News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Work Harder

03/03/22 3:04 PM

#26512 RE: bow-tie #26511

enSHIVIG bound significantly better to gp160 or gp140 (Fig. 2d,e) than to gp120 (Fig. 2c), implying predominant binding to gp41.

These data imply that C’-ADE was predominantly due to the action of anti-gp41 antibodies present as the major fraction in enSHIVIG; other investigators have identified antibodies against the immunodominant HIV gp41 region as responsible for ADE in vitro

Thus, well characterized mAbs are unpredictable in their interactions with different HIV strains. Enhancing antibodies have also been implicated in mother-to-child transmission of HIV in a number of studies [42–44]; some reports raised the possibility that enhancement may be linked to antibodies targeting HIV-1 gp41 [

AIDS vaccine development should consider the potential of ADE-VA due to vaccine-induced antibodies during experimental vaccine trials. To rule out this possibility, passive immunization with vaccine-induced antibodies could be used as a tool in biologically relevant animal models, that is, models that reflect key aspects of HIV transmission among humans, including i) tier 2 R5 challenge viruses carrying HIV-1 Env, ii) a nonhuman primate species, and iii) antibodies that are heterologous to the challenge viruses. The latter point is important since matched homologous virus/antibody systems will exaggerate neutralization and thereby mask potential enhancement by weakly or non-neutralizing antibodies. In the realistic setting of human vaccinees’ exposure to circulating HIV strains, an exact match between immunogen composition and the myriad of HIV quasispecies can never be expected.

Indirect evidence that vaccine-induced antibodies can have adverse effects comes from a feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) study, where cats were vaccinated with various recombinant envelope glycoproteins [46]. Although neutralization in cell-line based assays was observed in plasma samples from some vaccinated groups, no virus-neutralizing antibodies were detected in the feline lymphocyte assay. Upon FIV challenge, cell-associated FIV loads were increased in the groups vaccinated with recombinant FIV Env glycoproteins compared to other groups or controls. Passive transfer of unfractionated plasma from groups with increased cell-associated FIV enhanced viral infection parameters in the recipients. While these data imply ADE, an influence of other factor(s) present in unfractionated plasma cannot be ruled out.

In sum, AIDS virus C’-ADE is real – as our passive immunization showed significant lowering of the virus dose needed to achieve viremia indicative of ADE-VA. As such, the current study with early-stage enSHIVIG confirmed our unexpected finding with late-stage SHIVIG, selected for maximal in-vitro tier 2 SHIV cross-neutralization, where low-dose pretreatment yielded sub-neutralizing anti-HIV Env IgG levels that significantly increased the number of transmitted viral quasispecies. Together, our data imply that decreasing anti-HIV Env neutralizing antibody titers could bring vaccinated individuals into a situation where ADE-VA prevails.

ADE-VA may be of concern for other pathogens, especially rapidly mutating RNA viruses susceptible to neutralization escape. Vaccine development will need to consider potential enhancement of host susceptibility to infection due to ADE [47,48]. We propose that our strategy – passive immunization with purified polyclonal IgG isolated from previously infected/vaccinated individuals, combined with in-vivo end-point virus titration to assess the amount of virus needed to achieve infection of naïve versus passively immunized animals, can play an important role in assessing the potential for ADE-VA.
icon url

Work Harder

03/04/22 7:35 PM

#26522 RE: bow-tie #26511

Aperipheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) is any blood cell having a round nucleus such as lymphocyte, monocyteor amacrophage. These blood cells are a critical component in theimmune systemto fight infection and adapt to intruders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_blood_mononuclear_cell

It's not the cell line that matters to me b/c all the majors have them. Accumulation in the below....!!! What matters to me is what Ruth & crew are doing w/ that, right ?

THE FINISH LINE....!!!!!

Mucosal AIDS virus transmission is enhanced by antiviral IgG isolated early in infection

https://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/2021/12010/Mucosal_AIDS_virus_transmission_is_enhanced_by.2.aspx

Cooperation Between Systemic and Mucosal Antibodies Induced by Virosomal Vaccines Targeting HIV-1 Env: Protection of Indian Rhesus Macaques Against Low-Dose Intravaginal SHIV Challenges

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2022.788619/full

They have it down to a single cell, the point of entry ? First line of defense....!!!!!!

Well above my pay grade but they didn't want us having that & it's not my ego here, the insiders won't take a deal that isn't right for them b/c they will just wait. Just might be the lucky place for them & us being a Nobel for Ruth b/c she couldn't have know that Alum would fail or did she ?

That is some deep chit friend & thanks for all you help over the years but no need in begging for something even close to what was thrown @ Vir B in Jan 2022

:}
icon url

Work Harder

03/04/22 9:30 PM

#26523 RE: bow-tie #26511

Second link

Vaccine protection by virosome-induced IgG and IgA parallels the cooperation between systemically administered IgG1 and mucosally applied dimeric IgA2 monoclonal antibodies that as single-agents provided no/low protection – but when combined, prevented mucosal SHIV transmission in all passively immunized RMs.

