Gene Vaccines

1 April 2003 | Volume 138 Issue 7 | Pages 550-559

Gene vaccines are a new approach to immunization and immunotherapy in which, rather than a live or inactivated organism (or a subunit thereof), one or more genes that encode proteins of the pathogen are delivered. The goal of this approach is to generate immunity against diseases for which traditional vaccines and treatments have not worked, to improve vaccines, and to treat chronic diseases. Gene vaccines make use of advances in immunology and molecular biology to more specifically tailor immune responses (cellular or humoral, or both) against selected antigens. They are still under development in research and clinical trials.

The mechanisms for inducing cellular (as opposed to humoral) responses against a particular antigen have been elucidated. Gene vaccines provide a means to generate specific cellular responses while still generating antibodies, if desired. In addition, by delivering only the genes that encode the particular proteins against which a protective or therapeutic immune response is desired, the potential limitations and risks of certain other approaches can be avoided.

This article describes the rationale for, immunologic mechanisms involved in, and design of gene vaccines under development. Preclinical and clinical studies of these vaccines are discussed for various clinical applications, focusing on infectious diseases.

Recent developments in immunology and molecular biology have permitted development of DNA and other gene-based vaccines. Unlike previous vaccines, many of which were designed to induce antibodies as the mechanism of protection against clinical disease caused by microorganisms, gene-based vaccines are designed to generate both cytotoxic cellular and antibody immune responses. An additional goal is to make vaccines that can be used to treat chronic diseases. Targeted diseases have expanded from infectious diseases to include cancer, allergies, and autoimmune diseases.

The immune response comprises both cellular and humoral (antibody) components. For certain infectious agents, the efficacy of a vaccine may be correlated with induction of a particular level of circulating antibody in a vaccinated person. Until recently, much less was known about how to induce or measure clinically effective cellular immunity. To date, no known type or level of cellular response has been shown to correlate with efficacy of a vaccine or therapy in humans. Moreover, whereas antibodies can directly attack microorganisms, T cells work by killing infected or cancerous cells. Thus, by definition, T cells cannot prevent infection; rather, they contain or eliminate it.

Instead of directly attacking a pathogen, a cytolytic T cell is activated to kill when its receptor binds to certain molecules on another cell and recognizes foreign elements (from the pathogen or from novel cancer proteins). The receptor has dual specificity, meaning that it sees two molecules on the surface of the target cell. One molecule is the MHC class I antigen, which is specific to an individual person, and the other molecule is a peptide derived from proteins of the pathogen or cancer cell. Thus, the T cell recognizes and is activated by foreign or abnormal peptides when those peptides are associated with a person's own MHC class I molecules. In an infected or cancerous cell, some of the newly synthesized viral (or other) proteins are degraded into peptides and enter the endoplasmic reticulum of the cell, where they meet and bind to newly synthesized MHC class I molecules (1). When this MHC class I–antigenic peptide complex is expressed on the surface of an antigen-presenting cell (along with co-stimulatory molecules, to which the T cell must also bind), T cells with receptors that specifically recognize this complex are activated and can kill infected cells (Figure 1).

View larger version (67K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Activation of cytolytic T lymphocytes. Newly synthesized viral protein in the cytoplasm of an infected cell is degraded into peptides that are transported into the endoplasmic reticulum and then to the Golgi apparatus. Peptides bind to newly synthesized major histocompatibility complex class I molecules; the complex is then expressed on the surface of the cell where, in the presence of appropriate accessory molecules, binding to the T-cell receptor of CD8+ cells can occur. This binding results in activation of the cytolytic T lymphocyte. Adapted from McDonnell and Askari (2), with permission from the Massachusetts Medical Society.

 

Efforts to specifically induce cytolytic T cell responses have greatly increased so that this component of the immune system might be used for vaccination. The challenge has been that if a protein is provided to an antigen-presenting cell, in general that cell will take up the protein into the endolysosomal pathway and degrade it into peptides associated with MHC class II rather than class I proteins. The MHC class II proteins recycle from the cell surface through the endolysosomal pathway, where they encounter peptide epitopes. These MHC class II–peptide complexes stimulate helper T cells that produce cytokines that in turn help activate cytolytic T cells and assist B cells to generate antibodies.

For a protein to enter the proteolytic pathway that generates the peptides that will bind to MHC class I molecules, it must be introduced into or generated in the cytoplasm of a cell. Thus, finding a means of introducing antigenic proteins from pathogens or cancer cells into this pathway has become one of the prime challenges in vaccine development. Introduction of proteins directly into the cytoplasm from extracellular spaces has proven difficult; a more feasible method is to deliver a gene encoding the desired protein to the cell (3). If the cell then transcribes and translates the gene, the protein will be in the cytoplasm for proper processing and presentation.

Thus, a method of delivering adequate amounts of the desired gene, resulting in adequate expression of the encoded protein, is needed. In addition, because T cells can be stimulated to respond only when the MHC–antigen complex is on the surface of professional antigen-presenting cells that have other cell surface proteins that interact with the T cell, it was thought that the genes would have to be delivered specifically to antigen-presenting cells rather than to other cell types (4, 5).

Viral and Bacterial Vectors

Viruses have highly evolved structures that enable them to bind to cells and deliver genes into the cells they infect. It may be feasible to use live virus vaccines to induce cytolytic T lymphocytes and thus treat a disease in which cellular immunity is critical. However, in some diseases (such as AIDS), concerns about the safety of a live attenuated vaccine are too great to make this a practical approach (6). In addition, a stronger immune response and an improved safety profile may be obtained by using a vaccine that delivers only the genes that encode the desired antigens (that is, the specific antigen against which the immune response important for protection is directed) rather than all the genes for a given pathogen. Therefore, efforts have been made to use harmless viruses or ones that have been rendered incapable of reproducing for delivery of genes derived from a different pathogen. In other words, a vector is made in which all the genes or key genes of a virus are removed or the virus is nonpathogenic or nonreplicative in humans. Genes encoding a protein antigen from the pathogen (that is, from a different virus or a tumor antigen) are then put in the virus particle. The virus acts as a transporter, in the manner of a Trojan horse, to deliver the gene encoding the antigen.

The viral vector is itself antigenic, and certain viruses cause inflammatory responses. These responses may benefit the desired immune response, depending on their type, location, and extent, but they might also be drawbacks. Preexisting immunity due to previous infection (for example, adenovirus) or vaccination (for example, smallpox) may limit the potency of the vaccine by clearing the viral vector before it can infect cells to deliver its payload of antigen genes. Similarly, if the vector is reused for a booster immunization, the immune response against the virus itself may eliminate too many of the vector particles before they can deliver the genes. Much effort has been directed to making vectors from other strains of viruses, vectors that are not as immunogenic, and vectors that do not induce inflammatory responses.

Bacteria are also being developed as delivery systems for plasmid DNA vaccines and as heterologous expression systems in which the genes encoding antigens are incorporated into the genome of the bacteria (7, 8). One attractive feature of bacterial vectors is their potential for oral administration, which would make use easier and may generate mucosal immune responses. Shigella (9-11), Salmonella (12-14), and Listeria monocytogenes (15) have been used as experimental delivery systems. In all cases, the bacteria used for such proposed vaccines must be attenuated strains, and reversion to virulence, preexisting immunity, and reactogenicity remain major concerns.

