Immunotherapy for Infectious Diseases

Immunotherapy for Infectious Diseases Immunotherapy for Infectious Diseases

ibvacunas.com
from ibvacunas.com More from this publisher
10.02.2013 Views

INTRODUCTION From: Immunotherapy for Infectious Diseases Edited by: J. M. Jacobson © Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ 199 11 Passive Immunotherapy for HIV Infection Jeffrey M. Jacobson The importance of humoral immunity in the prevention and control of natural HIV infection is unclear. Neutralizing antibody production can be detected soon after acute infection (1). In addition, antibodies capable of neutralization and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) remain present to a greater degree in those patients whose infections remain stable (2,3). Patients with progressing infection tend to lose these antibody activities. Moreover, levels of HIV-directed maternal antibodies are associated with reduced transmission of HIV to the infant (4–6). However, the nature of the relationship between strong humoral responses and control of infection has not been established. Strong HIV-specific cellular immune responses are also seen after acute infection (7) and in long-term nonprogressors (8), and there is more compelling evidence of a greater role of these responses in controlling HIV replication (9). Passive immunization with pathogen-specific antibodies is protective against infection with a number of other organisms. These include rabies virus (10), respiratory syncytial virus (11), cytomegalovirus (12), hepatitis A and B viruses (13,14), varicella-zoster virus (15), poliovirus (16), measles virus (17), rubella virus (18), and mumps virus (19). In addition, this form of treatment has proved effective in the management of established infections with respiratory syncytial virus (11), cytomegalovirus (20), parvovirus B19 (21), hepatitis B virus (22), and Junin arenavirus (Argentine hemorrhagic fever) (23), as well as pneumococcal pneumonia (24), meningococcal meningitis (23), and Hemophilus influenzae meningitis (23). The knowledge learned from these interventions contributed to the successful development of effective vaccines against many of these infectious agents (23). Thus, the potential role of passive immunization in preventive and therapeutic strategies against HIV infection deserves further attention. IN VITRO DATA HIV Envelope Structure As a monomer, the gp120 envelope protein of HIV has five variable loops (V1–V5) and five constant regions (C1–C5) that are potential targets for antibody binding (23). However, in its natural state on the surface of the virus as a trimer, conformational

200 Jacobson changes of gp120 alter the ability of antibodies to bind and neutralize the virus (23). Various envelope sites are also heavily glycosylated, further affecting virus-antibody interactions (25). In general, HIV gp120 is a less effective neutralization target in its natural (“primary viral isolate”) state than when laboratory-adapted to grow in immortalized CD4 lymphocyte cell lines. The primary gp120 epitopes sensitive to neutralization are on V2, V3, C4, and the conformationally dependent overlapping regions that make up the CD4 binding site (26). The gp41 glycoprotein, a transmembrane element non-covalently bound to gp120, is involved in virus-cell fusion and also serves as a neutralization target (27). HIV infection of a cell involves binding to the CD4 receptor, binding to a chemokine coreceptor, fusion with the cell, and then entry into the cell. During each step, the HIV envelope structure undergoes conformational changes. Recent evidence suggests that the transient envelope structures arising during cell binding and fusion may be more susceptible to antibody neutralization and could serve as targets for immunization strategies (28). Neutralization Epitopes It has long been known that the V3 loop contains neutralizable epitopes (29,30). Antibodies to this region of the viral envelope are produced early in the course of infection (31) and are associated with delayed progression of disease (32) and reduced maternal-infant transmission of infection (33). They appear to function by inhibiting coreceptor binding and virus-cell fusion (34). Anti-V3 monoclonal antibodies protect chimpanzees against HIV-1 infection (35), and anti-V3 antibodies elicited by vaccination are associated with protection in animal studies (36). Several anti-V3 monoclonal antibodies have been created (Table 1), but the hypervariability of this region hinders its usefulness as a target for immunologic control by passive or active vaccination strategies (30,36). However, some studies have suggested that some anti-V3 antibodies are more broadly neutralizing (37,38). Nevertheless, clinical HIV isolates appear to be more resistant to the effects of anti-V3 monoclonal antibodies than T-cell laboratory-adapted strains (36,39). The V2 region and CD4 binding domain on gp120 and the gp41 glycoprotein are better targets for neutralization of clinical viral isolates of HIV (36). Monoclonal antibodies against the CD4 binding domain and V2 region have been created and shown to have neutralizing activity against “primary” viral isolates (40–43). The gp41 molecule is more conserved than gp120 (44). Monoclonal antibody 2F5 binds to the amino acid sequence ELDKWA on the ectodomain of gp41 and is broadly reactive against clinical HIV isolates (45). Seventy-two percent of isolates from different clades contain this amino acid sequence (45). The decapeptide GCSGKLICTT has been identified as another conserved epitope on gp41 that serves as a neutralizing antibody target in laboratory strains of HIV (44). Clinical isolates need to be tested. The monoclonal antibody 2G12 recognizes a discontinuous epitope on gp120 that includes domains in C2, C3, C4, and V4 (46). It also has demonstrated broad neutralizing activity against clinical HIV isolates (47). In a blinded study of a panel of clinical HIV isolates involving several laboratories, the monoclonal antibodies 2F5, 2G12, and b12 showed significant neutralizing activity against almost all isolates tested (48).

