- Research article
- Open Access
Coexpression of GM-CSF and antigen in DNA prime-adenoviral vector boost immunization enhances polyfunctional CD8+ T cell responses, whereas expression of GM-CSF antigen fusion protein induces autoimmunity
© Tenbusch et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008
- Received: 07 August 2007
- Accepted: 11 April 2008
- Published: 11 April 2008
Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) has shown promising results as a cytokine adjuvant for antiviral vaccines and in various models of tumor gene therapy. To explore whether the targeting of antigens to GM-CSF receptors on antigen-presenting cells enhances antigen-specific CD8 T-cell responses, fusion proteins of GM-CSF and ovalbumin (OVA) were expressed by DNA and adenoviral vector vaccines. In addition, bicistronic vectors allowing independent expression of the antigen and the cytokine were tested in parallel.
In vitro, the GM-CSF ovalbumin fusion protein (GM-OVA) led to the better stimulation of OVA-specific CD8+ T cells by antigen-presenting cells than OVA and GM-CSF given as two separate proteins. However, prime-boost immunizations of mice with DNA and adenoviral vector vaccines encoding GM-OVA suppressed CD8+ T-cell responses to OVA. OVA-specific IgG2a antibody levels were also reduced, while the IgG1 antibody response was enhanced. Suppression of CD8+ T cell responses by GM-OVA vaccines was associated with the induction of neutralizing antibodies to GM-CSF. In contrast, the coexpression of GM-CSF and antigens in DNA prime adenoviral boost immunizations led to a striking expansion of polyfunctional OVA-specific CD8+ T cells without the induction of autoantibodies.
The induction of autoantibodies suggests a general note of caution regarding the use of highly immunogenic viral vector vaccines encoding fusion proteins between antigens and host proteins. In contrast, the expansion of polyfunctional OVA-specific CD8+ T cells after immunizations with bicistronic vectors further support a potential application of GM-CSF as an adjuvant for heterologous prime-boost regimens with genetic vaccines. Since DNA prime adenoviral vector boost regimenes are presently considered as one of the most efficient ways to induce CD8+ T cell responses in mice, non-human primates and humans, further enhancement of this response by GM-CSF is a striking observation.
- Adenoviral Vector
- IgG2a Antibody
- Friend Virus
- Pulmonary Alveolar Proteinosis
- Viral Vector Vaccine
The induction of strong CTL responses by prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines is considered necessary for the control of chronic viral infections and cancer [1–3]. Genetic vaccines seem to be promising tools, since the expression of antigen by the vaccinee leads to improved MHC-I restricted cellular immune responses. DNA vaccines have been shown to elicit CTL, T helper and antibody responses in a variety of animal models [4–8]. However, DNA vaccines alone stimulated only weak T-cell responses in monkeys  and humans . To enhance antigen expression levels, various viral vector vaccines have been explored. For example, antigens expressing viral vectors based on poxviruses or adenoviruses were shown to be potent inducers of antigen-specific immune responses in SIV/HIV vaccine studies [9, 11]. In addition to increased expression levels, the triggering of innate immune responses by the viral vector particles also seems to contribute to the immunogenicity of viral vector vaccines. However, in contrast to DNA vaccines, repeated immunizations with the same viral vector vaccine appear to be limited by immune responses to the viral vector particles [12, 13]. Thus, DNA prime viral vector boost regimens are considered to be one of the most promising strategies to induce long-lasting CTL responses in humans [9, 14, 15].
GM-CSF expression plasmids were co-injected with plasmids encoding vaccine antigens to examine the adjuvant activity in mouse models for HIV-1 [17–19], Hepatitis C virus [20, 21] and HSV-2  infection. Coexpression of GM-CSF enhanced antigen-specific T-cell proliferation and humoral immune responses, but had little effect on CTL responses. Over-expression of GM-CSF at the injection site led to the increased recruitment of macrophages and dendritic cells (DCs) [23, 24] and influenced the activation status of antigen-presenting cells (APCs) . The temporal and spatial co-expression of antigens and GM-CSF seems to be critical for optimal T-cell priming . In addition, the fusion proteins of antigens and GM-CSF  and DNA vaccines encoding such fusion proteins [28, 29] were shown to improve antigen-specific antibody responses and cancer immunotherapy. The covalent linkage of the antigen and GM-CSF might allow the targeting of APCs expressing GM-CSF receptors, such as DCs. This could improve antigen uptake and presentation and thus also enhance CD8 T cell responses, similar to targeting strategies based on the macrophage mannose receptor or the DEC205 receptor [30, 31]. Therefore, we compared the antigen-specific CD8 T-cell responses induced by DNA vaccines encoding GM-CSF ovalbumin fusion proteins (GM-OVA) with those raised by DNA vaccines coexpressing GM-CSF and ovalbumin (OVA) as two unlinked proteins. Since the antigen expression levels of, and the innate response to, DNA and viral vector vaccines differ considerably, the effect of GM-CSF was determined in DNA immunizations and DNA prime adenoviral vector boost regimens. Surprisingly, immunization with genetic vaccines encoding the GM-CSF ovalbumin fusion protein suppressed CD8+ T cell responses, while coexpression of GM-CSF was found to be a potent stimulator of antigen-specific CD8+ T cell responses. Induction of autoantibodies neutralizing GM-CSF by genetic vaccines encoding the fusion-protein, but not those coexpressing GM-CSF and OVA, might explain the varying effects observed.