Concerns about the safety of live vector systems are heightened by the well-known reversion of polio vaccine, an attenuated virus, which can cause wild-type polio. An experimental example is the death of infant monkeys immunized with an attenuated simian immunodeficiency virus that had been safe and effective in adult monkeys (16). Theoretical and actual concerns about the use of viral and bacterial vectors have led to efforts to deliver the genes into cells without using a pathogen-derived vector. The DNA vaccines, described below, appear capable of inducing cellular immune responses (by delivering genes into cells) without the potential drawbacks of viral and bacterial vectors.

DNA Vaccines

Plasmid DNA is a simple ring of double-stranded DNA that contains a gene encoding the desired protein (an antigen, in the case of vaccines) and elements needed for the gene to be expressed in whatever cell has taken up the DNA (that is, a promoter at the beginning of the gene and a terminator at the end). It had long been assumed that simple plasmid DNA, called naked DNA because neither a chemical formulation nor a viral coat or envelope structure surrounds it, would not be taken up by cells or could not reach the nucleus for transcription of genes. In 1990, Wolff and colleagues provided compelling evidence that plasmid DNA can transfect cells in vivo (17). This finding opened new possibilities for delivering genes in vivo without the use of viral vectors. Plasmid DNA is considerably simpler to manipulate in terms of putting genes into the plasmid and producing and purifying large quantities of plasmid. Thus, plasmid DNA offers several potential advantages in delivering genes, whether as a vaccine or as a therapy.

A major attribute of DNA vaccines is their ability to deliver genes into cells for generation of MHC class I–restricted cytolytic T lymphocyte responses. These responses require that the antigens reach the cytosol of specific antigen-presenting cells, and it was previously not clear whether professional antigen-presenting cells could take up plasmid DNA or whether the protein antigen encoded by the DNA (taken up by other cells) would reach the correct antigen-presenting cells and subcellular locations.

Ulmer and colleagues demonstrated that immunization of mice by intramuscular injection of plasmid DNA encoding an influenza viral protein generated specific cytolytic T cells and protected the mice against subsequent challenge with live influenza virus (18). Morbidity and mortality from infection with a strain of virus that differed from the strain from which the vaccine was made were decreased (Figure 2). Because cytolytic T cells recognize epitopes derived from proteins, including conserved (often internal) proteins, a vaccine that generates cytolytic T cells may protect against different strains. Although antibodies can also be directed against conserved proteins, often the surface or envelope proteins of a virus vary; this variation is often the basis for the categorization of viruses (such as influenza) into different strains (Figure 2, bottom). Viruses escape immune responses by mutating the regions against which an immune response is generated. Although this can occur for both cytolytic T cell and antibody epitopes, the great variability of the envelope of HIV and the ease with which viruses such as influenza mutate their outer proteins to escape antibody responses pose a challenge for making antibody-based vaccines. In contrast, internal proteins (against which antibody responses are often ineffective owing to their intraviral location) still provide cytolytic T-cell epitopes and are conserved to a greater degree. Thus, much effort has been devoted to making vaccines that generate cytolytic T-cell responses against epitopes derived from conserved proteins (which are often internal or functional). Protection was obtained against a strain of influenza virus that was not only a different subtype from the strain from which the gene for the DNA vaccine was derived but also had arisen 34 years later (Figure 2, bottom). This demonstrated in vivo that DNA vaccines could result in production of the encoded protein, which could then enter the appropriate cellular processing pathway and stimulate production of protective cytolytic T cells. As a result, this approach to making new vaccines has now been extended to a variety of disease models.

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Heterosubtypic protection.Top. Survival rates among mice immunized against influenza by using a DNA vaccine encoding the nucleoprotein of influenza from the 1934 H1N1 strain (squares). When infected with a lethal dose of influenza from a strain different from the strain from which the vaccine was made, immunized mice had a higher survival rate than did control mice immunized with a control (circles). This protection was mediated by cytolytic T lymphocytes that recognized portions of the nucleoprotein. Bottom. The strains from which the DNA vaccine was made (left) and used to infect (right) the mice. The influenza nucleoprotein was more highly conserved than the surface proteins. Reproduced with permission from the British Society for Immunology. Donnelly JJ, Ulmer JB, Liu MA. Immunization with polynucleotides. Immunology. 1994; 2:20-6.

 

Figure 3 shows the mechanism of antigen presentation for generation of cytolytic T-cell responses after DNA vaccination. Whereas non–antigen-presenting cells, such as myocytes, can take up plasmid and synthesize the antigen, only antigen-presenting cells can prime cytolytic T cells. Thus, if a non–antigen-presenting cell takes up the DNA vaccine and produces the protein antigen, it must deliver the antigen in some form to a professional antigen-presenting cell by a process called cross-priming, in order for cytolytic T cells to be induced (4).

View larger version (43K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Mechanism of antigen presentation for generation of cytolytic T cells after DNA vaccination. Studies in bone marrow chimeric mice demonstrated that after immunization with plasmid DNA encoding an antigen, cytolytic T lymphocytes were activated by antigen-presenting cells (APC) that either had been directly transfected by the DNA or had received antigen via cross-priming, in which a non–antigen-presenting cell initially produces the protein encoded by the DNA vaccine, then transfers the antigen in some form to a professional antigen-presenting cell for generation of MHC class I restricted cytolytic T cells. Production of the protein antigen in non–antigen-presenting cells, such as myocytes, cannot result in direct stimulation of cytolytic T cells (3).

 

Another means of immunizing with a DNA vaccine is to put the plasmid DNA onto gold beads and propel the beads into the skin by using a gene gun. This approach was first shown to induce antibodies against the protein encoded by the plasmid (19). Thus, both the intramuscular and epidermal routes of DNA delivery are effective for generating immune responses, but the responses differed slightly depending on the route of immunization (20-22).

Compared with other types of vaccine technologies, DNA vaccines potentially have more widespread applications. Once a manufacturing and purification process for the plasmid DNA has been established, a similar process can be applied to a different DNA vaccine, since only the inserted gene will be different. In contrast, each attenuated, inactivated, or recombinant protein vaccine requires a unique manufacturing and purification process. In addition, plasmid DNA is relatively more stable than other existing vaccines, meaning that DNA vaccines may be more suitable for worldwide distribution. Thus, DNA vaccines are considered to be a new platform for making future vaccines, one that can generate cytolytic T lymphocytes in addition to antibodies.

Other reasons for using a DNA vaccine rather than a live virus vaccine include potential safety advantages. Although attenuated live virus vaccines can stimulate T-cell responses, for certain diseases (such as AIDS) an attenuated live virus vaccine is considered to be too risky; DNA provides a potentially safer alternative. Moreover, some viral proteins have undesired effects (for example, they down-regulate immune responses) or act as decoys for the immune system (for example, regions of HIV Env that generate nonfunctional or highly strain-specific immune responses). Thus, by providing only the genes that encode antigens against which an immune response is desired, a DNA vaccine can induce immune responses in a more specific manner than can a live virus vaccine.

