.015.
  • Davidson S. Treating influenza infection, from now and into the future. Front Immunol. 2018;9:1946. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2018.01946.
  • Mascola JR, Montefiori DC. HIV-1: nature‘s master of disguise. Nat Med. 2003;9(4):393–94. doi:10.1038/nm0403-393.
  • Freund NT, Wang H, Scharf L, Nogueira L, Horwitz JA, Bar-On Y, Golijanin J, Sievers SA, Sok D, Cai H, et al. Coexistence of potent HIV-1 broadly neutralizing antibodies and antibody-sensitive viruses in a viremic controller. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9(373). doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aal2144.
  • Liao HX, Lynch R, Zhou T, Gao F, Alam SM, Boyd SD, Fire AZ, Roskin KM, Schramm CA, Zhang Z, et al. Co-evolution of a broadly neutralizing HIV-1 antibody and founder virus. Nature. 2013;496(7446):469–76. doi:10.1038/nature12053.
  • Scheid JF, Mouquet H, Ueberheide B, Diskin R, Klein F, Oliveira TY, Pietzsch J, Fenyo D, Abadir A, Velinzon K, et al. Sequence and structural convergence of broad and potent HIV antibodies that mimic CD4 binding. Science. 2011;333(6049):1633–37. doi:10.1126/science.1207227.
  • Fera D, Schmidt AG, Haynes BF, Gao F, Liao HX, Kepler TB, Harrison SC. Affinity maturation in an HIV broadly neutralizing B-cell lineage through reorientation of variable domains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(28):10275–80. doi:10.1073/pnas.1409954111.
  • Ingale J, Tran K, Kong L, Dey B, McKee K, Schief W, Kwong PD, Mascola JR, Wyatt RT. Hyperglycosylated stable core immunogens designed to present the CD4 binding site are preferentially recognized by broadly neutralizing antibodies. J Virol. 2014;88(24):14002–16. doi:10.1128/JVI.02614-14.
  • Kulp DW, Steichen JM, Pauthner M, Hu X, Schiffner T, Liguori A, Cottrell CA, Havenar-Daughton C, Ozorowski G, Georgeson E, et al. Structure-based design of native-like HIV-1 envelope trimers to silence non-neutralizing epitopes and eliminate CD4 binding. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):1655. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01549-6.
  • de Taeye SW, de la Pena AT, Vecchione A, Scutigliani E, Sliepen K, Burger JA, van der Woude P, Schorcht A, Schermer EE, van Gils MJ, et al. Stabilization of the gp120 V3 loop through hydrophobic interactions reduces the immunodominant V3-directed non-neutralizing response to HIV-1 envelope trimers. J Biol Chem. 2018;293(5):1688–701. doi:10.1074/jbc.RA117.000709.
  • de Taeye SW, Ozorowski G, de la Pena AT, Guttman M, Julien JP, van Den Kerkhof TL, Burger JA, Pritchard LK, Pugach P, Yasmeen A, et al. Immunogenicity of stabilized HIV-1 envelope trimers with reduced exposure of non-neutralizing epitopes. Cell. 2015;163(7):1702–15. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.11.056.
  • Sanders RW, Derking R, Cupo A, Julien JP, Yasmeen A, de Val N, Kim HJ, Blattner C, de la Pena AT, Korzun J, et al. A next-generation cleaved, soluble HIV-1 Env trimer, BG505 SOSIP.664 gp140, expresses multiple epitopes for broadly neutralizing but not non-neutralizing antibodies. PLoS Pathog. 2013;9(9):e1003618. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1003618.
  • Mattoo S, Cherry JD. Molecular pathogenesis, epidemiology, and clinical manifestations of respiratory infections due to Bordetella pertussis and other Bordetella subspecies. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005;18(2):326–82. doi:10.1128/CMR.18.2.326-382.2005.
  • Pinto MV, Merkel TJ. Pertussis disease and transmission and host responses: insights from the baboon model of pertussis. J Infect. 2017;74(Suppl 1):S114–S119. doi:10.1016/S0163-4453(17)30201-3.
  • Maupas P, Goudeau A, Coursaget P, Drucker J, Bagros P. Immunisation against hepatitis B in man. Lancet. 1976;1:1367–70.