DNA and adenoviral vector vaccines
Influence of the GM-CSF fusion protein on dendritic cell differentiation and antigen presentation
CD8+ T cell responses after immunization with gene-based vaccines encoding the GM-CSF fusion protein
Humoral immune responses after immunization with gene-based vaccines encoding the GM-CSF fusion protein
Stimulation of CD8+ T cell responses by vaccines coexpressing GM-CSF and ovalbumin
CD8 T cell responses induced by vaccines encoding a biologically inactive GM-CSF ovalbumin fusion protein
In contrast to the GM-OVA vaccines, the coexpression of GM-CSF and ovalbumin did not suppress CD8 T cell responses. This indicates that the suppressive effects of GM-OVA vaccines on the CD8 T cell responses are not simply due to the biological activity of GM-CSF. To exclude the possibility that immune responses were affected by altered antigen expression levels, subcellular localization, and/or stability of the fusion protein, mice were also immunized with DNA and adenoviral vector vaccines expressing a fusion protein of rhesus macaque GM-CSF and ovalbumin. Although fully active on primate cells, rhesus monkey GM-CSF was inactive in rodent cells (Fig. 1C). In all parameters investigated, including Tetramer analyses and intracellular staining for IFN-γ, interleukin 2, and/or CD107a, the immune response induced by the rhesus monkey GM-OVA vaccines did not differ significantly from the response induced by the OVA vaccines (Fig. 5 and 6).
Antibody responses induced by gene-based vaccines encoding bioinactive GM-CSF fusion protein or coexpressing GM-CSF and ovalbumin
Induction of neutralizing antibodies to GM-CSF
Influence of neutralizing antibodies to GM-CSF on immune responses and viral replication in a retroviral infection model
A side-by-side comparison of a DNA prime adenoviral vector boost immunization regimen leading either to the expression of a fusion protein of GM-CSF and the model antigen or to the coexpression of GM-CSF and antigens as two separate proteins revealed striking differences in the induction of polyfunctional antigen-specific CD8+ T cell responses and humoral immune responses. Immunization with gene-based vaccines encoding the bioactive GM-CSF antigen fusion proteins suppressed CD8+ T cell responses, while the coexpression of GM-CSF and antigens stimulated these responses. Although the fusion proteins enhanced the stimulation of antigen-specific CD8+ T cells in coculture experiments with antigen-presenting cells, the induction of neutralizing antibodies to GM-CSF probably counteracted any beneficial effect of the fusion protein on the enhancement of antigen uptake or presentation in vivo. the injection of recombinant GM-CSF proteins or GM-CSF fusion proteins has been shown previously to induce antibodies to GM-CSF in mice and humans [29, 35, 36, 40]. Differences in postranslational modifications such as glycosylation patterns between the recombinant proteins and the endogenously expressed GM-CSF have been postulated to be responsible for this loss of tolerance [35, 40]. Since the GM-CSF expression levels after infection with the bicistronic vector was the same or even higher when compared to the GM-OVA encoding vector, we can exclude that simple overexpression of the cytokine is a reason for the break of tolerance. However, the induction of GM-CSF neutralizing antibodies by genetic vaccines expressing GM-CSF antigen fusion proteins in the vaccinees suggests an alternative mechanism for this autoimmune response. B-cells with antigen receptor specificities for GM-CSF might take up the GM-CSF-antigen fusion protein and present antigen-derived epitopes on MHC-II molecules. T-helper cells specific for the antigen part of the GM-CSF fusion protein could then stimulate these B-cells even in the absence of autoreactive GM-CSF-specific T-helper cells. This would be consistent with a previous hypothesis for the appearance of autoreactive antibodies  and with results from immunization studies with other fusion proteins [42, 43].
The consequences of neutralizing GM-CSF antibodies for the host are not well defined. Reconstitution of white blood cells after bone-marrow transplantation and immune responses to a protein vaccine were not impaired in the presence of GM-CSF autoantibodies . Using the FV infection model, we did not observe any negative effects associated with GM-CSF autoantibodies either. Consistently, no pathological alterations have been reported to be associated with anti-GM-CSF antibodies in cancer patients. However, GM-CSF knock out mice were not able to generate CD8+ T cell responses after peptide immunization and IgG2a antibody production was also reported to be delayed after protein immunization . In the present study, induction of GM-CSF neutralizing antibodies coincided with suppression of CD8+ T cell responses induced by a DNA prime adenoviral vector boost regimen. Lack of suppression of CD8+ T cell responses after a single immunization with the same DNA or adenoviral vector vaccine further supports a causal relationship between GM-CSF antibodies and suppression of CD8+ T cell responses, since in these immunization experiments GM-CSF neutralizing antibodies are absent at the time point of T cell priming. Depending on the precise immunostimulatory pathways employed by a vaccine or pathogen, the requirement for GM-CSF might differ significantly, providing an explanation for the different observations made in the mouse models. Although there is no direct evidence of clinical complications so far, possible long-term consequences of the anti-GM-CSF responses, such as involvement in pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (PAP) [45, 46], are difficult to exclude. Given the loss of tolerance by other fusion proteins [42, 43] and the immunogenicity of genetic vaccines, a more general note of caution regarding the use of genetic vaccines encoding fusion proteins between host proteins and heterologous antigens might even be justified.