Furthermore, subunit vaccine administration has often involved a single parenteral route (9–11) or sometimes by single mucosal administration (12, 13), but rarely involved combined mucosal and intramuscular (i.m.) immunizations as was done with virosomal vaccines (14, 15). Our team and others have postulated that an effective HIV/AIDS vaccine must be capable of eliciting both systemic and mucosal immune protection for maximal protection of different mucosal portals of entry. However, due to the compartmentalized mucosal and systemic immune systems, the induction of strong immune responses in various local and distant mucosal tissues and in the systemic compartment is challenging. The traditional parenteral immunization involving the i.m. or subcutaneous (s.c.) routes can elicit circulating B and T cells that generally remain mostly in the periphery.

The approach of an HIV vaccine immunization regimen combining the classical i.m. immunization route with mucosal boosting using the intranasal (i.n.) route was proposed as an alternative to induce systemic as well as mucosal anti-HIV immunity. This notably different vaccine strategy was evaluated with unadjuvanted influenza virus-based virosomes displaying HIV gp41 antigens; vaccine-induced systemic and mucosal antibody (Ab) responses were assessed in Chinese-origin rhesus macaques (RMs) that were immunized via two routes followed by intravaginal simian-human immunodeficiency virus (SHIV) challenges (14). The gp41 antigens were derived from Env regions highly conserved across multiple HIV clades and strains (Figure 1). These virosomes are lipid-based particles reconstituted in vitro from influenza viruses but devoid of nucleic acids and thus non-infectious (Figure 2). One population of virosomes was assembled to display on their surface Peptide 1 (P1), an extended version of the Membrane Proximal External Region (MPER) of HIV gp41, to generate virosome-P1. Another virosome population displayed recombinant, truncated gp41 (virosome-rgp41); rgp41 is devoid of the immunodominant region that contains the KLIC motif as well as other domains homologous to human host proteins. The combined vaccine preparation that consists of virosome-P1 plus virosome-rgp41, is termed MYM-V201 (Figure 2).

The initial study in Chinese-origin RMs evaluated only the combination of virosome-P1 plus virosome-rgp41 (but not single-agent virosomes). Control RMs received placebo virosomes devoid of HIV gp41 antigens (14), and two groups of vaccinees were given either four i.m. immunizations or two i.m. immunizations followed by two i.n. boosts, respectively. All animals were challenged intravaginally by repeated low-dose exposures to SHIVSF162P3, an R5-tropic, tier 2, clade B strain; the challenge SHIV encoded a heterologous gp41 sequence compared to that in the immunogens. Priming via the i.m. route followed by i.n. boosting was remarkably effective: 100% of the animals were protected and did not seroconvert to SIV Gag, a viral protein absent in the vaccine. However, protection was not sterile as some animals had low-level viral RNA blips just at the limit of detection (14).

Here we report a repeat study performed in Indian-origin RMs conducted at a different animal facility with the combination of unadjuvanted virosomes-P1 plus virosomes-rgp41, termed MYM-V201, using repeat low-dose intravaginal challenges. We included an additional group to evaluate animals vaccinated with the single-agent unadjuvanted virosomes-P1. The rationale for including the latter group is the successful conclusion of a Phase 1 clinical study with virosomes-P1 in low-risk women (15), where this vaccine was safe and immunogenic. However, no efficacy data existed from NHP studies regarding virosome-P1 as single immunogen.

The current study demonstrated significant protection for the combination of virosomes-P1 plus virosomes-rgp41 that – depending on the read-out – ranged from 78% to 87% during the first SHIV challenge phase, i.e., challenges #1 to #7, up to the day of but not including challenge #8 (termed Challenge Phase I). However, when the SHIV inoculum was increased by 50% as in the earlier study in Chinese RMs (14), protection was lost. Single-agent virosomes-P1 showed no efficacy throughout both SHIV challenge phases. We conclude that the combination of the two HIV gp41 virosomes, virosomes-P1 plus virosomes-rgp41, was safe, immunogenic, and effective as long as the intravaginal SHIV inoculum was within a 100-fold excess over the HIV RNA levels found in the semen of acutely infected men (16), or within a 70,000-fold excess of the median semen viral RNA content men who were part of HIV discordant heterosexual couples (17).

However, by Fc array analysis, protection in Group L was significantly associated with increased Fc?R2/3(A/B) across several time points compared to control Group M; iii) protection in Group L was lost in Challenge Phase II when the virus inoculum was increased by 50%; iv) estimates of the SHIV challenge inoculum in comparison with vRNA levels founds in the semen of men with acute HIV infection indicated protection against intravaginal challenge in the Indian RMs was at a high level as long as the SHIV inoculum did not exceed HIV RNA levels in semen of men with acute HIV infection by >100 fold (16); and v) single-agent virosomes-P1 provided no protection throughout Challenge Phases I and II and thus cannot be considered for clinical development. Importantly – during Challenge Phase I – we have confirmed that the combination of virosomes-P1 plus virosomes-rgp41 protects significantly against intravaginal SHIV challenges. Thus, the safety and efficacy of the gp41 virosomal platform, described earlier for Chinese-origin RMs, has been confirmed in Indian macaques.

Thus the Morgane reads I first posted & the Catalnet patent ref

P1 Rgp41
icon url

Work Harder

03/04/22 10:41 PM

#26524 RE: bow-tie #26511

If anyone is deserving of a Noble

It's Ruth & Moragne & others that I won't mention

You know what I think about Harvard....!!!!

& if I want to make this about my ego

I WILL

but someone is going to pay the piper

Where the insiders go, we go

So stick that up the next filing / filling

:}