Cytolytic T-Cell Responses

The initial interest in DNA vaccines arose from their ability to induce potent cellular responses mediated by MHC class I–restricted CD8⁺ cytolytic T cells in animal models. Effector cytolytic T cells that recognized epitope peptides appropriate to the MHC restriction element have been demonstrated in mice immunized with DNA encoding the nucleoprotein from influenza A virus (18), hepatitis B surface antigen and core antigen (23, 24), and HIV Env and Gag antigens (25-29). In addition, cytolytic T cells that could recognize and kill virus-infected targets were demonstrated in models of influenza virus (18), lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (30, 31), and herpes simplex virus (32).

Induction of antigen-specific cytolytic T-cell responses by DNA vaccines has likewise been observed in nonhuman primates (26, 33-36) and, more recently, in human clinical trials (37). In several independent experiments, certain regimens of immunization with plasmid DNA encoding HIV or simian immunodeficiency virus env or gag genes induced MHC class I–restricted cytolytic T cells directed against Env and Gag epitopes.

Humoral Responses

DNA vaccines have been shown to elicit antibodies against various viral, bacterial, parasitic, tumor, and eukaryotic proteins, including proteins from influenza (18, 38), HIV (39-43), hepatitis B surface antigen (44), rabiesvirus glycoprotein (45, 46), herpes simplex glycoproteins B and D (47-50), papillomavirus L1 (51, 52), hepatitis C nucleocapsid protein (53, 54), hepatitis B core protein (55), Mycoplasma pulmonis (56), Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigen 85 and heat-shock proteins, (57-59), plasmodial antigens (60), and Leishmania (61) and Schistosoma (62) antigens.

In a DNA vaccine, the antigen is synthesized in situ (by the immunized host); therefore, it has the potential advantage over a recombinant protein that the resulting antigen would more likely have the conformation and post-translational modifications made by that host during infection by the pathogen. For example, the glycosylation pattern of proteins produced recombinantly in bacterial or yeast cells might differ from the glycosylation pattern of proteins made in mammalian cells. In addition, a transmembrane protein (such as the gp160 Env protein of HIV) cannot be readily produced and purified in a recombinant manner, whereas the protein could be produced in situ by the immunized host after DNA immunization.

Many infectious diseases enter the host through mucosal surfaces. Thus, it would be advantageous to generate mucosal antibody responses in addition to systemic responses. To date, intramuscular injection and gene gun delivery of naked plasmid DNA have had limited ability to induce secretory mucosal IgA responses. However, formulation of plasmid DNA with cationic lipids (63), monophosphoryl lipid A, or QS-21 (64), encapsulated in poly(lactide-coglycolide) microparticles (65), macroaggregated polyethyleneimine–albumin conjugates (66), or biodegradable alginate microspheres (67) that are delivered intramuscularly, orally, or intranasally, induce significant secretory IgA responses at the mucosal sites. Recently, Wang and colleagues reported induction of strong mucosal immunity against the simian immunodeficiency virus in primates by using DNA encoding intact noninfectious virions (68). The levels of secretory IgA in the rectal secretions of the immunized primates were higher than the levels achieved through natural infection (68).

Protection by DNA Vaccines in Preclinical Disease Models

In addition to the initial demonstration of the efficacy of DNA vaccines to protect against infectious challenge in a mouse model of influenza virus, DNA vaccines have been shown to protect against influenza in mice, ferrets, and primates (69-71); lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (30, 31); herpes simplex virus in guinea pigs and mice (47-49); rabies virus (45, 46); cottontail rabbit papillomavirus (51); hepatitis B virus (72); malaria (Plasmodium falciparum) (60, 73-75); and HIV in nonhuman primates (25, 26, 35, 43, 76-79).

Mixed-Modality Vaccines

Recent studies have focused on using DNA vaccines in combination with other types of vaccines. If a DNA vaccine encoding an antigen is given as a prime, followed by a different type of vaccine as a boost (for example, a viral vector encoding the same protein), the immune responses or protection observed may be enhanced compared with use of either vaccine alone. For example, when monkeys were first given plasmid DNA encoding HIV Env, then were boosted with recombinant Env protein, they were protected against subsequent infection with a chimeric simian–human immunodeficiency virus (80). Mice that were immunized with DNA encoding malarial antigens and then boosted with recombinant vaccinia (a strain known as modified vaccinia virus Ankara) expressing the same antigens had 100% survival against a subsequent challenge with the parasite. In contrast, the challenge caused substantial mortality among animals given the DNA vaccine alone, the modified vaccinia virus Ankara vector vaccine alone, or the combination of those two vaccines in the reverse order (81). In the malaria model, Sedegah and colleagues showed the increased protective efficacy of DNA vaccines when used in combination with modified vaccinia virus Ankara (74) or another poxvirus (75) vectors. Similarly, in rhesus macaques primed with plasmid DNA encoding multiple proteins of simian immunodeficiency virus (Gag, Pol, Vif, and Vpr) and HIV (Env, Tat, and Rev) and boosted with modified vaccinia Ankara encoding simian immunodeficiency virus proteins Gag and Pol and the HIV protein Env, potent cytolytic T-cell and weak antibody responses were observed. Furthermore, these animals were protected from AIDS when they were mucosally challenged with a highly pathogenic simian–human immunodeficiency virus (35).

Clinical Trials

The DNA vaccines have entered the clinic for initial safety and immunogenicity testing in humans. To date, the potency of the immune responses has been disappointing; nevertheless, humoral and cellular (T helper and cytolytic T cell) responses have been seen (82, 83) (Table 1). Moreover, patients who did not have cellular responses against epitopes derived from the HIV protein Nef nevertheless responded to a DNA vaccine by making the desired cytolytic T-cell responses. Clinical trials of DNA vaccines have been performed or are under way for various diseases, including cancer, influenza, hepatitis B, HIV, and malaria. Phase I clinical trials were initiated to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of HIV-1 env/rev DNA constructs in infected and uninfected persons (84-87). The uninfected persons who received the highest dose of DNA vaccine had antigen-specific lymphoproliferative responses and antigen-specific production of interferon- and ß-chemokines (87), but these responses were weak and did not persist. In the infected persons, an HIV-1 env/rev DNA vaccine construct boosted the env-specific antibodies; however, no consistent effect was observed on cellular responses to HIV. Another phase I clinical trial evaluated HIV regulatory genes, such as rev, nef, and tat. Immunization of infected persons with these genes enhanced cellular responses but produced no consistent changes in lymphocytes subsets or viral load (82, 84-86). The DNA vaccines were well tolerated in doses from 20 µg up to 2500 µg; no significant local or systemic reactions were observed, and no participant dropped out of the study (85, 88).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1. Clinical Findings of DNA Vaccines

 

In a phase I clinical trial of malaria DNA vaccines, three intramuscular injections of Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite construct induced antigen-specific, CD8⁺ T cell–dependent cytolytic T lymphocytes. The cellular responses were directed against multiple epitopes and were restricted by six HLA class I alleles (37). In the same study, despite induction of the excellent cytolytic T cell responses, DNA vaccination failed to induce detectable antigen-specific antibodies in any participant (88).