In contrast to immunization with genetic vaccines encoding the GM-CSF-antigen fusion proteins, which strongly suppressed IgG2a antibody responses, the coexpression of GM-CSF and antigens in the DNA prime adenoviral vector boost regimen did not modulate IgG1 and IgG2a antibody responses notably. This was unexpected, since repeated immunizations with adenoviral vectors coexpressing GM-CSF and the amyloid-beta protein by the intranasal route resulted in a Th2-type immune response . In addition, the coexpression of GM-CSF and antigens in numerous DNA immunization studies increased antibody responses [16, 18, 20–22]. Since the bicistronic expression cassette in our study expresses lower amounts of ovalbumin than the vaccine encoding ovalbumin only, GM-CSF coexpression seems to compensate for the lower antigen expression levels in the sense that in the presence of GM-CSF a lower amount of antigen is needed to induce comparable humoral immune responses than in its absence. Previous studies also show that increased antigen levels correlate with increased antibody titers, but do not influence the dominant immunoglobulin subtype. Thus, the difference in the IgG1/IgG2a ratio observed after immunization with the genetic vaccine encoding the GM-CSF-Ova fusion protein does not seem to be simply due to GM-CSF receptor signalling, since this also occurs by the coexpression of GM-CSF. However, immunization with vaccines encoding rhesus monkey GM-CSF fused to ovalbumin did not lead to a change in the IgG1/IgG2a ratio either, although no differences were observed between the expression levels of the two GM-CSF fusion proteins. This indicates that the change in the antigen-specific IgG1/IgG2a ratio observed after immunization with the fusion protein depends on the GM-CSF bioactivity of the fusion protein and the covalent linkage of GM-CSF with the antigen.
The immunomodulatory properties of GM-CSF could also differ substantially with the type of antigens, the route of immunization, and/or the type of genetic vaccine used. This also seems to apply to the effect of GM-CSF on CD8+ T cell responses. Coexpression of GM-CSF and antigens by DNA vaccines was shown to stimulate CD8+ T cell responses in some studies [17, 49] but not in others [19, 50]. In the context of a DNA prime adenoviral vector boost regimen, we observed that GM-CSF was a strong stimulator of CD8+ T cell responses. Coexpression of GM-CSF by the DNA and adenoviral vector vaccines enhanced the percentage of CD8+ T cells specific for the immunodominant epitope of the antigens from approximately 11% to more than 25% as determined by tetramer staining and intracellular IFN-γ staining. Although we can not completely rule out that the different antigen expression levels influence the strength of immune response, it seems unlike that lower antigen levels induce stronger CTL responses. Rather, it has been reported that increased antigen expression levels obtained by codon-optimization or enhanced promotor activities correlate with the better induction of IFN-γ producing T-cells or cytotoxic T-cells [48, 51].
Coexpression of GM-CSF and ovalbumin by DNA prime adenoviral vector boost immunizations led to a strong CD8+ T cell response, with more than a quarter of all CD8+ T cells being specific for a single immunodominant peptide. Although the percentage of CD8+ T cell specific for other antigens might well be lower than those obtained in the present study with the ovalbumin model antigens, the enhancement of CD8+ T cells responses by GM-CSF is encouraging. The antigen-specific CD8+ T cells induced in the presence of GM-CSF were not only numerous, but also displayed markers of polyfunctional T cells such as the coexpression of IFN-γ, IL-2, and the CD107a degranulation marker. T cells that produce both IFN-γ and IL-2 were recently proposed to be important in the control of chronic viral infections, like CMV, EBV or in HIV LTNP and might be indicative of long-lived memory T-cells . Although the functional relevance of the CD8+ T cell response induced by DNA and adenoviral vector vaccines coexpressing GM-CSF and antigens needs to be confirmed in relevant tumor and infection models, GM-CSF should be considered as a CD8+ T-cell adjuvant in DNA prime adenoviral vector immunization regimens.
Genetic vaccines encoding fusion proteins between antigens and a host protein led to the rapid induction of autoantibodies. Therefore a more general note of caution regarding the use of highly immunogenic viral vector vaccines encoding such fusion proteins seems to be justified. In contrast, the coexpression of GM-CSF and antigens as two separate proteins in DNA prime adenoviral vector immunization regimens led to the enhanced induction of polyfunctional CD8+ T-cells, further supporting a potential application of GM-CSF as an adjuvant not only for DNA, but also for viral vector vaccines. Given the fact that the DNA prime adenoviral vector boost regimen is presently one of the most efficient ways to induce CD8+ T cell responses in mice, non-human primates and humans, the enhancement of this response by GM-CSF is a striking observation.
DNA and adenoviral vector vaccines
The DNA constructs used for the immunization studies are all based on the expression plasmid pcDNA3.1 (Invitrogen, Karlsruhe, Germany) or pShuttle-CMV . The coding sequence of murine GM-CSF was amplified by RT-PCR from RNA isolated from stimulated mouse splenocytes and cloned into the pCR-2.1-TOPO vector (Invitrogen). All other plasmids were constructed via standard cloning techniques including overlap extension PCR. Transgene expression is driven in all constructs by the immediate early promoter/enhancer region of human cytomegalovirus. The open reading frame of the fusion protein GM-OVA consisting of murine GM-CSF, a [Gly4Ser]3 linker and OVA was cloned into the pcDNA3.1 vector. pOVA, also a pcDNA3.1 derivative, encodes ovalbumin itself. Both proteins have a C-terminal HIS6-tag. The plasmids pGMrh-OVA, pGM-DP-OVA, and pΔGM-OVA are based on the pShuttle-CMV vector. The GMrh-OVA fusion protein is equivalent to the mouse one with the sequence of murine GM-CSF being replaced by the rhesus monkey homologue. In the plasmid pGM-DP-OVA, transgene expression is driven by a bidirectional version of the CMV/TetO2 promoter . In pΔGM-OVA the coding sequence of ovalbumin is preceeded by the 17 amino acid long signal peptide of murine GM-CSF. All DNA preparations for immunizations were carried out with the Endofree Plamid Mega or Giga Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany).
