Voie d'immunisation et séquence d'administration de l ... - TEL

Voie d'immunisation et séquence d'administration de l ... - TEL Voie d'immunisation et séquence d'administration de l ... - TEL

tel.archives.ouvertes.fr
from tel.archives.ouvertes.fr More from this publisher
27.06.2013 Views

tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 2013 we can suppose that co-administration with adjuvant would most likely be the optimal formulation in this case. 1) Peptide vaccine In agreement with our predictions, it is well established that adjuvant co-administered with short peptides enhances the specific response. Indeed, uptake and processing of this antigen is not the rate-limiting steps as peptide interacts directly with MHC molecule. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that co-administration of antigen and adjuvant would be optimal (Table 6). 2) Protein vaccine Protein or synthetic long peptides require endocytosis and processing prior to presentation. This slight delay suggests that adjuvant should be delivered a short time after immunization. An interesting comparison can be made concerning vaccination with the NY-ESO protein and adjuvant for the treatment of melanoma patients. In a previous study, Nair and colleagues demonstrated that injection of immature DCs into skin pretreated with the TLR7 agonist, imiquimod, allowed a better activation of anti-tumor response compared to delivery of ex vivo mature DCs into untreated skin (Nair et al., 2003). Following from these results, a clinical trial was performed using NY-ESO protein injected locally in imiquimod-pretreated skin of melanoma patients. However, in this case, only a limited CD4 + T cell response and no CD8 + T cell responses were observed (Adams et al., 2008). In contrast, the same antigen injected simultaneously with another adjuvant, CpG and formulated with Montanide gave much better results (Valmori et al., 2007). This difference in the efficiency of the immune response may be due to the different timing of adjuvant application. Pretreatment of skin with adjuvant prior to immunization does not appear as the optimal timing for adjuvant delivery. In the case of synthetic long peptides, there are ongoing trials that are examining the feasibility of specific epitopes linked to TLR ligands, in order to favor the simultaneous detection of antigen and the danger signal adjuvant. Additionally, recent reports have highlighted that uptake of soluble antigens through pinocytosis or receptor-mediated phagocytosis can be independent of DC maturation in some cases (Drutman and Trombetta, 2010; Platt et al., 2010). Thus, some of the mechanisms of adjuvant-mediated inhibition for cell-associated antigen (i.e. the inverse relationship between DC maturation and antigen uptake ability) may not apply to mounting an immune response to 162

tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 2013 soluble antigen and, therefore, the timing of adjuvant delivery may have less dramatic consequences. As a conclusion for protein antigen, we suggest that (Table 6): - If adjuvant is linked to the specific protein, they will be detected simultaneously by DCs, allowing an optimal maturation of DC and presentation of antigen. - If adjuvant is not physically linked with the protein of interest, it has to be delivered either at the time of, or immediately following immunization, unless the protein can be still taken up by already mature DCs. 3) Nucleic-acid based vaccine As previously described, nucleic acids can also act as effective vaccine antigens. To examine the effect of adjuvant on their efficiency, Carralot et al. tested an RNA vaccine delivered intradermally using GM-CSF as an adjuvant in a mouse model. GM-CSF is known for increasing the density of DC in the skin and consequently improving overall priming. Interestingly, the delivery of GM-CSF either 1 day prior to, or the day of immunization, did not alter the response, as compared to RNA alone, whereas it induced an enhanced Th1 response when it was administered one day after RNA vaccination (Carralot et al., 2004). This effect may be explained by the time required for transfection and antigen expression prior to its uptake by DCs. Based on these observations, this functional delay in GM-CSF delivery was kept in place during human clinical trials (Weide et al., 2009). In another study, RNA was injected intranodally. This route of immunization was demonstrated to induce direct RNA uptake by macropinocytosis by lymph-node resident DCs. In this case, they showed that administration of adjuvant prior to immunization abrogated subsequent response (Diken et al., 2011). Here again, the delayed adjuvant delivery after immunization appears to be optimal. 4) Whole tumor cell vaccine While the use of whole tumor cells for vaccination is intriguing because it does not require the identification of TAAs for therapeutic development, these cells are usually poorly immunogenic and their combination with an adjuvant is essential. McBride and colleagues compared the efficiency of injecting irradiated Ova-expressing EL4 tumor cells, either electroporated with poly I:C or mixed with soluble poly I:C as a model cancer vaccine. They demonstrated that cell-associated dsRNA enhanced cross-priming, while mixing with its soluble countepart did not modify the response as compared to Page 163 of 256

tel-00827710, version 1 - 29 May 2013<br />

we can suppose that co-administration with adjuvant would most likely be the optimal<br />

formulation in this case.<br />

1) Pepti<strong>de</strong> vaccine<br />

In agreement with our predictions, it is well established that adjuvant co-administered with<br />

short pepti<strong>de</strong>s enhances the specific response. In<strong>de</strong>ed, uptake and processing of this antigen is<br />

not the rate-limiting steps as pepti<strong>de</strong> interacts directly with MHC molecule. Thus, it is<br />

reasonable to assume that co-administration of antigen and adjuvant would be optimal (Table<br />

6).<br />

2) Protein vaccine<br />

Protein or synth<strong>et</strong>ic long pepti<strong>de</strong>s require endocytosis and processing prior to presentation.<br />

This slight <strong>de</strong>lay suggests that adjuvant should be <strong>de</strong>livered a short time after immunization.<br />

An interesting comparison can be ma<strong>de</strong> concerning vaccination with the NY-ESO protein and<br />

adjuvant for the treatment of melanoma patients. In a previous study, Nair and colleagues<br />

<strong>de</strong>monstrated that injection of immature DCs into skin pr<strong>et</strong>reated with the TLR7 agonist,<br />

imiquimod, allowed a b<strong>et</strong>ter activation of anti-tumor response compared to <strong>de</strong>livery of ex vivo<br />

mature DCs into untreated skin (Nair <strong>et</strong> al., 2003). Following from these results, a clinical<br />

trial was performed using NY-ESO protein injected locally in imiquimod-pr<strong>et</strong>reated skin of<br />

melanoma patients. However, in this case, only a limited CD4 + T cell response and no CD8 +<br />

T cell responses were observed (Adams <strong>et</strong> al., 2008). In contrast, the same antigen injected<br />

simultaneously with another adjuvant, CpG and formulated with Montani<strong>de</strong> gave much b<strong>et</strong>ter<br />

results (Valmori <strong>et</strong> al., 2007). This difference in the efficiency of the immune response may<br />

be due to the different timing of adjuvant application. Pr<strong>et</strong>reatment of skin with adjuvant prior<br />

to immunization does not appear as the optimal timing for adjuvant <strong>de</strong>livery.<br />

In the case of synth<strong>et</strong>ic long pepti<strong>de</strong>s, there are ongoing trials that are examining the<br />

feasibility of specific epitopes linked to TLR ligands, in or<strong>de</strong>r to favor the simultaneous<br />

d<strong>et</strong>ection of antigen and the danger signal adjuvant.<br />

Additionally, recent reports have highlighted that uptake of soluble antigens through<br />

pinocytosis or receptor-mediated phagocytosis can be in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt of DC maturation in some<br />

cases (Drutman and Tromb<strong>et</strong>ta, 2010; Platt <strong>et</strong> al., 2010). Thus, some of the mechanisms of<br />

adjuvant-mediated inhibition for cell-associated antigen (i.e. the inverse relationship b<strong>et</strong>ween<br />

DC maturation and antigen uptake ability) may not apply to mounting an immune response to<br />

162

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!