A phase I trial of an experimental HIV vaccine that includes an HIV A subtype gag gene and more than 40 bits of DNA encoding regions of HIV proteins is in progress in Kenya. This is the first component of a prime–boost vaccination strategy, and will be followed by a second vaccine using modified vaccinia virus as a vector (89). Another phase I clinical trial was recently started in infected and uninfected persons to directly compare vaccines in which the gene is delivered as naked DNA or by attenuated adenovirus (90).

A DNA vaccine against hepatitis B virus was evaluated for safety and immunogenicity in a phase I clinical trial involving naive healthy volunteers. A gene gun was used to propel the DNA into the skin. The hepatitis B DNA vaccine was found to be safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic (83). All of the volunteers developed protective antibody responses of at least 10 mIU/mL. Furthermore, this vaccine induced antigen-specific CD8⁺ T-cell responses in the volunteers who were positive for HLA class 1 A₂ allele. These antigen-specific CD8⁺ T cells bound HLA-A₂–hepatitis B surface antigen 335 to 343 tetramers, secreted interferon-, and lysed target cells presenting a hepatitis B surface antigen epitope.

Current phase I and II trials are studying DNA vaccines as potential immunotherapies for various cancers, including colon cancer, human follicular lymphoma, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. These studies should soon yield detailed information on the ability of DNA vaccination to induce potent immune responses in humans.

Second-Generation DNA Vaccines

As simple plasmids, DNA vaccines effectively induce immune responses and protection in various animal models of disease, but they have induced only modest immune responses in clinical trials. Thus, different strategies have been used to increase the potency of the DNA vaccines by targeting various points along the pathway for its in vivo delivery into cells for production of the encoded antigen. For example, the plasmids themselves have been altered to increase expression of the encoded proteins (91, 92). Direct modification of the plasmid to increase the immune response (Figure 4) or coadministration of plasmid DNA encoding chemokines, cytokines, and other molecules, such as immunostimulatory sequences (Figure 4), has in some cases increased immunogenicity (64, 75, 79, 93-101).

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Designer gene vaccines. Sites within a DNA plasmid can be altered to potentially increase the potency of or alter the type of immune responses induced by the DNA vaccine. BGH = bovine growth hormone; CMVintA = cytomegalovirus promoter with the intron A sequence; mRNA = messenger RNA.

 

An alternative physical delivery system is a device that generates an electric current, in vivo electroporation, to create temporary holes in the cellular membrane. These holes allow the plasmid DNA to diffuse into the cells more effectively, resulting in increased expression and potency of the DNA vaccine (102, 103). Certain formulations or manipulations, such as surface absorption of the DNA onto particles, have also increased the immunogenicity of DNA vaccines, presumably by increasing their transfection efficiency in vivo (104, 105). Of note, plasmid DNA is not simply an inert gene template but has immunostimulatory activity (106-109). Because it is made in bacteria, plasmid DNA has sequences known as CpG motifs that are recognized by the human immune system as foreign (106, 107). Hence, plasmid itself stimulates nonspecific production of cytokines that increases the specific immune response directed against the encoded antigen (108-110).

Summary

Top Summary Author & Article Info References

In conclusion, recent developments in immunology and molecular biology have permitted development of DNA vaccines, which have wide-ranging applications (Table 2). Vaccines for such diseases as HIV infection, malaria, and tuberculosis are being developed by using plasmid DNA or viral or bacterial vectors to deliver the genes encoding antigens from pathogens to the host. As with the live attenuated virus vaccines that have been made for decades, antigenic proteins will be made in situ by the host, engendering cellular and humoral immune responses. But unlike live attenuated vaccines, gene-based vaccines are being designed to deliver only the genes encoding the antigens for the vaccine. The vectors themselves cannot replicate or revert to pathogenicity because they are rings of DNA (plasmid) or are viral or bacterial vectors designed at a molecular level to carry only the desired genetic sequences.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2. Applications of DNA Vaccines

 

These DNA and other gene-based vaccines should enable generation of specific types of immune responses (cytolytic T cell, antibodies, and the desired type of T-helper cell). The ability to generate cellular as well as humoral responses may be crucial in making effective vaccines against diseases caused by viruses (such as HIV), intracellular bacteria (such as tuberculosis), and parasites (such as malaria), as well as cancer. Similarly, the ability to generate certain forms of an immunogen, such as a protein with a particular structure that can be formed only by mammalian cells in situ, may be a critical feature of gene vaccines. It is thought that gene vaccines will be amenable to production and distribution on a global scale to provide them to the groups most in need of prevention.

Author and Article Information

Top Summary Author & Article Info References

From Chiron Corporation, Emeryville, California; and Transgene, Strasbourg, France.

Acknowledgment: The authors thank Nelle Cronen for editorial assistance.

Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest:Employment: I. Srivistava (Chiron Corp.), M.A. Liu (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Transgene, Chiron Corp., Merck & Co., Inc.); Consultancies: M.A. Liu; Honoraria: M.A. Liu (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation); Stock ownership or options (other than mutual funds): I. Srivistava (Chiron Corp.), M.A. Liu (Merck & Co., Inc., Chiron Corp.); Grants received: I. Srivistava (Chiron Corp.); Patents received and pending: M.A. Liu (Merck & Co., Inc., Chiron Corp.).

Requests for Single Reprints: Margaret A. Liu, MD, Transgene, 11 rue de Molsheim, 67082 Strasbourg, France; e-mail, liu{at}transgene.fr.

Current Author Addresses: Dr. Srivastava: Chiron Corporation, 4560 Horton Street, MS 4.3, Emeryville, CA 94608.

Dr. Liu: Transgene, 11 rue de Molsheim, 67082 Strasbourg, France.

References

Top Summary Author & Article Info References

1.  Braciale TJ, Morrison LA, Sweetser MT, Sambrook J, Gething MJ, Braciale VL. Antigen presentation pathways to class I and class II MHC-restricted T lymphocytes Immunol Rev. 1987;98:95-114. [PMID: 2443444].[Medline]

2.  McDonnell WM, Askari FK. DNA vaccines N Engl J Med. 1996;334:42-5. [PMID: 7494571].[Free Full Text]

3.  Donnelly JJ, Liu MA, Ulmer JB. Antigen presentation and DNA vaccines Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;162:S190-3. [PMID: 11029393].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

4.  Fu TM, Ulmer JB, Caulfield MJ, Deck RR, Friedman A, Wang S, et al. Priming of cytotoxic T lymphocytes by DNA vaccines: requirement for professional antigen presenting cells and evidence for antigen transfer from myocytes Mol Med. 1997;3:362-71. [PMID: 9234241].[Medline]

5.  Stevens EJ, Peakman M. Enhanced T cell proliferation and increased responder frequency following delivery of antigen to the antigen-presenting cell; B cell dependency and use in detection of autoreactive T cells J Immunol Methods. 1998;215:59-70. [PMID: 9744748].[Medline]