All E1-deleted, replication-defective adenoviruses with the corresponding expression cassettes (Ad-GM-OVA, Ad-GM-DP-OVA, Ad-rhGM-OVA, Ad-ΔGM-OVA) were generated by the AdEasy-system . The pShuttle plasmids and pAdEasy1 were electroporated into BJ5183 bacteria as previously described . Correctly recombined plasmids were transfected into 293 cells. Viral vectors growing out were checked for transgene expression by Western Blot analyses and GM-CSF bioactivity, if applicable. Vector particles were purified by CsCl gradient centrifugation and quantified by optical density measurements. In addition, the TCID50of the vectors were determined on 293 cells. The adenoviral vector preparations were also tested for endotoxin levels with the LAL quantification assay (Cambrex Bio Science, Verviers, Belgium), confirming that the dose used for immunization of mice contained less than 0,1 EU.
Cell culture media and reagents
HEK293 and 293T cells were cultured in DMEM containing 10% FCS and 1% penicillin/streptomycin. RPMI 1640 supplemented with 10% FCS, 2 mM L-Glutamine, 10 mM HEPES, 50 μM β-Mercaptoethanol and 1% antibiotic/antimycotic (all Gibco, Karlsruhe, Germany) was used for the lymphocyte cultures (R10-medium). Bone-marrow cultures were grown in RPMI 1640, supplemented with 10% FCS, 1% penicillin/streptomycin, 4 mM L-Glutamine, 1 mM sodium pyruvate and recombinant mouse IL-4 (1 ng/ml) and GM-CSF (5 ng/ml) (Biomol, Hamburg, Germany).
Expression and bioactivity of GM-OVA
293T cells were transfected using the calcium/phosphate precipitation method. Supernatants were collected 48 h after transfection and tested for protein expression by Western Blot analysis. A combination of rabbit-α-OVA (Chemicon International, LTD, Hampshire, UK) and goat-α-rabbit-HRP (Sigma, Munich, Germany) antibodies was used for detection. To confirm the bioactivity of GM-OVA, it was purified from supernatants of transfected cells by Ni-NTA-affinity chromatography as described by the manufacturer (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). The purified protein migrated as a single band of the expected size in Coomassie stained polyacrylamide gels. The GM-CSF-dependent FDCP-1 cells were incubated with the purified GM-OVA or supernatants from NIH 3T3 cells stably expressing GM-CSF. The GM-CSF content of the supernatants had been determined by ELISA. After 48 h, GM-CSF-dependent cell growth was monitored by MTT-assay as described elsewhere [55, 56]. Additionally, the ability to generate DCs from bone marrow cultures was tested as previously described . Briefly, bone marrow derived monocytes were cultured in the prescence of IL-4 and recombinant GM-CSF or GM-OVA for 8 days, with or without LPS maturation for 24 h. Their phenotype was characterized by surface staining with the antibodies α-CD11c-APC, α-CD80-FITC, α-CD86-FITC (all BD Bioscience, Heidelberg, Germany) and α-CD83-PE (eBioscience, San Diego, USA) in FACS analyses.
OT-I proliferation assay
Splenocytes of transgenic OT-I mice were incubated with CFSE (3μM; Molecular Probes, Eugene, Oregon, USA) at a density of 8 × 107 cells/ml for 6 min at room temperature with gentle mixing. The labelling reaction was stopped by adding one volume of FCS after which the cells were washed twice with PBS. Thereafter, cells were plated into 96-well plates at a density of 1 × 106 cells/well and incubated with different concentrations of either GM-OVA or OVA (500 to 0,5 ng/ml) for 4 days. After washing the cells twice with PBS containing 0,5% BSA and 1 mM sodium azide (PBS/BSA/Azid), cell proliferation was measured in FACS analysis. Cells, which were incubated with OT-I peptide, were used as positive controls whereas non-stimulated cells served as negative ones.
Animals and immunizations
6–8 week old female C57BL/6N mice were purchased from Janvier (Le Genest-ST-Isle, France) and housed in singly-ventilated cages in accordance with the national law and institutional guidelines.
All vaccines were diluted in PBS and injected subcutaneously in both hind foot pads. For single dose experiments, mice were immunized on day 1 with either 50 μg of DNA (pOVA or pGM-OVA) or 5 × 109 adenoviral particles (Ad-ΔGM-OVA resp. Ad-GM-OVA) corresponding to 2 × 108 50% tissue culture infectious doses (TCID50). After one week, serum samples were collected and on day 8 animals were sacrificed to analyze the CTL responses. In the prime-boost experiments, all animals received an additional DNA injection (pOVA or pGM-OVA) 5 weeks prior to the above mentioned protocol. Serum samples were collected 28 days after the first and 7 days after the second immunization, whereas the T-cell assays were carried out 8 days after the second immunization.