INTRODUCTION<br />

From: <strong>Immunotherapy</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Infectious</strong> <strong>Diseases</strong><br />

Edited by: J. M. Jacobson © Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ<br />

199<br />

11<br />

Passive <strong>Immunotherapy</strong> <strong>for</strong> HIV Infection<br />

Jeffrey M. Jacobson<br />

The importance of humoral immunity in the prevention and control of natural HIV<br />

infection is unclear. Neutralizing antibody production can be detected soon after acute<br />

infection (1). In addition, antibodies capable of neutralization and antibody-dependent<br />

cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) remain present to a greater degree in those patients whose<br />

infections remain stable (2,3). Patients with progressing infection tend to lose these<br />

antibody activities. Moreover, levels of HIV-directed maternal antibodies are associated<br />

with reduced transmission of HIV to the infant (4–6). However, the nature of the relationship<br />

between strong humoral responses and control of infection has not been established.<br />

Strong HIV-specific cellular immune responses are also seen after acute infection<br />

(7) and in long-term nonprogressors (8), and there is more compelling evidence of a<br />

greater role of these responses in controlling HIV replication (9).<br />

Passive immunization with pathogen-specific antibodies is protective against infection<br />

with a number of other organisms. These include rabies virus (10), respiratory syncytial<br />

virus (11), cytomegalovirus (12), hepatitis A and B viruses (13,14),<br />

varicella-zoster virus (15), poliovirus (16), measles virus (17), rubella virus (18), and<br />

mumps virus (19). In addition, this <strong>for</strong>m of treatment has proved effective in the management<br />

of established infections with respiratory syncytial virus (11), cytomegalovirus<br />

(20), parvovirus B19 (21), hepatitis B virus (22), and Junin arenavirus (Argentine hemorrhagic<br />

fever) (23), as well as pneumococcal pneumonia (24), meningococcal meningitis<br />

(23), and Hemophilus influenzae meningitis (23). The knowledge learned from<br />

these interventions contributed to the successful development of effective vaccines<br />

against many of these infectious agents (23). Thus, the potential role of passive immunization<br />

in preventive and therapeutic strategies against HIV infection deserves further<br />

attention.<br />

IN VITRO DATA<br />

HIV Envelope Structure<br />

As a monomer, the gp120 envelope protein of HIV has five variable loops (V1–V5)<br />

and five constant regions (C1–C5) that are potential targets <strong>for</strong> antibody binding (23).<br />

However, in its natural state on the surface of the virus as a trimer, con<strong>for</strong>mational

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!