6.  Johnson RP. Live attenuated AIDS vaccines: hazards and hopes Nat Med. 1999;5:154-5. [PMID: 9930861].[Medline]

7.  Dietrich G. Current status and future perspectives of DNA vaccine delivery by attenuated intracellular bacteria Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2000;48:177-82. [PMID: 10912622].[Medline]

8.  Medina E, Guzmán CA. Use of live bacterial vaccine vectors for antigen delivery: potential and limitations Vaccine. 2001;19:1573-80. [PMID: 11166877].[Medline]

9.  Sizemore DR, Branstrom AA, Sadoff JC. Attenuated Shigella as a DNA delivery vehicle for DNA-mediated immunization Science. 1995;270:299-302. [PMID: 7569980].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

10.  Noriega FR, Losonsky G, Lauderbaugh C, Liao FM, Wang JY, Levine MM. Engineered deltaguaB-A deltavirG Shigella flexneri 2a strain CVD 1205: construction, safety, immunogenicity, and potential efficacy as a mucosal vaccine Infect Immun. 1996;64:3055-61. [PMID: 8757833].[Abstract]

11.  Fennelly GJ, Khan SA, Abadi MA, Wild TF, Bloom BR. Mucosal DNA vaccine immunization against measles with a highly attenuated Shigella flexneri vector J Immunol. 1999;162:1603-10. [PMID: 9973419].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

12.  Tite JP, Gao XM, Hughes-Jenkins CM, Lipscombe M, O'Callaghan D, Dougan G, et al. Anti-viral immunity induced by recombinant nucleoprotein of influenza A virus. III. Delivery of recombinant nucleoprotein to the immune system using attenuated Salmonella typhimurium as a live carrier Immunology. 1990;70:540-6. [PMID: 2168340].[Medline]

13.  Hone DM, Lewis GK, Beier M, Harris A, McDaniels T, Fouts TR. Expression of human immunodeficiency virus antigens in an attenuated Salmonella typhi vector vaccine Dev Biol Stand. 1994;82:159-62. [PMID: 7958470].[Medline]

14.  Tacket CO, Sztein MB, Wasserman SS, Losonsky G, Kotloff KL, Wyant TL, et al. Phase 2 clinical trial of attenuated Salmonella enterica serovar typhi oral live vector vaccine CVD 908-htrA in U.S. volunteers Infect Immun. 2000;68:1196-201. [PMID: 10678926].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

15.  Frankel FR, Hegde S, Lieberman J, Paterson Y. Induction of cell-mediated immune responses to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Gag protein by using Listeria monocytogenes as a live vaccine vector J Immunol. 1995;155:4775-82. [PMID: 7594479].[Abstract]

16.  Baba TW, Liska V, Khimani AH, Ray NB, Dailey PJ, Penninck D, et al. Live attenuated, multiply deleted simian immunodeficiency virus causes AIDS in infant and adult macaques Nat Med. 1999;5:194-203. [PMID: 9930868].[Medline]

17.  Wolff JA, Malone RW, Williams P, Chong W, Acsadi G, Jani A, et al. Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo Science. 1990;247:1465-8. [PMID: 1690918].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

18.  Ulmer JB, Donnelly JJ, Parker SE, Rhodes GH, Felgner PL, Dwarki VJ, et al. Heterologous protection against influenza by injection of DNA encoding a viral protein Science. 1993;259:1745-9. [PMID: 8456302].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

19.  Tang DC, DeVit M, Johnston SA. Genetic immunization is a simple method for eliciting an immune response Nature. 1992;356:152-4. [PMID: 1545867].[Medline]

20.  Fuller DH, Haynes JR. A qualitative progression in HIV type 1 glycoprotein 120-specific cytotoxic cellular and humoral immune responses in mice receiving a DNA-based glycoprotein 120 vaccine AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1994;10:1433-41. [PMID: 7888198].[Medline]

21.  Pertmer TM, Roberts TR, Haynes JR. Influenza virus nucleoprotein-specific immunoglobulin G subclass and cytokine responses elicited by DNA vaccination are dependent on the route of vector DNA delivery J Virol. 1996;70:6119-25. [PMID: 8709236].[Abstract]

22.  Feltquate DM, Heaney S, Webster RG, Robinson HL. Different T helper cell types and antibody isotypes generated by saline and gene gun DNA immunization J Immunol. 1997;158:2278-84. [PMID: 9036975].[Abstract]

23.  Schirmbeck R, Böhm W, Ando K, Chisari FV, Reimann J. Nucleic acid vaccination primes hepatitis B virus surface antigen-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes in nonresponder mice J Virol. 1995;69:5929-34. [PMID: 7666497].[Abstract]

24.  Kuhröber A, Wild J, Pudollek HP, Chisari FV, Reimann J. DNA vaccination with plasmids encoding the intracellular (HBcAg) or secreted (HBeAg) form of the core protein of hepatitis B virus primes T cell responses to two overlapping Kb- and Kd-restricted epitopes Int Immunol. 1997;9:1203-12. [PMID: 9263018].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

25.  Shiver JW, Perry HC, Davies ME, Freed DC, Liu MA. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte and helper T cell responses following HIV polynucleotide vaccination Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1995;772:198-208. [PMID: 8546393].[Medline]

26.  Liu MA, Yasutomi Y, Davies ME, Perry HC, Freed DC, Letvin NL, et al. Vaccination of mice and nonhuman primates using HIV-gene-containing DNA Antibiot Chemother. 1996;48:100-4. [PMID: 8726511].[Medline]

27.  Shiver JW, Davies ME, Yasutomi Y, Perry HC, Freed DC, Letvin NL, et al. Anti-HIV env immunities elicited by nucleic acid vaccines Vaccine. 1997;15:884-7. [PMID: 9234539].[Medline]

28.  Boyer JD, Chattergoon M, Shah A, Ginsberg R, MacGregor RR, Weiner DB. HIV-1 DNA based vaccine induces a CD8 mediated cross-clade cytolytic T cell response Dev Biol Stand. 1998;95:147-53. [PMID: 9855425].[Medline]

29.  Thomson SA, Sherritt MA, Medveczky J, Elliott SL, Moss DJ, Fernando GJ, et al. Delivery of multiple CD8 cytotoxic T cell epitopes by DNA vaccination J Immunol. 1998;160:1717-23. [PMID: 9469429].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

30.  Yokoyama M, Zhang J, Whitton JL. DNA immunization confers protection against lethal lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus infection J Virol. 1995;69:2684-8. [PMID: 7884923].[Abstract]

31.  Martins LP, Lau LL, Asano MS, Ahmed R. DNA vaccination against persistent viral infection J Virol. 1995;69:2574-82. [PMID: 7884908].[Abstract]

32.  Manickan E, Yu Z, Rouse RJ, Wire WS, Rouse BT. Induction of protective immunity against herpes simplex virus with DNA encoding the immediate early protein ICP 27 Viral Immunol. 1995;8:53-61. [PMID: 8825290].[Medline]

33.  Donnelly JJ, Ulmer JB, Liu MA. Protective efficacy of intramuscular immunization with naked DNA Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1995;772:40-6. [PMID: 8546412].[Medline]

34.  Allen TM, Vogel TU, Fuller DH, Mothé BR, Steffen S, Boyson JE, et al. Induction of AIDS virus-specific CTL activity in fresh, unstimulated peripheral blood lymphocytes from rhesus macaques vaccinated with a DNA prime/modified vaccinia virus Ankara boost regimen J Immunol. 2000;164:4968-78. [PMID: 10779808].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

35.  Amara RR, Villinger F, Altman JD, Lydy SL, O'Neil SP, Staprans SI, et al. Control of a mucosal challenge and prevention of AIDS by a multiprotein DNA/MVA vaccine Science. 2001;292:69-74. [PMID: 11393868].