OVA specific antibody ELISA
Blood was taken retro-orbitally and serum was collected after centrifugation for 5 min at 5.000 g in a table top centrifuge. Ovalbumin protein (Sigma) was coated on 96-well plates (MaxiSorb, Nunc, Wiesbaden, Germany) at a final concentration of 5 μg/ml. After blocking with 5% milk powder, serum samples were added at appropriate dilutions and incubated for 1 h, followed by intensive washing. Alkaline phosphatase-coupled antibodies against mouse IgG1 or IgG2a antibodies (BD Bioscience) were added and incubated for 1 h. The enzymatic reaction was developed with the pNPP substrate (Sigma) for 30 min. Reaction was stopped by sodium hydroxide solution (1 M) and the optical densities were measured at a wavelength of 405 nm.
Tetramer and intracellular cytokine staining (ICS)
Splenocytes were collected at indicated time points. After red blood cell lysis, 1 × 106 cells were plated in 96-well round-bottom plates (Nunc) for each staining.
For the tetramer staining, cells were washed once and incubated with 2 μl of SIINFEKL/H-2Kb-APC tetramers (Sanquin, Amsterdam, NL) in total volume of 100 μl PBS/BSA/Azid for 40 min at room temperature. After surface staining with α-CD8-FITC, cells were incubated with 7-amino-actinomycin D (7-AAD) for 5 min to exclude dead cells from subsequent FACS analyses. In some experiments, α-CD62L-PE antibodies were included in the tetramer analysis to characterize the CD8+ activation status.
For ICS, samples were stimulated for 6 h in the presence of 2 μM Monensin, which inhibits the cytokine secretion, and 1 μl α-CD107a-FITC, which is a marker for lymphocyte degranulation . Cells were either stimulated by α-CD3 and α-CD28 antibodies (2 μg/ml and 1 μg/ml, respectively) or the OT-I/SIINFEKL peptide (2 μg/ml, Genaxxon, Biberbach, Germany) and compared to non-stimulated cultures. After stimulation, surface staining was carried out with αCD8-PerCP or αCD4-FITC (BD Bioscience). Cells were fixed in 2% paraformaldehyde, followed by permeabilisation with 0,5% Saponin in PBS/BSA/Azid buffer. Cytokines were detected with αIFN-γ-PE and αIL-2-AlexaFluor647.
Friend virus challenge and virus detection
Mice were injected intravenously with 0.5 ml phosphate buffered saline (PBS) containing 3,000 spleen focus-forming units (SFFU) of the Friend virus complex (FV). The B-tropic, polycythemia-inducing FV complex used in all experiments was from uncloned virus stocks obtained from 10% spleen cell homogenates as described previously .
For infectious center assays, single-cell suspensions from infected mouse spleens were cocultivated with Mus dunnis cells at 10-fold dilutions. Cultures were incubated for 5 days, fixed with ethanol, stained with F-MuLV envelope-specific monoclonal antibody 720, and developed with peroxidase-conjugated goat antimouse antibody and aminoethylcarbazol to detect foci. Tetramer analyses were done by flow cytometry as described previously . For the quantification of Friend virus-infected blood cells, single-cell suspensions of nucleated, live cells were analyzed by flow cytometry. To detect Friend virus infection cells were stained as described previously with tissue culture supernatant containing Friend murine leukemia virus glycosylated Gag-specific monoclonal antibody 34 (AB34) .
Results are expressed as the means ± standard errors of the means (SEM). Statistical comparisons were performed by one-way ANOVA test, followed by a Bonferroni post test using the Prism 4.0, GraphPad Software. P < 0,05 was considered as statistically significant.
This work was supported by grants from the German Research Foundation (GK1045/1), the Wilhelm Sander Stiftung (2004.107.1), and the European Commission FP6 program (TIP-VAC, LSHP-CT-2004-012116).