  • Pasek M, Goto T, Gilbert W, Zink B, Schaller H, MacKay P, Leadbetter G, Murray K. Hepatitis B virus genes and their expression in E. coli. Nature. 1979;282:575–79.
  • Szmuness W, Stevens CE, Harley EJ, Zang EA, Oleszko WR, William DC, Sadovsky R, Morrison JM, Kellner A. Hepatitis B vaccine: demonstration of efficacy in a controlled clinical trial in a high-risk population in the United States. N Engl J Med. 1980;303(15):833–41. doi:10.1056/NEJM198010093031501.
  • Centers for Disease, C. and Prevention. FDA licensure of bivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV2, Cervarix) for use in females and updated HPV vaccination recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010;59(20):626–29.
  • Harper DM. Currently approved prophylactic HPV vaccines. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2009;8(12):1663–79. doi:10.1586/erv.09.123.
  • Petrosky E, Bocchini JA Jr., Hariri S, Chesson H, Curtis CR, Saraiya M, Unger ER, Markowitz LE. Centers for disease, and prevention, use of 9-valent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine: updated HPV vaccination recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64:300–04.
  • Villa LL, Costa RL, Petta CA, Andrade RP, Ault KA, Giuliano AR, Wheeler CM, Koutsky LA, Malm C, Lehtinen M, et al. Prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine in young women: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II efficacy trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(5):271–78. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70101-7.
  • Gershoni JM, Roitburd-Berman A, Siman-Tov DD, Tarnovitski Freund N, Weiss Y. Epitope mapping: the first step in developing epitope-based vaccines. BioDrugs. 2007;21(3):145–56. doi:10.2165/00063030-200721030-00002.
  • Rubinstein ND, Mayrose I, Halperin D, Yekutieli D, Gershoni JM, Pupko T. Computational characterization of B-cell epitopes. Mol Immunol. 2008;45(12):3477–89. doi:10.1016/j.molimm.2007.10.016.
  • Freund NT, Roitburd-Berman A, Sui J, Marasco WA, Gershoni JM. Reconstitution of the receptor-binding motif of the SARS coronavirus. Protein Eng Des Sel. 2015;28(12):567–75. doi:10.1093/protein/gzv052.
  • Li F, Li W, Farzan M, Harrison SC. Structure of SARS coronavirus spike receptor-binding domain complexed with receptor. Science. 2005;309(5742):1864–68. doi:10.1126/science.1116480.
  • Flipse J, Wilschut J, Smit JM. Molecular mechanisms involved in antibody-dependent enhancement of dengue virus infection in humans. Traffic. 2013;14(1):25–35. doi:10.1111/tra.12012.
  • Kliks SC, Nisalak A, Brandt WE, Wahl L, Burke DS. Antibody-dependent enhancement of dengue virus growth in human monocytes as a risk factor for dengue hemorrhagic fever. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1989;40:444–51.
  • Johansson BE, Brett IC. Changing perspective on immunization against influenza. Vaccine. 2007;25(16):3062–65. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.01.030.
  • Richman DD, Wrin T, Little SJ, Petropoulos CJ. Rapid evolution of the neutralizing antibody response to HIV type 1 infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(7):4144–49. doi:10.1073/pnas.0630530100.
  • Bar KJ, Tsao CY, Iyer SS, Decker JM, Yang Y, Bonsignori M, Chen X, Hwang KK, Montefiori DC, Liao HX, et al. Early low-titer neutralizing antibodies impede HIV-1 replication and select for virus escape. PLoS Pathog. 2012;8(5):e1002721. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1002721.
  • Duan H, Struble E, Zhong L, Mihalik K, Major M, Zhang P, Feinstone S, Feigelstock D. Hepatitis C virus with a naturally occurring single amino-acid substitution in the E2 envelope protein escapes neutralization by naturally-induced and vaccine-induced antibodies. Vaccine. 2010;28(25):4138–44. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.04.024.
  • Wei X, Decker JM, Wang S, Hui H, Kappes JC, Wu X, Salazar-Gonzalez JF, Salazar MG, Kilby JM, Saag MS, et al. Antibody neutralization and escape by HIV-1. Nature. 2003;422(6929):307–12. doi:10.1038/nature01470.
Download PDF

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.