36.  Barouch DH, Craiu A, Santra S, Egan MA, Schmitz JE, Kuroda MJ, et al. Elicitation of high-frequency cytotoxic T-lymphocyte responses against both dominant and subdominant simian-human immunodeficiency virus epitopes by DNA vaccination of rhesus monkeys J Virol. 2001;75:2462-7. [PMID: 11160750].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

37.  Wang R, Doolan DL, Le TP, Hedstrom RC, Coonan KM, Charoenvit Y, et al. Induction of antigen-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes in humans by a malaria DNA vaccine Science. 1998;282:476-80. [PMID: 9774275].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

38.  Yankauckas MA, Morrow JE, Parker SE, Abai A, Rhodes GH, Dwarki VJ, et al. Long-term anti-nucleoprotein cellular and humoral immunity is induced by intramuscular injection of plasmid DNA containing NP gene DNA Cell Biol. 1993;12:771-6. [PMID: 7692877].[Medline]

39.  Wang B, Boyer J, Srikantan V, Coney L, Carrano R, Phan C, et al. DNA inoculation induces neutralizing immune responses against human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in mice and nonhuman primates DNA Cell Biol. 1993;12:799-805. [PMID: 8216851].[Medline]

40.  Richmond JF, Lu S, Santoro JC, Weng J, Hu SL, Montefiori DC, et al. Studies of the neutralizing activity and avidity of anti-human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Env antibody elicited by DNA priming and protein boosting J Virol. 1998;72:9092-100. [PMID: 9765454].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

41.  Ourmanov I, Bilska M, Hirsch VM, Montefiori DC. Recombinant modified vaccinia virus ankara expressing the surface gp120 of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) primes for a rapid neutralizing antibody response to SIV infection in macaques J Virol. 2000;74:2960-5. [PMID: 10684319].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

42.  Barnett SW, Lu S, Srivastava I, Cherpelis S, Gettie A, Blanchard J, et al. The ability of an oligomeric human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) envelope antigen to elicit neutralizing antibodies against primary HIV-1 isolates is improved following partial deletion of the second hypervariable region J Virol. 2001;75:5526-40. [PMID: 11356960].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

43.  Cherpelis S, Shrivastava I, Gettie A, Jin X, Ho DD, Barnett SW, et al. DNA vaccination with the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 SF162DeltaV2 envelope elicits immune responses that offer partial protection from simian/human immunodeficiency virus infection to CD8⁺ T-cell-depleted rhesus macaques J Virol. 2001;75:1547-50. [PMID: 11152527].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

44.  Davis HL, Michel ML, Whalen RG. DNA-based immunization induces continuous secretion of hepatitis B surface antigen and high levels of circulating antibody Hum Mol Genet. 1993;2:1847-51. [PMID: 8281146].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

45.  Xiang ZQ, Spitalnik S, Tran M, Wunner WH, Cheng J, Ertl HC. Vaccination with a plasmid vector carrying the rabies virus glycoprotein gene induces protective immunity against rabies virus Virology. 1994;199:132-40. [PMID: 8116236].[Medline]

46.  Lodmell DL, Ray NB, Parnell MJ, Ewalt LC, Hanlon CA, Shaddock JH, et al. DNA immunization protects nonhuman primates against rabies virus Nat Med. 1998;4:949-52. [PMID: 9701249].[Medline]

47.  Manickan E, Rouse RJ, Yu Z, Wire WS, Rouse BT. Genetic immunization against herpes simplex virus. Protection is mediated by CD4+T lymphocytes J Immunol. 1995;155:259-65. [PMID: 7602102].[Abstract]

48.  Ghiasi H, Cai S, Slanina S, Nesburn AB, Wechsler SL. Vaccination of mice with herpes simplex virus type 1 glycoprotein D DNA produces low levels of protection against lethal HSV-1 challenge Antiviral Res. 1995;28:147-57. [PMID: 8585768].[Medline]

49.  McClements WL, Armstrong ME, Keys RD, Liu MA. Immunization with DNA vaccines encoding glycoprotein D or glycoprotein B, alone or in combination, induces protective immunity in animal models of herpes simplex virus-2 disease Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93:11414-20. [PMID: 8876149].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

50.  Bourne N, Stanberry LR, Bernstein DI, Lew D. DNA immunization against experimental genital herpes simplex virus infection J Infect Dis. 1996;173:800-7. [PMID: 8603957].[Medline]

51.  Donnelly JJ, Martinez D, Jansen KU, Ellis RW, Montgomery DL, Liu MA. Protection against papillomavirus with a polynucleotide vaccine J Infect Dis. 1996;173:314-20. [PMID: 8568291].[Medline]

52.  Sundaram P, Xiao W, Brandsma JL. Particle-mediated delivery of recombinant expression vectors to rabbit skin induces high-titered polyclonal antisera (and circumvents purification of a protein immunogen) Nucleic Acids Res. 1996;24:1375-7. [PMID: 8614644].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

53.  Major ME, Vitvitski L, Mink MA, Schleef M, Whalen RG, Trépo C, et al. DNA-based immunization with chimeric vectors for the induction of immune responses against the hepatitis C virus nucleocapsid J Virol. 1995;69:5798-805. [PMID: 7637024].[Abstract]

54.  Lagging LM, Meyer K, Hoft D, Houghton M, Belshe RB, Ray R. Immune responses to plasmid DNA encoding the hepatitis C virus core protein J Virol. 1995;69:5859-63. [PMID: 7637033].[Abstract]

55.  Kuhöber A, Pudollek HP, Reifenberg K, Chisari FV, Schlicht HJ, Reimann J, et al. DNA immunization induces antibody and cytotoxic T cell responses to hepatitis B core antigen in H-2b mice J Immunol. 1996;156:3687-95. [PMID: 8621903].[Abstract]

56.  Lai WC, Bennett M, Johnston SA, Barry MA, Pakes SP. Protection against Mycoplasma pulmonis infection by genetic vaccination DNA Cell Biol. 1995;14:643-51. [PMID: 7626224].[Medline]

57.  Huygen K, Content J, Denis O, Montgomery DL, Yawman AM, Deck RR, et al. Immunogenicity and protective efficacy of a tuberculosis DNA vaccine Nat Med. 1996;2:893-8. [PMID: 8705859].[Medline]