- Rosenberg ES, Altfeld M, Poon SH, Phillips MN, Wilkes BM, Eldridge RL, Robbins GK, D'Aquila RT, Goulder PJ, Walker BD: Immune control of HIV-1 after early treatment of acute infection. Nature. 2000, 407: 523-526. 10.1038/35035103.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jin X, Bauer DE, Tuttleton SE, Lewin S, Gettie A, Blanchard J, Irwin CE, Safrit JT, Mittler J, Weinberger L, Kostrikis LG, Zhang L, Perelson AS, Ho DD: Dramatic rise in plasma viremia after CD8(+) T cell depletion in simian immunodeficiency virus-infected macaques. J Exp Med. 1999, 189: 991-998. 10.1084/jem.189.6.991.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McMichael AJ: HIV vaccines. Annu Rev Immunol. 2006, 24: 227-255. 10.1146/annurev.immunol.24.021605.090605.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wolff JA, Malone RW, Williams P, Chong W, Acsadi G, Jani A, Felgner PL: Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Science. 1990, 247: 1465-1468. 10.1126/science.1690918.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tang DC, DeVit M, Johnston SA: Genetic immunization is a simple method for eliciting an immune response. Nature. 1992, 356: 152-154. 10.1038/356152a0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ulmer JB, Donnelly JJ, Parker SE, Rhodes GH, Felgner PL, Dwarki VJ, Gromkowski SH, Deck RR, DeWitt CM, Friedman A, .: Heterologous protection against influenza by injection of DNA encoding a viral protein. Science. 1993, 259: 1745-1749. 10.1126/science.8456302.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gurunathan S, Klinman DM, Seder RA: DNA vaccines: immunology, application, and optimization*. Annu Rev Immunol. 2000, 18: 927-974. 10.1146/annurev.immunol.18.1.927.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Garmory HS, Brown KA, Titball RW: DNA vaccines: improving expression of antigens. Genet Vaccines Ther. 2003, 1: 2-10.1186/1479-0556-1-2.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shiver JW, Fu TM, Chen L, Casimiro DR, Davies ME, Evans RK, Zhang ZQ, Simon AJ, Trigona WL, Dubey SA, Huang L, Harris VA, Long RS, Liang X, Handt L, Schleif WA, Zhu L, Freed DC, Persaud NV, Guan L, Punt KS, Tang A, Chen M, Wilson KA, Collins KB, Heidecker GJ, Fernandez VR, Perry HC, Joyce JG, Grimm KM, Cook JC, Keller PM, Kresock DS, Mach H, Troutman RD, Isopi LA, Williams DM, Xu Z, Bohannon KE, Volkin DB, Montefiori DC, Miura A, Krivulka GR, Lifton MA, Kuroda MJ, Schmitz JE, Letvin NL, Caulfield MJ, Bett AJ, Youil R, Kaslow DC, Emini EA: Replication-incompetent adenoviral vaccine vector elicits effective anti-immunodeficiency-virus immunity. Nature. 2002, 415: 331-335. 10.1038/415331a.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- MacGregor RR, Ginsberg R, Ugen KE, Baine Y, Kang CU, Tu XM, Higgins T, Weiner DB, Boyer JD: T-cell responses induced in normal volunteers immunized with a DNA-based vaccine containing HIV-1 env and rev. AIDS. 2002, 16: 2137-2143. 10.1097/00002030-200211080-00005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Seth A, Ourmanov I, Kuroda MJ, Schmitz JE, Carroll MW, Wyatt LS, Moss B, Forman MA, Hirsch VM, Letvin NL: Recombinant modified vaccinia virus Ankara-simian immunodeficiency virus gag pol elicits cytotoxic T lymphocytes in rhesus monkeys detected by a major histocompatibility complex class I/peptide tetramer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998, 95: 10112-10116. 10.1073/pnas.95.17.10112.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Barouch DH, Pau MG, Custers JH, Koudstaal W, Kostense S, Havenga MJ, Truitt DM, Sumida SM, Kishko MG, Arthur JC, Korioth-Schmitz B, Newberg MH, Gorgone DA, Lifton MA, Panicali DL, Nabel GJ, Letvin NL, Goudsmit J: Immunogenicity of recombinant adenovirus serotype 35 vaccine in the presence of pre-existing anti-Ad5 immunity. J Immunol. 2004, 172: 6290-6297.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yang ZY, Wyatt LS, Kong WP, Moodie Z, Moss B, Nabel GJ: Overcoming immunity to a viral vaccine by DNA priming before vector boosting. J Virol. 2003, 77: 799-803. 10.1128/JVI.77.1.799-803.2003.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vuola JM, Keating S, Webster DP, Berthoud T, Dunachie S, Gilbert SC, Hill AV: Differential immunogenicity of various heterologous prime-boost vaccine regimens using DNA and viral vectors in healthy volunteers. J Immunol. 2005, 174: 449-455.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Robinson HL, Amara RR: T cell vaccines for microbial infections. Nat Med. 2005, 11: S25-S32. 10.1038/nm1212.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Xiang Z, Ertl HC: Manipulation of the immune response to a plasmid-encoded viral antigen by coinoculation with plasmids expressing cytokines. Immunity. 1995, 2: 129-135. 10.1016/S1074-7613(95)80001-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Okada E, Sasaki S, Ishii N, Aoki I, Yasuda T, Nishioka K, Fukushima J, Miyazaki J, Wahren B, Okuda K: Intranasal immunization of a DNA vaccine with IL-12- and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-expressing plasmids in liposomes induces strong mucosal and cell-mediated immune responses against HIV-1 antigens. J Immunol. 1997, 159: 3638-3647.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kim JJ, Simbiri KA, Sin JI, Dang K, Oh J, Dentchev T, Lee D, Nottingham LK, Chalian AA, McCallus D, Ciccarelli R, Agadjanyan MG, Weiner DB: Cytokine molecular adjuvants modulate immune responses induced by DNA vaccine constructs for HIV-1 and SIV. J Interferon Cytokine Res. 1999, 19: 77-84. 10.1089/107999099314441.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Barouch DH, Santra S, Tenner-Racz K, Racz P, Kuroda MJ, Schmitz JE, Jackson SS, Lifton MA, Freed DC, Perry HC, Davies ME, Shiver JW, Letvin NL: Potent CD4+ T cell responses elicited by a bicistronic HIV-1 DNA vaccine expressing gp120 and GM-CSF. J Immunol. 2002, 168: 562-568.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Geissler M, Gesien A, Tokushige K, Wands JR: Enhancement of cellular and humoral immune responses to hepatitis C virus core protein using DNA-based vaccines augmented with cytokine-expressing plasmids. J Immunol. 1997, 158: 1231-1237.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lee SW, Cho JH, Sung YC: Optimal induction of hepatitis C virus envelope-specific immunity by bicistronic plasmid DNA inoculation with the granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor gene. J Virol. 1998, 72: 8430-8436.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sin JI, Kim JJ, Ugen KE, Ciccarelli RB, Higgins TJ, Weiner DB: Enhancement of protective humoral (Th2) and cell-mediated (Th1) immune responses against herpes simplex virus-2 through co-delivery of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor expression cassettes. Eur J Immunol. 1998, 28: 3530-3540. 10.1002/(SICI)1521-4141(199811)28:11<3530::AID-IMMU3530>3.0.CO;2-C.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bowne WB, Wolchok JD, Hawkins WG, Srinivasan R, Gregor P, Blachere NE, Moroi Y, Engelhorn ME, Houghton AN, Lewis JJ: Injection of DNA encoding granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor recruits dendritic cells for immune adjuvant effects. Cytokines Cell Mol Ther. 1999, 5: 217-225.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Haddad D, Ramprakash J, Sedegah M, Charoenvit Y, Baumgartner R, Kumar S, Hoffman SL, Weiss WR: Plasmid vaccine expressing granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor attracts infiltrates including immature dendritic cells into injected muscles. J Immunol. 2000, 165: 3772-3781.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Miller G, Pillarisetty VG, Shah AB, Lahrs S, Xing Z, DeMatteo RP: Endogenous granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor overexpression in vivo results in the long-term recruitment of a distinct dendritic cell population with enhanced immunostimulatory function. J Immunol. 2002, 169: 2875-2885.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kusakabe K, Xin KQ, Katoh H, Sumino K, Hagiwara E, Kawamoto S, Okuda K, Miyagi Y, Aoki I, Nishioka K, Klinman D, Okuda K: The timing of GM-CSF expression plasmid administration influences the Th1/Th2 response induced by an HIV-1-specific DNA vaccine. J Immunol. 2000, 164: 3102-3111.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tao MH, Levy R: Idiotype/granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor fusion protein as a vaccine for B-cell lymphoma. Nature. 1993, 362: 755-758. 10.1038/362755a0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Maecker HT, Umetsu DT, DeKruyff RH, Levy S: DNA vaccination with cytokine fusion constructs biases the immune response to ovalbumin. Vaccine. 1997, 15: 1687-1696. 10.1016/S0264-410X(97)00088-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lima J, Jenkins C, Guerrero A, Triozzi PL, Shaw DR, Strong TV: A DNA vaccine encoding genetic fusions of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). Vaccine. 2005, 23: 1273-1283. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.08.043.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bonifaz LC, Bonnyay DP, Charalambous A, Darguste DI, Fujii S, Soares H, Brimnes MK, Moltedo B, Moran TM, Steinman RM: In vivo targeting of antigens to maturing dendritic cells via the DEC-205 receptor improves T cell vaccination. J Exp Med. 2004, 199: 815-824. 10.1084/jem.20032220.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Diebold SS, Kursa M, Wagner E, Cotten M, Zenke M: Mannose polyethylenimine conjugates for targeted DNA delivery into dendritic cells. J Biol Chem. 1999, 274: 19087-19094. 10.1074/jbc.274.27.19087.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Betts MR, Brenchley JM, Price DA, De Rosa SC, Douek DC, Roederer M, Koup RA: Sensitive and viable identification of antigen-specific CD8+ T cells by a flow cytometric assay for degranulation. J Immunol Methods. 2003, 281: 65-78. 10.1016/S0022-1759(03)00265-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sallusto F, Lenig D, Forster R, Lipp M, Lanzavecchia A: Two subsets of memory T lymphocytes with distinct homing potentials and effector functions. Nature. 1999, 401: 708-712. 10.1038/44385.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wherry EJ, Teichgraber V, Becker TC, Masopust D, Kaech SM, Antia R, von Andrian UH, Ahmed R: Lineage relationship and protective immunity of memory CD8 T cell subsets. Nat Immunol. 2003, 4: 225-234. 10.1038/ni889.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ragnhammar P, Friesen HJ, Frodin JE, Lefvert AK, Hassan M, Osterborg A, Mellstedt H: Induction of anti-recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (Escherichia coli-derived) antibodies and clinical effects in nonimmunocompromised patients. Blood. 1994, 84: 4078-4087.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Eisenblatter M, Stahl-Hennig C, Kuate S, Stolte N, Jasny E, Hahn H, Pope M, Tenner-Racz K, Racz P, Steinman RM, Uberla K, Ignatius R: Induction of neutralising antibodies restricts the use of human granulocyte/macrophage colony stimulating factor for vaccine studies in rhesus macaques. Vaccine. 2004, 22: 3295-3302. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.03.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wada H, Noguchi Y, Marino MW, Dunn AR, Old LJ: T cell functions in granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor deficient mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997, 94: 12557-12561. 10.1073/pnas.94.23.12557.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dittmer U, Hasenkrug KJ: Different immunological requirements for protection against acute versus persistent Friend retrovirus infections. Virology. 2000, 272: 177-182. 10.1006/viro.2000.0356.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dittmer U, Hasenkrug KJ: Cellular and molecular mechanisms of vaccine-induced protection against retroviral infections. Curr Mol Med. 2001, 1: 431-436. 10.2174/1566524013363591.