58.  Tascon RE, Colston MJ, Ragno S, Stavropoulos E, Gregory D, Lowrie DB. Vaccination against tuberculosis by DNA injection Nat Med. 1996;2:888-92. [PMID: 8705858].[Medline]

59.  Ulmer JB, Liu MA, Montgomery DL, Yawman AM, Deck RR, DeWitt CM, et al. Expression and immunogenicity of Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigen 85 by DNA vaccination Vaccine. 1997;15:792-4. [PMID: 9234515].[Medline]

60.  Sedegah M, Hedstrom R, Hobart P, Hoffman SL. Protection against malaria by immunization with plasmid DNA encoding circumsporozoite protein Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994;91:9866-70. [PMID: 7937907].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

61.  Xu D, Liew FY. Protection against leishmaniasis by injection of DNA encoding a major surface glycoprotein, gp63, of L. major Immunology. 1995;84:173-6. [PMID: 7750991].[Medline]

62.  Yang W, Waine GJ, McManus DP. Antibodies to Schistosoma japonicum (Asian bloodfluke) paramyosin induced by nucleic acid vaccination Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1995;212:1029-39. [PMID: 7626089].[Medline]

63.  Mitchell WM, Rosenbloom ST, Gabriel J. Induction of mucosal anti-HIV antibodies by facilitated transfection of airway epithelium with lipospermine/DNA complexes Immunotechnology. 1995;1:211-9. [PMID: 9373349].[Medline]

64.  Sasaki S, Tsuji T, Asakura Y, Fukushima J, Okuda K. The search for a potent DNA vaccine against AIDS: the enhancement of immunogenicity by chemical and genetic adjuvants Anticancer Res. 1998;18:3907-15. [PMID: 9854503].[Medline]

65.  Jones DH, Corris S, McDonald S, Clegg JC, Farrar GH. Poly(DL-lactide-co-glycolide)-encapsulated plasmid DNA elicits systemic and mucosal antibody responses to encoded protein after oral administration Vaccine. 1997;15:814-7. [PMID: 9234522].[Medline]

66.  Orson FM, Kinsey BM, Hua PJ, Bhogal BS, Densmore CL, Barry MA. Genetic immunization with lung-targeting macroaggregated polyethyleneimine-albumin conjugates elicits combined systemic and mucosal immune responses J Immunol. 2000;164:6313-21. [PMID: 10843685].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

67.  Mittal SK, Aggarwal N, Sailaja G, van Olphen A, HogenEsch H, North A, et al. Immunization with DNA, adenovirus or both in biodegradable alginate microspheres: effect of route of inoculation on immune response Vaccine. 2000;19:253-63. [PMID: 10930680].[Medline]

68.  Wang SW, Kozlowski PA, Schmelz G, Manson K, Wyand MS, Glickman R, et al. Effective induction of simian immunodeficiency virus-specific systemic and mucosal immune responses in primates by vaccination with proviral DNA producing intact but noninfectious virions J Virol. 2000;74:10514-22. [PMID: 11044096].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

69.  Fynan EF, Webster RG, Fuller DH, Haynes JR, Santoro JC, Robinson HL. DNA vaccines: protective immunizations by parenteral, mucosal, and gene-gun inoculations Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;90:11478-82. [PMID: 8265577].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

70.  Webster RG, Fynan EF, Santoro JC, Robinson H. Protection of ferrets against influenza challenge with a DNA vaccine to the haemagglutinin Vaccine. 1994;12:1495-8. [PMID: 7879412].[Medline]

71.  Donnelly JJ, Friedman A, Martinez D, Montgomery DL, Shiver JW, Motzel SL, et al. Preclinical efficacy of a prototype DNA vaccine: enhanced protection against antigenic drift in influenza virus Nat Med. 1995;1:583-7. [PMID: 7585127].[Medline]

72.  Prince AM, Whalen R, Brotman B. Successful nucleic acid based immunization of newborn chimpanzees against hepatitis B virus Vaccine. 1997;15:916-9. [PMID: 9234547].[Medline]

73.  Hoffman SL, Sedegah M, Hedstrom RC. Protection against malaria by immunization with a Plasmodium yoelii circumsporozoite protein nucleic acid vaccine Vaccine. 1994;12:1529-33. [PMID: 7879419].[Medline]

74.  Sedegah M, Jones TR, Kaur M, Hedstrom R, Hobart P, Tine JA, et al. Boosting with recombinant vaccinia increases immunogenicity and protective efficacy of malaria DNA vaccine Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95:7648-53. [PMID: 9636204].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

75.  Sedegah M, Weiss W, Sacci JB Jr, Charoenvit Y, Hedstrom R, Gowda K, et al. Improving protective immunity induced by DNA-based immunization: priming with antigen and GM-CSF-encoding plasmid DNA and boosting with antigen-expressing recombinant poxvirus J Immunol. 2000;164:5905-12. [PMID: 10820272].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

76.  Wang B, Boyer JD, Ugen KE, Srikantan V, Ayyaroo V, Agadjanyan MG, et al. Nucleic acid-based immunization against HIV-I: induction of protective in vivo immune responses AIDS. 1995;9(Suppl A):S159-70. [PMID: 8819582].

77.  Fuller DH, Simpson L, Cole KS, Clements JE, Panicali DL, Montelaro RC, et al. Gene gun-based nucleic acid immunization alone or in combination with recombinant vaccinia vectors suppresses virus burden in rhesus macaques challenged with a heterologous SIV Immunol Cell Biol. 1997;75:389-96. [PMID: 9315483].[Medline]

78.  Haigwood NL, Pierce CC, Robertson MN, Watson AJ, Montefiori DC, Rabin M, et al. Protection from pathogenic SIV challenge using multigenic DNA vaccines Immunol Lett. 1999;66:183-8. [PMID: 10203053].[Medline]

79.  Barouch DH, Santra S, Schmitz JE, Kuroda MJ, Fu TM, Wagner W, et al. Control of viremia and prevention of clinical AIDS in rhesus monkeys by cytokine-augmented DNA vaccination Science. 2000;290:486-92. [PMID: 11039923].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

80.  Letvin NL, Montefiori DC, Yasutomi Y, Perry HC, Davies ME, Lekutis C, et al. Potent, protective anti-HIV immune responses generated by bimodal HIV envelope DNA plus protein vaccination Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94:9378-83. [PMID: 9256490].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

81.  Schneider J, Gilbert SC, Blanchard TJ, Hanke T, Robson KJ, Hannan CM, et al. Enhanced immunogenicity for CD8⁺T cell induction and complete protective efficacy of malaria DNA vaccination by boosting with modified vaccinia virus Ankara Nat Med. 1998;4:397-402. [PMID: 9546783].[Medline]

82.  Calarota SA, Kjerrström A, Islam KB, Wahren B. Gene combination raises broad human immunodeficiency virus-specific cytotoxicity Hum Gene Ther. 2001;12:1623-37. [PMID: 11535166].[Medline]