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gribben JG, Devereux S, Thomas NS, Keim M, Jones HM, Goldstone AH, Linch DC: Development of antibodies to unprotected glycosylation sites on recombinant human GM-CSF. Lancet. 1990, 335: 434-437. 10.1016/0140-6736(90)90665-R.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Adelstein S, Pritchard-Briscoe H, Anderson TA, Crosbie J, Gammon G, Loblay RH, Basten A, Goodnow CC: Induction of self-tolerance in T cells but not B cells of transgenic mice expressing little self antigen. Science. 1991, 251: 1223-1225. 10.1126/science.1900950.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stevenson FK, Rice J, Ottensmeier CH, Thirdborough SM, Zhu D: DNA fusion gene vaccines against cancer: from the laboratory to the clinic. Immunol Rev. 2004, 199: 156-180. 10.1111/j.0105-2896.2004.00145.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hertz M, Mahalingam S, Dalum I, Klysner S, Mattes J, Neisig A, Mouritsen S, Foster PS, Gautam A: Active vaccination against IL-5 bypasses immunological tolerance and ameliorates experimental asthma. J Immunol. 2001, 167: 3792-3799.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chen TT, Levy R: Induction of autoantibody responses to GM-CSF by hyperimmunization with an Id-GM-CSF fusion protein. J Immunol. 1995, 154: 3105-3117.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Thomassen MJ, Yi T, Raychaudhuri B, Malur A, Kavuru MS: Pulmonary alveolar proteinosis is a disease of decreased availability of GM-CSF rather than an intrinsic cellular defect. Clin Immunol. 2000, 95: 85-92. 10.1006/clim.2000.4859.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kitamura T, Tanaka N, Watanabe J, Uchida, Kanegasaki S, Yamada Y, Nakata K: Idiopathic pulmonary alveolar proteinosis as an autoimmune disease with neutralizing antibody against granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor. J Exp Med. 1999, 190: 875-880. 10.1084/jem.190.6.875.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kim HD, Cao Y, Kong FK, Van Kampen KR, Lewis TL, Ma Z, Tang DC, Fukuchi K: Induction of a Th2 immune response by co-administration of recombinant adenovirus vectors encoding amyloid beta-protein and GM-CSF. Vaccine. 2005, 23: 2977-2986. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.12.015.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Deml L, Bojak A, Steck S, Graf M, Wild J, Schirmbeck R, Wolf H, Wagner R: Multiple effects of codon usage optimization on expression and immunogenicity of DNA candidate vaccines encoding the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Gag protein. J Virol. 2001, 75: 10991-11001. 10.1128/JVI.75.22.10991-11001.2001.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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: 4591-4601.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- McKay PF, Barouch DH, Santra S, Sumida SM, Jackson SS, Gorgone DA, Lifton MA, Letvin NL: Recruitment of different subsets of antigen-presenting cells selectively modulates DNA vaccine-elicited CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocyte responses. Eur J Immunol. 2004, 34: 1011-1020. 10.1002/eji.200324840.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Santos K, Duke CM, Rodriguez-Colon SM, Dakwar A, Fan S, Keefer MC, Federoff HJ, Frelinger JG, Bowers WJ, Dewhurst S: Effect of promoter strength on protein expression and immunogenicity of an HSV-1 amplicon vector encoding HIV-1 Gag. Vaccine. 2007, 25: 1634-1646. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.11.004.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zimmerli SC, Harari A, Cellerai C, Vallelian F, Bart PA, Pantaleo G: HIV-1-specific IFN-gamma/IL-2-secreting CD8 T cells support CD4-independent proliferation of HIV-1-specific CD8 T cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005, 102: 7239-7244. 10.1073/pnas.0502393102.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- He TC, Zhou S, da Costa LT, Yu J, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B: A simplified system for generating recombinant adenoviruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998, 95: 2509-2514. 10.1073/pnas.95.5.2509.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kuate S, Stefanou D, Hoffmann D, Wildner O, Uberla K: Production of lentiviral vectors by transient expression of minimal packaging genes from recombinant adenoviruses. J Gene Med. 2004, 6: 1197-1205. 10.1002/jgm.623.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mosmann T: Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods. 1983, 65: 55-63. 10.1016/0022-1759(83)90303-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hansen MB, Nielsen SE, Berg K: Re-examination and further development of a precise and rapid dye method for measuring cell growth/cell kill. J Immunol Methods. 1989, 119: 203-210. 10.1016/0022-1759(89)90397-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Inaba K, Inaba M, Romani N, Aya H, Deguchi M, Ikehara S, Muramatsu S, Steinman RM: Generation of large numbers of dendritic cells from mouse bone marrow cultures supplemented with granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor. J Exp Med. 1992, 176: 1693-1702. 10.1084/jem.176.6.1693.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hasenkrug KJ, Brooks DM, Robertson MN, Srinivas RV, Chesebro B: Immunoprotective determinants in friend murine leukemia virus envelope protein. Virology. 1998, 248: 66-73. 10.1006/viro.1998.9264.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zelinskyy G, Robertson SJ, Schimmer S, Messer RJ, Hasenkrug KJ, Dittmer U: CD8+ T-cell dysfunction due to cytolytic granule deficiency in persistent Friend retrovirus infection. J Virol. 2005, 79: 10619-10626. 10.1128/JVI.79.16.10619-10626.2005.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dittmer U, Peterson KE, Messer R, Stromnes IM, Race B, Hasenkrug KJ: Role of interleukin-4 (IL-4), IL-12, and gamma interferon in primary and vaccine-primed immune responses to Friend retrovirus infection. J Virol. 2001, 75: 654-660. 10.1128/JVI.75.2.654-660.2001.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.