83.  Roy MJ, Wu MS, Barr LJ, Fuller JT, Tussey LG, Speller S, et al. Induction of antigen-specific CD8⁺T cells, T helper cells, and protective levels of antibody in humans by particle-mediated administration of a hepatitis B virus DNA vaccine Vaccine. 2000;19:764-78. [PMID: 11115698].[Medline]

84.  MacGregor RR, Boyer JD, Ugen KE, Lacy KE, Gluckman SJ, Bagarazzi ML, et al. First human trial of a DNA-based vaccine for treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection: safety and host response J Infect Dis. 1998;178:92-100. [PMID: 9652427].[Medline]

85.  MacGregor RR, Boyer JD, Ciccarelli RB, Ginsberg RS, Weiner DB. Safety and immune responses to a DNA-based human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type I env/rev vaccine in HIV-infected recipients: follow-up data [Letter] J Infect Dis. 2000;181:406 [PMID: 10608800].[Medline]

86.  Calarota S, Bratt G, Nordlund S, Hinkula J, Leandersson AC, Sandström E, et al. Cellular cytotoxic response induced by DNA vaccination in HIV-1-infected patients Lancet. 1998;351:1320-5. [PMID: 9643795].[Medline]

87.  Boyer JD, Cohen AD, Vogt S, Schumann K, Nath B, Ahn L, et al. Vaccination of seronegative volunteers with a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 env/rev DNA vaccine induces antigen-specific proliferation and lymphocyte production of ß-chemokines J Infect Dis. 2000;181:476-83. [PMID: 10669329].[Medline]

88.  Le TP Coonan, KM Hedstrom, RC Charoenvit Y, Sedegah M, Epstein JE, et al. Safety, tolerability and humoral immune responses after intramuscular administration of a malaria DNA vaccine to healthy adult volunteers Vaccine. 2000;18:1893-901. [PMID: 10699338].[Medline]

89.  Reynolds FH Jr, Todaro GJ, Fryling C, Stephenson JR. Human transforming growth factors induce tyrosine phosphorylation of EGF receptors Nature. 1981;292:259-62. [PMID: 6265789].[Medline]

90.  Cohen J. AIDS research. Merck reemerges with a bold AIDS vaccine effort Science. 2001;292:24-5. [PMID: 11294193].[Free Full Text]

91.  Haas J, Park EC, Seed B. Codon usage limitation in the expression of HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein Curr Biol. 1996;6:315-24. [PMID: 8805248].[Medline]

92.  zur Megede J, Chen MC, Doe B, Schaefer M, Greer CE, Selby M, et al. Increased expression and immunogenicity of sequence-modified human immunodeficiency virus type 1 gag gene J Virol. 2000;74:2628-35. [PMID: 10684277].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

93.  Iwasaki A, Stiernholm BJ, Chan AK, Berinstein NL, Barber BH. Enhanced CTL responses mediated by plasmid DNA immunogens encoding costimulatory molecules and cytokines J Immunol. 1997;158:4591-601. [PMID: 9144471].[Abstract]

94.  Kim JJ, Bagarazzi ML, Trivedi N, Hu Y, Kazahaya K, Wilson DM, et al. Engineering of in vivo immune responses to DNA immunization via codelivery of costimulatory molecule genes Nat Biotechnol. 1997;15:641-6. [PMID: 9219266].[Medline]

95.  Kim JJ, Yang JS, Dentchev T, Dang K, Weiner DB. Chemokine gene adjuvants can modulate immune responses induced by DNA vaccines J Interferon Cytokine Res. 2000;20:487-98. [PMID: 10841077].[Medline]

96.  Mendoza RB, Cantwell MJ, Kipps TJ. Immunostimulatory effects of a plasmid expressing CD40 ligand (CD154) on gene immunization J Immunol. 1997;159:5777-81. [PMID: 9550372].[Abstract]

97.  Boyle JS, Brady JL, Lew AM. Enhanced responses to a DNA vaccine encoding a fusion antigen that is directed to sites of immune induction Nature. 1998;392:408-11. [PMID: 9537327].[Medline]

98.  Biragyn A, Tani K, Grimm MC, Weeks S, Kwak LW. Genetic fusion of chemokines to a self tumor antigen induces protective, T-cell dependent antitumor immunity Nat Biotechnol. 1999;17:253-8. [PMID: 10096292].[Medline]

99.  Barouch DH, Craiu A, Kuroda MJ, Schmitz JE, Zheng XX, Santra S, et al. Augmentation of immune responses to HIV-1 and simian immunodeficiency virus DNA vaccines by IL-2/Ig plasmid administration in rhesus monkeys Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000;97:4192-7. [PMID: 10759543].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

100.  Fló J, Beatriz Perez A, Tisminetzky S, Baralle F. Superiority of intramuscular route and full length glycoprotein D for DNA vaccination against herpes simplex 2. Enhancement of protection by the co-delivery of the GM-CSF gene Vaccine. 2000;18:3242-53. [PMID: 10869769].[Medline]

101.  Santra S, Barouch DH, Jackson SS, Kuroda MJ, Schmitz JE, Lifton MA, et al. Functional equivalency of B7-1 and B7-2 for costimulating plasmid DNA vaccine-elicited CTL responses J Immunol. 2000;165:6791-5. [PMID: 11120800].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

102.  Widera G, Austin M, Rabussay D, Goldbeck C, Barnett SW, Chen M, et al. Increased DNA vaccine delivery and immunogenicity by electroporation in vivo J Immunol. 2000;164:4635-40. [PMID: 10779767].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

103.  Zucchelli S, Capone S, Fattori E, Folgori A, Di Marco A, Casimiro D, et al. Enhancing B- and T-cell immune response to a hepatitis C virus E2 DNA vaccine by intramuscular electrical gene transfer J Virol. 2000;74:11598-607. [PMID: 11090158].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

104.  Singh M, Briones M, Ott G, O'Hagan D. Cationic microparticles: A potent delivery system for DNA vaccines Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000;97:811-6. [PMID: 10639162].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

105.  O'Hagan D, Singh M, Ugozzoli M, Wild C, Barnett S, Chen M, et al. Induction of potent immune responses by cationic microparticles with adsorbed human immunodeficiency virus DNA vaccines J Virol. 2001;75:9037-43. [PMID: 11533167].[Abstract/Free Full Text]

106.  Krieg AM. An innate immune defense mechanism based on the recognition of CpG motifs in microbial DNA J Lab Clin Med. 1996;128:128-33. [PMID: 8765208].[Medline]

107.  Krieg AM. Lymphocyte activation by CpG dinucleotide motifs in prokaryotic DNA Trends Microbiol. 1996;4:73-6. [PMID: 8820571].[Medline]

108.  Sato Y, Roman M, Tighe H, Lee D, Corr M, Nguyen MD, et al. Immunostimulatory DNA sequences necessary for effective intradermal gene immunization Science. 1996;273:352-4. [PMID: 8662521].[Abstract]

109.  Klinman DM, Yamshchikov G, Ishigatsubo Y. Contribution of CpG motifs to the immunogenicity of DNA vaccines J Immunol. 1997;158:3635-9. [PMID: 9103425].[Abstract]